GEF-6 INTEGRATED APPROACH PILOT ON SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE FOR FOOD SECURITY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Transcription

1 GEF-6 INTEGRATED APPROACH PILOT ON SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE FOR FOOD SECURITY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Background Information on Target Geographies 12 August 2014

2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction The Sahel Zone East African Highlands Horn of Africa Southern Africa Institutional Context for Food Security National Governments GEF Agencies Regional Entities Private Sector and Civil Society Organizations Research Organizations Annex 1 Country Data... 1 SAHEL... 1 Distribution of Farming Systems... 1 Population and Food Security... 1 Agriculture... 2 Environmental constraints... 3 EAST AFRICA HIGHLANDS... 4 Distribution of Farming Systems... 4 Population and Food Security East Africa... 4 Agriculture East Africa... 5 Environmental constraints... 5 HORN OF AFRICA... 5 Distribution of Farming Systems... 5 Population and Food Security... 6 Agriculture... 6 Environmental constraints... 6 SOUTHERN AFRICA... 7 Distribution of Farming System... 7 Population and Food Security... 7 Agriculture

3 Environmental constraints... 8 Annex 2. Yield Gains and Carbon Potential (Forest Trends et al, 2010)... 9 Annex 3 Proposed Integrated Management Priorities for Scaling-up Bibliography

4 GEF-6 Integrated Approach Pilot on Sustainability and Resilience for Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa 1 1. Introduction In order to ensure outcomes that are consistent with GEF mandate, the IAP will be anchored in specific agro-ecological contexts where the need for food security is linked directly to opportunities for generating global environmental benefits. This includes areas prone to environmental crisis leading to food insecurity; that have potential for improvement and scaling up based on evidence; with some success to build on; and with evidence of grassroots engagement demonstrating ownership and sustainability. Based on these criteria, the IAP will target the following geographies, which together comprise five of the most important farming/livelihood systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (Map 1): Sahel the Guinea-Savanna dominated by cereal-root crop and agro-pastoral systems Eastern Africa Highlands areas dominated by mixed and perennial farming systems, with high population densities Horn of Africa high and low potential areas, including pastoral systems prone to extreme food shortages Southern Africa the crop-livestock systems in the sub-humid zone, with maize as the dominant food crop The purpose of this brief is to highlight the agro-ecological contexts of food production and food value chains in these target areas, including dominant farming systems, and the biophysical, social, and ecological constraints associated with smallholder practices. It also highlights options and approaches for promoting sustainability and resilience, including institutional contexts for influencing action under the proposed IAP. Relevant data on countries in each of the target geographies are presented in a separate annex, followed by a detailed list of references. 1.1 The Sahel Zone The Sahel target geography is defined as the portion of the Guinea-Savanna agro-ecological zone which is dominated by agro-pastoral and cereal-root crop mixed farming systems. It represents 1 Note: Detailed Description of the IAP is included in the GEF-6 Programming Document, which is available from - 4

5 37% of the total land area of the 18 countries through which it passes, covering about 3.2 million km 2 for the two farming systems out of a total land area of 8.4 million km (Table 1). 2 In the farming systems map this corresponds to the livelihood zones or farming systems #3 (agropastoral) and #5 (cereal-root crop). Map 2 below presents these two zones as currently defined in the FAO s farming systems GIS database. Map 1. Sub-Saharan Africa Dryland Farming Systems (with target geographies for the IAP) Although the two farming systems are very close in spatial terms, important contrasts can be noted (see Box 1). In particular, the semi-arid agro-pastoral system is thought to have modest potential for agricultural growth and poverty reduction (other than exit from agriculture), with food insecurity mainly due to high risk of drought as well as low soil fertility. Conversely, the adjacent cereal-root crop mixed system is considered to have strong potential for agricultural growth through intensification, expansion of farm size, and diversification to higher value 2 Note that many datasets do not yet include South Sudan, which became independent in July This report provides data for South Sudan where available, and notes where data apply only to Sudan before the partition. 5

6 products. Soil moisture management and soil fertility interventions are critical in both zones, thus combining them within the same target geography appears to be a practical approach even though there are also important differences. (Interestingly, the population density appears to be slightly higher in the agro-pastoral area than in the cereal-root crop area). Table 1. Sahel Zone Target Area and Population Farming/livelihood System Area (km 2 ) % Population % Pop. Density (per km 2) Agro-pastoral millet sorghum 1,272, ,755, Cereal-root crop mixed 2,023, ,787, Total 3,295, ,542, Map 2. The Sahel Target Geography 6

7 For the zone as a whole, the cereal-root crop mixed system accounts for a larger share of the area and population although both areas are very large in absolute terms. For comparison, the total area of this target zone is only slightly smaller than that of India (3.17 mill. km 2 vs mill. km 2 ) and its population is slightly more than Russia s (143.5 million vs. 142 million). 3 Box 1 Challenges and Opportunities of Farming Systems in the Sahel a. Cereal-Root Crop Mixed System The cereal-root crop mixed area lies within the northern part of the Guinea Savanna zone, which in recent years has become recognized as an area of major potential growth in Africa s agricultural sector (Dixon 2001, World Bank 2009). A World Bank study has termed this area Africa s Sleeping Giant and significant expectations have been raised for expanding output, although this requires major investments in infrastructure such as roads to enable market access as well as improved access to agricultural services which are needed to support crop diversification. Control of onchocerciasis is one important factor which has opened new areas to cultivation, while tsetse control has also enabled expansion in livestock numbers, and may also permit increased use of animal traction which would help in increasing average farm sizes. At present most farming is of annual crops (maize, sorghum, millet, cotton, cassava, soybean and cowpea, with some yam and wetland rice in wetter southern areas) using minimum inputs and producing very low yields. In the longer term, this area may have potential to expand into export production where transport costs can be reduced through improving the road network. The conventional model of high-input agriculture (mechanization, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, reliance on monocropping) is unsustainable and in any case beyond the reach of most smallholder farmers in the region (though it could be the default model for large-scale contract farming as this is currently taking place elsewhere in Africa). Many of the governments in this region have already been forced to abandon costly programs such as fertilizer subsidies, which in some cases had temporarily supported yield increases. Overall, agricultural extension services in the region are weak to non-existent. A strategy to link conservation farming, integrated pest management and crop-livestock integration has been proposed as a pathway toward ensuring that output increases can be environmentally sustainable and within the means of smallholder farming families ( evergreen agriculture ). This model combines lowtillage cultivation with cover crops and mulching, and growing fodder crops which are cut and carried to animals confined in pens or stalls, whose manure is then used for composting and mulching. Control of grazing is an essential element of this strategy, together with improved land husbandry to maintain soil fertility. b. Agro-pastoral Millet and Sorghum The agro-pastoral millet and sorghum farming system is drier than the cereal-root crop area, and households face significant risks of drought as well as crop loss from locusts and birds and loss of livestock from poor health or theft. These areas typically have minimal access to services (agricultural, health, educational) and the population may include formerly nomadic groups who now live in fixed villages though herds may continue to migrate seasonally (Box 2 describes a typical household). In this zone farming is inherently risky, and in the past research recommendations were sometimes 3 7

8 inappropriately focused on maximizing yield rather than stabilizing yield and reducing risk, which accounts for generally low adoption rates by farmers (Garrity et al 2012). Exit from agriculture is a key avenue for poverty reduction, but other options have also been identified which tend to parallel those already described for the cereal-root crop system, i.e. sustainable intensification, crop diversification, increased farm size, and improved land husbandry. However, the crucial elements in the agro-pastoral zone are related to water harvesting for which a number of traditional methods have been demonstrated to have significant potential (zaïs, demi-lunes, and contour bunds, as well as improved access to early-maturing and drought resistant sorghum and millet varieties, and natural regeneration of savanna vegetation (farmer-managed natural regeneration or FMNR ; see Winterbottom et al 2013). As many of these techniques entail significant labor requirements, households will need to view these as risk-minimizing investments with a strong chance of pay-off. Adjusting the timing of planting has also been shown to be an effective response to rainfall uncertainty. Tenure issues around grazing access and water rights are also important, as conflict between herders and farmers has been a serious issue in the Sahel region and could worsen under some climate change scenarios. Table 2. Yield increases for various management practices (Forest Trends 2010) Management practice Location Yield Gain (kg/ha) Percent gain Tied ridges, sorghum Burkina Faso ( ) % Zai, sorghum Burkina Faso ( ) 39 65% Zai +leaves, sorghum % Zai + compost, sorghum % Zai (tassa) + manure, millet Niger ( ) % Zai + manure, sorghum Mali ( ) % Water harvesting + soil conservation + organic Burkina Faso (2001) % material, sorghum and millet - as above Mali (2001) 1, % - as above Niger (2001) % - as above Senegal (2001) % Tied ridges + fertilizer, sorghum Burkina Faso ( ) % Zai + fertilizer, sorghum Burkina Faso ( ) 762 1,281% Zai + fertilizer + compost, sorghum Burkina Faso ( ) 979 1,645% Zai + fertilizer + manure, millet Niger ( ) % Mucuna with maize Benin (2001) % Organic cotton Senegal (2001) 0 0% Composting/organic fertilizer Benin ( ) 1, % A report by Forest Trends (2010) provides yield potential of various land management practices in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as water harvesting, soil conservation, use of organic or inorganic fertilizer, rotations with leguminous crops, fallows, and composting. For countries in the Sahel zone, most of the tested practices demonstrated significant yield improvements, though there is a wide range in terms of both absolute increase and percentage increase (Table 2). For example, 8

9 sorghum yield with tied ridges in Burkina Faso added 84 kg/ha in 1983 (19%) and 184 kg/ha in 1984 (53%), while zais used with fertilizer and compost on sorghum in Burkina Faso in produced increases of 979 kg/ha, an increase of over 1,600%. These data provide support for the significant food security benefits of improved water and soil management practices, but also indicate that caution is needed in projecting likely gains from a proposed project, or in extrapolating from one site or country to larger areas. Climate trends across this region have not been uniform: temperatures have been increasing overall and summer rains have declined since the 1970s in Ethiopia, southern and western Sudan, Uganda, and eastern Chad, but rains have remained relatively steady in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Senegal (though below the average), and in Niger have increased almost to the level of Yet cereal yields are low and stagnant in Niger while they have increased in Senegal, Mali and Burkina Faso. 4 An important entry point for the IAP in this region is the need for policy options to promote efficient soil and water management practices in the farming systems. The potential for sustainability and resilience will also be greatly enhanced by empowering smallholder farmers to diversify their farms through integration of trees and high value crops with increasing market potential. Such practices could also take into account the importance and role of livestock for achieving food security, and hence the need to ensure sustainable supply and access to livestock feed. 1.2 East African Highlands Although only covering two farming systems within a relatively small land area, the East African highlands cover a diverse range of biomes and ecosystems due to the diversity of elevations and soil types (including volcanic areas). Population densities are very high, and plot sizes tend to be very small below one hectare on average in the highland perennial zone, and 1-2 ha in the highland temperate mixed zone (Table 3). 4 Informing Climate Change Adaptation Series - Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS); USGS and USAID (2012) 9

10 Table 3. East African Highlands Target Area and Population Farming/livelihood System Area (km 2 ) % Population % Pop. Density (per km 2) Highland perennial 319, ,239, Highland temperate mixed 314, ,926, Total 634, ,165, The target geography includes the Ethiopian Highlands and the Albertine Rift Montane Forest systems, which are globally-recognized both in terms of biological importance as well as the severity of threat. Improved varieties (maize, wheat, teff and barley) have been shown to yield up to three times more production than traditional seeds, but availability and cost remain significant obstacles (Garrity et al 2012). Map 3. Farming Systems and Biomes in East African Highlands Diversification potential is recognized in these highlands, and can already be seen in highly successful cut flower exports by large commercial producers in Ethiopia and Kenya. But 10

11 smallholders need support in multiple areas in order for this to take off: improvement in rural roads, access to credit and inputs, improved tenure rights, and training in effective systems for sustainable intensification of agriculture. Government-led afforestation has reportedly been highly successful in revegetation of severely eroded highland areas in Ethiopia s Tigray province, but it is not yet clear how this experience can be replicated elsewhere. In this regard, a possible approach to achieving sustainability and resilience in this target geography is the creation of appropriate institutional frameworks at multiple scales to influence and promote increased diversification of the production systems. In particular, the integration of tree-based practices such as agroforestry will enable smallholder farmers to reduce loss of fertile soils and promote restoration of degraded slopes. In addition to successful models in Ethiopia, there are plans in Rwanda for such large-scale restoration efforts focusing specifically on smallholder production systems. The IAP will present a timely opportunity for alignment with food security needs to ensure long-term sustainability and resilience of the production systems. 1.3 Horn of Africa The area known as the Horn of Africa includes Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, and the northeastern part of Kenya. 5 Much of the Horn of Africa is covered by arid, pastoral and a modest amount of agro-pastoral systems. The arid and pastoral areas are considered to have low potential for interventions to significantly improve food production or reduce poverty, while the irrigated area is very small and limited to state-run schemes in Sudan (Gezira) and Ethiopia (Wabi Shebelle). The population density in this area is very low, even in comparison with the similar agro-pastoral areas in the Sahel, and a small fraction of the population densities found in the nearby East African Highlands (Table 4). Table 4. Horn of Africa Target Area and Population Farming/livelihood System Area % Population Pop. Density (km 2 ) (per km 2) Agro-pastoral millet/sorghum 171, ,158, Sometimes this area is termed the Greater Horn of Africa which then is taken to include pastoralist areas within Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, and even Chad (see Map 4) 11

12 The agro-pastoral system is similar to those in the Sahel, and also takes account of cereal-root crop mixed and maize mixed systems in Ethiopia (which also border the East Africa highland systems). Combining the Horn of Africa and East African Highland systems could be considered to simplify the IAP structure, given the significant degree of geographic overlap between the two. On the other hand, the issues and opportunities in these two zones are very different, which could justify maintaining them as separate program components. Map 4. Agro-pastoral system in Horn of Africa Many of the basic characteristics of this system are very similar to those described for the Sahel, above (and also for agro-pastoral areas in Southern Africa). Key aspects of the countries in this zone have been described in the East African Highlands discussion. Few data are available for Somalia, which has been considered a failed state since the early 1990s, and little is known about current conditions in the agriculture sector, although a major food aid program operates in accessible areas of the country. Somaliland Republic has been de facto operating as an independent entity and is reportedly more stable than other areas, but to date no other countries have recognized it as a separate state. The World Food Program describes the Horn of Africa as 12

13 the most food-insecure region in the world, with some 13 million people affected by drought and armed conflict. 6 Severe droughts took place in 2006 and 2011 but by late 2013 conditions had improved somewhat, although unrest has spread from Somalia into northeastern Kenya and this may also have localized implications for food security. A study by the International Committee of the Red Cross on the Horn of Africa found evidence of increasing frequency and severity of shocks, noting that cattle-owning households may take ten years to recover to self-sufficiency. 7 The study concluded that herd recovery rates are no longer sufficient to sustain the human population between shock cycles: this development suggests a terminal decline in the viability of pastoralism in its present form, and an urgent need for diversification. 8 Such diversification would need to include a shift from subsistence forms to market-oriented forms of livestock rearing, which will be hindered by lack of access to markets and disruption due to conflict. In this regard, the IAP will prioritize diversification as the entry point for this target geography, including an institutional framework that is supportive of smallholder farmers and agropastoralists. Emphasis will be placed on policy options and practices that empower the communities to harness market opportunities at appropriate scales. This will ensure a focus on sustainability and resilience 1.4 Southern Africa The Southern Africa target geography includes the southern area of the Guinea-Savanna biome which has been identified as Africa s high-potential zone for agricultural growth and poverty reduction. The region includes the maize-mixed, cereal-root crop mixed, and agro-pastoral millet/sorghum farming systems (Table 5). The cereal-root crop and agro-pastoral systems are similar to those in the other target geographies, which makes the maize-mixed system a priority for the Southern Africa region ICRC ICRC 2005, p.xiv. 13

14 The maize-mixed system represents an important share of the agricultural sector in several countries: Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe (Map 5). The system combines crops and livestock with maize being the predominant crop but also including a variety of other products such as pulses, oilseeds, cotton, sorghum, and millet. Cattle are the main type of livestock, supplemented with small ruminants and poultry. The growing season averages 190 days. This system is dominated by smallholders, but in several of the countries there is also a well-established large, commercial farming sector with access to improved seeds, fertilizer and pesticides, and better road access to markets than in many other parts of sub- Saharan Africa. This is reflected in much higher crop yields per hectare than in the other target geographies. There is also much less dependence on food imports. Table 5. Southern Africa Target Area and Population Farming/livelihood System Area (km 2 ) % Population Pop. Density (per km 2) Maize mixed 1,645, ,329, Cereal-root crop mixed 1,118, ,000, Agro-pastoral millet/sorghum 559, ,701, Total 3,323, ,031, Differences across the countries are also quite pronounced, for example demographic pressure on arable land, which is high in Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland at persons/km 2, but below 200 persons/ km 2 in South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. Prevalence of food inadequacy is below 5% in South Africa, but over 40% in most of the rest of the region. 9 The target geography is well known for use of fertilizer tree systems (FTS) by smallholder farmers, which have demonstrated improved crop yields as well as improvements in above-ground and soil carbon, biodiversity, water and soils in several countries in Southern Africa. The techniques are labor intensive but require little cash, which is an attractive situation for many smallholders; techniques (which include sequential fallows, semi-permanent intercropping, relay cropping and biomass transfer) need to be carefully tailored to specific ecological conditions but are reportedly now in use by hundreds of thousands of poor farmers in Malawi and Zambia (Ajayi et al, 2011). 9 Note that these statistics are at the country level, and are not disaggregated at the level of the farming systems. 14

15 Map 5. Farming Systems and Biomes in Southern Africa Table 6. Yield gains from improved management practices (Forest Trends et al 2010) Management practice Location Yield Gain (kg/ha) Percent gain Tied ridges, maize Zimbabwe (2000) 100% Sesbania sesban Zambia (2001) 2, % Tephrosia vogeli Zambia (2001-2) 1,500-1, % Agroforestry + contour grass hedges Malawi (2001) 1, % Organic cotton Tanzania (2001) 0% Inorganic fertilizer on maize Tanzania ( ) 2, % - as above Zambia ( ) 2,300-4, % A study by CIMMYT and IITA suggests that widespread adoption of drought-tolerant maize would result in yield improvements in the range of 3-20% (under a conservative scenario) and in the range of 10-34% (under a more optimistic scenario) with significant benefits for food security and household vulnerability to risk (LaRovere et al 2010). Research in Mozambique has shown that maize production is becoming increasingly vulnerable to heat and water stress during 15

16 the early part of the growing season, but by making changes to planting dates and seed types some of these losses could be mitigated (Harrison et al 2011). Models examining sequential cropping and adjusting of sowing dates also showed significant benefits in other parts of Africa (Waha et al, 2013). The 2010 Forest Trends report also provides information on yield gains from improved land and water management practices in the Southern Africa region (Table 6). The importance and extent of maize-mixed production systems across five countries in the target geography makes it strategic for the IAP. In addition to country-specific priorities to support smallholder farmers, institutional framework and policy options at the regional level may be crucial for influencing sustainability and resilience across the entire farming system. The potential for scaling-up soil and water management practices is high in this target geography. In countries such as Lesotho where declining productivity is due to loss of productive land to soil erosion and unfavorable weather conditions, diversification will be prioritized as option for smallholder farmers. 2. Institutional Context for Food Security 2.1 National Governments Based on the contexts analyzed, at least 35 countries are covered by the targeted farming systems and agro-ecologies. However, there are considerable differences between the countries with respect to challenges and opportunities in smallholder agriculture, in addition to the political context for implementation of the IAP. Incentives for the IAP should be ideally prioritize countries where environmental constraints in small holder agriculture are the greatest driver of food insecurity. They include the following: - Sahel: Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Senegal - Eastern and Horn of Africa: Burundi, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda - Southern Africa: Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe Ownership and buy-in for the IAP by countries will ensure that appropriate policy options to foster sustainability and resilience for food security are put in place. Country eligibility for the 16

17 IAP incentive should take into account commitment toward implementation of the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program (CAADP) and the Environment Initiative Action Plan of the Africa Union, and progress in meeting obligations under the relevant multi-lateral environmental agreements. This will ensure that the proposed integrated approach is pursued in the broader context of each country s agenda for sustainable development. 2.2 GEF Agencies The AFDB, FAO, IFAD, UNDP, World Bank, and UNEP are among the GEF Agencies actively involved with natural resource management initiatives throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, but in most cases projects have been designed with a country focus. These agencies that already have prior GEF experiences in the sector are therefore well placed to engage as partners in supporting countries and other partners to harness GEF resources for implementation of the IAP. Since the eligible countries would need to request GEF assistance and agree to dedicate resources from their country allocation, the country framework will remain an essential aspect of the IAP. This could present challenges for how the focus on farming systems cutting across national boundaries would be handled within this institutional framework. Some agencies may find challenges in terms of working across sectoral boundaries in their internal structures: the departments most familiar with GEF operations are typically environmental units with less direct experience in the area of food security and agriculture. It is envisaged that one of the Agencies will play a lead role in overall programming for the IAP, based on overall strength of existing or planned baselines with countries in the target geographies. IFAD has recently undertaken an initiative to retrofit its project portfolio with climate change elements, building on its innovative Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP). ASAP channels climate finance to smallholder farmers so they can access the information tools and technologies that help build their resilience to climate change. Thus, this represents an important opportunity for IFAD to quickly launch some IAP activities in countries working within this framework The World Bank has a strong portfolio under SAWAP 10 for the Sahel, therefore it would likely focus its IAP activities in other target 10 Sahel and West Africa Program in Support of the Great Green Wall Initiative, financed in GEF-5 to expand sustainable land and water management in targeted landscapes and climate vulnerable areas in 12 countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan and Togo). 17

18 geographies such as Eastern and Southern Africa. Of the newly accredited agencies, Conservation International (CI) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have also expressed interest base on their field programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. 2.3 Regional Entities Regional coordination and technical bodies are important stakeholders in the Sahel, notably CILSS, based in Ouagadougou, the Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel - Sahara and Sahel Observatory (OSS), based in Tunis, AGRHYMET in Niamey, and l Institut du Sahel in Bamako. The Club du Sahel, based in the OECD in Paris, serves as a forum for civil society, donors, and other stakeholders interested in development in the CILSS countries. In the Horn of Africa, a key regional grouping is the Intergovernmental Authority on Development 11 (IGAD), with headquarters in Djibouti. The group presently includes eight countries: Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya, and Uganda. IGAD has sponsored a Horn of Africa Initiative (HOAI) focusing on an ambitious program of investments to expand transportation, energy, and water resources, with initial funding from the EU. The Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), with headquarter in Gaborone, Botswana, is the main regional body for cooperation in the Southern Africa sub-region. SADC functions as a regional body along lines similar to the African Union, for example coordinating high-level policies on economic, political and security issues, as well as promoting free trade within the sub-region. SADC is considered to be among the more advanced regional bodies on issues of water resource management for riparian countries (see At the level of Sub-Saharan Africa, the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NEPAD Agency) serves as a technical body of the Africa Union, with a mandate for coordination and implementation of regional programs covering thematic areas that include agriculture and food security. NEPAD houses the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), which includes programming pillars on land and water management (Pillar 1) and food supply and hunger (Pillar 3). More directly relevant to the IAP is TerrAfrica, which is a regional mult-stakeholder platform to support sustainable land and water management activities under the NEPAD Agency. To date, TerrAfrica has some 40 investment projects under 11 Formerly the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development, IGADD, established in

19 implementation, of which 9 are multi-country or regional activities, and has accounted for bringing 174,000 ha under sustainable land and water management, and sequestered 520,000 tons of CO2 equivalent while benefiting some 420,000 farmers. Developing effective programming linkages with CAADP and TerrAfrica would be an important part of rolling-out the IAD across the entire Sub-Saharan Africa region, as well as in the Southern Africa target geography. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is also a major actor at national and regional level, and can be an important collaborator to introduce or strengthen environmental management priorities in their work on improving smallholder agriculture. 2.4 Private Sector and Civil Society Organizations The potential for both input and output markets depends on a strong engagement by financial institutions and agro-dealers in the private sector. With support from various bilateral and multilateral entities, the efforts are underway in many of the countries to strengthen the role of these actors in creating investment opportunities for scaling-up best practices and climate resilient options. This includes agribusiness Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) that seek to develop public-private partnerships (PPPs) to create market value chains for smallholder farmers. The IAP can consider the need for deeper integration of environment and climate resiliency into such efforts. The IAP can also facilitate engagement of smallholder farmers and farmer organizations to strengthen their role in promoting sustainable and resilient practices. Farmers organizations will be particularly critical for scaling-up innovations to increase potential for transformative change in the targeted geographies. 2.5 Research Organizations Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole remains a major target of international agricultural research, covering all aspects of the food value chain. Several centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system are particularly important in this regard, with several collaborative research programs of direct relevance to the IAP, including the following: 19

20 - Dryland Systems - embodies a new approach to integrated and holistic agricultural research, combining several disciplines including crop selection and rotations, natural resource management, and socio-economics; goal is to identify and develop resilient, diversified and more productive combinations of crop, livestock, rangeland, aquatic and agroforestry systems that increase productivity, reduce hunger and malnutrition, and improve quality of life for the rural poor. - Water, Land and Ecosystems seeks to support policy-makers, private sector organizations, donors and NGOs to incorporate sustainable and socially inclusive practices into their investments and decision making processes; focuses on four regions: the Ganges and Mekong in Asia, and the Nile-East Africa and Volta-Niger regions in Africa. - Forests, Trees and Agroforestry seeks to address the role of forests in confronting climate change, poverty and food security; focused on management and governance of forest, agroforestry, and tree genetic resources across the landscape from forests to farms for the benefit of poor people. - Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security focus on offering developing country farmers new options for adapting to the emerging impacts of climate change and mitigating its effects through a carbon-friendly agriculture that also strengthens food security and reduces poverty. These research programs are implemented through collaborative engagement by multiple centers (Bioversity, CIFOR, World Agroforestry Center, ICRISAT, IFPRI, IITA, ILRI and IWMI), 12 and in close consultation with national and sub-regional research organizations across the continent. Hence their engagement in the IAP will create opportunity for countries to harness public goods through adaptive management, knowledge transfer, and capacity development. 12 CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research; ICRISAT International Center for Research in the Semi- Arid Tropics; IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture; IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute; ILRI International Livestock Research Institute; IWMI International Water Management Institute 20

21 Annex 1 Country Data SAHEL Distribution of Farming Systems Country Cereal-root crop Agro-pastoral Total Area for Target Geography (km 2 ) % land (km 2 ) % land Benin 81, ,933 Burkina Faso 188, , ,585 C.A.R 77, ,963 Cameroon 61, , ,913 Chad 314, , ,291 Côte d Ivoire 7, ,750 Gambia 3, ,253 Ghana 54, ,105 Guinea 66, ,152 Guinea-Bissau 25, ,036 Mali 136, , ,489 Mauritania , ,034 Niger 7, , ,856 Nigeria 390, , ,806 Senegal 62, , ,372 Sudan* 528, , ,350 Togo 17, ,712 total 2,023, ,272, ,295,600 *data for Sudan not yet updated to reflect independence of South Sudan Source: GIS prepared for this study based on Population and Food Security Country Rural Pop. Pop. per km 2 Arable Land Rural Poverty** Prevalence of Food Inadequacy 13 Depth of Hunger*** Share of Food Imports**** Food Price Volatility Index** Benin 5,013, % % 54 Burkina 12,469, % 30.7% % The percentage of the population that is at risk of not covering the food requirements associated with normal physical activity. (FAOSTAT) 1

22 Faso C.A.R 2,732, % 38% % Cameroon 9,597, % % 15 Chad 9,009, % Côte 9,818, % 27% % 52 d Ivoire Gambia 760, % 23.2% % 24 Ghana 12,016, % % 45 Guinea 6,597, % % 65 Guinea- 867, % 15.6% 250 Bissau Mali 10,307, % 11.3% % 24 Mauritania 2,071, % 12.5% % 21 Niger 13,197, % % 32 Nigeria 81,860, % 11.9% % 39 Senegal 7,333, % 30.7% % 32 South 8,451, % Sudan Sudan* 22,912, % 45.3% % Togo 3,814, % 22.9% % 284 total 210,389,955 **percent rural population at rural poverty line ***kilocalaries/person/day 14 ****% of merchandise imports Source: World Bank, African Development Indicators latest year available, and FAOSTAT Agriculture Country Agric. Land (% land area) Cereal Cropland (% land area) Fertilizer Consump. (kg/ha. arable land) Cereal Yield (kg/ha.) Cereal Prod. Index* Livestock Prod. Index** Benin 30.42% 9.3% , Burkina Faso 43% 13.5% C.A.R 8.15% 0.3% 1, Cameroon 20.3% 3.8% , Ag. Value added per Worker*** 14 The depth of the food deficit indicates how many calories would be needed to lift the undernourished from their status, everything else being constant. (FAOSTAT, 2

23 Chad 39.65% 2% Côte d Ivoire 64.47% 2.7% , ,104 Gambia 60.77% 20.8% Ghana 69.88% 7.2% , Guinea 57.95% 8.2% , Guinea % 6.3% 1, Bissau Mali 34.11% 4.8% Mauritania 38.53% 0.1% 1, Niger 34.56% 7.9% Nigeria 83.67% 18.2% , Senegal 49.37% 5.9% South Sudan Sudan 57.34% 3.3% ,015 Togo 68.39% 15.9% , * =100 ** Standard deviation of the deviations from the trend over the previous five years ***Constant 2000 US$ Environmental constraints Country Avg. Rainfall Carbon in* Environ. CPIA** GEF Biodiv. Road Density**** (mm/yr) Topsoil Benefits Index*** Benin 1, % Burkina Faso % C.A.R 1, % Cameroon 1, % Chad % Côte d Ivoire 1, % Gambia % Ghana 1, % Guinea 1, % Guinea-Bissau 1, % Mali % Mauritania % Niger % Nigeria 1, % Senegal % South Sudan 3

24 Sudan* % Togo 1, % *as % in weight **policies & institutions for environmental sustainability (1=low, 6=high) - assesses the extent to which environmental policies foster the protection and sustainable use of natural resources and the management of pollution. ***0=no biodiversity potential, 100=maximum ****km of road per 100 km 2 of land area EAST AFRICA HIGHLANDS Distribution of Farming Systems Country Area in Target % Country in Target Farming Systems Geography (km 2 ) Geography Burundi 17, Highland perennial D.R. Congo 56, Highland perennial Eritrea 17, Highland temperate mixed Ethiopia 377, Both Kenya 14, Highland perennial Rwanda 25, Highland perennial Tanzania 36,060 4 Both Uganda 107, Highland perennial total 596,041 Population and Food Security East Africa Country Rural Pop. Pop. per km 2 Arable Rural Poverty** Prevalence of Food Inadequacy 15 Depth of Hunger*** Share of Food Imports**** Food Price Volatility Index** Land Burundi 7,638, % % Eritrea 4,258, Ethiopia 70,313, % 44% % Kenya 31,629, % % 57.3 Rwanda 8,850, % 38.4% % 30.3 Tanzania 33,858, % % 67.6 Uganda 29,133, % 37.3% % 78.5 total 185,682,620 **percent rural population at rural poverty line 15 The percentage of the population that is at risk of not covering the food requirements associated with normal physical activity. (FAOSTAT) 4

25 Agriculture East Africa Country Agric. Land (% land area) Cereal Cropland (% land Fertilizer Consump. (kg/ha. Cereal Yield (kg/ha.) Cereal Prod. Index* Livestock Prod. Index* Ag. Value added per Worker*** area) arable land) Burundi 87% 9.6% , Eritrea 75% 4.4% Ethiopia 36% 10% , Kenya 48% 4.7% , Rwanda 78% 17.8% 1.1 1, Tanzania 42% 6.4% 8.6 1, Uganda 70 10% 2.1 2, * =100 ** Standard deviation of the deviations from the trend over the previous five years Environmental constraints Country Avg. Rainfall Carbon in* Environ. CPIA** GEF Biodiv. Road Density**** (mm/yr) Topsoil Benefits Index*** Burundi 1, % Eritrea % Ethiopia % Kenya % Rwanda 1, % Tanzania 1, % Uganda 1, % HORN OF AFRICA Distribution of Farming Systems Country Area in Target % Area in Target Farming Systems Geography Geography Eritrea 29, Agro-pastoral Ethiopia 15, Agro-pastoral Ethiopia 32, Cereal-root crop Ethiopia 251, Maize mixed Kenya 95, Agro-pastoral Somalia 65, Agro-pastoral total 489,258 5

26 Population and Food Security Country Rural Pop. Pop. per km 2 Arable Rural Poverty** Prevalence of Food Inadequacy 16 Depth of Hunger*** Share of Food Imports**** Food Price Volatility Index** Land Eritrea 4,258, Ethiopia 70,313, % 44% % Kenya 31,629, % % 57.3 Somalia 5,948, total 112,150,387 **percent rural population at rural poverty line Agriculture Country Agric. Land Cereal Cropland Fertilizer Consump. (kg/ha. arable land) Cereal Yield (kg/ha.) Cereal Prod. Index* Livestock Prod. Index* (% land area) (% land area) Eritrea 75% 4.4% Ethiopia 36% 10% , Kenya 48% 4.7% , Somalia 70.3% 0.9% * =100 ** Standard deviation of the deviations from the trend over the previous five years Environmental constraints Country Avg. Rainfall Carbon in* Environ. CPIA** GEF Biodiv. Road Density**** (mm/yr) Topsoil Benefits Index*** Eritrea % Ethiopia % Kenya % Somalia The percentage of the population that is at risk of not covering the food requirements associated with normal physical activity. (FAOSTAT) 6

27 SOUTHERN AFRICA Distribution of Farming System Country Maize mixed (km 2 ) % land Botswana Malawi 106, Mozambique 226, Namibia 6, South Africa 138, Swaziland 20, Zambia 384, Zimbabwe 282, total 1,165,220 *data for Sudan not yet updated to reflect independence of South Sudan Source: GIS prepared for this study based on Population and Food Security Pop. per Prevalence of Depth of Share of Food Country Rural Pop. km 2 Rural Food Hunger*** Food Price Arable Poverty** Inadequacy 17 Imports**** Volatility Land Index** Botswana 779, % % 65 Lesotho 1,518, % % 56 Malawi 12,966, % 27% % 67 Mozambique 16,459, % 44% % 24 Namibia 1,431, % 41% % 39 South Africa 19,229, <5% 150 6% 36 Swaziland 840, % 48% 220 Tanzania 46,218, % Zambia 8,197, % 53% 320 5% 19 Zimbabwe 7,828, % % 78 total 115,471, The percentage of the population that is at risk of not covering the food requirements associated with normal physical activity. (FAOSTAT) 7

28 **percent rural population at rural poverty line Agriculture Agric. Cereal Prod. Country Land Fertilizer Consump. Cereal Yield Index* Livestock Prod. (% land (kg/ha. arable land) (kg/ha.) Index* area) Botswana 46% Lesotho 76% Malawi 59% , Mozambique 63% 4.4 1, Namibia 47% South Africa 79% 49 4, Swaziland 71% 1, Tanzania 42% 8.7 1, Zambia 32% , Zimbabwe 42% * =100 ** Standard deviation of the deviations from the trend over the previous five years Environmental constraints Country Avg. Rainfall Carbon in* GEF Biodiv. Environ. CPIA** (mm/yr) Topsoil Benefits Index*** Road Density**** Botswana % 1.4 Malawi 1, % Mozambique 1, % Namibia % South Africa % Swaziland % 0.12 Zambia 1, % Zimbabwe %

29 Annex 2. Yield Gains and Carbon Potential (Forest Trends et al, 2010) ANNEX B: Yield Gains in SSA Using Various Cropland Management Practices Land Management Approach Practice/location/crop/year Absolute yield gain (kg/ha) Percent gain (%) Reference Tied ridges, Burkina Faso -Sorghum, Sorghum, % 53 % Shapiro and Sanders 2002 Water harvesting Tied Ridges, Ethiopia -Sorghum -Maize -Mungbean Tied Ridges, Zimbabwe -Maize % 125 % 75 % Shapiro and Sanders % Pretty 2000 Soil & water harvesting Zai, Burkina Faso -Sorghum, % Roose, Kabore and Guenat 1999 Soil & water harvesting + compost or manure Zai + leaves, Burkina Faso -Sorghum, Zai + compost, Burkina Faso -Sorghum, Zai (tassa) + manure, Niger -Millet, Zai + manure, Mali -Sorghum, 1992/ /4 Water Harvesting + soil conservation + organic material -Sorghum and millet, Burkina - Sorghum and millet, Ethiopia - Sorghum and millet, Mali - Sorghum and millet, Niger - Sorghum and millet, Senegal % Roose, Kabore and Guenat % Roose, Kabore and Guenat % Hassane,Martin and Reij % Wedum, et al % 50 % 467 % 71 % 76 % Pretty and Hine 2001 Soil & water harvesting + inorganic fertilizer Soil & water harvesting + organic and inorganic fertilizer Leguminous crop rotations Tied Ridges + fertilizer, Burkina -Sorghum, Sorghum, 1984 Zai + fertilizer, Burkina -Sorghum, Zai + fertilizer+ compost, Burkina -Sorghum, Zai + fertilizer + manure, Niger -Millet, Planting basins + residue retention -Cotton, 2001/02 -Maize, 2001/ % 158 % Shapiro and Sanders % Roose, Kabore and Guenat % Roose, Kabore and Guenat % Hassane,Martin and Reij % 100 % Haggblade and Tembo Lablab, compost and manure on maize % Pretty and Hine

30 Land Management Approach Practice/location/crop/year Absolute yield gain (kg/ha) Percent gain (%) Reference Improved land management approach Fallows Relay cropping with cover crops Composting or organic fertilizer Inorganic fertilizer on maize Sesbania sesban, Zambia % World Vision 2001 Sesbania sesban, Zambia % World Vision 2001 Tephrosia vogeli, Zambia % World Vision 2001 Tephrosia vogeli, Zambia % World Vision 2001 Maize, Kenya % Pretty and Hine 2001 Agroforestry + contour grass hedges, Malawi % Pretty and Hine 2001 Mucuna with maize, Benin % Pretty and Hine 2001 Organic cotton, Senegal 0 % Pretty and Hine 2001 Organic cotton, Tanzania 0 % Pretty and Hine 2001 Banana soil and nutrient management, 90 % to Uganda 300 % Pretty and Hine 2001 Soil conservation + organic, maize % Pretty and Hine 2001 Benin, % Quinones, Borlaug and Dowswell 1997 Ethiopia, % Quinones, Borlaug and Dowswell 1997 Ghana, % Quinones, Borlaug and Dowswell 1997 Tanzania, % Quinones, Borlaug and Dowswell 1997 Togo, % Quinones, Borlaug and Dowswell 1997 Zambia, % World Vision 2001 Zambia, % World Vision

31 ANNEX C: AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY DATA (IPCC 2004) Crop Dry matter fraction of harvest product (a) Slope (b) Intercept (c) Ratio of belowground residues to above ground biomass (d) Carbon fraction (e) Maize Wheat Winter wheat Spring wheat rice Barley Oats Millet Sorghum Rye Soybean Dry bean Potato Peanut Alfalfa Non-legume hay General Grains Beans & pulses Tubers Root crops other N-fixing forage Non-N-fixing forages Perennial grasses Grass-clover mix Rtot = Ra + Rb Ra = (a*b*y+c) Rb = (Y*a+Ra)*d Where: Rtot total amount of residues, t d.m. ha-1 Ra aboveground residues, t d.m. ha-1 Rb belowground residues, t d.m. ha-1 Y average harvest fresh yield for each crop, t f.m. ha-1 a, b, c, d equation factors reported in the table above 12 11