Search NaijaAgroNet

Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts

Friday, September 2, 2016

Opinion: Finding sweet spot of Africa’s agriculture

Africa is a continent where, at least outwardly, we like to celebrate our diversity—the rich variety that can be found in our many cultures, languages, fashions, flora and fauna. That’s why it’s perplexing to see such a large segment of the African population depending on a very small number of food crops, like maize, rice and wheat. And it’s more than just boring to the palate. It’s severely diminishing the quality of our diets and making our farming systems more vulnerable, especially during severe droughts like the one that hit Southern Africa this year.

Meanwhile, there has been a lot of talk lately about how Africa’s agriculture sector is primed to become a new economic engine for a continent that has become too dependent on commodities like oil. Next week, Heads of State and top officials from across Africa and around the world are coming to Nairobi for the African Green Revolution Forum 2016, where there could be millions of dollars in new commitments for Africa’s smallholder farmers.

But Africa is unlikely to achieve its agriculture potential, or be prepared to deal with challenges like drought that climate change will make more frequent, unless we change our thinking about crop diversity.

For the last two decades, my work has revolved around developing and promoting nutritionally enhanced sweet-potato. It has convinced me that, with the right approach, farmers will cultivate a wider variety of crops and consumers will embrace the new additions to their dinner table.

Africa is actually blessed with a wealth of crop diversity. Much of these include sorghum, yam and cowpea, which are native to the continent. But many other crop types have arrived via trade, like banana, pigeon pea and wheat from Asia, and beans, cassava and maize from the Americas. But rather than capitalize on this full basket of food options, we have bet too heavily on just a few crops.

Take the case of maize in Eastern and Southern Africa for instance. Yes, it can grow in different farming environments and supply large amounts of calories. But the crop has weaknesses. It’s susceptible to drought and pests and its nutritional quality is mediocre.

And while recent research has delivered more resilient and nutritious maize varieties, these are not sufficient. The fact remains that in many regions, rising temperatures and increasingly erratic rainfall will cause maize yields to fall by up to 22 per cent in many areas and up to 60 per cent in South Africa and Zimbabwe, according to a 2015 report from the Montpellier Panel.

There is a strong body of research showing that farmers are much less likely to suffer catastrophic losses from pests, disease or drought if they plant a broader array of crops. Today, the devastation caused by outbreaks of lethal necrosis in maize and stem rust in wheat is greatly intensified by the lack of alternative crops. In Malawi, while drought ruined maize and bean crops this year, farmers growing naturally hardy, nutritional crops like chickpea and sweet-potato fared much better.

If the benefits are so clear, then why don´t farmers just spontaneously diversify? The answer is that they may want to diversify, but often don’t due to policy and institutional barriers. When crops like maize started to dominate, governments and the private sector accelerated their take-over by providing subsidies, research and other support. Meanwhile, other potentially useful crops like cassava and sorghum were neglected, sometimes acquiring derogatory labels like the “poor man´s crop” or “crop for marginal lands.”

It doesn’t have to be this way. I’ve learned from my work with sweet-potatoes that we can turn Africa´s “Cinderella crops” into the belle of the ball.

First, we need research that is focused on adding value to these crops and further enhancing their already natural resilience. In the case of sweet-potato, we bred for higher levels of beta-carotene (the chemical precursor of vitamin A), better drought tolerance and virus resistance.

A second critical task: farmers need a reliable source of healthy seed. This is not easy for crops typically ignored by local and multinational seed companies, especially if they are propagated with bulky and perishable plant parts like sweet-potatoes. For sweet-potato, we worked through local farmer networks and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to achieve large-scale multiplication and dissemination of improved planting material.

Finally, marketing and branding, not something that comes naturally to researchers like myself, have to be part of the picture. We employed a variety of marketing and communications tools to make consumers aware of the many benefits of the sweet-potato – as a staple food, animal fodder, snack and ingredient in processed foods.

The theme for the upcoming African Green Revolution Forum is “Seize the Moment” and I can’t think of a better time for influential leaders attending this meeting to make crop diversity a central part of their plans for African agriculture. Just as many will admire the colorful dress of West African attendees, they should also be embracing a larger mosaic of food crops for our farmers. I’ve already seen the good things that happen when a big colorful splash of orange-fleshed sweet-potato is added to African farms and African diets.

*Contributed by Dr. Maria Andrade, an award-winning plant breeder at the International Potato Centre. She is also among the four winners of the 2016 World Food Prize and currently serving board member of Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).



... Linking agrobiz, sustainable environs, people & technology

Monday, May 28, 2012

Farmers call for involvement in cassava action plan


Pastor Segun Adewunmi
Nigerian farmers have call on the federal government to involved farmers in the cassava and other agricultural transformation agenda action plan for implementation purposes.
The national president of Nigeria Cassava Growers Association, Pastor Segun Adewunmi made the call recently at the ‘This Morning’ talk show on Television Continental.
The NCGAN president also commended the Lagos State government for its concern in the cassava sector with about 40 per cent subsidy on cassava input and 50 per cent off price of tractors used on cassava farms, stressing these are initiatives to encourage cassava producing in the state.
While applauding the federal government for the Cassava Transformation Agenda Action Plan which he said was organized in such a way that every farmer would be a beneficiary, asserting “The policy has to involve the farmers.”
The transformation agenda action plan during the Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s regime, he said gave room for more use to cassava products for industrial uses as against the usual garri and starch only.
Pastor Adewunmi further said his association is working towards the eradication of unemployment among youths in the nation, which includes the recruitment of about 5 youths from each local government to be trained on agriculture extension services.
Over 5,000 youths, he said, are also to be involved monitor cassava growing in the nation with about one million farmers to grow cassava.
Women taking part in processing Garri
NaijaAgroNet learnt that cassava production cost in Nigeria surpasses any other cost of producing cassava anywhere in the world; hence this necessitated the proposal by the federal government to establish 18 large scale processing cassava plants for flour.
N300bn, Pastor Adewunmi said has been saved from flour importation as a result of the Cassava Transformation Agenda Action Plan which sees to the production of cassava flour. And increase of agricultural loan from about 1.03 per cent to about 3 per cent.
Part of the strategies by the association to improve cassava production, NaijaAgroNet further gathered is to ensure that every local government authority has a minimum of five extension officers who will supply agricultural inputs for their respective local government authority.
Uzo, a caller from Lagos affirmed that funds do not get to the right farmers as they are not part of the action plan, hence they cannot monitor the implementation process of the action plan.
Speaking in the same vein, the publicity secretary of Agbekoya Farmers Association, Chief Olatunji Bamidele affirmed the greatest challenge facing farmers in the nation to be lack of funds. The Agbekoya Farmers Association, he said had requested for loan from the federal government for months back which they are yet to receive any response as regards the loan. 
Chief Bamidele said any agricultural transformation agenda that excludes the farmers in the process have a very little chance of seeing the light of the day.
Yinka Awosanya/LS
... Linking agrobiz, people & technology

Friday, April 20, 2012

African agriculture, at mercy of Global South donors


'Agriculture Development and Food Security in Africa,' a new book that addresses the current food insecurity and land issues on the continent would soon debut.
The book which x-rays the effect of donors from the global south on African agricultural development is co-authored by Fantu Cheru, a socio-economist who specializes in rural development, small-scale enterprise environmental planning and resource management, and Renu Modi, a political scientist and senior lecturer of the Centre for African Studies of University of Mumbai.
The Four-section, Eleven-chapter book highlighted roles played by the Global South donors including India, China and Brazil in shaping African agriculture through their increased involvement and investment in the continent. 
The book also presents a critical analysis of the ways in which Chinese, Indian and Brazilian engagement in African agriculture are structured and implemented. More about the book
Yinka Awosanya/LS
... Linking agrobiz, people & technology

Thursday, November 17, 2011

IIED canvass support for NAPs in developing nations

“Wealthy nations have committed to support developing countries to establish National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) that identify long-term priorities for responding to climate change challenges. But how and when will this support be given? Past experience suggests that national adaptation planning in expectation of future international funding is fraught with difficulties. Contributors to fast-start climate finance should release funds to developing countries straight away. These funds must be sufficient to plan longer-term adaptation strategies as well as implement immediate priorities. Equally importantly, recipients of these funds must decide for themselves how best to spend it.”

At the 2010 international climate negotiations in Mexico, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Cancun Adaptation Framework. The framework includes, among other things, a requirement for all countries to develop a National Plan of Action (NAP) that identifies medium- and long-term needs and priorities for adapting to climate change, and outlines strategies and activities to address these. The NAPs of the developing countries will be supported with funds from richer countries.

The details of how NAPs will be designed and implemented are still being thrashed out and will be discussed during the forthcoming UN negotiations in Durban, South Africa. A mix of 18 country governments and international organisations has already submitted their views and suggestions to the UNFCCC to inform the Durban meeting.

The big questions for NAPs centre on how they will be funded and implemented in developing countries. These countries are the most vulnerable to climate change and its impacts and need immediate adaptation funding. They cannot afford to sit tight through the laborious and time-consuming process of preparing and approving a NAP before they receive funds to prevent harm in climate-vulnerable communities. Neither should they have to.

Past Mistakes

Wealthy parties to the UNFCCC have promised to finance NAPs in developing countries. But it is not clear when the money will come through. From past experience, the default option being considered is to give out enough money to prepare NAPs, but then wait to hand over funds for implementation until sometime after priority projects have been identified and submitted to the UN.

It’s not the first time that the 48 least developed countries (LDCs) have been asked to write an adaptation plan so that urgent projects can be funded through the UNFCCC. Experience tells us that planning in expectation of future funding is fraught with problems.

At the 2001 UN negotiations in Marrakesh, Morocco, the LDC Fund was established to sponsor the preparation and implementation of National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). This fund, which is managed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and dependent on voluntary contributions from wealthy nations, gave each LDC approximately US$200,000 to conduct a NAPA to identify ‘urgent and immediate’ adaptation projects.

The expectation at the time was that as soon as priority projects were identified, the LDC Fund would co-fund implementation. Almost all 48 of the LDCs have completed and submitted their NAPAs to the UNFCCC.

This in itself is a considerable achievement that merits recognition and support.

And yet today a decade later, the funds disbursed are inadequate for the adaptation tasks and most countries are still waiting for the resources to address their most pressing adaptation needs. This has caused a major gap between planning and implementation that has given rise to suspicion and scepticism between developing and developed countries.

A question of time and power

In part, the problem has been one of time. It takes time to create detailed adaptation plans — particularly for poorer countries that face complex climate adaptation needs and sometimes lack critical institutional, technical and policy capacities to respond to climate change impacts. Timor-Leste, for example, did not submit its NAPA until September 2011.

Meanwhile, the climate change costs clock is ticking and in most vulnerable countries and communities, adaptation action is needed now.

The problem is also one of decision-making power. A major cause of delay in implementing NAPAs was that LDCs had no real authority to decide for themselves how best to spend adaptation funds. Instead, it was the GEF that assessed individual adaptation projects within NAPAs and decided whether they merited funding. And even the GEF could not be approached directly.

Individual countries have to go through intermediary ‘implementing agencies’ such as the World Bank or the UN Development Programme. This approach has proved problematic and ineffective. Although NAPAs provided a list of priority actions, they were only designed to generate brief project outlines some of which were inadequate as a basis for evaluation. The problem was subsequently tackled by providing LDCs with extra funds to prepare full project documents, and several of these have since been financed through the LDC Fund.

But progress has been slow. The approach refuses LDCs the sole right to decide what projects are urgent and immediate, and how to spend money to carry them out. International principles for aid effectiveness — reflected in the Paris Declaration of 2005 and built on many years of assessing the successes and failures in aid delivery — underline the importance of promoting national ownership and leadership of both resource allocation and decision processes to ensure that multi-and bilateral funds are used effectively and reach those most in need.

Developing countries increasingly emphasise the need for more ownership in adaptation finance, calling for ‘direct access’ funds, where money flows directly to countries rather than through multilateral agencies.

This kind of approach would not only reflect lessons learnt in aid effectiveness but would also go a long way in reducing the gap between planning and implementation and in rebuilding confidence in climate finance.

Decisions for Durban

As negotiators in Durban sit down to chart a course for NAPs, it is vital that they build on the experiences gained through the NAPA process and learn from past successes and failures. In practice, this means agreeing to two things.

First, if the developed countries are genuinely committed to helping developing countries adapt to adverse climate change impacts, they must pledge an adequate and transparent amount of funding upfront for both carrying out the NAP as well as implementing priority adaptation responses.

LDCs already have long lists of actionable priorities that can be developed into investment plans. And other countries can have the same relatively easily. It is vital that developing long-term adaptation plans in NAPs does not delay implementing initiatives that address the urgent needs identified in NAPAs.

Second, if developing countries are to truly address the most pressing needs of their most vulnerable communities, they must be given ownership of adaptation finance and allowed to prioritise actions and projects for themselves.

One option for achieving these twin goals is for those countries that have promised ‘fast-start’ finance for adaptation to pledge enough money to give each LDC at least US$20 million to simultaneously begin developing their NAP while also implementing their highest priority, adaptation projects as defined by them and identified in their NAPA.

Admin/LS
... Linking agrobiz, people & technology