When the Future Agricultures Consortium (FAC) began, there was a different context in debates about agriculture. Policy research was being done, but not much. FAC was providing a space that was underrepresented at that time – not any longer. There are many things going on now and the policy environment is changing with more and new actors (e.g. ISTD, AGRA, CAADP, Millennium Villages, etc.) and urgent issues – food crisis, fertiliser crisis, more publications). And there are now bigger players and bigger debates around policy-focussed research. We need to continue to argue for our space at this table.

In the FAC phase II proposal, we described a broad mission: aims “to encourage dialogue and the sharing of good practice by policy makers and opinion formers in Africa on the role of agriculture in broad based growth”.

There are others that also cover similar territory (e.g. CAADP, AGRA IFPRI, etc.) – where do we fit? What do we do that’s different? How to insert FAC into more mainstream processes where we can challenge, critique, confront? What is our niche?

• We are situated in the international scene – imbedded in particular areas conducting ‘real research’ in ‘real places’) and this speaks to broader debates and contributes to interesting insights.
• We are a diverse partnership – multiple institutions, UK and Africa – membership – university, NGO consultants, disciplinary diversity (e.g. agriculture economists) so we don’t have a singular focus.
• We commit ourselves to process-orientation (Policy Processes) multiple scenarios – constructing future agricultures – no definitive view about what should be but open to creating debate.
• We are independent, flexible, etc. – values noted in external report. One of our selling points – particularly as the mainstream (right hand column).
• We provide research that is not automatically available – we are able to challenge conventional wisdom. 

{jathumbnail off}Professor Jeremy Swift specialises in the development of pastoral economiesin Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. His particular interests include;

• poverty,
• famine,
• land tenure and
• pastoral governance.

Pastoral policy-making has lagged far behind other policy domains mainly because pastoralism has been widely misunderstood and ignored by policy makers.

Pastoralists’ own economic and social strategies have often been considered irrational, and in need of radical change. This opening session of the seminar will look at key aspects of pastoral policy and open the debate – to be explored in detail during the rest of the seminar – about what policies might be appropriate, feasible and effective.

Progress and Challenges

• Didn’t get started until December

1. Long delay in contracts (DFID contract, PP time allocation)
2. Getting team together (methodology and detailed planning for MOA district study)

• Main policy engagement Tuesday Fertiliser workshop
• MoA study

1. Secondary data collection started
2. Fieldwork starting next week
3. Draft by end of Year 1

• Draft review of SWAps in Agriculture – Lidia C

Discussion

• What would impact of CAADP target be on Mins of Ag and RD? à will they be overwhelmed by more money?
• How can you focus on district offices only à how do you get to the ‘mixed ecology’? – in terms of delivery we’re talking about gov’t, CSO and priv sector/traders and how they work together; alternative access to services/extension – but focus is on Mins of ARD because they haven’t moved as far as the others / National-level discussions – need to think how to engage with Mins of Finance
• Ethiopia? – Will come in Yr 2, after finishing most of the Kenya and Malawi work
• Need to note study by IFPRI, EEAR and others on extent of national extension delivery – very relevant to FAC study à ask more political economy, institutional and governance issues on back of this
• Lessons from Research Into Use? – DFID realised these governance issues – role of the state, political processes, etc – were missing link in regional and national work – now working to rectify this – inform FARA, ASARECA, etc. to link up with stakeholders they’re accountable to

{jathumbnail off}Ethiopian representatives and leading international thinkers deliberate overthe state of pastoralism, making a new analysis of potential futures Understanding of Pastor Pastoralism alismEthiopia has Africa’ Africa’s largest livestock population. Over 60% of its land area iss semi-arid lowland, dominated by the livestock economy economy.

Today Ethiopia is looking day for a new and deeper understanding of its pastoralist regions and an accurate appreciation of their environmental and socio-economic trajectories. Ethiopians from the Federal and Regional governments and from traditional institutions met at the University of Sussex, Brighton, England in December 2006 to deliberate over the future for pastoralism in Ethiopia.

They discussed past and present pastoralist policies and policy processes and set out a policy objective that calls for ‘creating sustainable livelihoods and improved living conditions and reducing vulnerability vulnerability, risk and conflict in pastoral areas.’ They proposed to achieve, this through ‘enhanced socio-economic integration, recognition of pastoralists pastoralists’voice and maximising the potential of the pastoral economy economy.’

This report is drawn from evidence given by academic scholars in the fields ofeconomics, anthropology, environmental studies and political science, together with the deliberations of the Ethiopian team. It summarises the data and presents a fresh analysis of potential futures for pastoralists. It begins by setting out thefacts and figures in section one; putting forward evidence on influential longer-term factors that affect development in pastoralist regions.

The publication then looks toward the future, envisioning some of the choices pastoralists may make over the next 20 years. The analysis uses the research evidence to consider how the key influences on pastoralism may combine to shape the future. If market potential is high and environmental productivity is good, what is the most likely direction of development? Where are the benefitslikely to accrue and what risks do people face? Conversely, if markets are, inaccessible and population outstrips production from the natural environment,what would the likely outcomes then be? This combination of science and imagination produces a new new, more detailed and more realistic understanding, of the way pastoralism works and its future in Ethiopia.

Outputs

• Working Papers Series – 7 papers based on secondary sources based on FAO / FAC work – intersection between seasonality, SP and smallholder ag, country cases (3 FAC countries + Ghana + overviews + seasonality)
• FAC briefing papers – summarising longer working papers
• ODI NR perspective – Malawi input subsidy team
• Seasons of Hunger – Hunger Watch + FAC
• All above signal new theme on seasonality, SP and smallholders – brought in Robert Chambers
• Another book – Social Protection in Africa – Frank Ellis + Philip White – not FAC product

Discussion

A lot going on – impressive

• Portfolio of activities – lesson on how to do things with such a strange budget profile
• Seasonality – 20 years ago people were addressing; why did it get dropped off the agenda? How will this research put it back on the agenda and how will it be kept on? A: Reason for the conference will be to address that issue. Structural adjustment removed a whole set of buffers that smooth food pricing, etc. and ignored financial market failures (seasonal finance). Need to develop theory and get it back in undergraduate degree programmes. Bangladesh is a place where gov’t is addressing this.
• Give list of possible research plans how will you select priorities? FAC team have own preferences – e.g., seasonality, SP and pastoral areas; 1-year cycle; etc. But some will be demand-driven. Will use time after Seasonality conference to discuss.
• Scoping study on Climate Change Adaptation, Social Protection and Agriculture – IDS Climate Change team leading in SE Asia, soon E Africa
• RiPPLE – Household studies in N Ethiopia – seasonal water availability and hh strategies

{jathumbnail off}The Future Agricultures Consortium (FAC) aims to encourage critical debate and policy dialogue on the future of agriculture in Africa. The Consortium is a partnership between research-based organisations in Africa and the UK, with work currently focusing on Ethiopia, Kenya and Malawi.Through stakeholder-led policy dialogues on future scenarios for agriculture, informed by field research, the Consortium aims to elaborate the practical and policy challenges of establishing and sustaining pro-poor agricultural growth in Africa, with a focus onEthiopia, Kenya and Malawi.Current work focuses on four core themes:

Policy processes: what political, organisational or budgetary processes promote or hinderpathways to pro-poor, agriculture-led growth? What role should different actors, includingMinistries of Agriculture, have in this?
Growth and social protection: what are the trade-offs and complementarities betweengrowth and social protection objectives?
Agricultural commercialisation: what types of commercialisation of agriculture bothpromote growth and reduce poverty? What institutional and market arrangements arerequired?Science, technology and innovation: how can agricultural technology be made to workfor the poor? How are technology trajectories linked to processes of agrarian/livelihoodchange?

Kenya perspective

1. CAADP agenda, MDG agenda, Vision 2030 all circulating around same set of issues – difficult to isolate CAADP process from other strategies/processes
2. Philosophical differences about bottom-up processes – decision makers often disagree about how to introduce participatory processes into NR and agric policy issues
3. Kenya federalism is a very sensitive issue – ‘majimboism’ – serious tensions between those advocating regionalism/federalism and those promoting centralism à there are constituency funds/processes to influence policy processes
4. Sensitivities over regional processes – Northern Lands strategy still in development; minister may not wish to discuss with neighbouring countries

Malawi perspective

1. Can’t see place for a comprehensive consultation – already many – but by focusing on topics like ‘future farmers’ or ‘farmers’ organisations’ – this would be important for bringing up voices of key constituencies
2. Process of this nature would be important for stimulating the decentralisation process, which has almost stopped – particularly important at the moment – opportunities for organising local people around issues of service delivery à open avenues for people for engaging with local government structures
3. Africa Regional Dept – Afrobarometer – opinion surveys could get some quick results à Blessings – results may be out end of Mar for Malawi – could be useful information
4. CAADP – having their 4^th Platform Partnership meeting in Pretoria end of March – get in touch with focal points in FAC countries – organise event on future farmers and farmers’ organisations.

Top of Ag Advisers – Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security (GPAF).

Top of the agenda: Global Partnership of Agriculture and Food Security

During the food price crises – Dfid asked: “What could we do about without spending too much money” – took it to the G8, etc. so the idea was created. At the same time, the UN set up the high level task force – GPAS would be setup to deliver the Comprehensive Framework for Action.

• The have CAADP and other African country buy in – struggled to get FAO and some Latin countries.

1. During food price crisis senior DFID advisers were asking what do we do about it – GPAF? – developed with French, G8 Tokyo meeting endorsed
2. High Level Task Force – Comprehensive Framework for Action
3. HLTF agreed GPAF would be set up to initiative the CFA – launched at Madrid meeting in late Jan 09
4. DFID Food Group now focusing on pushing ahead on GPAF

• New DFID ‘Food Group’

1. Temporary group set up to address food crisis in July 08 – to run to Mar 09 – inform DFID policy
2. DFID Development Committee is due to consider how the Food Group can move forward the food security agenda

• White Paper 4

1. Focus of WP3 – Making Gov’t Work Better
2. Focus of WP4 – Security – Food, Climate, Economic, Conflict
3. Food Security – good for Food Group to set out agenda
4. But… latest news, FS likely to be subsumed under Economic Security

Debates on the scale of farming are back on the agenda. In a number of recentarticles, Professor Paul Collier, author of ‘The Bottom Billion: Why the PoorestCountries are Failing and What Can be Done About It’, made the case (see Position 1 below) for encouraging large-scale commercial farming as way toget African farming moving. Favouring small farmers, he argues, is romantic but unhelpful

During 2008 there have been many reports of private companies in the Northand state corporations in the South reacting to the opportunity and threat ofhigher food prices by planning to acquire land in Africa, South-east Asia, Braziland Central Asia to produce food. The most startling of these announcementsis that of the Daewoo Corporation of the Republic of Korea that revealed that itwas acquiring the rights to farm no less than 1.3 million hectares of Madagascar,a position from which the company and the government have now backedaway from following a storm of local and international protest.In many cases the reports suggest that the aim is to farm the land on a largescale, rather than to contract production through existing family smallholdings.

It is now more than three years since IFPRI, Imperial College, and ODI organiseda workshop at Wye for specialists to debate the issues surrounding small farms.It looks to be time to revisit those arguments in the light of higher food prices,the arguments being made for largescalefarming and apparent intent ofcapital-rich investors.

In May 2009, the Future AgriculturesConsortium welcomed a range ofopinions in regard to this debate; thisreport by FAC member Steve Wigginssummarises the contributionsand themes emerging from thediscusisons.

{jathumbnail off}{jcomments off}Since the last decade, many of the world’s economies have been faced with food crisis,characterised by high food prices and food shortages year after year. African countries are among the worst hit, where most of the poor people suffer from silent food problems. This is partly due to unequal distribution of the available food supplies, which breeds dual economies; one that is wellfed while the other is languishing in hunger and poverty (Reutlinger, 1977). Food security has also been threatened by heightening production costs, lower farmer prices and the international financial crisis.

This, coupled with climatic change has led to reduction in the production of some staple foodcrops such as maize in Southern Africa, a situation which would lead to deeper and more widespread food crisis (Brink, 2008). Global food crisis has led to much debate and extended discussions at the international frontiers onhow best to address it. Various approaches have been designed and implemented both at national and international levels. For instance, in 2008 the G8 member countries committed themselves to partner with Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) in efforts to reverse the decline in agricultural productivity since most of African economies are agriculture-based (Los Angeles CA,2008).

Other suggested efforts include designing and implementing a commercial agricultural alliance forAfrica which would partner with development partners in efforts aimed at attaining food security and empowering farmers (Brink, 2008). Southern Africa has developed one such platform, Food,Agricultural and National Resource Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) which uses an interactive approach in tapping new and existing innovations to address macro-economic issues.

One such innovation is the Agricultural Input Subsidy Program (AISP) in Malawi which has turned the food crisis into an opportunity for economically empowering farmers and ensuring there is sufficient food for the households (FANRPAN, 2008). This initiative has been rated as a success due to prevailing good policies in Malawi, along with the interactive nature of the programme and the adoption of value chain approach. In this context the value chain approach will be used to analyse agricultural innovation by chain players at levels from production to consumption.

{jathumbnail off}By Ian Scoones and John Thompson
March 2009

Agriculture is an urgent priority worldwide and farmers in the developing world find themselves in the front line of some of the world’s most pressing issues – climate change, globalization and food security. The problem with the agricultural research and extension which is meant to support these farmers is that it is often delivered in a linear, top-down fashion which is inappropriate to their social, physical and economic needs.

Twenty years ago, the Farmer First workshop at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK, started from this premise, and launched a movement to encourage farmer participation in agricultural research and extension so as to find better solutions to farmers’ needs.Since that time methodological, institutional and policy experiments have unfolded around the world – all aimed at putting farmers first. Farmer First Revisited presents accounts of such experiments which were brought by delegates to a workshop in December 2007 and which include successes and failures and the lessons that have been learned.

Agricultural innovation now takes place less within national public-sector research organizations and more in diversified public-private systems. This book asks: how do farmers engage in these public and private systems? In the context of increasingly globalized and complex agricultural supply chains, how do farmers take part in the policy processes defining access to markets, and in agricultural research and development? Farmer First Revisited should be read by students, policy makers, agricultural scientists and social scientists aiming to bring the concerns of grassroots farmers to the fore.

‘Farmer First Revisited is a powerful testament to the impact of the Farmer First Approach. From an almost subversive critical movement that challenged the prevailing linear science-driven paradigm, Farmer First has won broad acceptance by rigorously proving its superior efficiency in making science work for the poorest and most marginal farmers.
{jcomments off}

By Ian Scoones and John Thompson
March 2009

Agriculture is an urgent global priority and farmers find themselves in the front line of some of the world’s most pressing issues – climate change, globalization and food security.Twenty years ago, the Farmer First workshop held at the Institute of Development Studies,University of Sussex, UK, launched a movement to encourage farmer participation in agricultural research and development (R&D), responding to farmers’ needs in complex, diverse, risk-prone environments, and promoting sustainable livelihoods and agriculture. Since that time, methodological, institutional and policy experiments have unfolded around the world. Farmer First Revisited returns to the debates about farmer participation in agricultural R&D and looks to the future.

With over 60 contributions from across the world,the book presents a range of experiences that highlight the importance of going beyonda focus on the farm to the wider innovation system, including market interactions as well asthe wider institutional and policy environment. If, however, farmers are really to be put first, apolitics of demand is required in order to shape the direction of these innovation systems. This calls for a major rethinking of agricultural R&D, the boosting of the knowledge and capacities of farmers’ organizations to innovate, the strengthening of networks and alliances to support, document and share lessons on farmer led innovation, and the transformation of agricultural higher education.

Farmer First Revisited should be read by students,policy makers, development professionals, and natural and social scientists aiming to bring the concerns of grassroots farmers to the fore. Ian Scoones is a Professorial Fellow and JohnThompson is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, UK.Book Contents Foreword by Robert Chambers.

Part I: Farmer First RevisitedChallenges to strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems

Part II: Systems of innovationPart III: The politics of demand and organizational change

Part IV: New professionalism, Learning and change Fostering Farmer First methodological innovation.
{jathumbnail off}{jcomments off}

Agriculture and food are urgent global priorities with farmers on the front line of some ofthe world’s most pressing issues. Putting farmers at the vanguard of responses to the food crisis and climate change in Africa and beyond is vital. Putting farmers at the centre of agricultural innovation and development is the subject of a new Practical Action Publishing book, Farmer First Revisited:

Innovation for Agricultural Research and Development, edited by Ian Scoones and John Thompson, foreword by Robert Chambers and launched today in Nairobi, Kenya, by Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Carlos Sere, Director General, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). The books 150 contributors review cases of farmer-led innovation in 30 countries around the world over the past twenty years.

It aims to re-energise the debate about farmer involvement in agricultural research and development, refine the „farmer first approach. methodologies and set new challenges and goals for the immediate and long-term future. Farmer First Revisited discusses: . The methods, institutions and support systems required to transform agriculture research and development systems . How farmer first approaches can help boost production and get the right seeds and other inputs into the hands of farmers .

How farmers can lead climate adaptation responses, using local knowledge and systems to improve resilience and the capacity to change. The book is published twenty years after the original „Farmer First. book, when the idea of promoting farmer-led agricultural innovation was considered a marginal, almost subversive, issue. This was followed in 1994 with „Beyond Farmer First.. But today mainstream opportunities exist for transforming agriculture and putting farmers firmly in the driving seat of change.

In the intervening two decades, the Farmer First movement – a loose, informal network stretching across the world – has experimented with a range of participatory approaches to agricultural research and extension with farmers at the heart of the innovation process.Participatory plant breeding, for example, has involved farmers in the process of choosing and testing new crop varieties. Extension systems have equally been transformed, moving from topdown instruction towards farmer-to-farmer exchange and joint learning.

The use of new information technologies has expanded too, allowing information sharing between farmers. As a result, farmers are increasingly seen as partners in the innovation process, rather than merely recipients of national and international research and extension systems. Yet failures of conventional agriculture and associated institutional arrangements are apparent everywhere. The generation of an African Green Revolution, for example, requires a new agriculture based on partnerships, not top-down impositions and rooted in diverse knowledges rather than singular technical solution.

Wider perspectives on innovation, linking with research and markets, technology development and users are needed. Judi Wakhungu, Executive Director, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi, Kenya and co-chair International Assessment of Agricultural Science, Knowledge and Technology for Development (IAASTD) argues the book shows “why we need to continue questioning conventional assumptions about agriculture, and why multiple knowledges and sources of innovation are more important than ever.”

That opportunities exist for farmers to drive this innovation are especially evident in Africa. Government commitments through the CAADP/NEPAD framework are in place; funding support is being channelled through organisations like AGRA; and policy wider commitments are being affirmed by the IAASTD, the World Banks. World Development Report on agriculture and the discussions around the Global Partnership for Agriculture. And as this new book shows, there are two decades of „farmer first. experiences to build on. Gordon Conway, Chief Scientific Adviser at the UK Department for International Development (DFID) notes: “Twenty years on and the concepts and practices of Farmer First remain powerful and compelling, and even more relevant in today’s world”.

Joachim Voss, former Director General of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture in Colombia comments: “Farmer First has won broad acceptance by rigorously proving its superior efficiency in making science work for the poorest and most marginal farmers. It is indeed a pleasure to see how the established and dedicated practitioners, together with a new generation of committed young scientists, have built upon the original concepts and methods to create this dynamic, exciting and effective corpus of work. “

By Ian Scoones and John Thompson
12 February 2009

Our mission:

“to encourage dialogue and the sharing of good practice by policy makers and opinion formers in Africa on the role of agriculture in broad based growth”. But aren’t others doing this? CAADP (with the legitimacy of an international governmental process) and AGRA, IFPRI and others (with lots of money)…..likely to be others, So where do we fit?, What do we do that is different?

FAC niche
A diverse partnership

• Dialogue and deliberation – opening up the debate.
• Embedded in local settings – but linking to the wider debates
• Independent, flexible, agile, responsive.
• Able to challenge, critique and confront
• Communications – linking findings to wide audiences
• Relationship with DFID – bridging research and policy.

{jathumbnail off}{jcomments off}