International
Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD)
Sub-Saharan
Summary for Decision Makers
Authors: Carol Markwei (
Statement
by Governments
All
countries present at the final intergovernmental plenary session held in
All countries see these Reports as a valuable and important contribution to our understanding on agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development recognizing the need to further deepen our understanding of the challenges ahead. This Assessment is a constructive initiative and important contribution that all governments need to take forward to ensure that agricultural knowledge, science and technology fulfills its potential to meet the development and sustainability goals of the reduction of hunger and poverty, the improvement of rural livelihoods and human health, and facilitating equitable, socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development.
In accordance with the above statement, the following governments approve the sub-Saharan Africa Summary for Decision Makers:
Benin, Botswana, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia (17 countries)
Background
In
August 2002, the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations initiated a global consultative process to determine whether
an international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology
(AKST) was needed. This was stimulated by discussions at the World Bank with
the private sector and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on the state of
scientific understanding of biotechnology and more specifically transgenics.
During 2003, eleven consultations were held, overseen by an international
multistakeholder steering committee and involving over 800 participants from
all relevant stakeholder groups, e.g., governments, the private sector and
civil society. Based on these consultations the steering committee recommended
to an Intergovernmental Plenary meeting in Nairobi, Kenya in September 2004
that an international assessment of the role of agricultural knowledge, science
and technology (AKST) in reducing hunger and poverty, improving rural
livelihoods and facilitating environmentally, socially and economically sustainable
development was needed. The concept of an
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD) was endorsed as a multi-thematic, multi-spatial, multi-temporal
intergovernmental process with a multistakeholder Bureau cosponsored by the
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Global
Environment Facility (GEF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Bank and World Health Organization
(WHO).
The IAASTD’s governance structure is a unique hybrid of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the nongovernmental Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). The stakeholder composition of the Bureau was agreed at the Intergovernmental Plenary meeting in Nairobi; it is geographically balanced and multistakeholder with 30 government and 30 civil society representatives (NGOs, producer and consumer groups, private sector entities and international organizations) in order to ensure ownership of the process and findings by a range of stakeholders.
About 400 of the world’s experts were selected by the Bureau, following nominations by stakeholder groups, to prepare the IAASTD Report (comprised of a Global and 5 sub-Global assessments). These experts worked in their own capacity and did not represent any particular stakeholder group. Additional individuals, organizations and governments were involved in the peer review process.
The IAASTD development and sustainability goals were endorsed at the first Intergovernmental Plenary and are consistent with a subset of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): the reduction of hunger and poverty, the improvement of rural livelihoods and human health, and facilitating equitable, socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development. Realizing these goals requires acknowledging the multifunctionality of agriculture: the challenge is to simultaneously meet development and sustainability goals while increasing agricultural production.
Meeting these goals has to be placed in the context of a rapidly changing world of urbanization, growing inequities, human migration, globalization, changing dietary preferences, climate change, environmental degradation, a trend toward biofuels and an increasing population. These conditions are affecting local and global food security and putting pressure on productive capacity and ecosystems. Hence there are unprecedented challenges ahead in providing food within a global trading system where there are other competing uses of agricultural and other natural resources. AKST alone cannot solve these problems, which are caused by complex political and social dynamics; but it can make a major contribution to meeting development and sustainability goals. Never before has it been more important for the world to generate and use AKST.
Given
the focus on hunger, poverty and livelihoods, the IAASTD pays special attention
to the current situation, issues and potential opportunities to redirect the
current AKST system to improve the situation for poor rural people, especially
small-scale farmers, rural laborers and others with limited resources. It
addresses issues critical to formulating policy and provides information for
decision makers confronting conflicting views on contentious issues such as the
environmental consequences of productivity increases, environmental and human
health impacts of transgenic crops, the consequences of bioenergy development
on the environment and on the long-term availability and price of food, and the
implications of climate change on agricultural production. The Bureau agreed
that the scope of the assessment needed to go beyond the narrow confines of
S&T and should encompass other types of relevant knowledge (e.g., knowledge
held by agricultural producers, consumers and end users) and that it should
also assess the role of institutions, organizations, governance, markets and
trade.
The IAASTD
is a multidisciplinary and multistakeholder enterprise requiring the use and
integration of information, tools and models from different knowledge paradigms
including local and traditional knowledge. The
IAASTD does not advocate specific policies or practices; it assesses the major
issues facing AKST and points towards a range of AKST options for action that
meet development and sustainability goals. It is policy relevant, but not
policy prescriptive. It integrates scientific information on a range of topics
that are critically interlinked, but often addressed independently, i.e.,
agriculture, poverty, hunger, human health, natural resources, environment,
development and innovation. It will enable decision makers to bring a richer
base of knowledge to bear on policy and management decisions on issues
previously viewed in isolation. Knowledge gained from historical analysis
(typically the past 50 years) and an analysis of some future development
alternatives to 2050 form the basis for assessing options for action on science
and technology, capacity development, institutions and policies, and
investments.
The IAASTD is conducted according to an open, transparent, representative and legitimate process; is evidence-based; presents options rather than recommendations; assesses different local, regional and global perspectives; presents different views, acknowledging that there can be more than one interpretation of the same evidence based on different world views; and identifies the key scientific uncertainties and areas on which research could be focused to advance development and sustainability goals.
The IAASTD is composed of a Global assessment and five sub-Global assessments: Central and West Asia and North Africa - CWANA; East and South Asia and the Pacific - ESAP; Latin America and the Caribbean - LAC; North America and Europe - NAE; sub-Saharan Africa – SSA. It (i) assesses the generation, access, dissemination and use of public and private sector AKST in relation to the goals, using local, traditional and formal knowledge; (ii) analyzes existing and emerging technologies, practices, policies and institutions and their impact on the goals; (iii) provides information for decision makers in different civil society, private and public organizations on options for improving policies, practices, institutional and organizational arrangements to enable AKST to meet the goals; (iv) brings together a range of stakeholders (consumers, governments, international agencies and research organizations, NGOs, private sector, producers, the scientific community) involved in the agricultural sector and rural development to share their experiences, views, understanding and vision for the future; and (v) identifies options for future public and private investments in AKST. In addition, the IAASTD will enhance local and regional capacity to design, implement and utilize similar assessments.
In this assessment agriculture is used in the widest sense to include production of food, feed, fuel, fiber and other products and to include all sectors from production of inputs (e.g., seeds and fertilizer) to consumption of products. However, as in all assessments, some topics were covered less extensively than others (e.g., livestock, forestry, fisheries and agricultural engineering), largely due to the expertise of the selected authors.
The IAASTD draft
Report was subjected to two rounds of peer review by governments, organizations
and individuals. These drafts were placed on an open access web site and open
to comments by anyone. The authors revised the drafts based on numerous peer
review comments, with the assistance of review editors who were responsible for
ensuring the comments were appropriately taken into account. One of the most difficult issues authors had to address was
criticisms that the report was too negative. In a scientific review based on
empirical evidence, this is always a difficult comment to handle, as criteria
are needed in order to say whether something is negative or positive. Another
difficulty was responding to the conflicting views expressed by
reviewers. The difference in views was not surprising given the range of
stakeholder interests and perspectives. Thus one of the key findings of the
IAASTD is that there are diverse and conflicting interpretations of past and
current events, which need to be acknowledged and respected.
The
Global and sub-Global Summaries for Decision Makers and the Executive Summary
of the Synthesis Report were approved at an Intergovernmental Plenary in
The IAASTD builds on and adds value to a number of recent assessments and reports that have provided valuable information relevant to the agricultural sector, but have not specifically focused on the future role of AKST, the institutional dimensions and the multifunctionality of agriculture. These include: FAO State of Food Insecurity in the World (yearly); InterAcademy Council Report: Realizing the Promise and Potential of African Agriculture (2004); UN Millennium Project Task Force on Hunger (2005); Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005); CGIAR Science Council Strategy and Priority Setting Exercise (2006); Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture: Guiding Policy Investments in Water, Food, Livelihoods and Environment (2007); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports (2001 and 2007); UNEP Fourth Global Environmental Outlook (2007); World Bank World Development Report: Agriculture for Development (2007); IFPRI Global Hunger Indices (yearly); and World Bank Internal Report of Investments in SSA (2007).
Financial
support was provided to the IAASTD by the cosponsoring agencies, the
governments of
The Global and sub-Global Summaries for Decision Makers and the Synthesis Report are written for a range of stakeholders, i.e., government policy makers, private sector, NGOs, producer and consumer groups, international organizations and the scientific community. There are no recommendations, only options for action. The options for action are not prioritized because different options are actionable by different stakeholders, each of whom have a different set of priorities and responsibilities and operate in different socio-economic-political circumstances.
IAASTD Sub-Saharan
Summary for Decision Makers
Agriculture, which incorporates
crops, forests, fisheries, livestock and agroforestry, accounts for an average
of 32% of the region’s GDP, and is woven into the fabric of most societies and
cultures in the region. Even though the population is growing and rapidly
urbanizing, most families will continue to have ties to land and water.
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology (AKST) has had some notable successes in SSA including the widespread
adoption of improved crop and tree varieties and livestock breeds; the
development of pest-resistant and drought-tolerant varieties; biocontrol of
pests and parasites such as cassava, mealybug, green mite and ticks; integrated
natural resource management; development of biodiversity products; and methods
and tools for improved productivity and management in water availability,
crops, livestock, fodder, trees and fisheries. Yet in SSA, unlike in other
regions, overall per capita agricultural yields declined from 1970 to 1980 and
since then have stagnated. The number of poor people is increasing, 30% of the population
lives with chronic hunger, and similar levels of malnutrition in children under
the age of five persist.
Increasing agricultural productivity
remains a priority for SSA, given the very low yields in the region and
widespread hunger, poverty, and malnutrition. However, the development and
sustainability goals of reducing hunger, achieving food security, improving
health and nutrition, and increasing environmental and social sustainability
will only be reached if the focus of agriculture and AKST moves away from
simply the production of food, fiber, feed, and bioenergy. A broader
perspective encompasses an integrated agricultural commodity value chain from
production through to processing and marketing with a local and regional
perspective. It accounts for the multiple functions of agriculture that include
the improvement of livelihoods, the enhancement of environmental services, the
conservation of natural resources and biodiversity, and the contribution of
agriculture to the maintenance of social and cultural traditions. It recognizes
that women, who account for approximately 70% of agricultural workers and 80%
of food processors in SSA, need significantly increased representation in
research, extension and policy making, and equitable access to education,
credit and secure land tenure. It also recognizes the need for higher quality education,
research and extension that addresses the development and sustainability goals.
CHALLENGES AND OPTIONS
Current low levels of agricultural productivity in SSA prevent much
of the population from escaping poverty, hunger and malnutrition. On
average, livestock and crop yields in SSA are lower than all other regions,
though these averages mask considerable variation. Cereal yields, for example, cereal
yields range from 185 kg ha-1 in
Low input use,
including total fertilizer input of less than 10 kg ha-1 on average,
contributes to SSA’s low crop yields. Although there
is considerable variation across farming systems and countries, in the
mid-1990s every country in SSA was estimated to have a negative soil nutrient balance
for nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus. Increased fertilizer use is seen by
most practitioners as essential, reflected in the resolution by African Union
members to reduce costs through national and regional level procurement,
harmonization of taxes and regulations, the elimination of taxes and tariffs,
and improving access to fertilizer, output market incentives, and credit from
input suppliers. The cost of fertilization can also be reduced directly through
fertilizer subsidies. These are currently being implemented in some SSA
countries to support farmers. The cost of fertilization can also be reduced
through the intensified use of organic fertilizer.
Agrochemicals, especially some synthetic
fertilizers and pesticides, have caused negative effects on human and animal
health and the environment in some parts of SSA; this has been exacerbated by
unsafe application processes and inadequate access to information concerning
handling and disposal practices. Pollution, particularly with respect to water
bodies, may also result from inappropriate use. The economic, environmental and
health costs associated with gr
More than four fifths of agricultural
land is affected by soil moisture stress that limits the uptake of nutrients,
implying the need to conserve both water and soil organic matter in parallel [Ch
5]. Current efforts to improve soil fertility and regenerate the land include
research into integrated soil fertility management that builds on farmer
practices such as improved natural fallows, rotations, mixed livestock-cropping
systems [Ch 3] and incorporation of green and livestock manures where available.
The adoption of animal manure is limited by transport costs, the quantity
needed per unit area of land and labor costs of weeding. Green manures help to
revive degraded land, but often compete with edible and cash crops, and the
benefits are often unnoticed in the short run. These are the types of tradeoffs
that AKST needs to evaluate and minimize with farmers. Organic, agroforestry and
no- or low-till farming offer integrated agroecological approaches to reducing
soil degradation, but further studies are required to determine the conditions
and incentives required for farmers to adopt these methods.
Increases in the
exploitation of both surface and groundwater are required for SSA to increase
productivity. Agricultural
production in SSA is predominantly rainfed. Only 4% of agricultural land is
irrigated compared to 37% in Asia and 15% in
Efficient and equitable water
allocation, a component of AKST, requires a better understanding of the value
of water for different competing users, appropriate mechanisms for allocating
water, (e.g. pricing, allocation of property rights, regulation) and
negotiations that cr
Increasing the performance of
agriculture requires an improvement in productivity on the 80% of SSA farms
that are smaller than two hectares. Earlier paradigms that typically attempted
to fit farmers into the existing linear top-down structures of
research-development-extension worked relatively well for major cash crops, but
there has been less success on small-scale diversified farms [Ch 5]. Options
for AKST include integrated and participatory approaches that can increase the
likelihood that appropriate technologies for production are developed and
adopted by small-scale farmers. Alternative approaches include moving farmer
engagement closer to priority setting and funding decisions, increasing
collaboration with social scientists, and increasing participatory and
interdisciplinary work in the core research institutions. There is evidence
from
Many farmers in SSA use indigenous
animal breeds which are able to withstand harsh conditions and tolerate many
diseases, but their m
Scaling-up integrated approaches is
difficult because successful innovations tend to incorporate local knowledge
and to be specific to the particular agro-climatic conditions. Public good
aspects of baskets of prototype technologies, whether originating from farmers,
researchers or collaborative efforts, that match the diversity of farmers’
fields can be transferred with appropriate scaling up and dissemination
strategies. Where current structures are ineffective, new institutional and
organizational arrangements may be required to support the empowerment of local
communities to develop, adapt and disseminate AKST. Despite the increasing use
of participatory and integrated approaches to AKST development, institutional
resources still tend to be compartmentalized. For example, water management is
often undertaken independently of pest, soil, livestock and forest management.
Reduced water availability is the main cause of loss of productivity in more
than half of the grazing land. Improved water management would improve livestock
health through quantity and quality of grazing resources and reduced walking
distance to watering points.
Knowledge, understanding and uptake
of new agricultural technologies on the whole are poor and patchy in SSA. In the IAASTD assessment, biotechnology is defined according to that in
the Convention on Biological Diversity. In this context it includes much of the
traditional knowledge and many of the traditional technologies used in SSA for
the production, processing and
preservation of food plus modern molecular tools such as genetic engineering,
marker assisted selections or breeding and genomic techniques. In this broader
sense biotechnology, as an AKST subset, has a role to play in addressing development
and sustainability goals but it needs to be managed to avoid derivative
problems from its use [Ch 3].
Genetic engineering is considered by
some to have important ramifications for productivity but some of its uses and
impacts are hotly contested. Contamination of farmer-saved seed and threats to
biodiversity in centers of origin are key concerns with respect to
biotechnology and genetic engineering in particular. The environmental risks
and evidence of negative health impacts mean that SSA’s ability to make
informed decisions regarding biotechnology research, development, delivery and
application is critical. In part, the current limited capacity of individual countries
to address risk assessment and management of transgenics is being addressed
through regional capacity building and harmonization of guidelines, policies,
legislation and cr
Biological control is an option for
integrated pest management and involves augmentation or conservation of local
or introduced natural enemies to pest populations. There are several examples
where staple and important crops have been saved by biological control over
wide areas. There are a number of economic assessments showing biocontrol’s
successes including coffee mealybug and more recently the campaigns against cassava
mealybug, green mite and water hyacinth that show large and accruing gains.
These controls are still in place and contribute to small farmers’ food
security in the long term [Ch 2].
SSA countries are the most intense
users of biomass in the world, meeting more than 50% of their total primary
energy consumption from this source. This biomass energy predominantly consists
of unrefined traditional fuel such as firewood and crop and animal residues [Ch
2]. Use of biomass as a source of energy in its traditional forms results in
inefficient energy conversion, environmental and health hazards, is time-consuming
in terms of collection and contributes to the degradation of forests. AKST has
played a role in improving the traditional bioenergy technologies, such as
design and supply of efficient cooking stoves, and helping people to move to
more sustainable, efficient and less harmful forms of energy. Some SSA
countries have realized this potential and have programs for the cogeneration
of electricity. [Ch 2]
Research and development in improving
biofuel yields per unit of land and in reducing economic costs of production
are needed. Biofuel production involves tradeoffs that have not yet been
evaluated. Globally, output from first generation biofuels produced from
agricultural crops is growing rapidly supported by government policies, but
these fuels are rarely economically competitive with petroleum fuels. The
production of first generation biofuels in particular in SSA is likely to put
pressure on forests and marginal lands. A major debate centers around whether
this use of biomass will remove land from production of food crops and/or
result in increased prices of staple commodities, such as maize, if used for
biofuels. Next generation biofuels may have gr
Rapid depletion of SSA’s natural resources and
the genetic erosion of indigenous germplasm threaten the sustainability of
agriculture in SSA. Land use change, including
deforestation and expansion of agriculture into marginal areas, results in
nutrient and biodiversity losses, water and soil degradation, loss of pasture,
adversely affects ground and surface water availability and reduces the
resilience of agricultural systems, especially in semiarid regions. These
issues affect every aspect of AKST as environmental degradation affects the
productivity and sustainability of agriculture. Over-exploitation of freshwater
and oceanic fisheries, controlled breeding and the development of livestock,
crop and tree breeds with a narrow genetic base further thr
Integrated natural resource
management options include diversifying farming systems, enhancing natural
capital and building on local and traditional knowledge. For instance,
significant investments have been made in the development of high value
products from indigenous plant species for the pharmaceutical, neutraceutical
and cosmetic industries. Such localization approaches place agriculture
squarely in the context of society and ecosystems and so can empower local
communities to address depletion of natural resources and loss of biodiversity,
in conjunction with poverty and food security. Integrated approaches allow the
generation of substantive knowledge concerning the tradeoffs among economic,
social, cultural and ecological goals, the roles of various actors such as
producers, the private sector, civil society and government, and can
accommodate new challenges such as changes caused by climate change, including
the increased problem of invasive species. These sets of activities and
interventions will not reach system level goals without an explicit analysis of
who wins and who loses and how the potential tradeoffs and synergies will be
managed. Strategies of rapid agricultural development need to be coordinated
more directly with strategies for biodiversity and water conservation such as
retaining areas of natural vegetation in production areas, keeping areas where
pollinators can thrive, promoting organic agriculture and incorporating trees
in agricultural landscapes.
The public good nature of many
natural resources lends itself to consultative and collective approaches in the
development of policies and institutions. Involving local communities in
determining land use and land tenure policies and giving them control and
responsibility over the resources increases the likelihood of efficient,
equitable and sustainable use of common pool natural resources and compliance
with rules and regulations. Examples include participatory forest management, which
is being introduced in a number of countries in SSA [Ch 5]. The collective,
public goods aspect of on-farm agricultural biodiversity can be supported
through international mechanisms such as Farmers’ Rights’ provisions under the
FAO International Tr
Farmers in SSA often integrate trees
on their farms and on landscapes in order to harness multiple benefits,
including timber and other high value products, fuel wood, fiber, feed,
medicinal products, fruits and ecosystem services, such as land rehabilitation
and soil fertility through sequential fallow systems and systems with
intercropped trees [Ch 5]. Barriers to clonal forestry and agroforestry have
been overcome by the development of robust vegetative propagation techniques,
which are applicable to a wide range of tree species. Domestication, intensive
selection and conventional breeding have had positive impacts on yield and the
production of staple food crops, horticultural crops and timber trees.
Agroforestry research builds on local knowledge and has the potential to reduce
pressure on forests and provide ecosystem services such as biodiversity
conservation, carbon sequestration and land restoration. Women and men have different
priorities, which suggests scope for AKST to identify trees with multiple uses.
Factors that need to be taken into account in agroforestry research include
impact assessments, e.g., ensuring that trees do not jeopardize water supplies,
especially in dry areas, and that exotic species are not introduced that cause social
equity issues relating to land use and land rights. Other issues that need to
be addressed include increasing adoption of agroforestry technologies, pests
and diseases, markets for agroforestry products, availability of planting
materials and adaptation to climate change [Ch 3].
Because livestock genetic diversity
is being lost relatively rapidly, short-term strategies are required to provide
information for priority setting. This might include as a first step, rapid surveys
and population estimates and data on genetic distances. In the longer term,
policies and market strategies to promote the use of indigenous breeds can
provide economic incentives to conserve these breeds. Community participation
in livestock breeding increases the likelihood of appropriate traits being
identified and developed. Yet information is still required with respect to how
livestock owners make livestock selections and how livestock production fits
with other livelihood activities.
SSA is the only region where per
capita fish supplies are falling (from 9 kg per person in 1973 to 6.6 kg in
2005) as a result of stagnation in capture fish production and a growing
population. Where capture fisheries are over-exploited, institutions need to be
strengthened for allocating fishing rights, ensuring sustainable catches, and
enforcing rules and regulations. Improved management of capture fisheries will
also require strategies to reduce and use by-catch, and reduce postharvest
losses [Ch 5]. Working with local fishing communities and understanding their
perspectives on externally enforced rules and regulations may reduce tensions
between biological realities and community acceptance. Investment in supporting
local fishers in modern fishing techniques could also go a long way in reducing
tensions and improving livelihoods.
Unlike in other regions, aquaculture
currently makes a very small contribution to total fish production in SSA – just 2% compared with 38% worldwide. Aquaculture has the potential to improve livelihoods and nutrition, and
reduce the pressure on capture fisheries. AKST has a role to play in reducing
the potential negative effects of aquaculture through learning from other
regions, increased research into integrated farming systems that avoid using
wild-caught fish as feed, and strengthening the capacity for impact monitoring,
such as the impacts of chemical inputs and the conversion of mangroves to
fisheries. Additional options for AKST include the need to develop post-harvest
technologies, value chain and product development, farmer training and
increasing access to inputs [Ch 5].
Agricultural intensification tends to
be accompanied by decreasing agricultural biodiversity. However, farmers
naturally play a role in conserving agricultural biodiversity that can be
exploited and incorporated into more formal conservation approaches. Genetic
erosion is of particular concern in SSA because many countries have a wide
range of crops and livestock species that are considered relatively unimportant
on a global level but are important as local staples. In situ conservation and protection is particularly important for
conserving genetic resources, helping to maintain evolutionary processes and
having a positive effect on biodiversity and equity.
Working with local communities has
been shown to be key to conserving biodiversity and maintaining or enhancing
ecosystem services in the long term. Market-oriented incentives enable local
communities to benefit financially from sustainably managing soils, water,
sequestering carbon and conserving biodiversity. These could include direct
payments to farmers or to particular agricultural sectors; other types of
rewards include well-defined property rights over natural resources in favor of
local communities; the development of markets for indigenous species; and
strengthening intellectual property rights.
Agriculture, health and
nutrition in SSA are closely linked. The emphasis of
agricultural policies in SSA on the production of a few staple food crops to
the neglect of indigenous species with good nutritional properties, and micronutrient
rich foods, such as fruits and vegetables, has reduced agriculture’s potential
to improve the livelihoods of households, including health and nutrition.
Increasing yields will have a direct
impact on the nutritional status of the rural poor. General options to reduce
malnutrition encompass increasing households’ access to income and calories and
encouraging a diet of diversified foods with the needed nutrients. There is
scope for AKST to target micronutrient deficiency through increased research
into the nutritional value of local and traditional foods, particularly fruits
and vegetables, and the extent to which they contribute to diets. To ensure
that the direction of AKST research is relevant to local communities and that
its outputs will be widely adopted, additional research is required into the
conditions under which farmers will choose to cultivate and market these
traditional food sources and households will choose to consume and purchase.
The empowerment and increased involvement of women can help with the
development, adoption and demand for more nutritious foods, such as
orange-flesh sweet potato (Ipomoea
batatas). Malnutrition is increasingly becoming an urban as well as rural
problem. Options that are particularly relevant to the urban population include
product development to increase the variety and quality of food, including
fortified foods, and targeted information campaigns to increase awareness and
encourage adoption of more nutritious foods.
Malnutrition and ill health in SSA
are exacerbated by tropical diseases, such as malaria and schistosomiasis, and by
HIV/AIDS-associated diseases, such as tuberculosis, that result in reduced
workforces available to agriculture and other productive sectors [Ch 5].
Animal-linked diseases affecting both human and animals have also been a
significant setback to livelihood security, aggravated by unregulated
cross-border movements resulting in the spread of transboundary diseases such
as Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP), African Swine Fever (ASF) and Rift
Valley Fever (RVF). AKST options to address these diseases include efficient
vaccine development, rapid and accurate diagnostic techniques and breeding of
animals with high tolerance to diseases. Policy options include control of
animal movements across boundaries and this requires regional cooperation.
Most farmers in SSA operate in an environment
of high risk and uncertainty. Farmers therefore tend to adopt
strategies that minimize risk and vulnerability at the expense of
profit-maximizing strategies, resulting in an agricultural sector in SSA that
is well below its potential. SSA already experiences high variability in
rainfall and other climatic extremes, which will be exacerbated by climate
change. Resilience in much of SSA is inhibited by fragile ecosystems, weak
institutions, ineffective governance, and poverty; those most vulnerable are
the poor who have the least adaptive capacity. When AKST builds on farmers’ and
pastoralists’ coping strategies and innovations thereby placing local people’s
knowledge and actions, such as diversified production practices used by 90% of
SSA farmers, at the center of research efforts, the multiple functions of
agriculture are better realized and the threats of climate change mitigated. Options
include undertaking collaborative research with farmers, including the integration
of crop, livestock, tree and fish components where applicable that spread risk
and deliver various benefits at different periods throughout the year [Ch 3].
Few
households in SSA have private and transferable property rights to the land
that they farm. Although secure land tenure correlates with long-term
investments in natural resource management, land titling in itself has not been
shown to increase credit transactions, improve production or increase the
number of land sales. Any benefits are often offset by the high transactions
costs of titling land and loss of rights of disadvantaged groups including
women and pastoralists. However, land tenure reform in some cases may be
necessary to secure individual or collective rights to resources in order to
reduce farmers’ vulnerability and strengthen women’s access to resources. It is
more likely to be effective and equitable if it is sensitive to the impact on the
rights of disadvantaged groups and undertaken in parallel with the harmonization
of other laws such as inheritance [Ch 5]. Collective action when resource and
land tenure are secure has yielded benefits and reduced risks and costs for
members through labor efficiencies, provision of public services and management
of natural resources. The inclusion of a gender perspective in these
institutions for collective action leads to more equitable outcomes.
Credit, insurance, and other
risk-sharing institutions can reduce farmer exposure to risk and uncertainty
and therefore enable them to increase expected output and profits. Microcredit
is relatively well established in SSA. Much is provided through NGOs and not
all may be economically sustainable without the injection of external funds to
cover the relatively high administrative costs [Ch 5]. Recently retail banks
are becoming involved in commercially viable microcredit by providing capital
to organizations that then provide the microcredit directly to farmers. An
appropriate policy environment for easy access to affordable microcredit is
most likely to benefit farmers. Alternatives to credit from the financial
sector include the development of contracts that allow for advanced payment and
provision of inputs and extension services from agribusiness companies to
farmers, such as contract farming and outgrower schemes.
W
Rangeland management approaches
practiced by pastoral livestock farmers have been recognized as the appropriate
response to knowledge of the spatial and temporal availability of resources.
These strategies include movement of livestock to follow quality and quantity
of feed and water, flexible stocking rates and herd diversification sustained
by a system of communal resource tenure. AKST needs to address emerging
constraints and new realities for these pastoral systems brought about by land
tenure changes, which conflict with traditional tenure, institutions, and carrying
capacity in the context of emerging challenges such as climate change and
associated stresses. These strategies are most likely to work if countries
develop regional strategies to enhance the evolution of pastoral farming
systems.
Options for AKST include the
application of geographic information systems and quantitative modeling
processes to provide further insights into productivity patterns of the system
and offer policy options to ensure sustainability. Incentives and arrangements
for local communities that designate rangelands for other uses such as
biodiversity conservation have been attempted in some countries. The
development of reliable early warning systems to avoid catastrophic effects of
droughts and designing livestock management systems can help to alleviate the
shortage of dry season grazing. Improving understanding and documentation of
the role of livestock in livelihoods and motivations behind pastoralist
practices will be most effective if conducted in pastoralists’ languages using
participatory methods.
The lack of connection
between SSA farmers and the market has seen agriculture remain rudimentary,
unprofitable and unresponsive to market demand. Farmers’ poor access to markets reduces incentives to apply AKST
innovations and to make investments in modern technologies and so inhibits the
shift of poor farmers from subsistence to market-oriented production. Weak markets
result in expensive inputs and poorly developed output markets result in low
farm-gate prices for internationally traded products. Weak business service
sectors reinforce small producers’ isolation from any but the most local
markets and barriers to entering the formal market reinforce the inefficiencies
and limitations inherent in the informal sector, with the result that the
benefits of informality are outweighed by reduced competitiveness and increased
vulnerability. SSA farmers have fared no better internationally. Between 1980
and 2000, most SSA countries’ agricultural exports to international markets
stagnated at just 2% of the global market in spite of globalization trends that
were expected to open new markets to SSA products. It is critical that terms of
trade between SSA and international partners improve.
Options to improve the connection
between farmers and the market include improving technical assistance in
production and postharvesting techniques; training and capacity development and
access to credit for long-term investments and product upgrading; investment in
organizational and institutional development of farmer organizations to enhance
farmers’ management, negotiating, and bargaining skills; and promotion of
agro-processing in small urban centers. AKST has an important role to play in
increasing production efficiency along the value chain by making modern
technologies available and providing viable processes for transmitting
marketing information and including information related to consumer preferences
and price signals to farmers and agro-processors. Contract farming and outgrower
schemes, which offer benefits related to guaranteed market access, access to
credit and market information are being explored in the region.
The absence of processing and storage
infrastructure located near the main producing areas inhibits value addition.
Further, market development calls for infrastructure inputs, including rural
road networks and electricity. There is a positive correlation between the
development of transportation infrastructure and agricultural intensification;
yet SSA has the lowest density of paved roads of any world region. Information
and communication technologies (ICTs) development is increasing access to and
contribution of AKST knowledge in some parts of the region, but there is potential
to achieve more impact.
Increasing the scope of marketing
opportunities at the regional level, as stipulated in the Lagos Plan of Action
and the Abuja Tr
Payments for environmental services
(PES) are a market-based tool that has received substantial interest in SSA. It
cr
There is also increasing potential
for African countries and small-scale farmers to be involved in voluntary
markets for carbon and international market mechanisms such as the CDM (Clean Development
Mechanism). Knowledge and strategies to reduce carbon emissions through
community based afforestation and reforestation projects, agroforestry and
reduced deforestation and degradation (REDD) are being generated, but need to
be tested and adopted. These strategies have the potential to cr
Other mechanisms such as
certification, which may result in a premium paid to farmers, have to be
carefully designed so that appropriate prices are set and the requirements for
certified products are jointly negotiated. However, at present the costs of
certification for small-scale farmers can be prohibitive [Ch 5]. AKST has a
role to play in assessing and monitoring the impacts of these different, novel
market approaches – decreasing transactions costs for local communities, and
setting up appropriate policies and institutions that provide level playing
fields for negotiation between buyers and sellers and determine whether the
poor can benefit.
The dominance of
external funding for AKST in SSA has resulted in unreliable long-term funding
and loss of control over the relevance and direction of new AKST developments.
Even with external funding, if
Establishing funding mechanisms
through performance based competitive research funds and matching grants can
enhance collaboration between various research partners. Public-private
partnerships offer a way to leverage public funding, but AKST research and
development may be pulled towards commercial outputs at the expense of public
good outputs and so still need to be evaluated against development and
sustainability goals. Given the contribution of agriculture to improving human
health and nutrition, a strategy of integrated planning and programming among
ministries of health, agriculture, livestock and fisheries would provide
opportunities for joint funding of, and better synergies among programs. More
generally, shifting to a multifunctional localized approach to agriculture will
require political will on the part of policy makers, agribusinesses and donors
of publicly funded research to make more community-centered decisions about how
to invest limited resources.
Current education, training
and extension structures are incompatible with innovative approaches to AKST
development. Most agricultural scientists in SSA
are trained and rewarded within a narrow discipline, reflecting the typically
linear approaches to research and extension that value “formal” scientific
research and learning over more tacit forms of farmer learning and local and traditional
knowledge. Proven approaches to research for development have evolved recently,
with more attention paid to integrated solutions, spatial heterogeneity,
tradeoffs, and livelihood and environment outcomes rather than only productivity
issues. There has also been considerable emphasis in establishing coherence and
synergies among basic applied and adaptive research as well as dissemination of
results by encouraging collective participation of universities, private
sector, public research organizations and civil society. New players, including
some international NGOs, have joined in knowledge generation.
In SSA, the generation of formal
knowledge and scientific development rests predominantly with a research system
comprising national and international agricultural research organizations,
universities and the private sector [Ch 3]. Often this research system is slow
and inadequate in its response to challenges. This is partly due to poor access
to current global literature and expertise. Typically it can also be attributed
to education systems that inadequately prepare scientists to carry out
effective research, and to poor linkages between education, research and
extension. Education is still centered on learning facts rather than developing
skills in problem solving and is constrained by disciplinary boundaries.
Options include improving the
connections between education, research and extension systems, moving to
problem-based learning, removing outdated disciplinary paradigms and updating
the research approaches and tools being taught. Training can be expanded to
include the socioeconomic and policy environment in which agricultural
development occurs, and field-based research with farmers. A new cadre of
specialists is needed who are able to offer technical support in appropriate
tools and approaches. However, scientists are less likely to choose to
undertake longer-term participatory and integrated research unless there are
changes in the professional reward system that is currently based predominantly
on the generation of data at meso and macro levels.
There is scope to explore the
potential for efficiencies in regional graduate training models. The large
number of small countries in
New approaches to AKST generation
that increase farmer involvement and include local and traditional knowledge
naturally incorporate and enhance farmers’ own technical skills and research
capabilities. However, SSA is the only region where formal education and
government services function formally in languages different from the first
languages of almost the entire citizenry. This linguistic divide, which reduces
the scope for combining formal science and technology and local and traditional
knowledge, can be addressed in part through the increased use and understanding
of local languages when working with farmers.
Increasing the functional literacy
and general education levels among rural communities, especially women, has
already been proven to increase the likelihood of achieving development and
sustainability goals. Additional options include specific curriculum reform
that addresses the key skills required to empower individuals and communities
to engage in the development and use of AKST, increase the likelihood of local
and traditional knowledge being incorporated, and drive and contribute to
agricultural product and service development. Specific actions to mainstream
women’s involvement include strategies that encourage women to study
agricultural and engineering sciences and social sciences; and effort to ensure
that extension, data collection and enumeration involve women both as providers
as well as recipients. For example, 83% of extension officials in SSA are men
who, due to cultural norms cannot, or may choose not to speak to women.