Extending Conservation Agriculture benefits at landscape through Agricultural Innovation Platforms

Michael MisikoAgricultural Anthropologist, CIMMYT

1st Africa Congress on Conservation Agriculture (1ACCA)Lusaka, Zambia

March 18– 21, 2014

Working definition of AIP

A “network of organisations, enterprises, and individuals focused on bringing new agricultural (products, processes, forms of organisation into economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect their behaviour and) performance”

(World Bank 2007)

Background

Technology (linear transfer) – research/

extension driven

e.g. Interactive learning, integrated resource

management, innovation, partnerships, systems

approach

Systems focus – farmer consulted

Participatory approaches – farmer centred e.g. FFS,

PTD

=

Agricultural Innovation Platforms

IAR4D

Now

1990s

1970s

1960s

2000+

In spite of this evolution of approaches, agricultural research is generally sectoral and fragmented with poor stakeholder linkages (Lynam and Blackie, 1994)

Rationale for agricultural IPs

Problem and objective Focusing CA promotion at farm-level only cannot ensure the range

of benefits and adoption possibilities

Conservation Agriculture requires systematic approaches, especially through multifunctional AIP formed along critical value chains

The goal of this paper is therefore to illustrate how CA benefits can be harnessed at landscape level, through AIP approach

Justification for AIP in CA Natural Resources Management is perceived as bringing

limited short term benefits CA has potential for short term/ farm-level benefits, necessary

for long term and communal benefits The scope for communal NRM at landscape scale is dwindling Farmers residing up-the-hill and down-the-hill need to work in

a structured, synchronised manner A structured entity is needed to ensure residents synchronise

their actions by having a mutual plan (Makini et al., 2013; Nederlof and Pyburn 2012)

Methods Literature review, secondary sources on role of AIP The case of Bungoma South Farming Innovation Platform –

SIMLESA (BUSOFIPs) in western Kenya An illustrative and sequential evaluation BUSOFIPs has significance for many African smallholder contexts

Field visits among CA practicing farmers Participant observation among AIP actors Institutional mapping and analyses of local Maize Value Chain in

Bungoma

Targeting sustainability at landscape

Africa has the twin problem of NRM and farm productivity Agriculture often happens at the expense of NRM Agriculture through CA can be a solution to degradation Smallholders share few resources

they farm on individual plots and prioritise few landscape activities

Initiatives that yield shorter term benefits can be conjoined with NRM programmes that target elusive longer term results

CA in SIMLESA is an entry point to conjoin many initiatives, including incentives for short term and long term benefits

Agricultural Innovation Platforms, CA and Natural Resources Management

Like most NRM initiatives CA is difficult to recommend AIP brings together a diversity of initiatives for enabling CA adoption Synchronising complementary initiatives into structured multi-

stakeholder processes with multiple benefits Combined or structured actions

create many more immediate benefits – see figure 1 assist residents to initiate, and sustain CA practices necessary to build longer term benefits for natural

resources management

Fig. 1 innovation platforms for CA in SIMLESA (simlesa.cimmyt.org)

Targeting landscape through complementarity of actors and actions

BUSOFIPs is providing a framework for locals to engage outside institutions for innovation

AIP structures supporting multifunctional action for different livelihood styles – figure 2 (Misiko et al. 2013) Cultivators, herders collaborate beyond mere efforts to adopt CA

Figure 2. Different livelihood styles need to be coordinated to support NRM (Misiko et al. 2013)

Conclusions

1) AIP ensure benefits do not simply add up, or are only generated, but rather create new ones quickly to ensure long term ones are realised e.g. reduced conflicts resulting from degradation, etc.

2) In the immediate term, farmers save production costs, labour, produce commercially for markets, save money that would be spend on fodder, save land from animal degradation, and so on.

3) Entry points may not necessarily be land management, but rather in business models that bring farmers reduced costs, etc. critical for sustained CA implementation to realise landscape benefits.

References Adekunle A.A. and Fatunbi A.O (2012). Approaches for Setting-up Multi-

Stakeholder Platforms for Agricultural Research and Development. World Applied Sciences Journal 16(7): 981-988.

Makini, F.W., Kamau, G.M., Makelo, M.N., Adekunle, W., Mburathi, G.K., Misiko, M., Pali, P. and Dixon, J. 2013. Operational field guide for developing and managing local agricultural innovation platforms. Nairobi: KARI and ACIAR.

Misiko. M., Mundy, P. and Ericksen, P. 2013. Innovation Platforms to support natural resource management. Innovation Platforms Practice Brief 11. ILRI, Nairobi Kenya

Nederlof, E.S. and Pyburn, R. 2012. One finger cannot lift a rock. Facilitating innovation platforms to trigger institutional change in West Africa. Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam.

World Bank. 2012. Agricultural Innovation Systems: an Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

Acknowledgements Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) CGIAR Research Programme (CRP) MAIZE Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) SIMLESA Programme and partner institutions BUSOFIPs, Farmers and partners in Bungoma, Kenya

Thank you!

Foes for innovation!