{jathumbnail off}This paper reviews social protection and agriculture policies in Malawi in order to explorethe links, synergies and conflicts that lie between them. It begins with brief backgroundinformation about Malawi, in terms of its economic and welfare indicators.

Particularemphasis is placed on understanding agricultural and social protection policies within thecontext of

(a) political issues and

(b) market and livelihood development.

This is followed witha review of agricultural and social protection policies, their interactions and their impacts onlivelihoods and welfare. Specific attention is given to evolving input subsidy policies whichare of particular relevance to this review. We conclude with a discussion of lessons that canbe learned from Malawian experience with agriculture and social protection.

Before examining specific agricultural and social protection policies in terms of their evolutionand outcomes, it is important to place these in context. We focus on three particular (andinter-related) aspects of context, the political context (as this affects the policy choices thatpoliticians make), the economic context (as this affects the policy demands, resources andhence options), and the agricultural and rural livelihood context (as this affects the policydemands and policy outcomes).

A broad historical understanding is critical in understandingthese contexts, and table 1 sets out major pertinent events since 1990/91. The Economic Context With more than 55% of its rural population in poverty and 24% ultra-poor in 2004/5(National Statistical Office, 2005, and GNI per capita of around 170 US$, Malawi is oneof the poorest countries in the world, as evidenced by a range of social and economic indicators. Many people in Malawi are characterized by high levels ofvulnerability, due to the fragility of their livelihoods, susceptibility to shocks, and largenumbers of non-poor people living just above the poverty line (Devereux et al., 2006).

Various explanations have been advanced for the persistent under-performance of agriculturein many African countries, where smallholder farming is still the dominant livelihood activity and the main source of employment, food and income. Some of the oldest argumentsremain the most compelling.

African farmers face harsh agro-ecologies and erratic weather,characterised by low soil fertility, recurrent droughts and/or floods, and increasingly unpredictable weather patterns associated with climate change. Vulnerability to shocks is compounded by infrastructure deficits (roads and transport networks, telecommunications,potable water and irrigation) that keep poor communities poor and vulnerable, as testifiedby the phenomenon observed during livelihood crises of steep food price gradients fromisolated rural villages to densely settled urban centres.

African farmers have also been inadequately protected against the forces of globalisation and adverse international terms oftrade – for instance, Western farmers and markets are heavily protected in ways that African farmers and markets are not. Finally, African agriculture has been the subject of numerous experiments – strategies,policies, programmes and projects – from ‘Integrated Rural Development Programmes’(IRDPs) in the 1960s to ‘Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers’ (PRSPs) in the 1990s.

Perhaps the most significant intervention of the last half-century was agricultural liberalisation,promoted under the ‘structural adjustment’ reform umbrella during the 1980s and 1990s. Following inconclusive evidence on the impacts of these policy reform processes, the debatecontinues over whether agricultural liberalisation was a good idea badly implemented by‘refusenik’ African governments, or a bad idea doomed to fail, that was imposed on African governments against their better judgement and against the interests of their poor andvulnerable citizens, many of whom are small farmers.

This debate is relevant to our topic,since government interventions in agriculture (pre-liberalisation) were motivated by concerns to achieve household and national food security, both by supporting agricultural growth and by protecting farmers against agricultural risks and market failures.

{jathumbnail off}This Working Paper draws on nearly twenty years of research in several African countries,on the inter-related themes of food insecurity, seasonality, coping strategies, famine, form a land in formal safety nets, and social protection. The paper has three objectives:

• to document and synthesise evidence on the nature and consequences of 1seasonality across rural Africa, highlighting the similarities and convergencesacross contexts;
• to explore the various policy interventions that have been implemented in 2 response to seasonality, with particular reference to the emerging social protectionagenda;
• to argue that current approaches to social protection are misconceived and 3inadequate for addressing the seasonal dimensions of rural vulnerability.

2 Seasonality and ‘coping’ in four African countries

2.1 Seasonality is an under-reported food and health crisis that impoverishes and kills Africansevery year; only its severity and duration vary across households and over time. In rain-fedfarming systems, where smallholders depend on a single rainy season for most of their staple food needs, the annual ‘hungry season’ or soudure can last from a few weeks to several months, depending on the extent of food production, self-sufficiency achieved in a given year.

The rhythm of rural life in much of Africa is entirely dictated by this inflexible seasonal calendar, but the relative success or failure of this way of life is determined by the unpredictable behaviour of the weather. The mechanism is straight forward, repetitive as the calendar, and relentless. Smallholders prepare their plots while waiting for the rains to start, then they plant their seeds, then they pray that the rains will be adequate and well.

{jathumbnail off}
1. Seasonal hunger is predictable, can be understood and there are tested solutions

2. What happens during seasonal hunger and what happens in famine differs only in severity – Sequencing of coping remains largely the same

3. Moreover the link between them is causal: a chain of shocks leads to the erosion of resilience of a whole community, turning the “normal” seasonal hunger into a major catastrophe.

• Production failures
• Reduction of off-farm employment opportunities
• Hazards
• Action or inaction in the corridors of power Seasonality: father of all famine
• Famine can not be stopped unless seasonal hunger is stopped

{jcomments off}

{jathumbnail off} Community-based management of acutemalnutrition programs

• Child growth promotion programs (maternal andchild nutrition, especially from pregnancy to age 3)
• Seasonal employment programs
• Social pensions for those unable to work

A “minimum essential package” for fighting seasonal hunger, How much would universalizing a minimum essential package cost annually?

Indicative, order-of-magnitude estimates…

– CMAM programs: £0.96 to £1.87 billion to treat world’s 19 million severely acutely malnourished children
– Child growth promotion: £3.82 to £7.44 billion for approximately 600 million preschool children living in poor countries
– Seasonal employment programs: £15 to £27 billion at 100 days/yearand £1/day wage transfer for an estimated 200 million extremely poor households, plus administrative etc. costs
– Social pensions: £6.03 to £12.21 billion at 50p/day to 30 million elderly in the poorest countries

Total cost of package: £25.81 – £48.52 billion

• less than 0.1% of global GDP0.
• 1% of UK GDP equals about 4p/day per person
• less than 7% of annual military spending worldwide From Policy to Rights
• The right to food

-Included in international covenants: International Covenant Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Convention on the Rights of the Child

-Primary objective of covenants is to guide the incorporation of rights into national law

-Enforcement of the right to food has the effect of converting discretionary policy into legal entitlements

-India example of how legal protection of the right to food can have practical impact…
{jcomments off}

{jathumbnail off}By John Omiti

Cross-country co-ordination issues
Commercialization – Gem Arwings Kodhek / Steve Wiggins

Social Protection – Lydia Ndirangu/ Stephen Devereux
Country co-ordination – John Omiti / John Thompson

Challenges of FAC Research – 1
Carry-over from Phase 1

– Fertiliser paper (Karuti/Atieno)

• Lack of Country Advisory committee
• Objections from some national members
• Slow Disbursements of funds

– leads to slow implementation

– loss of good field assistants

Carry-over from Phase 1

– Fertiliser paper (Karuti/Atieno)

• Lack of Country Advisory committee
• Objections from some national members
• Diminishing interest by some members
• Cross-country co-ordination issues
• Slow Disbursements of funds

– leads to slow implementation

– loss of good field assistants

Challenges of FAC Research – 2

• Data problems Time series and Cross-sectional
• Sharing mechanisms
• 5. Exchange rate variations
• £ vs. €£ vs. $
• Slow or ineffective implementation
• Future Research Themes
• Kenya Vision 2030
• High input cost Inappropriate land use practices
• Limited application of agricultural technology and innovation
• Weak farmer institutions
• Poor livestock husbandry practice limited extension services
• Over-dependence on rain-fed agriculture
• Inadequate credit facilities
• DfID (2008-2013)
• New agriculture technologies
• High value agriculture in areas of medium to high potential
• Rural economic Risk, vulnerability and adaptation
• Market Managing natural resources
• Future Prospects Appear pretty good! Strong stakeholder interest Good research output coming thru! Cross-country work very promising for policy uptake/outcomes.{jcomments off}

Didn’t get started until December

– Long delay in contracts (DFID contract, PP time allocation)
– Getting team together (methodology and detailed planning for MoA district study)

• Main policy engagement: Tuesday fertiliser workshop
• MoA study:
  – Secondary data collection started
  – Field work to begin next week
  – Draft reports by March 31st, workshops June
• Draft review of SWAps in agriculture (Lidia)  

Vision

• Integrating political economy, institutional and technocratic perspectives on how and why agricultural policies are made
  –Linking broad governance to agricultureStraddles Sustainable Agriculture and Governance themes of DFID Research Strategy

Role and Performance of Ministries of Agriculture and Rural Development

• Role in 21st century
• What they actually do and why
• How well they do this and how to improve it

–Including potential for stakeholder participation in planning and evaluation

• Phase 1: 2 districts in each of Kenya and Malawi
• This year: 2 more districts in Kenya, 1 in Malawi

– Chosen by both agro-ecology and politics

• Year 2: Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Ghan

– Action research component?

Relevance

• Ministry capacity (regulator, coordinator, service provider?) fundamental to:

– efforts on commercialisation, technology adoption
– CAADP objectives (10% budget target)

• Extension debates:
  – AGRA stockist model, FIPS, NAADS

– Is there any future for public delivery?
– “Mixed ecology” approach

Relevance to DFID Research Strategy
Little under Sust Ag, but Governance (Building Strong and Effective States) envisages research on:“… decentralisation and the role of local organisations and the private sector in delivering services. We will also examine the importance of a government’s financial management in the relationship between the state and the people. We will continue to examine the link between power, politics and the relationships between society and the state. We will ask how these shape development as well as contribute to holding the state to account to its actions.” [p33]

{jathumbnail off}OUTPUTS  (1):   Working Paper series

WP01       Building Synergies between Social Protection and Smallholder Agricultural Policies
WP02       Agriculture and Social Protection in Malawi
WP03       Agriculture and Social Protection in Ethiopia
WP04       Agriculture and Social Protection in Ghana
WP05       Agriculture and Social Protection in Kenya
WP06       Social Protection for Agricultural Growth in Africa
WP07       Seasonality and Social Protection in Africa 

OUTPUTS  (2):   Briefing Paper series

FAC BP                    The Global Fertiliser Crisis and Africa
GSP BP01                Agriculture and Social Protection in Africa
GSP BP03                Agriculture and Social Protection in Malawi
GSP BP03                Agriculture and Social Protection in Ethiopia
GSP BP04                Agriculture and Social Protection in Ghana 

{jathumbnail off}Aim:

• to examine relation of commercialisation of small farming
• to levels of food security andother variations amongst households such as assets
• to see how much intervention overcomes potential failures in factor & product marketsto observe early results

Method:

• Study comparable communities of small and poor farmers subject to intervention to facilitate more commercialised production
• Three areas of Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi
• Observe outset of intervention, return two or one year later
• Combination of qualitative study +  small household surveys
• Start of studies to be staggered: 08/09 Kenya; 09/10 Ethiopia, Malawi
• But not possible to begin in Kenya during current year Plan for 09/10 & onwards

{jathumbnail off}Everyone is agreed that one of the central components of achieving an „African Green Revolution. is totackle the widespread soil fertility constraints in African agriculture. To this end, AGRA – the Alliance fora Green Revolution in Africa – has launched a major new „Soil Health. programme aimed at 4.1 millionfarmers across Africa, with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation committing $198 million to the effort www.agra-alliance.org/section/work/soils).

The Abuja declaration, following on from the African Fertilizer Summit of 2006 set the scene for major investments in boosting fertilizer supplies www.africafertilizersummit.org/Abuja) Fertilizer Declaration in English.pdf). CAADP – the Comprehensive  African Agricultural Development Programme – has been active in supporting the follow up to the summit, particularly through its work on improving markets and trade www.triomedia.co.za/work/nepad/newsletters/2008/issue212_15Feb2008.html#toc1 ).

Other initiativesabound – the Millennium Villages programme (http://www.millenniumvillages.org/), Sasakawa-Global 2000 www.saa-tokyo.org/english/sg2000/), the activities of the Association for Better Land Husbandry,among many others. All see soil fertility as central, although the suggested solutions and policy.requirements are very different..But what are the policy frameworks that really will increase soil fertility in ways that will boost production. in a sustainable fashion; where the benefits of the interventions are widely distributed, meeting broader.aims of equitable, broad-based development? Here, there is much less precision and an urgent need for a concrete debate.

For this reason, the Future Agricultures Consortium has decided to invite a wide range of participants to debate some key issues around the way forward for policy, and associated institutional arrangements.

Interlocking uncertainties: new challenges for food and agriculture

The interlocking food, fuel, financial and climate crises present major challenges fordevelopment. This is particularly so in Africa – and for the poor across the world. The bottom billion is now not only resource poor, but hungry too. The shocks of recent years are unprecedented: they interact in ways that create extreme poverty traps,   increasing the vulnerability of the poor – and especially women and children.

Such shocks are felt especially acutely in so-called fragile states where governance is weak and the potential for conflict is high. Already facing extreme risks and challenging livelihoods, poor people must now deal with deep, interacting and interlocking uncertainties. Increasingly the consequence of a complex, interconnected and globalised world, extreme volatility will remain a feature of the development landscape. Coping with and proofing against such risks and uncertainties must be the core challenge of any international development endeavour.

Addressing food insecurity and hunger lies at the heart of this. MDG1 has stated our global ambitions. But the recent combination of food, fuel and finance shocks, and the long term stress of climate change, has set us back. Even approaching the targets looks like a forlorn hope. But there are solutions to these challenges; although recent events put these into new perspective, adding a new urgency to the task.

The immediate effort, particularly in Africa – but also in large parts of Asia – must be effective relief and social protection measures to avoid the already hungry becoming hungrier. The ‘silent tsunami’ of global hunger is a real phenomenon, and it has not gone away with the reversal of the food and fuel price hikes of 2008. The financial crisis adds to the burden, as remittance flows dry up and economies slow down. A major effort to ensure a basic safety net is needed to offset the negative impacts of extreme price, production and market volatility that affect the poor.

The prevailing orthodoxy is to see the problem of smallholder agriculture in Ethiopia strictly as a technical and resource related problem. This view identifi es the low level of agricultural productivity as the key problem. In response, the government of Ethiopia has since the mid 1990s, implemented a high-profi le, national technologyled extension programme. But has this worked, and what are the limitations of such a strategy?

The Smallholder Intensification Programme

The Ethiopian government’s development strategy centres on ‘Agricultural Development Led Industrialization’. A ‘green revolution’-like intensifi cation of smallholder agriculture was seen as key. Policymakers assumed that signifi cant productivity growth could be easily achieved by improving farmers’ access to technologies which would narrow the yield gap. Researchers identified crop technology packages that could make a huge difference.

They indicated that maize yield, for instance, can be increased from current farmers’ yields of 1.6 tonnes/ha to 4.7 tonnes/ha, if farmers used the right type and amount of improved seed varieties, fertilizers and other recommended practices. The ‘Participatory Agricultural Demonstration Training Extension System’ (PADETES) thus aimed to attain yield improvements at a national level, based on the much touted experience of the Sasakawa Global 2000 programme.

The strategy was a technology-based, supply-driven intensifi cation which consisted of enhanced supply and promotion of improved seeds, fertilizers, onfarm demonstrations of improved farm practices and technologies,improved credit supply for the purchase of inputs and close follow up of farmers’ extension plots

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. 

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

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

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

Wrap-up

• All these activities should be about process – but still debate about how narrow/broad the focus should be on particular content
• Climate change/environmental sustainability – needs to be there, but shouldn’t drive the agenda – how do changes in climate affect the way we think about innovation systems? What are the factors – environmental and other – that affect them?
• Off the shelf technologies – not just about getting them into farmers’ hands – must address governance and policy issues – examining the social and political trajectories that technologies travel will inform these debates
• Particular projects and their focus:

1. a broader approach to livestock would be useful, but focus on pastoral issues makes most sense
2. would hope this would provide a platform for interacting with CG, reg’l research orgs, NARS, NGO networks, etc.

• Need a more elaborate process to develop broader strategy for FAC work in STI à develop fuller proposal for Consortium to review
• Innovation systems perspective has been there for some time – big challenge of programmes like Research Into Use and CG Challenge Programmes is operationalisation and developing and sustaining ‘stakeholder innovation platforms’ – many unanswered questions à CIMMYT struggling with this too
• Role of gov’t – Ministries of S&T struggling with developing innovation output indicators to demonstrate impacts. MSTs weak in coordination and resource mobilisation
• Regulation key issue – PPPs – incentive structure for interaction very weak, incoherence in the system à whole governance structure needs to be examined in this area

Ethiopia team has expanded to new thematic areas for FAC:

1. Investing in agriculture and pastoralism and ‘future pastoralisms’ – understanding patterns of investment – rural/urban, agric/pastoral areas
2. Climate change, environment and sustainable development – building on capacity on CC, understanding impact on Ethiopian agriculture
3. Future farmers and pastoralists – a passion for us, coming out of original consultations with youth and children, one reason agriculture has stagnated is loss of youth – how to attract back to agriculture
   

Challenges

• Phase I – FAC Ethiopia team made the best of limited policy space by continuous dialogue, non-threatening approach, and building social capital. This will continue in Phase II.
• However, policy space is getting narrower due to a new law governing charities and societies. Will affect work across the board! Government has given all NGOs one year to wrap up programmes, must register all again in 2010 – may close many down.
• Various working groups set up but difficult to get moving – 7 task groups to identify key issues/priorities, then bring to core group to develop common strategy – but question of incentives/expectations.
• Untimely budget release to undertake fieldwork led to uncertainties.
• With respect to Social Protection, the theme still has a very low profile in MoLSA – because of limited resources, urban focused, but we are trying to include this in consultations. Need to identify good institutions to maintain momentum.

Activities

• National Stakeholder workshop is being held in June this year.
• Progress on the Commercialisations and Social Protection methodology.
• Working to raise the visibility level of FAC at the national level.
• People are interested and knowledgeable and many places (e.g. institutions, universities) are working on agriculture.
• FAC has good institutional members (i.e. KIPPRA, Tegemeo) that are solid. As well, FAC has links with other partners (CIAT, ICRAF, etc.)
  
• The success of the Fertiliser Workshop proves commitment and interest; even the private sector attended the workshop, which is a good sign.
• FAC Kenya produces credible material (e.g. reporting to Dfid)
• Cross-country work is very promising.
• Work continues to be carried over from Phase I and work on fertiliser subsidies (Gem, Colin + Karuti + Rosemary) will be finished soon
• Setting up the advisory group proved difficult. FAC had names last year – senior fellows in Ministries which were floated with other members but it was felt there was too much government. More names from CSOs – no names are not forthcoming. Committee was never constituted, as nominations could not be decided upon.
• FAC is looking to Tegemeo to include as partner.
• But these are informal collections – no formal mechanism to control membership. Things are being incrementally institutionalised but we’re a network with unclear formula for non-compliance.
• This is a critical stage for us. In Kenya, July meeting was our attempt to come up with solutions – we sought names “advisors on future agricultures” but may be too strong. “advisory” is sensitive to government.
• FAC should think about what it needs first – advocacy, advice, authority. Accountability – it’s a loose and organise organisation (FAC) growing organically – a typical network. Think carefully FAC needs the Ministry – otherwise FAC will end up so it can’t advise etc.
• The “advisory group” is not really advocacy but a ‘critical friend’ that comments on our work.

Discussion

• Setting up the advisory group proved difficult. FAC had names last year – senior fellows in Ministries which were floated with other members but it was felt there was too much government. More names from CSOs – no names are not forthcoming. Committee was never constituted, as nominations could not be decided upon.
• FAC is looking to Tegemeo to include as partner.
• But these are informal collections – no formal mechanism to control membership. Things are being incrementally institutionalised but we’re a network with unclear formula for non-compliance.
• This is a critical stage for us. In Kenya, July meeting was our attempt to come up with solutions – we sought names “advisors on future agricultures” but may be too strong. “advisory” is sensitive to government.
• FAC should think about what it needs first – advocacy, advice, authority. Accountability – it’s a loose and organise organisation (FAC) growing organically – a typical network. Think carefully FAC needs the Ministry – otherwise FAC will end up so it can’t advise etc.
• The “advisory group” is not really advocacy but a ‘critical friend’ that comments on our work.

Circumstances in Malawi are similar to those in Kenya: there is limited policy space. As well, there is an impending general election so after May 09 there should be more openings in Ministry of Agriculture that will want to talk about way forward.

Core team – Ephraim Chirwa, Blessings Chinsinga (Policy Processes), Andrew Dorward (GSP)

Progress

• Advisory Group – preliminary consultations are done – key ministries still being approached, but change of PS/directors in MoAFS problematic – policy environmental sensitivity.
• Ministry of Agriculture – most of civil society is interested in agriculture but they lack the analytical capacity to engage effectively with the Ministry. If the ministry is not interested in this group, should we continue planning? For us, the main challenge is engagement. Subsidy programme has become so political; nobody wants to talk about (not at least until May 19).
• Theme of agricultural growth: many policy workshops in Malawi and within the region. Social protection process has stalled but has been retained on the basis that the ministry did not have active consultation. They are sitting back and wanting to restart the process but will wait until after the election. Not going to be an issue before the election.
• Challenge MoAFS – General election in May 09. Will slow process. Official invitations will only be made after Ministry is on board as part of AG. May improve after the elections.
• Also participated in farmer organisation study – touches on commercialisation
• Agriculture growth and commercialisation – work in progress on seasonality – we should have a draft working paper by the end of the year.
• We have engaged at various levels (including Andrew) for evaluation of Malawi input subsidy. Will help to inform results from first evaluation.
• We have participated in regional and international workshops at the level of policy makers (e.g. Salzburg). Policy makers (SADC) were there and this was significant. Ministries of Ag form SADC countries also.
• Jatorpha – marketing it as a commercial crop among smallholders. They want to do a baseline and monitor. It’s a five-year project. Sampling will look at adoption rates. Related to the Commercialisation theme, coffee etc. is not a crop for farmers. Japtropha is a different product with little experience about marketing this. We have been contracted to do the baseline but no funds mean we have not started.
• Also participated in farmer organisation study – touches on commercialisation
• Ag growth and commercialisation – work in progress on seasonality – we should have a draft working paper by the end of the year.
• We have engaged at various levels (including Andrew) for evaluation of Malawi input subsidy. Will help to inform results from first evaluation.
• We have participated in regional and international workshops at the level of policy makers (e.g. Salzburg). Policy makers (SADC) were there and this was significant. Ministries of Ag form SADC countries also.
• Policy processes theme – problems like delay in funding changed plans. First phase we were in two districts, we propose to add a district in the north and bring all farmers together in workshop.

{jathumbnail off}“Agriculture is the mainstay of the Ethiopian Economy”. This statement has almost become acliché for development professionals in Ethiopia. Those who went to school 50 years ago,read it; and later on wrote about it. So has the present generation. The Report on the Ethiopian Economy, Volume IV (EEA/EEPRI, 2004/05:10) stated, for example:“…agriculture is the main stay of the Ethiopian economy and the most volatile sector….mainly due to its dependence on rain and the seasonal shocks that are frequently observed”.

As things stand, our children and grandchildren will be repeating this refrain for generations to come. Yet, the sector has been unable to realise its potential and contribute significantly to economic development. How can we change this? In the Ethiopian context, agriculture is proving to be the most complex sector to understand. On the one hand, it contributes the largest share to GDP, export trade and earnings, and employs 84% (PASDEP, 2006) of the population.

On the other hand, despite such socio-economic importance, the performance of the sector is very low due to many natural and man-made factors. As a result, Ethiopia is characterised by large food self-sufficiency gap atnational level and food insecurity at household level (EEA/EEPRI, 2004/05:145). Whereas in the Northern highlands, farmers struggle to make ends meet on completely degraded land, in the South and Southwestern part of the country, people live in extremepoverty in the midst of plenty – fertile land and relatively preserved environment.

Tocomplicate matters further, the country’s future is pinned on agriculture as demonstrated in a statement by the Prime Minister of Ethiopia in 2000.

{jathumbnail off}Agricultural input subsidies were a common element in agricultural development in poor rural economies in the 1960s and 70s, including successful green revolutions. Although subsidies have continued, to a greater and lesser extent, in some countries, conventional wisdom as well as dominant donor thinking in the 80s and 90s was that subsidies had been ineffective and inefficient policy instruments in Africa, which contributed to government overspending and fiscal and macroeconomic problems.

Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in agricultural input subsidies in Africa, together with the emergence of innovative subsidy-delivery systems. These developments, together with new insights into development processes, make it necessary to revisit the conventional wisdom on subsidies.

This should include an examination of the various development opportunities and constraints facing African farmers, a review of recent experience with input subsidies, and a thorough reexamination of the role played by agricultural input subsidies in the Asian green revolution.

{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.

{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.

{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?