Extending Conservation Agriculture benefits at landscape through Agricultural Innovation Platforms

1. Extending Conservation Agriculture benefits at landscape through Agricultural Innovation Platforms Michael Misiko Agricultural Anthropologist, CIMMYT 1st Africa Congress on Conservation Agriculture (1ACCA) Lusaka, Zambia March 18– 21, 2014

2. Working definition of AIP • A “network of organisations, enterprises, and individuals focused on bringing new agricultural (products, processes, forms of organisation into economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect their behaviour and) performance” (World Bank 2007)

3. Background Rationale for agricultural IPs Agricultural Innovation Platforms Now 2000+ = e.g. Interactive learning, integrated resource management, innovation, partnerships, systems approach IAR4D In spite of this evolution of approaches, agricultural research is generally sectoral and fragmented with poor stakeholder linkages (Lynam and Blackie, 1994) Participatory approaches – farmer centred e.g. FFS, PTD 1990s Systems focus – farmer consulted 1970s Technology (linear transfer) – research/ extension driven 1960s

4. Problem and objective • Focusing CA promotion at farm-level only cannot ensure the range of benefits and adoption possibilities • Conservation Agriculture requires systematic approaches, especially through multifunctional AIP formed along critical value chains • The goal of this paper is therefore to illustrate how CA benefits can be harnessed at landscape level, through AIP approach

5. Justification for AIP in CA • Natural Resources Management is perceived as bringing limited short term benefits • CA has potential for short term/ farm-level benefits, necessary for long term and communal benefits • The scope for communal NRM at landscape scale is dwindling • Farmers residing up-the-hill and down-the-hill need to work in a structured, synchronised manner • A structured entity is needed to ensure residents synchronise their actions by having a mutual plan (Makini et al., 2013; Nederlof and Pyburn 2012)

6. Methods • Literature review, secondary sources on role of AIP • The case of Bungoma South Farming Innovation Platform – SIMLESA (BUSOFIPs) in western Kenya • An illustrative and sequential evaluation • BUSOFIPs has significance for many African smallholder contexts • Field visits among CA practicing farmers • Participant observation among AIP actors • Institutional mapping and analyses of local Maize Value Chain in Bungoma

7. Targeting sustainability at landscape • Africa has the twin problem of NRM and farm productivity • Agriculture often happens at the expense of NRM • Agriculture through CA can be a solution to degradation • Smallholders share few resources • they farm on individual plots and prioritise few landscape activities • Initiatives that yield shorter term benefits can be conjoined with NRM programmes that target elusive longer term results • CA in SIMLESA is an entry point to conjoin many initiatives, including incentives for short term and long term benefits

8. Agricultural Innovation Platforms, CA and Natural Resources Management • Like most NRM initiatives CA is difficult to recommend • AIP brings together a diversity of initiatives for enabling CA adoption • Synchronising complementary initiatives into structured multi-stakeholder processes with multiple benefits • Combined or structured actions • create many more immediate benefits – see figure 1 • assist residents to initiate, and • sustain CA practices necessary to build longer term benefits for natural resources management

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

10. Targeting landscape through complementarity of actors and actions • BUSOFIPs is providing a framework for locals to engage outside institutions for innovation • AIP structures supporting multifunctional action for different livelihood styles – figure 2 (Misiko et al. 2013) • Cultivators, herders collaborate beyond mere efforts to adopt CA

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

12. Conclusions • AIP ensure benefits do not simply add up, or are only generated, but rather create new ones quickly to ensure long term ones are realised e.g. reduced conflicts resulting from degradation, etc. • In the immediate term, farmers save production costs, labour, produce commercially for markets, save money that would be spend on fodder, save land from animal degradation, and so on. • Entry points may not necessarily be land management, but rather in business models that bring farmers reduced costs, etc. critical for sustained CA implementation to realise landscape benefits.

13. References • Adekunle A.A. and Fatunbi A.O (2012). Approaches for Setting-up Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for Agricultural Research and Development. World Applied Sciences Journal 16(7): 981-988. • Makini, F.W., Kamau, G.M., Makelo, M.N., Adekunle, W., Mburathi, G.K., Misiko, M., Pali, P. and Dixon, J. 2013. Operational field guide for developing and managing local agricultural innovation platforms. Nairobi: KARI and ACIAR. • Misiko. M., Mundy, P. and Ericksen, P. 2013. Innovation Platforms to support natural resource management. Innovation Platforms Practice Brief 11. ILRI, Nairobi Kenya • Nederlof, E.S. and Pyburn, R. 2012. One finger cannot lift a rock. Facilitating innovation platforms to trigger institutional change in West Africa. Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam. • World Bank. 2012. Agricultural Innovation Systems: an Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

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

15. Thank you! Foes for innovation!