Drylands Development External programme Review Volume II
AUTHORS:
Frans van Gerwen (team leader) Joost Nelen Mark Hopkins Ochieng Adimo Aboubacar Souley Nadine Bergmann (Research Assistant)
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018
Drylands Development External programme Review
CONTENTS
I COUNTRY REPORT KENYA 3 1. Description of DryDev implementation in Kenya 4 2. Analysis of DryDev implementation and its results in country 7 3. Appreciation of ICRAF/NLO and IP’s performance and results of activities 12 4. External factors and actors that have influenced implementation, results and outcomes 14 5. Conclusions 15 6. Recommendations 16 Annexes 17
II COUNTRY REPORT ETHIOPIA 26 1. Description of DryDev Implementation in Ethiopia 27 2. Analysis of DryDev implementation and its results in country 29 3. Appreciation of ICRAF, NLO and IP’s performance and results of activities 34 4. External factors and actors that have influenced implementation, results and outcomes 35 5. Conclusions 37 6. Recommendations 38 Annexes 40
III COUNTRY REPORT MALI 58 1. Description of DryDev implementation in Mali 59 2. Analysis of DryDev implementation and its results in country 62 3. Appreciation of ICRAF/NLO and IP’s performance and results of activities 69 4. External factors and actors that have influenced implementation, results and outcomes 70 5. Conclusions 71 6. Recommendations 75 Annexes 77
IV COUNTRY REPORT BURKINA FASO 86 1. Description of DryDev implementation in Burkina Faso 87 2. Analysis of DryDev implementation and its results in Burkina Faso 89 3 Appreciation of ICRAF/NLO and IP’s performance and results of activities 94 4. External factors and actors that have influenced implementation, results and outcomes 95 5. Conclusions 96 6. Recommendations 100 Annexes 102
V COUNTRY REPORT NIGER 117 1. Description of DryDev implementation in country 118 2. Analysis of DryDev implementation and its results in country 120
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
3. Appreciation of ICRAF/NLO and IP’s performance and results of activities 127 4. External factors and actors that have influenced implementation, results and outcomes 128 5. Conclusions 129 6. Recommendations 133 Annexes 135
2 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
I Country report Kenya
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 3 Drylands Development External programme Review
1. Description of DryDev implementation in Kenya
1.1 Socio-political and political context Kenya’s total land area is 580,364 sq. km. and dryland areas (or ASALs – arid and semi-arid lands) make up more than 80% of the country. This makes DryDev programme a relevant effort for Kenya as a country, especially if the focus can be directed to the North and North Eastern part of the country that is drier than where the interventions are currently being implemented. Agriculture remains the mainstay of the Kenya's economy, providing 26% of the GDP, and 80% of the rural population derives their livelihood from agriculture and other related activities. It is also the nations' top earner of foreign exchange, contributing about 60% of export earnings. Farms in Kenya range from small-scale subsistence family operations to large-scale mechanized enterprises with crops and/or livestock. Post-independence and from particularly early 1980s, Kenya’s political context has been heavily shaped by historical domestic tensions and contestation associated with centralization and abuse of power, high levels of corruption, a more than two decades long process of constitutional review and post-election violence. The approval of the new constitution in 2010(COK 2010) and relatively peaceful elections in March 2013 are milestones constituting steps forward in Kenya’s transition from political crisis. This is around the time DryDev Programme commenced. Under the COK 2010 Kenya’s central government is structured such that administrative and policy making powers are distributed in its three arms; executive, Legislative and Judiciary. There is also the devolved government function to the county level aimed at involving the people in government and allowing better supervision and implementation of policies at grass root level. In Kenya there are policies, legal framework and strategies that support DryDev programme objectives. These include Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) ; National Food and Nutrition Policy (2011); National Environment Policy (2013) ;National Climate Change Response Strategy (2010) and Action Plan ;Kenya National Agribusiness Strategy (2012) ;National Policy for Sustainable Development of Northern Kenya and Other Arid Lands (2012); Fertilizer Cost Reduction Strategy ;National Accelerated Agricultural; Inputs Access programme ;Economic Stimulus Package. The national and especially county governments play a big role in implementation of these policies especially in agriculture, environment and natural resources management, social practices and public health. DryDev programme commenced in 2013, and It was around the same time that county governments were in their infancy following the elections under COK 2010 therefore it was a challenge initially for DryDev to work with the new offices who were also still settling in. DryDev programme in Kenya was implemented in three counties, it was important that ICRAF/NLO and IPs work closely with the county governments. County governments constitutes of county executives and a county assembly whose responsibility includes Exercising the powers of enacting law at the county level; Acting as an oversight instrument on county executives; Approval of plans and policies for smooth operation and management of resources and county institutions. COK 2010 is also special to communities living within the ASAL region in Kenya because it is the first to consider community land as one of the 3 land tenure systems (Freehold, leasehold and community land) in Kenya. In this arrangement land can be owned by four different kinds of entities, namely the government, county councils, individuals and groups.
1.2 Short overview development DryDev in country since start in 2013 The DryDev programme interventions were implemented via eight work packages through a consortium bringing together ICRAF as the lead agency, World vision Kenya as the National lead
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 4 Drylands Development External programme Review
organization, and ADRA, SNV, and CARITAS as the implementing partners in collaboration with stakeholders. Given that Kenya is vastly dry land, selection of where to implement the programme was imperative. Criteria for selecting programme sites was agreed to be in the minimum a site with annual rainfall less than 800mm. Programme site selection was preceded by characterization studies (Baseline survey; Gender and inclusion; value chain; financial access; agricultural practices and extension methods; physiographic characterization using GIS and Policy analysis) to come up with a vulnerability index. Based on the site selection criteria, in Kenya the DryDev Programme is implemented in an area stretching across 7 Sub catchments (Miindu, Mathautta, Upper Enziu, Mid Tiva, Upper Kambu, Lower Kambu, & Thwake). These are distributed in 3 counties namely Makueni, Machakos and Kitui County. Administratively the 7 sub catchments are distributed as follows; the specific target areas are in 28 sub-locations within 6 sub-counties. Machakos county: Mwala & Yatta sub counties, Makueni county: Mbooni & Kibwezi East sub counties, Kitui county: Mwingi Central & Kitui Rural sub counties. It is important to note that the selection of these sites were bias towards dry areas where the chosen NLO and IPs had presences, otherwise if it was used for the whole country there were more drier and vulnerable places in North and North Eastern part of the country; moving forward these areas need to be prioritized. The Programme targets: 34,500 farmers (20,355 Women) [60%]). The inception phase commenced with focusing on quickwin intervention arrived at through consultation with stakeholders and the farmers’ priorities. The quickwin interventions activities included; ● Water harvesting techniques: Zai pits, lined farm ponds , fertility trenches and retention ditches ● Drought tolerant crops/commodities: Cow peas, green grams and pigeon peas ● Multi-purpose trees: Paw paw, Melia volkensii, Neem, mangoes and Moringa ● Investment in new water buffers such as earth dams ● Support of existing value chain development initiatives: bee keeping and mango; collective marketing and market linkages; and post-harvesting handling of commodities (pulses, cereals and fruits) ● Farmers capacity development in areas related to the above
1.3 NLO and national level aspects of DryDev The DryDev programme is managed in the programme department of World Vision Kenya (and with a DryDev director reporting to Programme Dept. Director) within World Vision. In the WV strategy 2016-2020 – one of the 4 pillars is livelihood development and resilience. DryDev therefore fits well in this pillar. DryDev focuses on villages with food deficiency (around and linked to WV’s child sponsorship presence in the country, same sub-counties). The reasons for food insecurity are well tackled by DryDev (environment, water, processing and storage etc.) therefore there is no conflict in terms of focus areas. At the initial stages of the programme the institutional model that brought ICRAF (Research), WVK- NLO, and IP (Development) was confusing to the implementing partners and questions arose; a) Is DryDev a research programme with development component given ICRAFs lead agency role? Or b) is it a development programme with research component?
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 5 Drylands Development External programme Review
NLO and IPs reported that they came to consensus that it was a development programme with research component. This was also stressed by its donor, the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), who insisted that 70% of the programme’s resources had to be invested in development interventions on the ground. The model was unique therefore took them some time to understand, but once they learnt it they have come to like it. There was agreement the institutional model used is cost effective. There was delay in DryDev programme kick-off because it was difficult for the NLO and IPs to get used to different methods of different partners, flexibility and change of approach was needed from the NLO and IPs to adapt the model. Most important in this was Community Action Planning, to ensure that research activities are relevant for farmers. Research and learning is now happening in the programme. An important instrument for this is the Joint Quality Monitoring missions of ICRAF and partners. The final institutional arrangements chosen for implementation of DryDev were considered effective given that it deviates from the log frame approach which IP noted would have had limitations given the complexity of DryDev that brings together 8 projects in one. WV has conducted a more comprehensive baseline than ICRAF in Kenya and Ethiopia before ICRAF (in Ethiopia in 4 out of 6 districts). In general NLO activities at national level were implemented well though some challenges were also reported. A brief stock taking at the time of this review shows that: ● Uptake surveys have been done by ICRAF in 2017/2018; ● DryDev indicators are good and useful at the sub-outcome level, but less at outcome level. Outputs are overall good, though challenges are with double-counting of target groups; ● IP’s had very different systems at the start. Difficult in the beginning with half-yearly reporting. Now it is better with quarterly reporting; ● A Management Information System at DryDev level was never developed for M&E while this was very much needed for good data-management. Much of the data collection was done with excel and with problems in the beginning but has improved significantly; ● Gender analysis and gender responsive planning in DryDev is weak and monitoring of participation only of women doesn’t measure the real effects on women. If audits or analyses are done on gender, they are not systematically translated in gender responsive planning; ● DryDev NLO and IP have worked closely with both national and county governments. DryDev programme has created interest and the county governments have started incorporating some of the DryDev programme approaches in their County Integrated Development Plans CIDPs enhancing sustainability of DryDev programme objectives ● The uptake of DryDev programme interventions is high given their simplicity, contextual relevance, the training of trainers (ToT) approach where farmers train other farmers .There is synergy between ICRAF, NLO, and the IP each partner has brought in their expertise in to the programme ● All the WPs work synergistically supporting each other and this has been made possible due to good working relation between the IPs, NLO and ICRAF, each partner delivering on their WP(s). The sub catchment as a unit of intervention is working though in some places in conflict with administrative units where a sub catchment overlaps to other administrative jurisdiction. This was in some cases in contradiction with WRA units/institutions of operations like WRUA that in some cases had representations beyond the sub catchments targeted by the DryDev
6 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
1.4 IPs and implementation on the ground in locations IPs worked very closely with other stakeholders such as County government departments of agriculture, livestock production, water, irrigation, environment, devolution and cooperatives. The National Government departments of administration as well as state agencies such as Water Resources Authority were also key partners in the DryDev programme, Farmers’ organisations, water resources users’ associations (WRUA)were also involved. Other players such as Input suppliers, Traders and Research Institutions were also important. In Kitui County, County Executive Committee (CEC) Member of Agriculture/Water/Irrigation and livestock revealed how important the collaboration/partnership was for the county. IPs worked together with the experts from county departments right from planning, implementation and, monitoring and evaluation. Some of the value chains chosen by DryDev are also targeted for development by the county government. Green gram (Ndengu) is the focus crop for development by the county and there is already a policy dubbed Ndengu revolution in Kitui where the IPs have been involved in its formulation. Generally there is good policy alignment in areas where the IPs operate, this was however affected by the long election period that stalled the projects implementation for some time. The DryDev programme approach is already influencing policy, some of the DryDev approaches are already incorporated in the County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP). In Kitui for example they have also made it a policy that all water project must use solar energy, and more farm ponds and sand dams interventions are being scaled out, and the county government is also involved in the green grams honey and mango value chains among others. The county government is providing seeds, pesticides and extension services.
1.5 Limitations/Bottlenecks encountered in country-level field work ● Time constraints: given the scope and complexity of the DryDev programme more time was required to conduct the fieldwork in all the programme implementation sites and therefore the team had to be split up in two in order to be able to visit sites of at least two of the three IP’s in Kenya (in Kitui and Machakos counties); ● There was also a weather related challenge, the evaluation was conducted during the rainy season in Kenya and this did in some occasions interfere with accessibility of some more remote project sites.
2. Analysis of DryDev implementation and its results in country
2.1 Overall analysis of overall implementation and organisational and institutional set-up World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) is the overall implementing agency for DryDev Programme, National Lead Organizations (NLOs) was World Vision Kenya (WVK) and three Implementing Partners (IPs) were SNV, ADRA, and CARITAS in selected dryland areas of Kenya.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 7 Drylands Development External programme Review
Figure 1 Consortium arrangement and work packages
The DryDev programme was implemented in close collaboration with stakeholders. According to the NLO and IPs the stakeholders include: County government departments of agriculture, livestock production, water, irrigation, environment, devolution and cooperatives; The National Government departments of administration as well as state agencies such as Water Resources Authority (WRA); Farmers’ organisations, Water Resources Users’ Associations (WRUA) and other players such as Input suppliers, Traders, Research Institutions. IPs were allocated WPs through a consultative process based on their strengths and physical presence on the ground where they had structures already established. This worked well for establishing linkages and build upon existing relations with the county institutions and other partnerships. The institutional arrangements of DryDev that had ICRAF as the overall lead was initially a problem for the NLO and IPs who were all from the development community dealing with a broad range of socio-economic and agricultural development challenges, unlike ICRAF, which is a research institution with a specific focus on agroforestry. This challenge was mitigated by a gradual understanding by the NLO and the IPs that the role of ICRAF was particularly to coordinate DryDev as a development programme given their regional presence and ability to manage multi sectorial projects. ICRAF brought in its technical and research competencies in areas of NRM and it could also tapped into its regional presence in both East and West Africa. In Kenya, World Vision Kenya (WVK) was both a NLO and also IP in all the sites in WP’s 6,7 and 8 and in Machakos also in WP’s 1,2 and 3. This was not cited as a problem by the IPs who felt that there were sufficient checks and balances, especially for the WP’s 123 that were being implemented by ADRA and CARITAS in other DryDev locations. Exchange and joint learning was done on similar interventions implemented by other IPs, by Joint Quality Monitoring missions. This was further enhanced by the creation of country core teams, convened and co-chaired by the NLO Programme Manager/Director and ICRAF Country Rep. These teams are meeting once every month and programme leaders from all IPs also participate. The programme started in 2013, but there was a period of confusion that forced partners to work on a redesign of DryDev approach to consider community action plans. This took quite some time. Active implementation of the redesigned DryDev programme, after the first period of quick wins in mainly 2014, started late (July 2015).This was due to the delayed approval of the 2015 – 18 Programme Implementation Plan (PIP) and 2015 Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP). The first year
8 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
of implementation of the PIP 2015-2018 programme started with laying ground for the 8 work packages through capacity building. The pace of projects /WP implementation in the first year was slow, it was observed that this was due to; change of approach of implementation in the middle that required that CAP activities be done parallel to the capacity building that had already started; a lot of time was also taken draw up and sign annual grant agreements. This necessitated the shift from one year to four (4) years’ Memorandum of Agreements (MoA) between the IPs for the entire remaining implementation period. In 2016 the programme implementation picked as was indicated by 75% utilization of the budget compared to the first year that was only 35%. Cumulatively, by the close of 2016, 15,499 (8,734 Women) farmers, representing 45% of the total programme target farmers (34,500 farmers (20,355 Women), were reached directly through various interventions. The long electioneering period in 2017 slowed down activities implementation but later the pace picked up again in late 2017 to 2018.
2.2 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 1-3 (biophysical work packages) Work package 1-3 was implemented by all the three IPs in different counties, ADRA in Kitui, CARITAS in Makueni and World Vision in Machakos. Under WP1- Sub-catchment-level natural resource management-The targeted farmers and FOs were 34,500. At the end of the year 2017, 23 004 had been reached majority being women (13,871) and men totalling 9,133. WP1 was implemented through WRUAs, it started by establishment of SMC later replaced by WRUAs. Interventions were decided upon through Community Action Planning (CAP) that improved sense of ownership. There was evidence of physical rehabilitation measures for denuded lands in the sites inspected in Kitui and Machakos these included gully healing using gabions; terraces; and check dams. Sand dams were also inspected. Other interventions at sub catchment level also included Enrichment Planting; FMNR; Pasture reseeding. The choice of the interventions was relevant and was in line with both the national and county government agenda. WRA the government institution that is in charge of catchment management agreed the interventions were well selected. The interventions at sub catchment level were expensive; especially gully healing using gabions, sand dam construction. Feedback from the FGD with the farmers was that they needed more interventions at sub catchment level but cannot scale out the interventions due to the cost, which is prohibitive. In Kitui the county government reported that they are stepping in to put up more sand dams following the DryDev approach of picking the post vulnerable areas first. On-farm Water & Soil management WP2 was implemented through first developing capacity on Soil & water Management through technologies like Farm Ponds; Terraces; Sunken beds; Zai pits; Conservation Agriculture; Micro Irrigation; Tree Planting, FMNR; Agroforestry; Pasture reseeding; Fertilizer application; earth bunds; stone bunds/belts; and contour . 18,000 farmers and farmer organizations were targeted, by end of 2017, 14,812 farmers had been reached and 8172 among them being women. The adoption of the DryDev interventions beyond the targeted farmers depended on relevance and cost. From the FGDs it was noted that farm pond as an intervention was very relevant and many would wish to have it but the cost and labour involved was prohibitive particularly for female headed households. Its uptake/ out scaling rate is slow compared to other interventions like sunken beds, zai pit, which were adopted by many farmers even outside the targeted.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 9 Drylands Development External programme Review
There was reported impact on the lives of the community due to these on-farm interventions like increased yields, income, and generally improved standards of living, although in surveys at the end of FGD’s participants indicated that in spite of increased production and productivity and even market sales, the economic effects in monetary terms at the family are somewhat less, because the terms of trade in agricultural products have not equally improved and cost of living has risen more steeply. Conservation agriculture is still not well understood by the farmers and there is need for more capacity building for it to be effective as a way of soil and water conservation approach on the farms. Agricultural production interventions were implemented through capacity development on Climate Smart Agriculture Production, Input access system, Community-based seed multiplication system, Post-harvest management and Promotion of priority value chains: Mangoes; Green Gram; Cow Peas; Pigeon Peas; Honey; Goat and; Indigenous poultry in Kenya. By the end of 2017 10,479 farmers had been reached 7,338 being women, the targeted farmers and FO was 16,800. The products chosen for production were relevant to the counties. In Kitui county Green grams production is also being promoted by the county government that provided seeds to farmers in some regions of the county.
2.3 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 4-6 (value chain development and local support/service/governance work packages) WP4 that was meant for enhancing market access was implemented through Capacity development on market access, Establishment of Marketing groups; organisations e.g. CBO, Cooperatives and Association, Access to market information through i-Shamba, Use of technology e.g. digital class room system and Linkages, business to business value chain forums Use of technology to access market information through i-Shamba digital class room system made it very efficient to build capacity by providing market information the farmers reached through these approaches doubled the targeted number. Financial services linkages for farmers and farmer groups were through establishment/ strengthening of community based saving & credit institutions/VSLA, financial literacy and management trainings, linkages with Financial Institutions such as: Banks; MFIs and SACCOs. Farmers during the FGDs observed that for most of them the community based saving & credit institutions/VSLA worked better because they were smaller groups with membership who knew each other well and as such built trust among them which encouraged access to loan. Micro Finance Institutions (MFIs), such as Vision Fund in Machakos, were now building on what DryDev has done in terms of capacity building to give agricultural based loans to community/farmer groups DryDev had strengthened. It was observed that the DryDev farmer groups were preferred by financial institutions, this was because DryDev covered the whole value chain from production to market and this gave financial institutions the confidence especially the well linked work packages that worked in synergy. The Vision Fund gave an example of finding it easy to give loans to farmers/FO already having farm ponds because the risk of crop failure due to drought is now much lower and easier to mitigate. Sustainability of the linkages with financial institutions was ensured through close collaboration of the IPs and the financial institutions. The IPs involved financial institutions in the programme implementation and always bringing out the business perspective to both the FOs and the financial institutions. The linkage with financial institutions created by DryDev has helped in change of mentality/attitude from the perception of free aid to loan that is repayable and thus promoted the business/agribusiness thinking among farmers.
10 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Financial institutions are still hesitant in investing in heavy capital/costly interventions like farm pond construction. They prefer to invest where there is a clear business case say from production to market Financial institutions were of the opinion that to enhance the linkages and confidence of parties (FO, financial institutions, markets/buyers) there is need that all the players in the value chain to cooperate /work together. The interviewed MFI felt that some kind of tripartite MOU/agreement/contract between the producer/FOs –MFI-Buyers of a particular value chain needs to be worked out. This would require that issues of the enforceability of the contract, quality assurance, M&E , and other stakeholder involvements be addressed. Local governance & institutional strengthening was conducted by profiling FOs to implement the interventions, development of FOs’ capacity to ensure sustainability of interventions and results, strengthening systems for technology transfer among the farmers and capacity development of the local governance institutions to support farmers. The target was to reach 180 farmer organizations with 1,500 members. It was reported that 176 FOs with 1,124 members have been reached.
2.4 Analysis of implementation and results of WP 8 (Lobby and Advocacy) WP8 involved stakeholders mapping and Policy analysis, enhancing farmers’ capacity to engage in policy influencing, and partnering with the relevant stakeholders to identify policy issues and possible solutions. DryDev IPs are working with country technical teams at different levels to influence policy. Some of the DryDev approaches are already incorporated in the County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP) for Kitui and Machakos counties. Key stakeholders identified were county government departments of agriculture, livestock production, water, irrigation, environment, devolution and cooperatives. The National Government departments of administration as well as state agencies such as Water Resources Authority; Farmers’ organisations, Water Resources Users’ Associations (WRUA) and other players e.g: Input suppliers; Traders; Research Institutions, financial institutions The participatory approach, used in DryDev, worked well with the stakeholders who were involved in all the planning activities and therefore they were in the picture and with good understanding of their role in the programme. There is a lot of interest generated by DryDev programme and local administrators are using DryDev sites and FOs as learning centre for other FOs. However, this reach is largely confined to the immediate environment of the country itself; wider L&A effects are less common. DryDev influence on policy at national level was weak or not clear from the records; this is one area that the ICRAF and NLO need to improve in order to increase scaling out beyond regions that are targeted by the programme.
2.5 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 7 (M&E and learning) DryDev programme provided opportunities for learning where FOs visited other areas where the intended interventions were already working, farmer to farmer learning through demonstrations, training of trainers and use of digital technology i-shamba to get information. Inter-regional learning was not very effective between west and east Africa though some level of technology transfer was noted, for example the use of Zai pit. The sub catchment is well established in Ethiopia and the IP reported that they learnt from the Ethiopian IPs how it works and tried to contextualize it in the Kenyan sites though with challenges emanating from land tenure system in the project areas in Kenya.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 11 Drylands Development External programme Review
Farmer organizations and the cooperative system are well developed in Kenya and this was also reported that the Ethiopian IPs were keen to learn on how they operate. The DryDev targeted groups, CBO’s, Self Help Groups, VsLA’s capacity was enhanced on matters of management and financial literacy. DryDev programme missed out by not engaging larger and more formal organisations (like Ministry of Industrialization and Enterprise Development, Agricultural cooperatives) were missing.
3. Appreciation of ICRAF/NLO and IP’s performance and results of activities
3.1 By beneficiaries The assessment of beneficiaries’ perception DryDev was done through FGDs and review of project documents. A simple tool was used that required male and female beneficiaries to rank the most important activities they had participated in, what bottlenecks that still existed and how their personal situation had changed due to DryDev based on seven questions regarding their livelihood changes during the DryDev period. The results of the 7 questions are presented in Annex 4 of this section of the report. From FGDs, it can be noted that DryDev programme has helped to improve living standards of the targeted community by increasing their level of income from the chosen value chains. Their level of dependency on food aid has been reduced and in some places they observed that they no longer need food aid but support to produce their own food. This has given the farmers a sense of confidence and strong belief that they can work towards their food security without relying on aid. However, in the same meetings, beneficiaries also indicate that while food security has improved, monetary income effects are less, not in the least because agricultural inputs, investments and also costs of household items have increased in price even more sharply. While the beneficiaries indicate that DryDev has improved some aspect of quality of life, particularly in food security, other poverty reduction aspects are less pronounced. Training of Trainer (ToT) activities were well appreciated by the FOs and farmers because they said the knowledge was left with them, and they could easily train others who were not targeted and also their farms acted as demonstration sites for other farmers to learn from them and adopt the interventions they were implementing The beneficiaries noted that it’s only through DryDev that they have been actively involved in projects planning and implementation of what they prioritize to do. They cited that the county integrated development plan (CIDP) process does not get to the grass root to seek their priorities. The bottom up approach adopted by DryDev was the ideal model for the community and was of the opinion that DryDev try influence the county governments to do the same during their planning and implementation of programmes. The youth were mainly attracted by use of technology in the interventions, despite the fact that there was no deliberate effort to involve the youth with youth specific projects. The beneficiaries noted that with the current trend of unemployment there is need to have youth focused capacity building and projects. The value chains chosen were good but very little attention was given to livestock development and the beneficiaries felt that they are lagging behind in terms of livestock husbandry skills like disease control, and feed ratios. Attempts to establish and strengthen a traditional poultry value chain, failed
12 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
because the farmers could not provide sufficient quality and quantity of produce and were actually not aware of the production costs as a minimum condition to break even.
3.2 By key external stakeholders DryDev programme implementation in Kenya involved many external stakeholders who operate in the dry land areas of Kenya, these included national government agencies, county government departments, NGOs, administrators, research institutions, traders, and suppliers. National government agencies such as Water Resources Authority (WRA) which is responsibility of regulating the management and use of water resources, at the local level the WRA works at catchment level through water resource users associations (WRUAS). This interfaced well for IPs who also worked with WRUAS and other farmer groups at sub catchment level. County policy and agenda ties well with DryDev objectives, Within the county CIDP, Food and water security; creation of wealth/improved livelihood; Health which is linked to wealth and wellbeing, and improved education and youth developments are some of the agenda that link very well with DryDev initiatives and for these reasons their relationship with IPs has been very close and mutual. Attitude change among the community is one remark the county government noted is very positive change among the community after interacting with DryDev programme. The community attitude has changed from that of desperation to hope. The community no longer expects free food aid from the government, but ask for the government to invest in interventions that will help them become self-reliant in food and water at community and household level. Value chains chosen by DryDev were also being promoted by the county government, however the green gram business model need to be improved to create some seed money for cooperatives to link with farmers from postharvest handling, packaging branding and transport and sales. Introduction of family packaging systems to help farmers benefit from value addition was also advocated for. NGOs, and other partners like FAO agreed that moving forward there is need to create partners collaboration forum to act as a platform for scaling out the good lessons learnt from DryDev programme and other partners, bring synergy and also avoid duplication of efforts in the same areas. Sub county Officers (Crops, Forest, and livestock) established that the working relationship with the IPs was mutual and they supported each other. Their evaluation of DryDev programme was positive and interventions used like on farm water harvesting for micro irrigation, promotion of moisture efficient crops, linking farmers with seed producers, and knowledge sharing has been very effective; for example Maize production under the zai pit system has increased yields from three 90kg bags/acre to between 7-8, 90kg bags/acre. Horticultural crops ( kales, tomatoes, capsicum, onions and green maize) have increased in area under production and yield due to the on farm water harvesting (farm pond) and micro irrigation. This has greatly improved livelihoods and family income especially women. More capacity building is however still needed. Relation with other agricultural and technology extension agents was working well and even in some cases DryDev used locally developed technologies that were also being promoted by other agents. Other extension agents experience and knowledge is in line with DryDev approach and therefore can easily be rolled out through the DryDev partners, who use their officers for agricultural extension. The working partnership could also be seen for example World Vision is on the ground and well embedded in communities but has limited experience in agriculture and in this area agricultural department provided support to WV. The cooperation is good and open and constructive. Longer term training and capacity development is needed on Conservation Agriculture to really and sustainably change farmers’ behaviour.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 13 Drylands Development External programme Review
Agriculture department also follows integrated approach. In the following strategic planning cycle July 2018-2022 more coherence and community participation and coordination of different NGO’s is required. All should be aligned and work in this plan. DryDev has coordinated with Agric Services in design and planning interventions in 2015/2016; locations, sectors and value chains were identified: most importantly green grams and indigenous chicken ICRAF agroforestry research and extension centre and nursery in the county would focus more on food crops and fruits, because these provide good economic perspectives for farmers.
4. External factors and actors that have influenced implementation, results and outcomes
Kenya has a comprehensive policy and legal framework that favoured the implementation of DryDev programme. This provided an easy entry point for DryDev programme. These policies also have the integrated and inclusive approaches that mainstream women issues and vulnerable this also made it very compatible with the DryDev objectives. It was however noted that the Implementation of these policies and strategies is however limited by low implementation capacity, resources, uncoordinated efforts among the different entities and conflicts between economic interests and conservation efforts. Agriculture for example, is devolved to county level administration, water, environment and natural resource conservation are all shared between both the county and national government administration, hindering integrated development efforts though communities have formed interest groups with respect to natural resources management and agribusiness development; there is limited awareness on the policies and legal provisions. At the local level there were several relevant research findings and some ongoing that the DryDev programme built on for the WPs , for example Agroforestry in dryland ICRAF, drought tolerance or avoiding crops like green grams KALRO/ICRISAT, early maturing maize , Cost effective storage facility (coolbot) by the University of Nairobi and UC Davis to curb post-harvest losses and pro-long shelf life of mangoes and other horticultural crops in Makueni. Farmer organization is a well-established concept in Kenya, and has been used over the year to reach farmers through the existing agricultural extension structures. Existing farmer groups that can be trained and intern train others in a trainer of trainer (ToT) arrangement was very important in scaling out the interventions through capacity building of those who were not reached/targeted by the programme. Existence of Financial institutions and MFI such as Vision Fund, Equity, BIMAS and K-Rep with products that are attractive to farmers and other actors in the micro finance sector made it easy to link farmers to the financial institutions which already had a working knowledge and relation with some farmer organizations. The presence of multiple development organizations that also were involved in similar programmes /projects made it possible to share DryDev strategies across a wider area through co-learning. The partners in some cases were building on what DryDev had started. On the flip side this in some areas also led to duplication of efforts instead of targeting other needy areas.
14 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
5. Conclusions
Conclusions with respect to organisational and institutional arrangements (ICRAF, NLO, IP’s and external partners) The organization and institutional arrangement that was used for DryDev, after a long and delayed start-up period has gradually become effective in bringing together ICRAF, NLO, IPs and external partners who have different strengths in terms of knowledge, structures and policies therefore resource pooling was possible especially leveraging and building on the technical expertise within the different IPs man power for implementing the WPs. While the institutional arrangements were effective in bringing different partners with different competencies together, it is also needed to include other organizations with knowledge and regional presence in other areas that were of interest to the programme for example, ILRI – livestock, ICRISAT – dryland agriculture, ICIPE-pest and diseases. The involvement of external partners in the programme from planning, implementation and, monitoring and evaluation in the implementation areas (but much less beyond) have strengthened perspectives for sustainability and enhanced the possibility of scaling out using the same approaches used in DryDev.
Conclusions with respect to results of work packages (1-6) at level of communities The sub catchment approach worked well for NRM because of its technical relevance (it’s an ecological unit, close community structures/nested making it easy to form FOs) in addressing local land use problems. In Kenya however, the legally mandated institution to manage catchments is Water Resources Authority (WRA) operates at catchment level for intervention purposes. This brought some minor challenges in trying to work with WRUAs whose membership extended beyond sub catchment meaning some sub catchments had to be left out. NRM is essential for improving livelihoods of vulnerable people through improved conditions (soil and water) for production that directly depends on the natural resource management. Continued effort in NRM therefore will lead to sustainability of food production. DryDev approach of first improving NRM then proceeding to agricultural production is relevant and was noted as effective following the increase in yields noted among the farmers. The choice of drought evading pulses, chicken, goat, and mango and honey value chain is very relevant for the dry lands. The selection of these crops/activities are efficient in water use and therefore effective in addressing production constraints of water shortage. The value chains however need to be diversified for sustainability and more research and support is needed to ensure production quality, quantity and cost-price can meet market expectations (e.g. in indigenous poultry). There is need for more effort to support risk mitigation strategies and actions of farmers (through capacity building, insurances, tripartite contracts) for financial institutions to be confident to support. These will increase the effectiveness of the linkages already created.
Conclusions with respect to knowledge creation and exchange and Lobby and Advocacy (WP 7-8) DryDev programme is influencing policy on the ground and IPs are involved in seminars and workshops geared towards looking at ways of including the DryDev approaches in the County Integrated Development Plans (CIDP) and policies, however these effects are mostly confined to the county level.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 15 Drylands Development External programme Review
Capital intensive interventions at sub catchment level like sand dams, gabions and terracing are being taken up by the county government in other sub catchments using DryDev approaches, for example Kitui county it’s now a policy that all water projects must use solar energy for sustainability.
Other Conclusions Deliberate efforts made to ensure that women and the vulnerable are reached and benefitted worked but needed to have specific tailored support to women particularly in agro-processing and trade. The core values of DryDev of activity integration, bottom-up (farmer led) approach and leveraging on strategic partnership was adhered to and has worked well to increase sense of ownership of the programme interventions at farmer level to county government level this will contribute to sustainable.
6. Recommendations
To ICRAF: ICRAFs overall role as the implementing agency is important in the DryDev particularly in Kenya, but they need to collaborate more with other CGIAR centres with regional presence and knowledge base of interest to the programme like ILRI for livestock, ICIPE for apiculture/insect and pest, ICRISAT for dryland agriculture. This needs to be considered for the future. ICRAF is a knowledge centre of agroforestry technologies and sustainable landscape management knowledge. ICRAF need to increase their local presence by bringing these skills and technologies down to the sites and interact more with the farmers through the IPs. Actual demonstrations, packaged farmer friendly technologies (multipurpose trees for dry land, tree crop/pomology, tree growing skills for dryland, trainings and others would be recommended going forward or in a phase II. Site selection process for Kenya need to be applied to the whole dry land so that going forward focus can be directed to the North and North Eastern part of the country that is drier than where the interventions are currently being implemented, this is also for the future.
To World Vision Kenya: ICRAF and World Vision Kenya as the National lead Organization should look for ways of making the monitoring and evaluation system more robust for data management. The M&E unit need to be strengthened on the ground to effectively handle farmer /FO s managed data and information including the many indicators that are currently in use. A digital monitoring and evaluation toolkit would be recommended. This is relevant for current and future.
To Implementing partners: It was observed that where different IPs were working on different WPs at different stages there is need for all the IPs to have some presence in the proceeding activities before they take over to implement the subsequent WP. This will help with smooth transition and ensure continuity without the farmer/FOs and other partners feeling like they are moving on to a totally new project. Gender mainstreaming needs to be enhanced to go beyond disaggregation of participants by gender numbers, there should be more specific needs based support for men and especially women and women organizations
16 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Annexes
1. Country visit and activity programme 8/05/2018. Nairobi World Vision Kenya, National Office, Karen ● National Lead organization secretariat (WVK), ● Managers of National implementing partners- ADRA, CARITAS, SNV 09/05/2018 Nairobi World Vision Kenya, National Office, Karen Kitui County Kitui County Headquarters for Key Informant interviews ● Executive Committee Member for Agriculture ● Chief Officer, Department of Water & Irrigation ● Sub Regional Manager, Tiva-Tyaa ● Water Resources Authority (WRA) ● Kitui Rural Sub-county Forestry Officer ● FAO County Representative Machakos County ● ATDC Representative, KALRO Katumani 10/05/2018 Kitui County Lower Yatta – Masimba FGDs ● FGD with Women only farmers ● FGD with Men only farmers ● Interview with Asst. Chief for Masimba Sub Location ● Interview with Village Administrator for Masimba Machakos County ● Chief Officer, County Department of Agriculture & Livestock ● Chief Officer, Mwala Sub-county Department of Water & Irrigation ● Mwala Sub-county Forestry Officer ● Chair , Machakos Mango Value Chain Association ● Poultry VC trader 11/05/18 Kitui county ● County Value Chain Advisor to the Governor Makutano Mwala ● Representative crops officer ● Kenya forest service officer ● Machakos County ● Mango Trader ● Simlaw Seeds Field Technical Officer ● Brief Meeting with WVK AP & Vision Fund Kenya Teams ● FGD with Women only in Ngulini ● FGD with Men only in Ngulini ● Chief Mwala Location
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 17 Drylands Development External programme Review
2. List of people interviewed Nairobi meeting at world vision office
18 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
World vision office Nairobi 1. Samera Jabeen, Field Impact and Programme Development Manager WVA 2. James Anditi, Director of Programmes Support 3. Ronald Ngetieh, Associate Director Strategy and Programme Effectiveness (formerly Associate Director for DryDev at WV Kenya) Kitui County 1. Emmanuel Kisangau - County executive Committee member (CEC) Agriculture/Water/irrigation/livestock 2. Margaret Mawiya – community development assistant Water Resources Authority (WRA) 3. Margareth Muthiema -– Sub Regional Manager Water Resources Authority (WRA) 4. Daniel Mwanga – FAO county Representative 5. Dr. Temi mMutia – Value chain Specialist and Advisor to The Governor 6. Caleb litali Sub county crops officer 7. Buko Sammy- Kenya Forest service sub county officer 8. Samuel Wambua- Kitui rural Sub county administrator 9. Saul Makali – Kanyangi Ward administrator 10. Francis mwamati – Chief Masimba Sublocation FGDs meetings ( Men group and women groups) 1. Meeting at Kanyangi attended 12 women, 7 men. Represented groups mid Tiva WRUA, Makali Cooperative, & Lower Yatta cooperative 2. Meeting at Masimba A- Village – Masimba subcatchment. Attended 12 Men , 10 women Machakos county 1. John M. Masila, Deputy Director Agriculture technology development centre-ATDC 2. J.M. Karinki, County Director of Agriculture 3. James Masambu Wapula, Sub-County Forest Office (Kenya Forest Service), Mwala 4. Mattew Kyalo, Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Sub-County Water Office, Mwala 5. Julius Sila Nbolu, Chairperson Machakos Mango Value Chain and seedling trader in Mango 6. Windred M. Muzonza , Area Management Mwala and Lower Yatta, World Vision 7. Ancient Mbatha Matheica, Village Chief Mwala 8. Geraldine Naioki, Head of Extension Services, Best Tropical Fruits (Trader) 9. Joseph N. Mwangangi, Chicken trader (Kenya Best Poultry) FGDs meetings (Men group and women groups) 1. FGD with women in Ngulini (location in Mwala) from different self-help groups (11 participants) 2. FGD with men in Ngulini (location in Mwala) from different self-help groups (12 participants)
3. List of documents reviewed in relation to country review Consolidated Programme Implementation Plan (PIP) for the Drylands Development Programme (DRYDEV) ICRAF/World Vision – DryDev Interventions Kenya ICRAF (June 2015), The Drylands Development Programme Final Inception Report ICRAF (September 2016), The Drylands Development Programme Baseline Survey Report ICRAF (June 2017), The Drylands Development Programme 2016 Narrative Report ICRAF (April 2018), Kenya Drylands Development Programme (DryDev) Annual Report for 2017 0Judith Oduol, Karl Hughes, Hilda Kegode and Joachim Binam (April 2018) Uptake of technologies, practices and approaches promoted by the Drylands Development Programme
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 19 Drylands Development External programme Review
4. Results of surveys at the end of the FGD’s (questions Frans at end of interview checklist in annex inception report) Machakos County FGD's in Ngulini Women Negative Neutral Positive Total 1. Have Natural Resource Management (sand dams, ponds, conservation agriculture, forestry) actions changed natural conditions for your agricultural 11 11 production (of the household). Please compare the situation of the last harvest season with 4 years ago (2013/2014)?) 2. Has your crop (Maize, green grams, etc.) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last 3 4 4 11 harvest year with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? 3. Has your livestock (goats, poultry, cows, milk) production changed over the past 4 11 11 years, comparing the last year of 2017 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? 4. Has World Vision helped/supported you to increase of 11 11 your production of both crops and livestock? 5. Has your Monetary/Cash income from farm activities and product sales changed after you last harvest 1 10 11 compared with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? 6. Have World Vision and SNV contributed to changes in sales of products on the market and your 2 9 11 households’ income? 7. How satisfied are you with the services and activities of World Vision/SNV provided to you and your 7 1 3 11 household/family?
During the discussion with the women the following were observed; ● Activities done by women in in DrydDev: ● Conservation Agriculture training (less workload and time) ● Farm Management Natural Resources training ● Construction of sand dams and less erosion, even roads are better ● Fish is a new crop in our community (ponds) ● Exposure visits (e.g. grow vegetable in bag) were motivating ● Zai pit training ● Farm ponds for irrigation (and fish) ● Drip irrigation ● Training in certified seeds/seedlings. Access to seeds ● What was most important: ● Water harvesting- gain time for women! ● Nursery and trees: more fruits and more income! ● Process fruits ● Constraints:
20 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
● Seed regeneration, loss of quality ● Unrealistic planning of results of seed investments (lack of water) and problems with repaying loans ● Sensitisation of people along the river to invest in reforestation and terraces. Not all cooperate ● Water sources for tree planting not sufficiently reliable ● Marketing of Mango: low price and no market. Only one place to dry mango’s. Not yet linkages with industry (platforms) ● The sheets (liners) for the ponds are very expensive: cheaper solutions are needed ● Results household level: ● Food security better ● More money in household ● Children to school ● Farming (new technologies) becomes more interesting for youth ● Exchange visits have motivated and inspired ● Water is more available and closer by (gain time with fetching of water) ● WASH has improved ● Livestock is doing better and there are more eggs and milk ● Less idle time over the year as more agric and food (growth and processing) become possible.
Men Negative Neutral Positive Total 1. Have Natural Resource Management (sand dams, ponds, conservation agriculture, forestry) actions changed natural conditions for your agricultural 1 11 12 production (of the household). Please compare the situation of the last harvest season with 4 years ago (2013/2014)?) 2. Has your crop (Maize, green grams, etc.) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last 1 2 9 12 harvest year with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? 3. Has your livestock (goats, poultry, cows, milk) production changed over the past 4 5 7 12 years, comparing the last year of 2017 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? 4. Has World Vision helped/supported you to increase of 1 11 12 your production of both crops and livestock? 5. Has your Monetary/Cash income from farm activities and product sales changed after you last harvest 6 6 12 compared with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? 6. Have World Vision and SNV contributed to changes in sales of products on the market and your 1 2 9 12 households’ income? 7. How satisfied are you with the services and activities of World Vision provided to you and your 1 9 2 12 household/family?
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 21 Drylands Development External programme Review
● What activities in DryDev with men? ● water management (training on ponds and water harvesting) ● agricultural transformation ● indigenous trees planting ● exposure visit (on tree planting) ● Community Action Plan ● Conservation Agriculture Training ● Training in NRM management (and having 2 people in village as facilitators) ● Post-harvest management ● Soil conservation methods ● New/Innovating elements ● Water ponds ● Information platforms ● Zai Pits ● Marketing strategies and accessing markets as a group ● Most important activities: ● Ponds ● The choice of sub-locations for activities by the communities in DryDev has ensured relevance and production ● The water now captured by the sand dams ● The river banks improvements (terraces and trees) ● Challenges and problems: ● Post-harvest losses ● Climate smart agric needs much more training ● The high price of the liners (sheets) in ponds ● The scale of most projects/activities is very small and only benefiting a few people ● More training on design and construction water ponds ● Although plans for dams in all villages were made, they were only constructed in a few locations ● Access to water in general remains biggest challenge ● Training in financial planning needed ● Equipment for CA is limited and more finance needed to buy this ● Approach of DryDev in training needs longer term training ● Farmers are not always involved in decision making ● Training is repetitive and sometimes same people benefit twice ● Local stakeholders not sufficiently involved. Tendency to work with higher level organisations and not on the ground ● Improvements in economic situation: ● Many people are satisfied and indicate improvement ● Food availability is now better- more vegetables ● Water access is better and nearby ● Firewood is more available thanks to tree planting ● More food for livestock ● Animal raising has increased and more poultry production
22 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
5. Results of the Biophysical WP’s works inspections (sheet developed by Mark, see annex inception report) Checklist assessment Work Packages 1 & 2 during Field Visits The list below only concerns WP 1 and 2 works that could be inspected during the field visit to Mwala, Ngulini and is not representative of all the investments/WP’s in Mwala Location: Kenya, Machakos county, Mwala, Ngulini Extent Relevance Type Quality (H/M/L) Comments (estimate) (H/M/L) Evidence of Soil & Water Conservation Activities (Sub-catchment and farm level)
Sand Dam Concrete Effects until 500 High (in High Farmers report (photo 1) Dam with meters around combination with increase water supply elevation on sub-surface dam including in shallow both sides and shallow well well (nearby 100 (build as an meters) and add on of a boreholes within 500 sub-surface meters from dam. dam 100 6000 USD investment meters up- in total. stream) Only water for agriculture and livestock (though indirectly drinking water in nearby boreholes)
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 23 Drylands Development External programme Review
Evidence of Management and Rehabilitation of water storage infrastructure:
Pond and Pond of 8 by On-farm level Medium (cost is High Small pond, used watertank 4 meters And (and mostly for relatively high) for greenhouse (photo 2) 1.5 meters greenhouse and capacity (tomato-farming). dept with irrigation) limited Farmers complain plastic about the cost of bottom cover the lining (plastic cover) needed
24 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Evidence of sub-catchment level land management improvements:
Terracing of Terracing on Entire Medium (not High Crucial for capacity and Riverine areas one hectare community (and yet finished maintenance sand-dam. on one side of dam area) and planted) Difficult to convince (photo 3) the river farmers/communities to do so (other side because they don’t see was forested) immediate effect
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 25 Drylands Development External programme Review
II Country report Ethiopia
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 26 Drylands Development External programme Review
1. Description of DryDev Implementation in Ethiopia
1.1 Policy and Programme Context There are two main policies and programmes at the national level with direct relevance to DryDev. These are the second Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP II) and the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP). GTP II runs from 2015-2020 and follows on from GTP I that ran from 2010-2015. GTP I focused on accelerating growth in the production of traditional crops by promoting the adoption of improved technologies, increasing investment in rural infrastructure, particularly for irrigation and improved watershed management, and emphasized the need to ensure food security across all sections of Ethiopian society. During GTP II, while accelerated growth in agricultural productivity continues to be an important area of focus, a gradual shift in emphasis towards high value crops and livestock production is envisaged to be complemented by the establishment of a market system that benefits farmers and non-farm rural actors. The target is for Ethiopia to be middle income country by 2025. However, GTP II goes beyond this to promote more sustainable farming practices and enhanced conservation of indigenous biodiversity resources as well as livelihood development from natural resources (forestry, rehabilitated lands, water resources, etc.). A third area of emphasis is food security that continues to be a challenge. Finally, specific focus is placed on building institutional capacity for implementing and monitoring agricultural development. An underlying principle of the GTP II for agricultural development is that environmental sustainability must be maintained, climate change adaptation and mitigation should be promoted, and growth should be broad based and inclusive, with a particular focus on engaging women, youth and poor households. Under both GTP I & II the management and rehabilitation of natural resources has been undertaken through the Sustainable Land Management Programme (SLMP) the aim of which is to reduce land degradation and restore degraded lands and to improve agricultural productivity of smallholder farmers leading to the restoration of ecosystem function and improved food security. The 177 woredas where SLMP has been proposed or is taking place are shown in Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-2.
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-2 SLMP Woredas
PSNP complements GTP II and is aimed at enabling the rural poor facing chronic food insecurity to resist shocks, create assets and become food self-sufficient. PSNP targets chronically food insecure households and provides multi-annual predictable transfers of food and/or cash to help chronically food insecure people survive food deficit periods and avoid depleting their productive assets while attempting to meet their basic food requirements.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 27 Drylands Development External programme Review
Able-bodied members of PSNP households must participate in productive activities that will build more resilient livelihoods, such as rehabilitating land and water resources and developing community infrastructure, including rural road rehabilitation and building schools and clinics. One of the criteria of woreda selection for inclusion in DryDev was that it should be covered by the PSNP. Another criterion was that it should not be a SLMP woreda. At the regional level Regional States are ethno-linguistically based and have a large degree of autonomy and are responsible for PSNP coordination, management and implementation.
1.2 DryDev in Ethiopia 2014-2018, Overview DryDev in Ethiopia is administered by World Vision Ethiopia as the National Lead Organisation and operates in two Regional States; Tigray and Oromiya. In Tigray three woredas (Samre, Kilte Awulalo and Tseda Emba) include 16 target sub-watersheds with interventions implemented by the Relief Society of Tigray (REST), and World Vision Ethiopia in Tseda Emba. There are also three target woredas in Oromiya; two (Gursum and Jarso) located in East Hararge Zone comprise 8 sub- watersheds and are implemented by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church – Development and Inter Church Aid Commission (EOC-DICAC) and one (Boset) in Eastern Shoa Zone comprises 5 sub- watersheds and is implemented by World Vision. DryDev is implemented in a total of 29 sub-watersheds (16 in Tigray, 13 in Oromiya) with a total coverage of 39,493ha and reaching 20,935 households of which 63% (13,200) are male-headed and 37% (7,735) are female-headed. If 2013 and 2014 were characterized by inactivity and administrative bottlenecks then 2015 to 2018 have seen a surge in activity on the ground. 2015 was in many ways the first year of real activity centred on technical training, the development of Community Action Plans (CAP) following visioning and the selection of suitable interventions through the OxC (Contextually Appropriate Options) process by Community Watershed Teams that had been established. The initial focus was on sub- catchment level natural resource management (i.e. WP1) with interventions targeting the rehabilitation of degraded (largely communal) areas through Area Closure and Farmer Managed Natural Resources with enrichment planting. In addition, training was provided on on-farm soil & water conservation (SWC) practices (WP2) and access to improved inputs facilitated (WP3). Work in 2016 and 2017 accelerated with a greater emphasis on enhancing market access (WP4) to build on the gains made in implementing natural resource management, soil & water conservation and improved commodity production under WPs 1-3. To achieve this location specific commodities were identified and their value chain and market access potential enhanced. In addition linkages were made with financial institutions (WP5) and government institutions at woreda, kebele and sub- watershed level have been trained and strengthened. At the time of the evaluation in May 2018 DryDev is considered to be a success with farmers reporting surrounding hills degradation halted and well on the way to becoming a resource, crop yields doubled with ready access to market for surplus crops by-passing middlemen, improved water management and soil fertility, enhanced access to credit and with some communities and households graduating from being food insecure and under PSNP to being self-sufficient. In addition there is evidence that DryDev interventions are being taken up by surrounding communities and are being promoted by local government in other areas and that people are acting more like commercial farmers with some taking out insurance against crop losses. There is also evidence that migration to urban areas and other countries is being reversed with people seeing greater opportunities in their communities.
28 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
At the policy level there is a keen interest in the Dry Dev approach and a conference has been proposed later in 2018 to highlight the successful linkage of natural resource development and management and improved market access that is a feature of DryDev.
1.3 NLO and national level aspects of DryDev DryDev in Ethiopia is administered by World Vision Ethiopia as the National Lead Organisation. It has linkages with ICRAF as the overall implementing agency, with the Government of Ethiopia and the Governments of Tigray and Oromiya Regional States. Relations with ICRAF were initially reported to be dreadful but have greatly improved. The issues were reportedly to do with personnel rather than institutional but World Vision has indicated that they expected more technical support from ICRAF on agroforestry issues. It appreciates that ICRAF is in a difficult position not wishing to tread on other CIGAR institutions’ toes. No issues were reported in relations with the federal government or regional governments.
1.4 IP’s and implementation on the ground in locations WVE have not reported any issues with the Implementing Partners of REST (Tigray) and EOC-DICAC in Oromiya and nor have the IPs reported any issues with WVE. WVE noted that REST were an unknown entity to them when selected as IP for Tigray but they have been impressed with their performance and also noted that while there was initial scepticism of EOC-DICAC’s intentions by the largely Muslim population in Gursum and Jarso this has evaporated as the project has progressed. In addition relations between WVE and the IPs and government representatives at woreda and development agents (DAs) kebele level have been good with the local government officials enthusiastically embracing DryDev interventions and approaches. Similarly relations with the target groups appear to be very good with almost total acceptance noted by beneficiaries both during focus group discussions and field visits.
1.5 Limitations/Bottlenecks encountered in country-level field work The only limitation encountered during the country level fieldwork was the short length of time available for the evaluation meaning that it was not possible to fit in all meetings, focus group discussions and field verification visits that one would ideally have wanted.
2. Analysis of DryDev implementation and its results in country
2.1 Overall analysis of overall implementation and organisational and institutional set-up Overall DryDev can be considered a success with large areas of degraded land rehabilitated, crop and livestock production increased, access to inputs, markets and credit enhanced and overall livelihood improvement evidenced in FGDs by increased household income, improved status of women and reduction of migration due to improved opportunities at home. Initial challenges between ICRAF and WVE led to a slow start to the programme but changes within ICRAF and a change in its role led to a surge of activity between 2015 and 2018. The selection of target woredas was undertaken using criteria of aridity (rainfall between 400-800mm), food insecurity (therefore targeted by the GoE PSNP with funding for interventions), little or no NGO
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 29 Drylands Development External programme Review
presence, water and land potential (so that interventions would have an impact) and regional balance. An initial 52 woredas was reduced to the final 6. The IPs were selected by fulfilling criteria of having a licence to operate in Ethiopia, grass roots representation, financial probity (audit reports), a ratio of 30/70 project management/field operations budget allocation and previous achievements. There have been no major issues between WVE and the IPs. WVE as the Lead Organisation and the IPs have worked closely with government staff at both woreda and kebele level. At woreda level many sector specialists such as Soil & Water Conservation, Forestry, Agriculture & NRM, Irrigation, Input Supply, Youth & Women’s Affairs, Livestock, Co- operatives and Value chain specialists have worked with DryDev. At kebele level the Development Agents (DAs) with training in SWC, NRM, Agriculture and Livestock have been integral to the DryDev process. The presence of the SLMP and PSNP initiatives has undoubtedly helped the implementation of DryDev on the ground since the local government specialists have had exposure to similar programmes and have been trained in using the Community Based Participatory Watershed Development Guidelines (MoARD 2005) that formed the basis for establishing the Community Sub- Watershed Teams (CSWTs) at kebele level and the subsequent implementation of interventions. The linkage of WPs 4 & 5 (access to market and value chains, access to finance) with the more conventional biophysical interventions of WPs 1-3 is a hallmark of DryDev and has been wholeheartedly embraced by the local government staff which has led to the successful implementation of WP6, capacity building and local governance. The lack of an exit strategy at the end of the programme (apart from an overcomplicated assessment of impact indicators and possibly further assessment some years later) was recognised as an issue relatively early in the programme and WVE have subsequently designed an exit strategy for Ethiopia and each IP and woreda also has an exit strategy. As part of this DryDev staff (WVE and IPs) have been reducing their inputs and have handed over more responsibility to woreda and kebele staff so that they can take over administrative duties at the end of DryDev involvement. World Vision Australia are reported to have written a scaling out report in 2016 but this has not been seen.
2.2 Analysis of implementation and results of WPs 1-3 (biophysical work packages) Under WP1 over 18,700 farmers have been capacitated by the CSWTs and the equivalent of US$2.2m has been provided in labour and materials with 22,215ha of degraded land rehabilitated and a further 130,780ha of land under Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) with enrichment planting supplied by strengthened nurseries. This has reportedly resulted in increased infiltration, reduced runoff and soil erosion and increased fertility of downstream land. In addition SWC and Water Harvesting has developed a storage capacity of >1,376m3. A further 2,450ha of communal land has come under sustainable grazing management with fodder production and cut and carry fodder practices have been taken up. As mitigation against deforestation the development of improved cooking stoves has reached over 18,000 people. In FGDs WP1 outputs were well received with farmers in Osole and Sala Denke in Boset stating that they had changed their attitudes and now had the capacity to manage the communal land and to mitigate against damaging runoff and flooding. In addition previously unproductive land was now productive with fodder production (sometimes using cut and carry), animal fattening and dairying particularly benefiting women and apiculture being developed. Similarly at Sala Denke in Boset farmers have protected their irrigated lands from gullies by constructing gabions and stone and
30 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review brushwood check-dams and In FGDs in Tigray NRM was cited as the most important intervention in 5 out of the 6 interviews. Under WP2 over 12,500 farmers have been mobilised for on-farm SWC works with soil bunds and trenches noted in the fields as shown in Annex 5. In addition enhanced agro-forestry and on-farm FMNR has reached over 18,000 farmers with nearly 440,000 trees planted on 3,950ha of land. Small- scale irrigation using rainwater harvesting techniques has reached around 11,000 farmers with 49 small-scale irrigation schemes developed covering 2,260ha. The impact on farmers’ livelihoods has been huge with women in Boset reporting that yields of haricot beans had doubled (1.6-3.2t/ha) and that their skills had improved with most now using row planting and improved seeds and that they now had income from fruits and vegetables that they had not had previously. WP3 has developed an improved input supply system through introducing 97 new technologies and practices, developing 95 input producer groups and over 4,400ha of land has been managed with improved practices. Over 32,000 farmers participated in climate smart agriculture capacity building events with improved access to inputs and it is reported that 92% of farmers now practice climate smart agriculture. Part of the sequential nature of the programme has been to improve production through the introduction of new seeds and varieties and then to reduce post-harvest losses. These are reported to be appreciably lower than the 30% national average often 1-6% with the highest for potato in Jarso at 17%. In Sala Denke the development of irrigation, mainly of maize and onions has doubled yield and farmers are now buying pumps to pump water from the Awash River and 120 households have a business plan to develop 150ha for irrigation. The provision of improved seeds, coupled with improved agricultural practices such as row planting has doubled yields of haricot beans and onions and has led directly to livelihood improvement. The sustainability of the interventions undertaken in WPs 1 & 2 was discussed in FGDs and the general feeling was that since there has been a change in attitude and that farmers were experiencing the benefits through increased yields and alternative incomes then there would be no going back. As REST pointed out in Tigray though, maintenance is key and time will only tell whether the structures are maintained. At Osole in Oromiya women in the FGD voiced concerns about sustainability but the men did not.
2.3 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 4-6 (value chain development and local support/service/governance work packages) WPs 4 and 5 enhance market access and access to financial institutions and it is here that DryDev in Ethiopia has really benefitted farmers. Just under 6,000 farmers have benefitted from capacity development in post-harvest technology and over 11,000 value chain stakeholders have been engaged with 3,370 farmers participating in targeted value chains with 42 marketing groups established and over 10,000 farmers linked to market information providers. Over 7,200 producers have been linked to institutions such as co-operatives, unions and financial institutions and 155 business plans have been developed for producers. In addition 187 village level savings and credit groups (VLSAs) have been established with over 10,600 farmers introduced to savings and credit and some 6,500 farmers are group members. Of these groups 172 have received financial and resource management training with 76 linked to micro- finance institutions. A total of 11 value chain commodities (including livestock) have been identified covering the six woredas with 9 of them studied in greater detail. In Boset, Haricot beans and onions are the commodities identified for value chain developments in Osole and Sala Denke respectively. In Osole
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 31 Drylands Development External programme Review
farmers are now linked with input and output unions such as the Lume Adama Farmers Union and some farmers (15 farmers on 10ha) now produce improved seeds for others to use. Where previously they produced maize, teff and beans and relied on food aid through the safety net programme many have now graduated from the PSNP to self-sufficiency and produce beans for market. In 2017 they sold 47.1t of haricot beans providing an income of 0.7 million Birr. Farmers are even starting to access insurance against crop failure, a new development in Ethiopia and a sure sign of a shift from subsistence to commercial farming. In Sala Denke onion producers have cut out the brokers and now sell directly to the market in Addis Ababa through the ‘Mefti’ association. Farmers hire a truck to get the onions to market but if they cannot then the association will send one to be paid for after the onions are sold. Interestingly when women in Sala Denke were asked what the most important DryDev activity was they answered ‘the development of a savings culture’. A Savings and Credit Group has been established with 120 members who contribute 26 Birr a month, B25 of which can be withdrawn at a later date for inputs such as improved seed and 1 Birr is designated for a social fund to help the most disadvantaged in the community. In Gursum woreda Oromiya, milk was selected as a value chain commodity with 80 women farmers forming a producers group to market their milk in the woreda town. DryDev in collaboration with the local government set up a milk processing centre in the village so that the fragmented nature of production could be collated and value added by boiling milk and butter making as well as negating the need to travel 15-20km to town every day. This has led to a huge drop in milk wastage and an increase in income for the women since they sell 150-200 litres a day to market. Similarly in Jarso shoats were identified as a value chain commodity and 33 women shoat farmers now sell 17-55 shoats a week to markets in nearby towns. In Tigray, village level saving groups (VLSAs) to fund income generating activities were introduced by DryDev and are reported to have changed the attitude and behaviour of the community. In the past RuSACCO (Rural Savings & Credit Co-operatives) existed at kebele level often with up to 5,000 members. The VLSAs set up by DryDev has encouraged farmers to save because they are operated in small groups of about 20 people who know each other well. This has helped build trust and confidence in saving and VLSAs now feed into RuSACCOs. WP 6 is concerned with local governance and institutional strengthening and here again progress has been good. DryDev has worked with local government officers at both woreda and kebele level. In Boset woreda staff appreciated that DryDev had been ‘integrated into government planning’ and that many staff were members of the woreda level steering committee and DAs were part of the Community Sub-Watershed Teams involved in the development of action plans with biennial review. The staff rated their relationship with WV as the IP in Boset as ‘very good’ pointing out that they (WV) volunteered to be monitored and opened their project plan to all stakeholders. In turn the woreda staff and DAs said that they had learnt from DryDev (‘improving market linkage and access is the key’) and were actively seeking to implement lessons learnt in other parts of the woreda. Similarly in Tigray government officers stated that the DryDev implementation approach did not conflict with the government approach and involved them in all programme activities including the district project steering committee, the collaborative planning of watershed activities with community, involvement and in follow-up to ensure compliance with quarterly meetings for evaluation with the DryDev team. The woredas acknowledged that DryDev is the best model so far and is now adopting the DryDev principles of scaling out to other woredas.
32 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
2.4 Analysis of implementation and results of WP 7 (Planning, M&E & scaling of learning) Planning formed an important part of DryDev in the initial stages through visioning, problem identification, community action plans and detailed implementation plans. WVE reported that planning using Options by Context was ‘not easy’ but that it was good for planning interventions, particularly at the sub-watershed level. REST noted that they were familiar with the Theory of Change having been introduced to it through a USAID project. All involved in the planning process (IPs, local government, beneficiaries) state that the process was fair and equitable and that the communities feel ownership of the plan and subsequent interventions. The integration of women, youths and the disadvantaged into the programme was assured by their representation in CSWTs with many of the selected interventions tailored particularly for women and the youth such as management of Area Closure and FMNR suitable for small livestock, fattening for cattle and apiculture. In FGDs both in Oromiya and Tigray women stated that their status and bargaining power within both the family and community had improved and that decisions were now taken after discussion and negotiation within the family. In addition their improved economic condition was resulting in better schooling for their children. The development of a saving culture and improved economic conditions has meant, in some cases, that the community is better able to take care of the disadvantaged for example in Osole by gifting improved seeds to those who could not afford them. WVE report that regular monitoring has been achieved through 269 monitoring visits and that farmers have been engaged in planning and M&E activities. They do however point out that the programme has 130 indicators which has made it difficult to follow at times and that double counting has happened. They indicate that an electronic monitoring system would ideally have been built into the programme from the start to enable them to target and monitor specific farmers at the sub- watershed level. The scaling out of land management initiatives from targeted watersheds to neighbouring areas has historically been a problem in Ethiopia from before the WFP MERET programme through the SLMP largely due to the failure to link land rehabilitation and increased productivity to market access. The DryDev approach of sequential integration of natural resource management with value chains and market access may have changed that in that all actors in the programme report some degree of scaling out from target sub-watersheds to neighbouring areas. At the national level WVE report an interest in the DryDev approach from the federal government and from the German government who are donors to SLMP. WVE are planning a workshop towards the end of 2018 to introduce the DryDev approach and results to a wider audience to include representatives from the federal government, regional states, donors, NGOs and the wider development community. IPs report that scaling up within DryDev has been a success as evidenced by households and communities graduating from the safety net programme to self-sufficiency. World Vision in Boset note that the cluster farming principle is now being taken up by DAs and plan to scale out to a further 13 kebeles. EOC-DICAC report that they are using DryDev approaches in other projects and REST in Tigray also note that scaling up has resulted in self-sufficient communities and that there is a high demand for scaling out the approach to other areas. They have organised farmer field days to showcase DryDev sub-watersheds to other farmers. Woreda staff in Boset have noted that some approaches (particularly water harvesting) are being taken up spontaneously by surrounding communities and they are also promoting the approach in other areas. In Tigray woreda staff are adopting the DryDev model and the principles of scaling out and aim to scale out to other areas.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 33 Drylands Development External programme Review
In FGDs beneficiaries also said that surrounding communities were adopting some of the approaches, particularly water harvesting in Boset since the price for a tank has dropped from about 44,000 Birr to 13,000 Birr. Women in Osole though did worry about sustainability if DryDev ended but this was not echoed in other FGDs or by the men in Osole who said that they now had the capacity to manage their watershed.
2.5 Analysis of implementation and results of WP8 (Policy Analysis & Advocacy) According to WVE 12 platforms have been established for increasing dialogue with policy implementers and 1,472 people have taken part in events to increase awareness on policy provision. As noted above WVE are planning a workshop towards the end of 2018 to introduce the DryDev approach and results to a wider audience to include representatives from the federal government, regional states, donors, NGOs and the wider development community.
3. Appreciation of ICRAF, NLO and IP’s performance and results of activities
3.1 By beneficiaries At FGDs male and female beneficiaries were asked to rank the most important activities they had participated in, what bottlenecks still existed and how their personal situation had changed due to Dry Dev. After this they were asked seven questions regarding their livelihood changes during the DryDev period. The results of the 7 questions are shown in Annex 4. At Osole in Oromiya the women ranked improved awareness of water harvesting, row planting and access to improved seeds highly since these activities had enabled them to improve their standard of living, build a new house (with tin roof), move into town and buy improved livestock. The men ranked the ability to effectively manage NRM in communal areas highest followed by improved farming practice and access to market all of which have resulted in their improved economic conditions. World Vision was highly commended for its inputs and the community valued field days and enjoyed being role models. Bottlenecks concerned the supply of fertilizer, some issues with credit and the women questioned the sustainability of haricot bean production. Overall the community voted overwhelmingly positively with regard to the project and World Vision’s performance. At Sala Denke the women ranked the creation of a savings culture highest while men rated their ability to manage NRM in communal lands highest followed by the provision of irrigation pumps, improved seeds and training packages. They also rated the establishment of the Chefe Alem Farmers Association highly. Women stated that their improved circumstances meant that they had more income and cash and therefore could afford to educate their children, keep their families in food and clothes, buy TVs and solar panels and shoats, poultry and milk cows to increase cash income. It has also improved their status within the family with decision making now made through negotiation with their husbands. Bottlenecks include the cost of irrigation pumps (although we learnt that many farmers are now buying pumps and renting them out as well as irrigating their own land) and the need to expand NRM and Area Closure into hills surrounding the sub-watershed. All felt that the developments were sustainable, that they ‘had started on the road’ and now had the skills and won’t go back. They pointed out that the area had graduated out of PSNP to food self-sufficiency. Again the community voted overwhelmingly positively with regard to the project and World Vision’s performance.
34 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
At Meago in Tigray both men and women ranked NRM the highest, particularly gully rehabilitation with women then appreciating dairy development and men capacity building and irrigation development. No negative impacts were noted but bottlenecks included market linkage, roof rainwater harvesting and potable water for women and road repair, canal extension and access to loans for men. Both groups stated that their economic circumstances had improved, particularly for the youth, that migration had reduced and that conflict between women and men regarding decision making had also reduced. At Agona sub-watershed women ranked animal fattening, NRM and water harvesting highest and men NRM, shoat rearing, apiculture and irrigation development. No negative impacts were noted but bottlenecks included potable water and seed supply for women and drought, size of land holdings and paucity of shoats for men. Both groups stated that their economic circumstances had improved, with some female headed households graduating from PSNP, that migration had reduced, a savings culture had established and that conflict between women and men regarding decision making had also reduced. In Tseda Emba woreda both men and women ranked NRM the highest, followed by irrigation followed by poultry development for women and area closure for men. No negative impacts were noted but bottlenecks included potable water and the high price of inputs for women and the need for a dam and for capacity building to reach more farmers for men. Both groups stated that their economic circumstances had improved, with some households graduating from PSNP, that migration had reduced, a savings culture had established and that conflict between women and men regarding decision making had also reduced. The results of questions asked at all FGDs regarding project outcomes and beneficiaries’ satisfaction is shown in Table A4-1 in Annex 4 and shows that beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their progress under DryDev. Most questions have positive answers in the range of 80-95% with only question 6 regarding sales having only a 64% positive rating and a 12% negative rating, all in Tigray. In summary almost all beneficiaries are appreciative of the efforts of WVE as the NLO and the respective IPs during DryDev implementation.
3.2 By key external stakeholders The key external stakeholder is the Federal Government of Ethiopia and the Governments of the Regional States through the woreda and kebele staff all of which are known to hold the project in high regards to the extent that they are implementing some of DryDev’s approaches in other areas.
4. External factors and actors that have influenced implementation, results and outcomes
A major contributory factor to the success of the project is the fact that Ethiopia has experience in implementing projects of the nature of DryDev although these have mainly been integrated watershed management through soil and water conservation projects such as MERET, SLMP and PSNP. MERET ran from 2003-2015 with support from WFP and accrued extensive knowledge on how to implement sustainable land management activities using participatory community-based approaches. It operated in six regions with 451 communities and rehabilitated more than 400,000 ha of degraded land in 72 chronically food insecure woredas reaching 648,000 people. A major output of MERET was the Guideline for Community Based Participatory Watershed Development (CBPWD, MoARD, 2005) that sets out the method for participatory micro-watershed
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 35 Drylands Development External programme Review
development and gives technical guidance for around 60 interventions covering physical soil and water conservation, water harvesting, gully control and agro-forestry among others. These guidelines formed the basis of the visioning, options by context, community action plans and detailed implementation plans developed under DryDev. SLMP followed on from MERET in 2009 with similar aims of reversing land and environmental degradation supported by capacity building. It is implemented through existing GoE administration at woreda and kebele levels following the same CBPWD guidelines developed under MERET where the implementation of interventions is phased in according to the capacity of local government institutions and communities. SLMP I ran from 2009-2013 and SLMP II is ongoing in 177 woredas, mainly in the highlands. It is an open and participatory programme but stops short of the market access and value chain link development that characterises DryDev. PSNP targets food insecure woredas with food and/or cash aid for rehabilitating land and water resources and developing community infrastructure. Since all DryDev woredas were under PSNP, beneficiaries were used to the concept of providing labour for communal works and the mandatory requirement to provide 20 days a year communal labour to construct physical soil & water conservation structures such as cut off drains and gully check-dams that are out of the ability of individual farmers. As noted for the implementation of MERET, SLMP and PSNP the local government structure at woreda and kebele level is a major factor that has influenced the implementation, results and outcomes of DryDev. At woreda level DryDev has worked with many subject specialists, not only in agriculture and land management but also in developing markets, value chains and in accessing finance and credit and establishing co-operatives. At kebele level the DAs have been instrumental in developing capacity and planning with the Community Sub-watershed Teams. The fact that this expertise exists at these levels of local government has been a major positive influence on the outcomes. However one constraint reported is that woreda staff circulate frequently so continuity can be an issue. The relationship between WVE and ICRAF was initially problematic and resulted in a delay in implementation. However in time, and with personnel changes the issues have been largely been overcome but it is still felt that ICRAF should provide more advice on agroforestry interventions and funding permitting, should also liaise more closely with other CGIAR institutions such as ILRI (Livestock), ICRISAT (semi-arid crops) and ICARDA (drylands). Early on in the project it was realised that a greater emphasis on livestock would be required than was originally designed for, the importance of livestock to livelihoods having been overlooked at conception level by design. This particularly affects women since they are the ones with responsibility for small livestock, poultry, apiculture and dairy cows. WVE successfully managed to integrate livestock into its values chain analysis with particular emphasis in Jarso and Gursum in Oromiya where shoats, dairy production and apiculture and honey production (all almost wholly the responsibility of women) have been successfully introduced and/or upscaled. The political situation in Ethiopia with a State of Emergency in place for much of the DryDev period has had the potential to be a major factor influencing implementation but in fact has not been that problematic with minimal disruption mainly with travel. The El Niño drought affected Ethiopia in 2016 and was commented upon in some FGDs in Tigray where interventions to combat the persistent effects of the drought were sought. For the country as a whole 9.7m people needed food assistance due to the drought but flooding due to heavy rains in the ‘belg’ rains (March-May) affected other areas.
36 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
5. Conclusions
Overall DryDev can be considered a success with relatively large areas of degraded land rehabilitated, crop and livestock production increased, access to inputs, markets and credit enhanced and overall livelihood improvement evidenced in FGDs by increased household income, improved status of women and reduction of migration due to improved opportunities at home. It is the integration of interventions related to sustainable land management with market access, value chain development and access to finance and credit that sets DryDev apart. The holistic (not piecemeal) treatment of the sub-basin has been key.
Conclusions with respect to organisational and institutional arrangements (ICRAF, NLO, IP’s and external partners) ● The relationship between WVE and ICRAF was initially problematic and resulted in a delay in implementation. However in time, and with improved clarity regarding roles and mandeates the issues have been largely been overcome but it is still felt that ICRAF should provide more advice on agroforestry interventions and should also liaise more closely with other CGIAR institutions such as ILRI (Livestock), ICRISAT (semi-arid crops) and ICARDA (drylands). ● There have been no major issues between WVE and the IPs. All have worked closely with government staff at both woreda and kebele level. The presence of the SLMP and PSNP initiatives has undoubtedly helped the implementation of DryDev on the ground since the local government specialists have had exposure to similar programmes and have been trained in using the Community Based Participatory Watershed Development Guidelines (MoARD 2005) that formed the basis for establishing the Community Sub-Watershed Teams (CSWTs) at kebele level and the subsequent implementation of interventions.
Conclusions with respect to results of work packages (1-6) at level of communities ● At many sites it is the sequential implementation of WPs 1-3 followed by WPs 4-6 that results in the best outcomes. At all sites it is the integration of activities that has worked well. Particularly pertinent in hilly areas such as Ethiopia the treatment of non-agricultural land by the community for community benefit (and often mainly for women and youth) by Area Closure and NRM with enrichment planting rehabilitates this land so that it re-establishes its ecosystem functions as well as providing income (fattening livestock, cut and carry fodder, apiculture). ● Training in implementing SLM and SWC practices in WPs 1 & 2 has greatly helped to build community spirit with farmers now confident in their ability to manage their sub-watershed and surrounding areas. This bodes well for sustainability. ● The integrated community planning process (visioning, options by context, community action plans and detailed implementation plans) has resulted in beneficiaries feeling ownership of the planning process and interventions. ● The identification of products for which sub-watersheds have a comparative advantage, the analysis of the value chain and the subsequent linking of those products to a market, cutting out the middlemen, has hugely benefitted the producers and it is this linkage that sets DryDev apart from other land management projects.
Conclusions with respect to knowledge creation and exchange and Lobby and Advocacy (WP 7-8) ● The scaling up and out of land management initiatives from targeted watersheds to neighbouring areas has historically been a problem in Ethiopia largely due to the failure to link land
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 37 Drylands Development External programme Review
rehabilitation and increased productivity to market access. Initial results show some evidence of scaling out in that all actors in the programme report some degree of scaling out from target sub- watersheds to neighbouring areas. World Vision in Boset note that the cluster farming principle is now being taken up by DAs and plan to scale out to a further 13 kebeles. EOC-DICAC report that they are using DryDev approaches in other projects and REST in Tigray also note that scaling up has resulted in self-sufficient communities and that there is a high demand for scaling out the approach to other areas. They have organised farmer field days to showcase DryDev sub- watersheds to other farmers. Woreda staff in Boset have noted that some approaches (particularly water harvesting) are being taken up spontaneously by surrounding communities and they are also promoting the approach in other areas. In Tigray woreda staff are adopting the DryDev model and the principles of scaling out and aim to scale out to other areas. ● There is also evidence of scaling up and sustainability within DryDev target areas as evidenced by households and communities graduating from the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) to self-sufficiency and in having enough money after spending on food and clothing to invest in other income generating activities and education. This gives those concerned a feeling of success and links with the confidence members have in managing their sub-watershed.
Other Conclusions ● Women have been empowered by the project, with regards to NRM and Area Closure and subsequent income generating activities in communal lands but also in some areas where value chain commodities overwhelmingly benefit women such as dairy in Gursum and shoats in Jarso. This has improved the status of women and led to them investing surplus income in income generating activities such as poultry, shoats and fruit trees. At the same time the introduction of a savings culture has been greatly appreciated and this ability to create and manage wealth has given them much more bargaining power within the family and is leading to improved education of children. ● There is little evidence of disadvantaged groups being specifically targeted by the programme however women, youth, disabled people and religious leaders are all represented in the CWMTs. There is also evidence that through the programme communities themselves are helping disadvantaged groups by setting aside some of their savings as a social fund for instance and by buying improved seeds for those who cannot afford them.
6. Recommendations
For the remaining period of implementation of DryDev in Ethiopia and a possible follow up phase, the NLO and implementing partners are recommended to consider the following: ● The core area of the 6 woredas should be retained with minimal support to those areas supported under phase I but they should be monitored for sustainability and the effect of the change to self- sufficiency. In particular the management and maintenance of communal interventions, the ability to respond to market changes and the effect of a potential increase in livestock due to increased affluence should be monitored. ● The DryDev approach should be expanded to other sub-basins within the same woredas following the same approach as in phase I with the addition of an enhanced livestock work package ● The provision of potable water should be explored since this was frequently cited as an issue during FGDs and is a particular concern for women
38 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
● The number of indicators needs to be reduced from its current 130 and an electronic monitoring system should be introduced to target specific farmers at the sub-watershed level ● Youth unemployment is becoming a critical national issue and while DryDev has reduced and even reversed out migration, particularly in Tigray, there is scope for linking agriculture with IT particularly with value chain and market developments. This could be explored further in a phase II. Furthermore ICRAF is recommended to: ● Become more proactive in suggesting agroforestry interventions in WPs 1-3 ● Consider either strengthening its development department to become more multi-disciplinary or should strengthen contacts with other CGIAR institutions particularly, ILRI and ICRISAT, in further developing and implementing work packages
In Ethiopia the new cabinet is reportedly interested in implementing ‘what works’ and it is the sequential linking of SLM to value chains and markets that has worked particularly well under DryDev. This provides a huge opportunity for the DryDev partners to expand and upscale the DryDev approach (undertaken in 6 woredas) to the 177 SLMP woredas that have in many ways completed WPs 1-3 and need linkages to WPs 4-6 to graduate to commercial self-sufficiency. It is unlikely that NGOs will have the capacity to run such a programme therefore it will be up to the GoE at Federal, Regional State and at woreda and kebele level to implement with guidance from the ICRAF, WVE and the IPs. To this end World Vision should be encouraged to go ahead with organising a workshop towards the end of 2018 to introduce the DryDev approach and results to a wider audience to include representatives from the federal government, regional states, donors, NGOs and the wider development community.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 39 Drylands Development External programme Review
Annexes
1. Country visit and activity programme 14 May Meeting at World Vision Ethiopia HQ Addis Ababa World Vision Ethiopia (NLO) REST (Relief Society of Tigray) IP Tigray EOC-DICAC (Ethiopian Orthodox Church-Development and Inter-Church Aid Commission) IP Jarso & Gursum, Oromiya ICRAF World Vision Australia
15 May OROMIYA Meeting at World Vision Boset, Welenchiti Boset Woreda Technical Staff Boset Steering Committee World Vision Ethiopia IP Boset Oromiya FGD at Osole Sub-Watershed, Sara Arada Kebele Field visit TIGRAY Meeting at REST, Mekelle Meeting in Wurko with Kilite Awulaelo REST Coordination Office Woreda Technical Staff FGD at Meago Sub-watershed
16 May OROMIYA FGD at Sala Denke Sub-Watershed, Sifa Beta Kebele Field visit and brief discussion with Onion Farmer Meeting with World Vision Ethiopia IP Boset, Oromiya TIGRAY FGD- Agona sub watershed Meeting with ICRAF Ethiopia staff, Mekelle
17 May TIGRAY Meeting with Woreda Technical Staff Tseada Emba Woreda FGD Tseada-Emba
40 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
2. List of people interviewed 14 May Meeting at World Vision Ethiopia HQ Addis Ababa Assefa Tofu - NLO, DryDev Program Manager & Chair DryDev Country Core Team Kendie Rufaael - Head, Development Department, EOC-DICAC and member of DryDev Country Core Team Tewaney Sefe Sillase - DryDev program officer and member of DryDev Country Core Team Dr Mulugeta Berhanu - Liaison officer and member of DryDev Country Core Team Dr Kiros Hadigu - ICRAF Ethiopia, Country Representative and member of DryDev Country Core Team Alemayehu Sitotaw - NLO, DryDev MAE and Communication Coordinator and member of DryDev Country Core Team Diriba Insene - NLO, DryDev Stakeholders Engagements & Value Chain Coordinator Eddie Brown – National Director, World Vision Ethiopia
15 May TIGRAY Meeting at the Relief Society of Tigray REST at Mekelle Desta Gebremichael Gebrekidan Department Head - Environmental rehabilitation and agricultural development programme M&E officer Value chain development officer Forestry officer Cooperatives officer REST Kilte Awlaelo project coordination office Alem Gidena, Coordinator Yalesh Tadesse, Livelihood Officer Tesfay Halefome, Livestock/livelihood officer Ataklti Haile, SWC expert Tewolde G/Meskel, Forestry Officer Government Officers, Kilte Awulalo Woreda Nuguse Berhe, RUSACCO Development Officer, District Cooperative, Marketing and Promotion Desk Teame Hailu, Livestock Coordinator, Office of Agriculture and Rural development Nuguse T/Haimanot, Co-operative Co-ordinator, District Co-operative Desk: Agricultural Input Supply Office Goitom G/silasie, Manager, Honey Union Meles FGDs at Meago sub-watershed 11 women, 22 men
OROMIYA Meeting at World Vision, Boset Woreda office, Welenchiti Boset Woreda staff Agriculture and NRM officer District administrator/assistant Irrigation officer Women & Children’s affairs officer Cooperative and market development officer
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 41 Drylands Development External programme Review
Livestock coordinator Value Chain officer Steering Committee FGD at Osole sub-watershed 9 women, 9 men
16 May TIGRAY FGDs at Agona sub-watershed 15 women, 21 men Meeting with Niguse Hagazi, researcher with ICRAF Ethiopia
OROMIYA FGD at Sala Denke sub-watershed 8 women, 8 men Meeting with Head World Vision, Boset Woreda, Welenchiti
17 May TIGRAY Meeting with Tseda Emba woreda government officers from the following departments: Agriculture and NRM officer District administrator/assistant Youth affairs officer Irrigation officer Women affairs officer Cooperative and market development officer Livestock coordinator Union /farmers union and multipurpose officer Value chain officer FGDs at Tseda Emba woreda 9 women, 12 men
3. List of documents reviewed in relation to country review EOC-DICAC (August 2017), The Journey to Food Security through Dry Dev Program in Gursum and Jarso ICRAF (June 2015), The Drylands Development Programme Final Inception Report ICRAF (September 2016), The Drylands Development Programme Baseline Survey Report ICRAF (June 2017), The Drylands Development Programme 2016 Narrative Report ICRAF/World Vision – DryDev Interventions Ethiopia MoARD (January 2005) Community Based Participatory Watershed Development. A Guideline. Part I & Part II. World Vision (May 2018), DryDev Programme Ethiopia. Sequentially Integrated Natural Resource Management, Water Management, Food Security & Value Chains World Vision (May 2018), Boset – DryDev Programme Achievements 2014-2017 World Vision (April 2016), Ethiopia Drylands Development Programme, 2015 Annual Report World Vision (April 2016), Ethiopia Drylands Development Programme, 2016 Annual Report World Vision (October 2015), Ethiopia Drylands Development Programme, Community Action Planning – Country Consolidated Report
42 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
4. Results of surveys at the end of the FGDs TIGRAY Meago Sub-watershed Women Negative Neutral Positive Total Have Natural Resource Management (sand dams, ponds, conservation agriculture, forestry) actions changed natural conditions for your agricultural production (of the 11 11 household). Please compare the situation of the last harvest season with 4 years ago (2013/2014)?) Has your crop (Maize, green grams, etc.) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last harvest 11 11 year with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Has your livestock (goats, poultry, cows, milk) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last year of 1 10 11 2017 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Has World Vision helped/supported you to increase of 11 11 your production of both crops and livestock? Has your Monetary/Cash income from farm activities and product sales changed after you last harvest compared 11 11 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Have World Vision and REST contributed to changes in sales of products on the market and your 2 9 11 households’ income? How satisfied are you with the services and activities of 1 10 11 World Vision provided to you and your household/family?
Men Negative Neutral Positive Total Have Natural Resource Management (sand dams, ponds, conservation agriculture, forestry) actions changed natural conditions for your agricultural production (of the 3 19 22 household). Please compare the situation of the last harvest season with 4 years ago (2013/2014)?) Has your crop (Maize, green grams, etc.) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last harvest 22 22 year with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Has your livestock (goats, poultry, cows, milk) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last year of 22 22 2017 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Has World Vision helped/supported you to increase of 22 22 your production of both crops and livestock? Has your Monetary/Cash income from farm activities and product sales changed after you last harvest compared 22 22 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Have World Vision and REST contributed to changes in sales of products on the market and your 11 8 3 22 households’ income? How satisfied are you with the services and activities of 22 22 World Vision provided to you and your household/family?
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 43 Drylands Development External programme Review
Agona sub-watershed Women Negative Neutral Positive Total Have Natural Resource Management (sand dams, ponds, conservation agriculture, forestry) actions changed natural conditions for your agricultural production (of the 15 15 household). Please compare the situation of the last harvest season with 4 years ago (2013/2014)?) Has your crop (Maize, green grams, etc.) production 15 changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last harvest 4 11 year with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Has your livestock (goats, poultry, cows, milk) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last year of 2 4 9 15 2017 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Has World Vision helped/supported you to increase of 1 14 15 your production of both crops and livestock? Has your Monetary/Cash income from farm activities and product sales changed after you last harvest compared 1 14 15 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Have World Vision and REST contributed to changes in sales of products on the market and your 1 14 15 households’ income? How satisfied are you with the services and activities of 1 14 15 World Vision provided to you and your household/family?
Men Negative Neutral Positive Total Have Natural Resource Management (sand dams, ponds, conservation agriculture, forestry) actions changed natural conditions for your agricultural production (of the 9 11 20 household). Please compare the situation of the last harvest season with 4 years ago (2013/2014)?) Has your crop (Maize, green grams, etc.) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last harvest 1 5 14 20 year with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Has your livestock (goats, poultry, cows, milk) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last year of 1 6 13 20 2017 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Has World Vision helped/supported you to increase of 1 8 11 20 your production of both crops and livestock? Has your Monetary/Cash income from farm activities and product sales changed after you last harvest compared 3 17 20 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Have World Vision and REST contributed to changes in sales of products on the market and your 1 14 5 20 households’ income? How satisfied are you with the services and activities of 1 6 14 20 World Vision provided to you and your household/family?
44 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
OROMIYA Osole Sub-watershed Women & Men Negative Neutral Positive Total Have Natural Resource Management (sand dams, ponds, conservation agriculture, forestry) actions changed natural conditions for your agricultural production (of the 1 17 18 household). Please compare the situation of the last harvest season with 4 years ago (2013/2014)?) Has your crop (Maize, green grams, etc.) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last harvest 18 18 year with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Has your livestock (goats, poultry, cows, milk) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last year of 1 17 18 2017 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Has World Vision helped/supported you to increase of 18 18 your production of both crops and livestock? Has your Monetary/Cash income from farm activities and product sales changed after you last harvest compared 18 18 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Have World Vision contributed to changes in sales of 18 18 products on the market and your households’ income? How satisfied are you with the services and activities of 18 18 World Vision provided to you and your household/family?
Sala-Denke Sub-Watershed Women & Men Negative Neutral Positive Total Have Natural Resource Management (sand dams, ponds, conservation agriculture, forestry) actions changed natural conditions for your agricultural production (of the 16 16 household). Please compare the situation of the last harvest season with 4 years ago (2013/2014)?) Has your crop (Maize, green grams, etc.) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last harvest 10 6 16 year with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Has your livestock (goats, poultry, cows, milk) production changed over the past 4 years, comparing the last year of 16 16 2017 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Has World Vision helped/supported you to increase of 16 16 your production of both crops and livestock? Has your Monetary/Cash income from farm activities and product sales changed after you last harvest compared 1 15 16 with 4 years ago (2013/2014)? Have World Vision contributed to changes in sales of 16 16 products on the market and your households’ income? How satisfied are you with the services and activities of 16 16 World Vision provided to you and your household/family?
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 45 Drylands Development External programme Review
A4- 1 Collated Results of FGD Questions Totals Count Percentage Negative Neutral Positive Total Negative Neutral Positive Total 1-NRM 0 13 89 102 0 13 87 100 2-Crops 1 19 82 102 1 19 80 100 3 - Livestock 3 12 87 102 3 12 85 100 4 - World Vision 1 9 92 102 1 9 90 100 5 - Income 0 5 97 102 0 5 95 100 6 - Sales 12 25 65 102 12 25 64 100 7 - Satisfaction 1 8 94 102 1 8 92 100
46 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
A4- 2 FGD Questions, Results
Count Percentage TIGRAY Negative Neutral Positive Total Negative Neutral Positive Total Question Meago Women 1-NRM 11 11 0 0 100 100 2-Crops 11 11 0 0 100 100 3 - Livestock 1 10 11 0 9 91 100 4 - World Vision 11 11 0 0 100 100 5 - Income 11 11 0 0 100 100 6 - Sales 2 9 11 0 18 82 100 7 - Satisfaction 1 10 11 0 9 91 100 Meago Men 1-NRM 3 19 22 0 14 86 100 2-Crops 22 22 0 0 100 100 3 - Livestock 22 22 0 0 100 100 4 - World Vision 22 22 0 0 100 100 5 - Income 22 22 0 0 100 100 6 - Sales 11 8 3 22 50 36 14 100 7 - Satisfaction 22 22 0 0 100 100 Agona Women 1-NRM 15 15 0 0 100 100 2-Crops 4 11 15 0 27 73 100 3 - Livestock 2 4 9 15 13 27 60 100 4 - World Vision 1 14 15 0 7 93 100 5 - Income 1 14 15 0 7 93 100 6 - Sales 1 14 15 0 7 93 100 7 - Satisfaction 1 14 15 0 7 93 100 Agona Men 1-NRM 9 11 20 0 45 55 100 2-Crops 1 5 14 20 5 25 70 100 3 - Livestock 1 6 13 20 5 30 65 100 4 - World Vision 1 8 11 20 5 40 55 100 5 - Income 3 17 20 0 15 85 100 6 - Sales 1 14 5 20 5 70 25 100 7 - Satisfaction 1 6 14 20 5 30 70 100 OROMIYA Osole Women & Men 1-NRM 1 17 18 0 6 94 100 2-Crops 18 18 0 0 100 100 3 - Livestock 1 17 18 0 6 94 100 4 - World Vision 18 18 0 0 100 100 5 - Income 18 18 0 0 100 100 6 - Sales 18 18 0 0 100 100 7 - Satisfaction 18 18 0 0 100 100 Sala Denkie Women & Men 1-NRM 16 16 0 0 100 100 2-Crops 10 6 16 0 63 38 100 3 - Livestock 16 16 0 0 100 100 4 - World Vision 16 16 0 0 100 100 5 - Income 1 15 16 0 6 94 100 6 - Sales 16 16 0 0 100 100 7 - Satisfaction 16 16 0 0 100 100
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 47 Drylands Development External programme Review
5. Results of the Biophysical WP’s works inspections Checklist assessment Work Packages 1 & 2 during Field Visits The list below only concerns WP 1 and 2 works that could be inspected during the field visit to Osole Sub-watershed Location: Osole sub-watershed, Sara Arada Kebele, Boset Woreda, Oromiya, Ethiopia Extent Relevance Type Quality (H/M/L) Comments (estimate) (H/M/L) Evidence of Soil & Water Conservation Activities (Sub-catchment and farm level) FMNR & Area Closure in same area as High – farmers experimental plot downslope report in association High – 400+ improved soil with stone bunds. Farmer seedlings of moisture, Gives alternative Managed Grevillea moisture livelihood FMNR 7ha Natural robusta and retention & soil options, livestock Regeneration Melia azedarach fertility. fattening planted Sedimentation of (women’s group), farmland with apiculture (13 runoff stopped. traditional & 15 modern beehives) run by youth group
48 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
EP1 - FMNR in Osole Differs from High – good Closed in 2017, FMNR in that ground cover, High – comments 200 youth Area Closure area is closed 12ha no noticeable as for FMNR members. only no erosion As FMNR replanting
EP2 - Area Closure in Osole Medium – relevance will Medium – Part of package Locally collected In 19ha of decrease over Stone bunds needs with AC and stone bunds FMNR & AC time as maintenance FMNR vegetation increases
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 49 Drylands Development External programme Review
EP3 - Stone bund with FMNR in Osole
At field boundaries so may not follow guidelines re slope and spacing exactly but H-L – some have H - stops farmers do not trenches overland flow and want to lose land At field upslope, some encourages to structures. Soil bunds Not known boundaries needed infiltration Slopes generally maintenance as (particularly if low (<4%) in area in picture with trenches) so not a major issue. Runoff to roadside gully will need regular maintenance and upgrading in time.
50 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
EP4 - Soil bund with outflow to roadside gully (treated upslope) Osole
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 51 Drylands Development External programme Review
Evidence of Management and Rehabilitation of water storage infrastructure:
EP5 - Covered Micro-pond (Rainwater Harvesting) Osole Near homesteads. High – enables Becoming Low-cost irrigation of high Rainwater 5-6m radius, High – with increasingly Covered micro- value vegetables Harvesting 3-4m deep sediment trap popular due to pond and animal fall in cost from c. watering Birr 44,000 to c. Birr 13,000.
52 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Evidence of sub-catchment level land management improvements:
EP6 - Structural roadside gully repair (upslope of soil bund picture EP4) Undertaken in conjunction with FMNR & Area Gully repair Gabions, stone Medium – will High – collects Closure uphill. (structural and vegetative need regular runoff from road Will need regular and check-dams maintenance and from fields monitoring and vegetative) rehabilitation. May need stone lining in future. Medium – Now extensively NRM In-field NRM pruning of Medium practiced existing trees
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 53 Drylands Development External programme Review
EP7 – In-field NRM, tree pruning rather than felling
54 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Location: Sala Denke sub-watershed, Sifa Bete Kebele, Boset Woreda, Oromiya, Ethiopia Extent Quality Relevance Type Comments (estimate) (H/M/L) (H/M/L) Evidence of Soil & Water Conservation Activities (Sub-catchment and farm level) Not seen but FMNR & AC reported. Need for
more to protect irrigated area. Evidence of Management and Rehabilitation of water storage infrastructure:
Evidence of sub-catchment level land management improvements:
Evidence of any other land management improvements: Currently 57 households involved in irrigation. Plan to develop a further 150ha involving 120 HH. Have business plan. Farmers are Medium – spontaneously buying Pump low tech High – pumps to irrigate own Irrigation irrigation irrigation providing food 75ha fields and rent out to Development from Awash using pumps and income in others. Two farmers River. from Awash Safety Net area have purchased River insurance against crop losses. 75ha of crops lost in 2017 due to flooding – compensation paid by Awash River Authority.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 55 Drylands Development External programme Review
EP8 – Irrigated maize using pump irrigation, Sala Denke
56 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
EP9 – Maize irrigation from pump, Sala Denke
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 57 Drylands Development External programme Review
III Country report Mali
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
1. Description of DryDev implementation in Mali
1.1 General socio-political and political context Mali is a vast country with a population of almost 18 million (2016) and a highly undiversified economy. As such, it is vulnerable to commodity price fluctuations and consequences of climate change affecting agricultural production. Although sparsely populated, with only 10% of its people living in the north, high population growth rates and drought have fuelled food insecurity, poverty, and instability. The provision of public services in the country is challenging, affecting social cohesion and creating geographical disparities. The political and security situation in Mali has been particularly volatile in recent years. In early 2012, there was a military coup and an occupation of the northern regions by armed groups. These events were followed by the deployment of French-led military forces in January 2013, which handed over to the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in July 2014. Presidential elections, held in the summer of 2013, were followed by local government elections in November 2016. Peace negotiations between the Government and two rebel coalitions, the “Platform” and the “Coordination,” concluded with the signing of agreements in May and June 2015. While the agreement does not envision autonomous status for Mali’s northern regions, it gives stronger impetus to decentralization, creating a role for these regions, as well as a development zone and program of accelerated development (Programme de Développement Accéléré du Nord). However, its implementation is not without challenges. Security, critical to economic recovery and poverty reduction, is fragile, in the face of continued attacks by armed groups on UN peacekeepers, the Malian army and civilians, mainly in the north and central regions. New presidential elections are scheduled for July of 2018. Mali ranks 175th out of 188 countries on the UNDP index in 2016. While Mali experienced an overall drop in national poverty from 55.6% in 2001 to 43.6% in 2010, regional differences persist. Poverty is much lower in urban areas, with 90% of all poor living in rural areas, and concentrated in the south, where population density is highest. Drought and conflict have only increased the incidence of poverty. Despite deteriorating security, economic performance is strong, with robust growth. Robust performance in the agriculture and services sectors led to a projected growth rate of 5.8% in 2016 (down from 6.0% in 2015) despite volatile security conditions. Primary sector growth fell from 7.6% to 4.8% between 2016 and 2017, due to decreased rainfall, while tertiary sector growth has been robust (around 6% since 2014) following renewed dynamism in the ICT sector. On the demand side, investment has grown sharply by 8%, partly as a result of the increase in private investments for the first time since 2012, and partly as a result of the Government’s efforts to reduce infrastructure gaps. Growth is projected to stay robust at about 5% over the medium term. Agricultural growth is underpinned by favourable weather and positive effects from input subsidy reform. Services growth is likely to continue in telecoms, transport, and trade. (This section was adapted from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/mali/overview)
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 59
Drylands Development External programme Review
1.2 Short overview development DryDev in country since start in 2013 2013 and 2014 were mainly oriented at introduction, at selection of sites and of partners (NLO, IPs) and at contracting of these partners in a consortium that should implement the program. In 2014 first rural appraisals were undertaken that would define the activities per site. Under the direction of ICRAF there was a new review of the overall program in 2015, which led to an inception report for 2015-2018. The consortium (Sahel Eco, AMEDD, AMEPPE, Oxfam Mali) is implementing without difficulties the work plans based on this revised inception report. Nevertheless, the consortium (ex. Sahel Eco) felt somewhat inhibited by the 2015 field exercises (the CAP-Visioning) as they just had planned and finished similar appraisals. It was hesitant to bother villages again with the exercises and then losing an agricultural campaign. Nevertheless, they recognise the improvements of the 2015 Inception report compared to earlier plans. DryDev Mali only came to full speed at the end of 2015. Since then until beginning of 2018 activities go swiftly.
1.3 NLO and national level aspects of DryDev Sahel Eco is NLO and thus focal point for ICRAF. Sahel Eco is responsible for WP 7 and 8, and covers one intervention area in Bankass and Bandiagara (Mopti region), the most northern and thus most Sahel (“Dryland’) zone area of DryDev in Mali. Sahel Eco and ICRAF have relatively easy working relations. One reason is that ICRAF has researchers based at the ICRISAT research station in Bamako. Contacts can be swift and ICRAF staff could intervene directly. The latter is not always case, as ICRAF researchers have other assignments besides DryDev and are only part-time or at ad-hoc basis available. The Kenyan ICRAF coordinator for the three West-African countries has been present in West-Africa, but is now based in Nairobi, Kenya (he is also overall coordinator of DryDev). Technical directions of ministries are represented in an advisory group (“comité d’orientation”) to DryDev: the “Agence de l'Environnement et du Développement Durable” (AEDD) and the “Direction Nationale des Eaux et Forêts” (DNEF) of the Ministry of Environment; the “Direction Nationale de l'Agriculture” (DNA) of the Min. of Agriculture; the “Direction Nationale de l’Hydraulique” (DNH) of the Min. of Water and Energy; the “Institut d'Economie Rurale” (IER) of the Min. of Education. The consortium informs state services through the advisory group and it takes into account the advice of the Ministries’ representatives. Sahel Eco and the IP involve local state services in their activities. As far as we know, there is not (yet) a formalised collaboration between Sahel Eco and Ministries. The DryDev partners and state services have nevertheless good working relations. The consortium has hardly or no contacts with umbrella farmer organisations, as AOPP or CNOP, or cotton-grain and rice farmers’ federations. The consortium and CNOP, AOPP meet each other in a national network (see WP 8).
1.4 IP’s and implementation on the ground in locations Three other IPs are operational besides Sahel Eco. Two NGOs which cover main activities in two areas: AMEDD in Yorosso area (Sikasso region), the most southern parts of DryDev Mali, and AMEPPE in Cinzana and Tominian areas (Segou) in central parts (see map below). Oxfam Int.- Mali is responsible for WPs 4 and 5 in all areas. The four partners have easy working relations, as they know each other before DryDev. The three national NGOs have similar profiles as project implementers at local levels. They are familiar with, and are known in their respective intervention areas. They speak the languages. Cooperation with
60 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
target groups seems good. Oxfam rolls out the WPs with its own agents, who are based in the areas. Collaboration with the NGO agents and target groups is good. Map: Intervention areas of DryDev Mali
(Green areas = 10 current Communes of DryDev Mali)
1.5 Limitations/Bottlenecks encountered in country-level field work Security and conflicts remain a serious bottleneck in Bankass and Bandiagara Districts and recently also in Northern parts of Tominian. Serious tensions in and amongst communities hamper all development activities. State authorities impede transport by forbidding the circulation of motorcycles and of pick-ups in certain areas and hours. The Bankass-Bandiagara areas are not accessible anymore for outsiders who are not well known by the communities. The DryDev teams cannot stay long in villages and have to build on contacts in the villages. Sometimes they invite representatives to small towns for program activities. The national NGOs know the areas well and adapt, but the limitations have a direct negative effect on the organisation (logistics) of DryDev activities in Bankass-Bandiagara and Tominian. The security situation has also affected the choice of locations for fieldwork in this review and the amount of time that could be invested in community level fieldwork.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 61
Drylands Development External programme Review
2. Analysis of DryDev implementation and its results in country
2.1 Overall analysis of overall implementation and organisational and institutional set-up DryDev Mali has chosen for a geographical division of tasks, with the exception of WPs 4 and 5. Three national NGOs (Sahel Eco, AMEDD, AMEPPE) cover three intervention areas, while one international NGO (Oxfam) focuses on the economic activities in all areas. Each NGO has at least an agent per Commune, while one coordinator per NGO monitors the activities of his/her organisation. Sahel Eco is lead organisation to which the other NGOs report. Besides field agents, Sahel Eco has a coordinator and M&E agent. Besides coordinating, reporting and M&E for DryDev in general, ICRAF intervenes in specific WPs (1, 2, 3) which are described in protocols for field tests. These technological tests have more the character of ‘on-farm/applied research’ (“recherche-développement”) than of action-research. The latter would have required a more active participation of farmers’ organisations in the design, which is not the case. ICRAF provides also information and trainings on demand. Looking at the high potential of having CGIAR institutes as ICRAF, ICRISAT, World Vegetables Centre (WVC) nearby in Bamako, this is rather meagre. ICRAF has (financially) little room of manoeuvre for conducting tests and depends on collaboration with the consortium. The NLO manages the budget for the tests. The national rural research centre (IER) is present in the advisory group. IER has a research station nearby Cinzana. During the field visits it was not clear how DryDev is collaborating with the IER.
62 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
2.2 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 1-3 (biophysical work packages)
Sites and sub-catchment approach: DryDev Mali has done an extensive characterisation study (January 2015) with detailed information. Part of the study was a typology of farmers’ categories, which could be the base of tailor-made interventions for different groups of farmers (men and women). The study also introduced sub- catchments as geographic units. All sites are found at eastern zones of the Centre (Bankass, Bandiagara, Tominian) and the South of Mali (Cinzana, Yorosso), nearby Burkina Faso. Yorosso, and probably also Cinzana, cannot be classified as Drylands, as they still belong to the more sub-humid area (‘Soudan’ zone) of Mali; Yorosso still grows cotton and maize. The choice for those two areas can be interpreted as anticipation or as preventive, as Yorosso and Cinzana are found at the most northern parts of with risk of becoming ‘dryland’ in the future. Another characteristic of the intervention zones is that they belong to old agriculture basins with relatively high population densities for Dryland (>50 hab./km ). There is a rationale behind such choices, although it was unclear during the visit if this has been a deliberate one. The sub-basin or sub-catchment unit makes technically sense for WP 1 and to a lesser degree for WP 2. However, the sub-catchment division is not a determining geographic entity for DryDev in Mali. People do not particularly feel part of a sub-catchment area (or “sous-bassin versant”) but more of their communities’ “terroir” or the “territoire” of their Commune. The rangelands and livestock corridors follow transhumance routes which have little to do with catchment areas. Of course, WP 4, 5 and 6 follow markets and social organisation structures. The sub-catchment division seems a heritage of the first years of DryDev (2013-14). DryDev is presented as a water management project but since 2015 there are no real interventions along those lines in Mali. Nor do the DryDev committees, entitled “Comités de Sous-Bassin” (and “Comités GIRE” at local levels) have links with the formal water committees (CLEs) which have been created in Mali1 Institutionally sub-catchment has little meaning. Despite a series of trainings, the members can’t justify the relevance of the committees. From this angle DryDev Mali has more the features of a program for land management and integrated rural development, with at this moment little integration between land management and rural economic development. DryDev does support local governments (“Communes”) in their development planning: at least three Communes have elaborated development plans with the help of DryDev. The consortium has been active in rehabilitating livestock corridors and creating pastoral wells that will be sanctioned by Communes. They build on existing Pastoral Schemes (“Schémas Pastoraux”) that exist f. i. in Yorosso. DryDev has supported as well “comités de surveillance” for protection of forests and river banks. Protection falls under the mandate of Communes.
WP 1-3 Interventions: Following the field notes and the different annual reports (ex. 2017 Mali Annual Report), there is an impressive list of DryDev activities going from community infrastructures and perimeters, anti- erosion measures to soil and plant management (see also Table 1). See also Checklist of WP 1 and 2 activities in Annex 5.
1 See the Mali policy on “Gestion Intégrée des Ressources en Eau” (GIRE, or IWRM in English), supported by the Netherlands Embassy (EKN) in PCA-GIRE. This policy recognises “Comités Locaux de l’Eau” (CLE) for predetermined sub-catchment areas and Agencies for catchment areas.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 63
Drylands Development External programme Review
Table 1. Visited DryDev interventions in May 2018. Site / Intervention type NRM Wa-I A-F SWC SFPM FCP MA FS Mali : Kifosso, C/Yorosso X X Tébèré, C/Yorosso X Kanséné, C/Tominian X X Kondala, C/Tominian X X X X X Tominian, C/Tominian X Kanian, C/Tominian X X X Cinzana, C/Cinzana X NRM (WP 1) Sub-catchment or Territorial Natural Resources Management : committees and local institutions for land and water management/ for rangeland management (“schema pastoral”) Wa-I (WP 1) Community Water Infrastructures: protected water pools for fishing and cattle drinking (“mare surcreusée”), livestock wells (“puits pastoral”), micro-dams, water dikes, rice perimeters A-F (WP 1 (Agro-) Forestry measures : natural regeneration (“régénération naturelle assistée”), tree and 2) plantations. SWC (WP 1 Soil and Water Conservation measures: contour ploughing (“ACN”), anti-erosion measures (stone and 2) lines, hedges, “bandes enherbées”), Zaï, “démi-lune”, “diguettes” (with plants) SFPM (WP Soil Fertility and Plant Management, including inputs (seeds, fertilizers) : rapid and classic 2) composting, micro-dosage of fertilizer, improved seeds FCP (WP 3) Food and Commodity Production: horticulture perimeter (“périmètre maraîcher”), rice perimeter, fishing pounds (“étang piscicole”) MA (WP 4) Market Access: elements of value chain development, local commercialisation of food products, trading association (“MER”), … FS (WP 5) Financial Services : Savings and Loans Groups (“ECP”), MFI, warehouse receipt system (“warrantage”), …
WP 1 Interventions: The packages are certainly appropriate, but at the same suggesting a degree of coercion rather than of self-determination by farmers (as individual families or in communities). Infrastructures as dams, ponds are appreciated. DryDev has financed them, while villages have contributed by delivering labour and basic material (sand, gravel, stones). Some measures have been introduced (ex. “zaï”, “demi-lunes”) from Burkina or Niger, but most (mechanical) measures have been known for decades. The Tominian and Yorosso zones have received in the 1980-90s well developed extension services delivered by the cotton company CMDT. Tominian, Cinzana and Bankass-Bandiagara have experienced decades of NGO intervention. Stone lines, hedges and manure pits/ dung heaps and cattle parks still testify of this period. There has been a 15 years gap in widespread extension services in Yorosso and Tominian. The CMDT has withdrawn its support in the beginning of the 2000s. The NGOs never had the huge coverage of the CMDT and farmer organisations only recently invest in soil and water conservation. DryDev is trying to fill this gap. A plausible explanation for renewed attention for these measures can be that farmers in Yorosso, Tominian and Cinzana feel more urgency to act on existing fields (family and common lands) than 25 years ago. Population pressure has risen. The areas hardly have reserves (forest and range lands, long fallows) left, which make it impossible to rely any longer on former land regeneration strategies of fallow lands.
64 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Positive results evidenced: ● Declaration of higher yields (self-reported – to be checked) through soil and water conservation; ● Engender feelings of community in villages; ● Efforts are made to include livestock management through corridors and wells. N.B. Resident livestock keepers have been involved. It is unclear how (agro-) pastoralists have been associated. Negative results evidenced: ● The ‘piecemeal’ nature of interventions – little integration between different interventions, not treating sub-catchments, nor “terroirs” as a whole; ● The uptake is not universal, rather scattered, and little field evidence of interventions (possibly due to time pressure).
WP 2 Interventions: The measures are appropriate with some reservations: one can wonder if contour ploughing (“ACN”) f. i. is really necessary on <2% slopes. Also stone lines seem to be more field boundary markers than erosion control water conservation structures. Positive results evidenced: ● Zaï well received and supposedly adopted but little field evidence (also due to lack of review mission time). Negative results evidenced: ● Again, the piecemeal nature of interventions – only taken up by interested individuals, e.g. only 2 out of 35 farmers at Yorosso said they had interventions on their land; ● High labour requirements of Zaï and “diguettes”. N.B. Too early to tell effect of interventions.
WP 3 Interventions: Improved seeds and micro-dosage of fertilizer are very well received. No mention of climate smart agriculture except to note that farmers in this area are ‘climate smart’ almost by definition and will change their practices accordingly. Horticulture is also well received. DryDev has given a boost to rehabilitate perimeters. Women grow vegetables and fruits for family consumption and sales at nearby markets. As for organic manure, farmers in Mali are accustomed to bring manure/dung (simple or from cattle parks) to the fields. As it is a rare product, most is reserved for fields of strategic food crops (grains). Composting and manure pits deliver a higher quality organic fertiliser than simple heaps, but require more labour, time and water, typically what we can expect to be found at wealthier households. DryDev has made progress by introducing ‘rapid composting’ which is less labour intensive than classic pits. Only nuance is that compost is an even rarer product than simple manure. It is doubtful if there is enough to fertilise the poor soils. What can be other fertilisation methods, typically through agro-forestry and green manure (e.g. “cultures fourragères”)? Current measures can be integrated in wider soil fertility and plant management strategies, which would require interventions at farming household level. This example exemplifies that there is no real strategy to target individual farming households – also confirmed by the IPs – while most elements of WP 2 and 3 require interventions and services at this
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 65
Drylands Development External programme Review
level. The coverage of community actions and trainings is limited. DryDev would need services or systems that work on more tailor-made farm plans. Positive results evidenced: ● Horticulture perimeters (“PMs”) are working well and target women; ● Rapid composting and micro-dosage of fertilizer well received and adopted; ● Local input shops (“boutiques d’intrants”) are an interesting idea to address the continuing lack of proximity delivery of inputs but for the moment little field evidence (also due to lack of review mission time). ● Declaration of improving food security (self-reported – to be checked by facts). Negative results evidenced: ● High input requirements for composting; ● Trainings and measures (promoted at community level) do not necessarily respond to the specific needs of different types of farming households.
2.3 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 4-6 (value chain development and local support/service/governance work packages) “Selected value chains in Mali include cereals (Maize, Fonio (clean fonio), sorghum, millet, rice) as staple crops, vegetables (Shallots, onions, tomatoes, pepper, cabbage, Okra), Livestock (cattle, goat and sheep fattening), Oilseeds (sesame, groundnuts), Non-wood forest products (Shea, Zaban, M’péku, N’gunan, Néré and Ziziphus mauritiana). Whereas women dominate non-wood forest products and vegetable value chains, which are generally underdeveloped, men dominate the cereals, oilseeds and livestock fattening value chains, with women participating in certain nodes of these value chains where dexterity and patience is required such as processing of cereals (shelling and winnowing) and small scale processing of oilseeds. Nevertheless, men are currently gaining interest in the processing of oilseeds and in the collection and processing of non-wood forest products as the value chains become more commercialized” (DryDev Mali, 2015, Value chain analysis). At the end of 2014 DryDev Mali undertook a detailed, extensive analysis of value chains in 12 Communes. The list of 16 potential commodities for value chains is long. It seems to cover basically what farmers (W/M) are already producing. Oxfam says that the list will be reduced. Until now most attention has been given to structuring of village associations and groups into cooperatives (+/- 260 cooperatives), which have been organised around one or a group of the commodities above. Oxfam has encouraged savings groups to link to or to integrate cooperatives, so the two could take advantage of each other. The starting point was that formal (farmer) organisations would be the right producers’ structure to participate in to-be-reinforced value chains. It was as well motivated by the enforcement of West- African OHADA legislation on cooperatives, to which Mali has subscribed. Dozens and dozens of cooperatives have been reinforced or created in 2016 and 2017. It is an impressive achievement. It is however too soon to draw conclusions on their dynamics: their relevance, their performance, and in what way they respond to market demands. The visit showed examples of processes products of grains, pulses (flour, couscous) and non-timber forest products, but it is unclear what markets they would be serving. The Box below gives a team reflexion on how to approach economic development differently.
66 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Reflexion and feed-back: Value Chain Development and Local Economic Development. It is useful to put market-based/ economic development of WP 4 and 6 in a wider perspective. Connecting (small-scale) farmers to new markets and value chains expresses a belief in the formal private sector and ditto markets as major vehicles for economic development, which can be regulated by (state) institutions. The structuring above is motivated by the supposition that value chains also need formal cooperatives. The ambition is even to promote ‘rural enterprises’. The coercion to structure almost all chains under “inter- professions” makes part of the policy. This unilateral view has to be nuanced if we look at market dynamics in often remote dryland areas. In reality the economies of the intervention areas show several forms of cooperation and trade. They go from a formal, institutionalised form of production-marketing through contract farming between local cooperatives and companies (ex. cotton in Yorosso), to marketing and input distribution by cooperatives and traders (ex. grains, oil seeds). And involves marketing based on extensive, traditional or informal trade networks, which were already in place before creation of cooperatives and trade companies. These networks exist in all DryDev areas and they trade all products with the exception of cotton. They are the most efficient in terms of volume, of lesser (transaction) costs and of responsiveness – and they get little attention in market analyses of development programs. It is not only the compliance to a value chain- or regulatory model, which determines the economic performance (in generating revenues, getting assets), but as much, or even more, the capability of farmers, local processors and traders to adapt their cooperation to the market context and chose the options which suit them best. The best option depends on the commodity, the targeted market, the own socioeconomic situation: ‘strategy before structure’. Such options can be, but more often will not be, value chains for new products and markets. DryDev is making a first step in the identification of its products, but then tends to go towards a ‘one- size-fits-all’ approach for higher value in processing and new markets. This might work in a minority of cases, but it risks to skip the other marketing options of farm products in often nearby markets and existing trade networks. DryDev can work on lower transaction costs (or nearby markets;), on low-cost information systems, on better storage and conditioning f. i. In this perspective it might be more effective to adopt a Local Economic Development approach wherein interventions are adapted to strategies of households, than a focus on mere value chain actions around pre-selected commodities.2
The combination of (women) savings groups (+/- 320 SLVG or “EPC”) with village cooperatives has raised expectations. The responses have been high. During the whole visit the women members of the groups were unanimous about the benefits of the new organisations. The consortium has also encouraged or created “warrantage” or warehouse receipt systems. This happened with mixed results. In some cases (ex. Kandense) it was not more than collective action (storage, sales) without respecting the rigid administrative rules of warrantage. This joins the bigger debate on warrantage, which shows the limits of the system: it presupposes a regular bulk or volume of storage that is interesting enough for MFI or can justify investments in warehousing. These criteria are not easily met in drylands areas, nor is it sure of poor categories can participate to it.
2.4 Analysis of implementation and results of WP 8 (Lobby and Advocacy) The focus has been on changing and application of land tenure legislation. DryDev has supported a national advocacy platform, the “Réseau de plaidoyer pour la sécurisation foncière” (RPSeFA). The network has established over the years good working relations (discussions, consultations) with the Secretary for the Agriculture Framework Law (the “SP/LOA”) that monitors the application of the 2017 land law (“Loi sur le Foncier Agricole” – LFA). It also has advised the rural development commission of the National Assembly. At local level DryDev has worked with Communes on corridors. It occasionally supported new Land Commissions (“CoFo”). Through the network DryDev
2 See f. i. Vorley, B., et al, 2013. Meeting small-scale farmers in their markets: understanding and improving the institutions and governance of informal agrifood trade, IIED/HIVOS/Mainumby, London/The Hague/La Paz.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 67
Drylands Development External programme Review
has influenced land legislation in favour of family farmers. This result can be sanctioned by more extensive support to local land commissions. Another advocacy topic is the financing of Agriculture, which makes also part of the Agriculture Framework Law (“LOA”). There are not, yet, results for the latter. DryDev Mali has not been working on policies or legislation on integrated water resources management (IRWM or “GIRE”).
2.5 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 7 (M&E and learning) A series of diagnostics have been conducted by ICRAF and the NLO-IPs: characterisation, local visioning and value chain study. An interesting element in the characterisation study is the typology in four household categories. DryDev has also data on a sample of these households (men and women) in the four intervention zones. The data are used for looking at effects or impact of the interventions on the households. They are not used in the design: what could be the appropriate activity for which category? DryDev’s interventions are documented, and mostly in a systematic way. The latter is also due to monitoring of ICRAF. Since 2015 the program has sufficient reports and plans that help to verify what is going on. Idem ditto for monitoring. The partners (Sahel Eco) feel ‘though that the M&E is a bit too much centralised. They say they have not access to all the data. The inception report, the baseline survey report and annual reports give sufficient ground to make it in principle plausible how DryDev contributes to food and water security which make part of global objective or impact definition. In principle DryDev indicators start from output level that are measured in the field and tracked for short-term progress. The program also has sub-outcomes and outcomes that are derived from end year surveys, which should project the programme’s real progress towards the targets set at the beginning (see f. i. the Baseline Survey report of ICRAF). It is unclear to what degree the NGO agents master the set-up. The annual reports are much focused on long enumerations of activities and outputs, and less on outcomes (results) that would make it easier to understand how DryDev contributes to food and water security. The indicators used in the annual reports do not always help: some just mention participation to events or trainings, or application one or two techniques, or being member of an organisation, or give numbers of hectares. That does not necessarily say how farmers now act or perform differently. It is difficult to assess these figures if we don’t know where farmers are coming from: what was the starting situation? Finally, also the concept of resilience, part of the impact definition, is not elaborated in the annual reports, while it has been introduced in the baseline survey report (ICRAF, 2016). A few exchange activities exist between countries: as for the latter, the three Sahel countries have done a joint value chain training in Burkina Faso with SNV. Mali staff has attended a meeting in Ethiopia. There are regular meeting between all partners: technical team meetings are held at least quarterly, to review previous quarter’s activities and plan for next quarter. Other cooperation between partners in Mali happens on ad-hoc basis/ on-demand. Joint monitoring missions with ICRAF or with DGIS have been the strongest mechanism for discussion and learning. DryDev is not a research nor an action-research program. The latter should have required a more active participation of farmers in the design, which is not the case. The tests are mainly technological, related to WPs 1-3. Farmers appreciate inputs (seeds, new tree varieties) as much, or even more than the mechanical or regeneration tests. They all have more the character of ‘on-farm/applied research’ (“recherche-développement”) than of action-research. The focus is on implementing, which can be a constraint for ICRAF as research institute.
68 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
3. Appreciation of ICRAF/NLO and IP’s performance and results of activities
3.1 By beneficiaries All users’ groups, men and women, said to be satisfied with DryDev interventions. Especially the combination of savings groups with small economic activities (horticulture/market gardening, petty trade) was appreciated. Soil and water conservation measures have effects at longer term and are not yet applied at such a scale that farmers see major differences. They emphasise on infrastructure and mechanical measures: (micro-) dams, wells, ponds. The members of the three sub-catchment-/ committees were not able to tell a comprehensive story about the raison-d’être and benefits of such commissions. They mainly consider them as channels for project activities. They make no link with the formal institutions that exist in Mali: land management (“commissions foncières”) and local water committees (“comités locaux de l’eau”). A nuance is that most field interviews tended to be guided towards positive answers on the DryDev performance as the preselected users’ groups speculate on a follow-up of the program of which they could benefit again. This bias has been mitigated by taking time for the interviews and asking the same questions from another angle, by visiting interventions and asking questions again in a smaller group.3 Nevertheless most interventions remained appreciated, as people see small or major improvement in protection of land, in production or in economic activities. Horticulture contributed to diversify food diets in households (more vegetables and fruits). People testified on improved community cohesion working on communal (WP1) works. People are less sure about economic gains. Women testified that the revenues serve as additional income for small expenses: school, health, food, but not for reinvestments in agriculture. People also made claims about food security. This can certainly be true, but a real appreciation would require surveys and a specific impact study.
3.2 By key external stakeholders The state services are satisfied with DryDev, as its interventions follow existing policies. They get the opportunity to monitor and comment DryDev in an orientation committee and through field visits. Umbrella farmer organisations (FO) as AOPP are indirectly involved in DryDev through their members at Commune or village levels. They have a critical view. DryDev operates at its own. It should be aligned with likewise civic (farmers, NGO) initiatives that take place in Mali. AOPP wonders how a transfer of functions or responsibilities will be carried out if umbrella organisations are not involved. Further on, there should be more alignment at policy levels (cf. WP 8). DryDev supports an advocacy network working on land issues that is doing a good job but where FO are underrepresented. DryDev could try to mediate to get a stronger alliance between NGO and FO. More consultation is also the view of the EKN in Mali: more alignment between likewise projects in the same area. This can only be done through the institutions that are designed to do so: local governments (“Communes”) and their commissions. The embassy sees the relevance of the technical and economic interventions. However, these are not new; they are known for over two decades. What is then DryDev doing now differently, which justifies the project?
3 Because of the large size of groups, surveys were not possible in Mali.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 69
Drylands Development External programme Review
Further on, the embassy underlines that leaving insecure areas as Bankass, Bandiagara is not an option. If not, people would be left alone, as state institutions hardly function. It agrees with DryDev’s efforts to do a maximum of what is possible.
4. External factors and actors that have influenced implementation, results and outcomes
Since 2013 (the start of DryDev) the situation in Mali continues to be characterised by governance fragility, failing state institutions and increasing social division and unrest, aggravated by religious extremism. Unrest and violence have spread to the Centre of the country, where dozens of local militia (religion, or ethnic based) have installed their rules, and which have direct effects on some areas: Sadia Dogon, Kogo, Mandoli and Soroly in Bankass & Bandiagara, and to a lesser degree Kondala and Mouina (Tominian district). Besides the obvious social and economic impacts within the communities, the events have negative effects on the movement of people and goods, as well as on the resettlement of basic services and local administrations in the affected regions. It leads to general discontentment with the central authorities, because of their apparent incapacity in installing peace in the country. A general mistrust in government is exemplified by the severe criticism on f. i. the constitutional referendum of July 2017 (abandoned) and the upcoming presidential elections (July 2018).4 Access to, and control over natural resources, are at the heart of local conflicts in Mali – this is not basically different in Burkina Faso and Niger. In this context of fragility, the management of scarce land and water resources, and working towards an integrated approach of resources management DryDev could offer – but is not yet necessarily doing so – an opportunity to work on one of the causes of contention at local level. Local governments and local management institutions are in principle key stakeholders in interventions for WPs 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8. Decentralisation shows an ambiguous picture in Mali. On the positive side, in November 2016 local elections were held in Mali – except for the North, resulting in 90% new locally elected.5 Within the context of decentralisation in Mali, all communes should have a five-year policy document for the overall development of the commune, including NRM: the “plan de développement économique social et culturel” (PDESC). The PDESC is sanctioned at central level, and developed and translated to the local context and condensed into a one-year action plans. After 15 years of lingering, the central state has recently made new steps in transferring competencies and powers to local governments and local management bodies: land management commissions (“commissions foncières” – CoFo) and local water committees (“comités locaux de l’eau – CLE). Besides hydraulics (in 2002), the institutions now have mandates in agriculture and natural resources management.6 For now they have a consultative role7. The CoFo and CLEs do not exist in all communes nor are they always functional. The defining geographical entity for Communes and CoFo are territories (“terroirs” at village level), while CLEs are built around sub-catchments. The two are
4 See IDEAL report Mali, VNG Int., 2017. 5 Among them a bigger amount of women than ever before thanks to legislation approved in September demanding a 30% female representation and thus promoting inclusivity (IDEAL report, VNG, 2017). 6 The following laws and decrees all recognise the role of the Communes as operators in NRM: “Codes des Collectivités”, “Code de l’Eau”, “Code de la Pêche, “Charte Pastorale” and “Loi d’Orientation Agricole”. Next to the 2002 Decree on Transfer of Competencies on Hydraulics, Mali has Decrees on Transfer of Competencies in Sanitation (2014), and in Agriculture and Agricultural Facilities (2016) and in Forestry (2017), and also a Decree for Environmental Impact Assessments. 7 There are ideas to transform the CLE into an agency with a bigger mandate.
70 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
not by definition compatible. For the moment CLEs have been composed of clusters of Communal territories that have more or less the same coverage as sub-catchments. The last years decentralisation towards Districts/Communes and management agencies might lose momentum as some central ministries remain reluctant to transfer human and financial resources to them. This is visible for water f.i. The reluctance is not openly put into question by donor agencies. Further on, the tendency to focus on ad-hoc interventions in drinking water, water- and agricultural- infrastructures at the expense of other forms of land and water use, shows that land and water resources are not, yet, managed in an integrated manner. General observation is that the communes, the CoFo and CLEs are relatively new stakeholders and have legitimacy challenges in playing their legally granted role in a crowded field of stakeholders. Over-crowding and unclear mandates are mainly due to a hierarchical and complex legal, governance and operational set-up. Deconcentrated service agencies and communes have overlapping mandates and tasks. Further on, communal authorities have to deal with traditional leadership already accustomed to take decisions on land and water use, in a setting where major investments at local levels are done with external support of donors. Some of the latter impose their own set of regulations and demand direct accountability bypassing the national system.
5. Conclusions
See table below.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 71
Drylands Development External programme Review
Table Mali - Conclusions according to criteria Window/DAC Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness (potential) Sustainability (likelihood) Criteria Institutional Coordination of ICRAF: see general Roles and responsibilities in the Consortium model and institutional Impact by DryDev on NLO and conclusions. Mali consortium seem clear, arrangements (a) do provide quality IP: DryDev has reinforced the For the Sahel, ICRAF has staff complementary (NLO & geographic support to farmers. engagement of the four partners available, but coordination is too IP and thematic IP) and are (b) But in current set-up there is in Dryland issues. As for far away from 3 countries (based in efficiently and effectively followed. limited policy and practice impact. capacities, however, they Kenya, English as first language). Use of financial resources: Seem It has little expansion potential. This basically repeat what they Institutional model vis-à-two ToCs. well managed by ICRAF and NLO, would need transfer of functions The division of tasks is relevant for but the transaction time from DGIS and responsibilities to local already did and knew, with 1st ToC (WP 1-6). Better embedding to ICRAF, to NLO and then to IP is institutions (Communes and land some small improvements in initiatives of national too long (can take months) and has and water commissions) and delivered by joint tests with stakeholders (e. g. umbrella FOs) hindered implementation. farmers’ organisations and services ICRAF. required for 2nd ToC. deliverers. Such transfer-/exit strategies do exist but are not yet well developed. Sub-catchment As developed before, the sub- The various interventions (the WPs) It is unlikely that significant synergy It is unlikely that a sub- catchment as unit of intervention are not yet sufficiently integrated. will be generated among the work catchment approach will be has limited relevance in Mali. A The interrelationships between WP packages at the sub-catchment pursued by the implementing solid alternative is to build on 1, 2, 3, 6 would benefit from levels (SC). The interventions are partners and local stakeholders existing geographic entities not designed along SC. embedding in Communal in the future without (“terroirs” and “territoires”), while Development Plans. In that Neither are DryDev’s interventions enforcement by DryDev. looking progressively at alignment perspective it would also be better ‘saturating’ the sub-catchments. In with the Mali GIRE policy. to apply a local economic addition to above, Socio-economic factors such as development approach (for WPs 4, the surfaces of the sub-catchments It is unlikely that the inter- markets, value chains, institutional 5, 6) that can be attached to a local are too big. relationships between the sub- development and policy are not government territory. catchment level and farm level integrated in a sub-catchment work will continue, without approach in Mali. explicit attention to extension services at farm level. The inter- relation between production and financial services and market linkages will likely
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 72
Drylands Development External programme Review
Window/DAC Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness (potential) Sustainability (likelihood) Criteria continue. Technical: The biophysical interventions of Training and provision of support to The targeted farmers take up the It is likely that the various WPs 1 to 3 are technically farmers have been carried out in a technologies and practices at (a) Biophysical biophysical interventions will appropriate to achieve the cost-efficient manner. DryDev limited extent and –scale. (Work Packages continue to be practiced by the intended objectives. delivers ‘proximity services’. The 1-3) It is too early to pronounce if there involved farmers. They respond infrastructures have been Sufficient efforts have been are clear signs or evidence for large well to the changes that they undertaken to inform their subsidised with village contribution uptake, beyond what the farmers in nature, but remain at village level have to make to keep their technical design. Only exception is already did before DryDev. that NLO tends to favour water and are not big-scale (<12 Million N.B. Some technologies are applied farming systems viable. The management or -conservation in FCFA). since decades, which makes it likelihood to continue will design, with the risk to under- difficult to say what boost DryDev probably be bigger on family- develop soil fertility and plant has given, since the data base does owned land than on the management. The bottleneck is at not exactly give the starting points. commons. Unclear what positive institutional level (effectiveness and And the definition of coverage by side effects occur (on farmers sustainability). NRM is rather open. not involved in DryDev). Another attention point is the secondary position of livestock keeping in the interventions. Technical: (b) The socio-economic interventions The SLVG (WP 5) are well The SLVG and warrantage systems The SLVG and warrantage Socio-economic of WP 4 to 6 are relevant: small performing and efficient; they support the biophysical systems probably continue in (Work Packages economic activities, “warrantage”, respond to a need. interventions, mainly targeting target communities. They may 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) and cooperatives in combination Warrantage shows a mixed picture women in horticulture. do so in non-target with savings groups resonate well in effectiveness and efficiency; they The savings have financed small communities. amongst farmers’ groups (esp. respond nevertheless to a need. economic activities. The revenues N.B. these types of intervention women). It is too soon to assess the effects have contributed to small There has been an unilateral effort of the numerous cooperatives, but household expenses, and hardly to exist in other programs. by primarily working on structuring the evaluation has a question mark farm/field investments. of cooperatives and savings groups. on the unilateral attention on Chains for higher value, processed * Enhancing: see relevance, They may not always be cooperatives as the main products may serve niche markets, efficiency, effectiveness. appropriate to achieve the instrument in market-based but interventions in existing intended objectives. development. markets and (informal) trade Studies on value chains have been networks serve a larger group of undertaken to inform the design. farmers: focusing on nearby
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 73
Drylands Development External programme Review
Window/DAC Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness (potential) Sustainability (likelihood) Criteria markets; working on lower transaction costs, information systems, on better storage and conditioning. Frameworks & PMEL framework: see remarks in The current frameworks and tools The current frameworks and tools The DryDev frameworks and tools Tools paragraph 2.5. been operationalised efficiently. been operationalised effectively. fit in, or complete existing ones used by ICRAF and the consortium A gender strategy is not available. Only point is how they can be One point is the scattered, DryDev applies a “promotion scaled up efficiently, as this need ‘piecemeal’ pattern of partners. They will continue to use feminine” approach. more ownership of local interventions. It might be better to them. Planned comparisons (tests) are organisations and institutions (local concentrate the WP 1-3 on a couple A key step for saving DryDev’s technically relevant for WP 1. They governments, specialised of “terroirs”. Idem for WP 4-6. results is a strategy for transfer of belong more to “recherche- commissions). DryDev is working on responsibilities and functions to développement” than to research- the latter, but can give more local institutions and organisations. in-development. Too soon to assess priority to it. DryDev can’t remain a NGO drive their effects. program. The title states that it is Scaling principles are not yet “farmer-driven” – that is not yet the sufficiently developed: the NLO case. indicates state services and sub- catchment committees as succession structures. This is too limited; currently the SC- committees are not viable. The OxC approach is certainly interesting – not “unique” as presented in reports, as Mali has a long history of bottom-up, participatory approaches. The packages are not that different between the sites which nuances the context specificity. DryDev remains more solution driven than local problem oriented.
74 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
6. Recommendations
To ICRAF, the NLO and IPs 1. Further development of the concept of Drylands that is not only based on climatological and rainfall conditions as 400-800 mm/y, but also on typical socio-economic and cultural conditions wherein people live ‘at the margins’ in often remote areas or in uncertain agro-ecological conditions. The current choices for Yorosso and Cinzana could be justified as anticipation or prevention, but currently the two areas cannot be considered as Drylands, as is the case for Bandiagara, Bankass and Tominian districts. This elaboration is needed to provide more integrated technical and socio-economic responses to livelihood development questions in drylands communities. It would include not only agriculture and agroforestry but also livestock rearing, non-agricultural activities and migration, and working out for Mali concepts of resilience, mobility and risk management, which are defining features of Drylands.
2. While the sub-catchment approach is technically relevant – but not per se institutionally – for work package 1 and to a certain degree for WP 2, interventions in WP’s 3-6 can be linked to relevant institutions or organisation forms of decentralised governance, service delivery and economic development structures. The sub-catchment approach is relatively recent introduced in Mali through IRWM (“GIRE”) policies, and its institutions and the sub-catchment division have less relevance than existing local government territories (“territoires des collectivités”) and village “terroirs”. DryDev can use these entities which are more social-culturally embedded and are covered by longer existing legislation and policies.
3. Reporting more on results (outcomes) than on activities and outputs, which would make it easier to understand how DryDev contributes to food and water security (as defined in the impact). Also the concept of resilience, part of the impact definition, can be better elaborated. There is enough ground for this: the inception report, the baseline survey report and annual reports give in principle sufficient elements to make plausible how DryDev contributes to food and water security and resilience.
4. Serving better the lowest income strata or poor people as target groups, which have been stated as target groups (“disadvantaged famers”) in the impact definition of DryDev. At this moment monitoring takes place of the effects of interventions on poor people. This is a more passive way of involving them. DryDev could also look more actively at designing interventions, agricultural and non-agricultural, that fit better in the livelihoods of poor people and that can be different from appropriate interventions for wealthier groups. Mali has the advantage of a rich database of household types that can exploited for developing such strategies.
To NLO and IPs: 1. Further development of an exit strategy, as the foreseen transfer to local committees is probably not viable and to state services is not sufficient as strategy. It should take into account the ongoing collaboration with state services (present in the “comité d’orientation”), and a transfer of responsibilities and of functions to local institutions or organisations: transfer to local governments (“commune councils”) and specialised commissions for land and/or water management, as well as to umbrella/apex farmer organisations and (private) service delivers. DryDev can’t remain a NGO drive program. The title states that DryDev is “farmer-driven” – that is not yet the case and should be on the agenda in a next phase.
2. More attention to a gender approach in implementation, which moves beyond women’s participation in the programme and looks at more structural economic and political
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 75
Drylands Development External programme Review
empowerment. Currently DryDev applies more a ‘women’s promotion’ (“promotion feminine”) approach. This will require opening up possibilities for interventions in other agricultural and productive areas than currently considered in DryDev (e.g. livestock fattening, petty commerce) and more attention to post-harvest activities and agro-processing from which women can benefit, particularly in those situations where women cannot own land. It will also emphasis on power relations between men and women (e. g. in participation and decision making in commissions, organisations).
3. Designing and development of a more appropriate and diverse approach on economic development for Drylands communities’ target groups. Value chain can be one element, but certainly not the exclusive one, in a wider local economic development approach. Such an approach requires to recognise that traditional agricultural and livestock markets in drylands’ areas have been functional for decades and are still motors of the local economies. Of course conditions for farmers and processors in these traditional and informal markets can be improved (as for example is already done by storage facilities and finance). At the same other products and sectors might benefit from an approach and strategy directing at formal and also more remote markets. This will require specific approaches, where value chain development should be more strongly driven by market access opportunities instead of production opportunities.
4. Mali has the advantage of paying attention to livestock keeping in its interventions, although (agro-) pastoral households are not specifically targeted. That can be the start of developing more specific interventions targeted at (agro-) pastoral households.
5. Support to services or systems (ex. extension, input delivery, farm planning) that are oriented at farming household level. In Mali such systems exist since the 1990s (ex. “conseils à l’exploitation familiale” or family farm management systems). Currently most interventions are oriented at community level where DryDev have made progress. As a consequence, DryDev does not yet contact directly individual household or family levels where most biophysical practices have to be embedded.
76 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Annexes
1. Country visit and activity program
Date Activity Site 07-05-2018 Travel - Meeting with DryDev Mali and advisory 08-05-2018 committee Bamako - Bilateral meeting with technical partners 09-05-2018 Meeting with field staff DryDev Mali Koutiala 10-05-2018 Field visits Kifosso, Tébèré (C/Yorosso) Kanséné, Kondala, Tominian 11-05-2018 Field visits (C/Tominian) Cinzana (C/Cinzana) 12-05-2018 Field visits Kanian (C/Tominian) 13-05-2018 Travel
2. List of people interviewed Name Structure, organisation Date Mali Bianivo Mounkoro, Pierre Dembélé, Mohammed Dicko, NGO Sahel Eco (NLO), Bamako 08/05/2018 Norbert Dembélé M. Paul NGO Oxfam Mali, Bamako 08/05/2018 M. Lassana NGO AMEPPE, Bamako 08/05/2018 M. Adama “Institut d’Economie Rural” (IER), Bamako, Mali Mme. M. Sow “Direction Nationale des Eaux et Forêts” (DNEF), 08/05/2018 M. Sanogo “Agence de l’Environnement et Développement Durable” (AEDD) Carl Hugues ICRAF (Nairobi, Kenya), in Bamako, Mali 08/05/2018 Boukary Guindo, Fousseni Network “SEFA”, Bamako 08/05/2018 Samaké, Mamadou Fofana “Secrétariat Permanent de Loi d’Orientation Agricole”, Salim Cissé, M. Diallo 08/05/2018 Bamako Moumouni Damango, Felix Advisers (water management and food security), 08/05/2018 Hoogveld Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Bamako Seydou Tangara Secretary of farmer organisation AOPP, Bamako 08/05/2018 Siaka Coulibaly, Oumar Baba AMEDD, Koutiala 09/05/2018 Samaké Moustapha Koné AMEPPE, Ségou, in Koutiala 09/05/2018 Paul Thion Sahel Eco, Bankass 09/05/2018 Souleymane Doumbia Oxfam Mali, Bamako, in Koutiala 09/05/2018 Members of “Comité de gestion de la mare surcreusée Focus group water users (men) 10/05/2018 de Pin”, Kifosso, Cercle de Yorosso “Comités de sous-bassin” (and “Comités GIRE”) of Water management Kifosso, Ménemba, Koumbia (village and sub-catchment 10/05/2018 committees (mixed) levels), Cercle de Yorosso Focus group horticulture Members of “Comité de gestion du périmètre 10/05/2018 (mixed) maraîcher”, Tébèré, Cercle de Yorosso Focus group village association Members of cooperative for “Warrantage”, Kanséné, 11/05/2018 (mixed) Cercle de Tominian Focus group horticulture Members of association of “périmètre maraîcher”, 11/05/2018 (women) Kanséné, Cercle de Tominian
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 77
Drylands Development External programme Review
Name Structure, organisation Date Focus group village associations Members of village cooperatives and -savings groups, 11/05/2018 (women) Kondala, Cercle de Tominian (10 villages represented) Individual farmers, Kondala and Tominian, Cercle de Focus group agriculture (mixed) 11/05/2018 Tominian Focus group horticulture Members of “Comité de gestion du périmètre 12/05/2018 (mixed) maraîcher”, Cinzana, Cercle de Cinzana Members of “Comité de gestion du puits pastoral” and Focus group water users (men) 12/05/2018 comité GIRE”, Kanian, Cercle de Tominian Focus group horticulture Members of association of “périmètre maraîcher”, 12/05/2018 (women) Kanian, Cercle de Tominian Researcher ICRAF, Bamako station (interview in Patrice Sawadogo 18/05/2018 Ouagadougou)
3. List of documents reviewed in relation to country review DryDev reports for Mali: Baseline Survey Report, 2016. CAP Visioning reports. Inception Report, ICRAF, 2015. Mali Annual Reports 2015/ 2016/ 2017. Synthesis of Characterization Study Mali, 2015. Value Chain Analysis, 2014.
Studies, Articles : Gubbels, P., 2011. Échapper au Cycle de la Faim, Les Chemins de la résilience au Sahel (Pathways to Resilience in the Sahel), Groupe de travail sur le Sahel, Groundwell International, Ghana. Krätli, S., 2015. Valuing Variability: New perspectives on climate resilient drylands development, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London (www.iied.org/drylands- volatile-vibrant-under-valued). Nugteren, H. and C. Le Côme, 2016. Unleashing the Potential of Pastoralism to Develop West-Africa, Netherlands Development Organisation SNV/ Royal Tropical Institute KIT, Bamako/Amsterdam. Van Walsum, E., et al, 2014. “From Vulnerability to Resilience: Agroecology for Sustainable Dryland Management”, Global Risk Forum Planet@Risk, in: GRF, Volume 2, Number 1, Special Issue on Desertification, March 2014, Davos. VNG International, 2017. Inception Report IDEAL program Mali, The Hague. Vorley, B., et al, 2013. Meeting small-scale farmers in their markets: understanding and improving the institutions and governance of informal agrifood trade, IIED/HIVOS/Mainumby, London/The Hague/La Paz.
Mali legislation and policies: Loi n°2017-001/du 11 avril 2017 portant sur le régime foncier agricole. Décret n°18-0333/P-RM du 4 avril 2018 fixant les attributions, la composition au niveau local et communal et les modalités de fonctionnement la commission foncière villageoise ou de fraction. Décret n°09-011/P-RM du 19 janvier 2009 fixant les attributions, la composition au niveau local et communal et les modalités de fonctionnement des commissions foncières locales et communales. Loi n°01-004/AN-RM du 27 février 2001 portant charte pastorale en République du Mali.
78 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Loi n°02-006/AN du 31 janvier 2002 portant code de l’eau. Décret n°02-315/P-RM du 4 juin 2002 fixant les détails des compétences transférées de l’Etat aux collectivités territoriales en matière d’hydraulique rural et urbaine. MEME, 2008. Plan d’Action national de Gestion Intégrée des Ressources en Eau (PAGIRE) 2008-2015, Ministère de l’Energie, des Mines et de l’Eau, Mali (plan revu en 2016). Loi n°2017-051 portant Code des collectivités territoriales. Décret n°2015-0543/P-RM du 6 août 2015 déterminant les détails de compétences transférées de l’Etat aux des collectivités territoriales en matière d’élevage et de pêche. Décret n°2016-0273/P-RM du 29 avril 2016 fixant le détail des compétences transférées de l’Etat aux collectivités territoriales en matière d’agriculture, d’aménagement et d’équipements ruraux et de protection des végétaux.
4. Results of surveys at the end of the FGD’s Not done in a systematic way in Mali.
5. Results of the Biophysical WP’s works inspections Checklist assessment Work Packages 1 & 2 during Field Visits The list below only concerns WP 1 and 2 works that could be inspected during the field visits to Kiffosso, Kondala and Koundia Garo (Cinzana) Sub-watersheds
Location: Kiffosso 1 sub-watershed, Kiffosso Commune, Yorosso District, Sikasso Region Mali
Extent Relevance Type Quality (H/M/L) Comments (estimate) (H/M/L)
Evidence of Soil & Water Conservation Activities (Sub-catchment and farm level)
Traditional Medium - practices complements High – poor soils widespread Natural Resource traditional need to conserve but only 2/35 Management agricultural NRM unknown moisture and farmers in FGD including contour practices such as need additional practiced planting manure & organic matter contour organic matter planting on into soil own land
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 79
Drylands Development External programme Review
Evidence of Management and Rehabilitation of water storage infrastructure:
High – enables Water Deepening of year round 40x30m x 1m Moderate – Harvesting and ‘Mare’ seasonal animal watering deep hand dug Management water body with some water for PM
80 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
High – provides High – concrete Water village access Part of ‘Quick Barrage structure with Harvesting & and water for Win’ Rehabilitation gates to manage Management irrigation and interventions flow animals
Evidence of any other land management improvements:
Moderate – many bananas Rehabilitation of and all papaya High – provides Perimetre Fenced area with have died due to food and income Maraichage wells and solar 1ha waterlogging. to 40 (PM) – Market powered pump Other crops beneficiaries Gardening Area (potatoes particularly) more successful
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 81
Drylands Development External programme Review
Location: Kondala sub-watershed, Tominian Commune, Tominian District, Ségou Region Mali
Extent Relevance Type Quality (H/M/L) Comments (estimate) (H/M/L)
Evidence of Soil & Water Conservation Activities (Sub-catchment and farm level)
High – Many – made Beneficiaries particularly for Compost making Mud brick 8.2t and Medium – recognise PM but also put (Compostage structure in picture covered intervention well benefits, on traditional Rapide) below 4,091ha in received expansion farmland (not 2017 from 2016 seen)
Zai pits increase yields but are very High – has taken labour High – millet 1 person 3m to intensive. Best Zai pits with yields have 1-2ha do but stone on ‘hard’ stone bunds increased bunds do not laterite soils, notably with zai follow contour not necessary if rainfall is good and on lower silt soils.
82 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Zai have been used in past Low – bunds are season, bunds Zai pits with soil Experimental plot 1-2ha very low and High – as above are bare and bunds have degraded vegetated with andropogon grass
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 83
Drylands Development External programme Review
Evidence of Management and Rehabilitation of water storage infrastructure:
Evidence of sub-catchment level land management improvements:
Evidence of any other land management improvements:
High-Moderate – Rehabilitation of High – provides potatoes, Provides food Perimetre Fenced area with food and income peppers, security and extra Maraichage wells and solar 1ha to 35 tomato, income that goes (PM) – Market powered pump beneficiaries (32 aubergine, to schooling Gardening Area women) cucumber
84 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Location: Koundia Garo sub-watershed, Cinzana Commune, Ségou District, Ségou Region Mali
Extent Relevance Type Quality (H/M/L) Comments (estimate) (H/M/L)
Evidence of Soil & Water Conservation Activities (Sub-catchment and farm level)
Evidence of Management and Rehabilitation of water storage infrastructure:
Evidence of sub-catchment level land management improvements:
Evidence of any other land management improvements:
Provides food security and extra income that goes High-Moderate – to schooling. Each Rehabilitation of High – provides onion, okra, household makes Perimetre Fenced area with food and income peppers, compost, used on Maraichage wells and solar 1ha to 64 tomato, papaya, PM and in fields. (PM) – Market powered pump beneficiaries (61 banana, mint, Deep well (12m) Gardening Area women) garlic not deep enough need to extend to 15m but need casing.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 85
Drylands Development External programme Review
IV Country report Burkina Faso
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
1. Description of DryDev implementation in Burkina Faso
1.1 General socio-political and political context Burkina Faso is a low-income, landlocked Sub-Saharan country with limited natural resources. Its population, which is growing at an average annual rate of 3.1 percent, was estimated at almost 18.6 million inhabitants in 2016. The economy is heavily reliant on agriculture, with close to 80 percent of the active population employed in the sector. Cotton is the country’s most important cash crop, while gold exports have gained importance in recent years. In recent years, there has been an upsurge of terrorist attacks in Burkina Faso. The North is the most vulnerable area of the country, but attacks have also occurred in Ouagadougou. The opening up of new industrial mines coupled with a slight rebound in gold and cotton prices and rising grain production paved the way for an acceleration of economic growth in 2016. Real GDP grew at 5.9 percent, well above the 4 percent rate of 2015 and close to the average of 6 percent posted during the 2003-2013 period. Public finances deteriorated in 2016. The fiscal deficit increased to 3.1 percent (from 2 percent in 2015) as a result of rising investment expenditures and civil service wages, and tax revenues that failed to increase at the same pace. Burkina Faso continued to improve its external position in 2016, with a current account [deficit] of 6.8 percent of GDP, compared to 8 percent in 2015. External support and the resumption of foreign direct investments (FDI), particularly in the mining sector, helped narrow the external deficit. In Burkina Faso, the overall burden of disease consists mainly in infectious illnesses. Children under five and women remain the primary victims. Despite a noticeable improvement in recent years, maternal and child health indicators have not yet attained the targets set in the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Despite a downward trend, malnutrition remains endemic, with a prevalence of acute malnutrition of 7.6 percent compared to 15.5 percent in 1998 and an incidence of stunted growth of 27.3 percent, compared to 34.6 percent in 1998. In spite of improvements in school enrollment, the youth literacy rate remains much lower than the average rate for Sub-Saharan Africa. Only 28 percent of pupils complete primary school with the required level of competence in mathematics and reading. Overall, the poverty rate in Burkina Faso decreased slightly between 2009 and 2014, from 46 percent to 40.1 percent. Burkina Faso remains vulnerable to shocks related to changes in rainfall patterns and to fluctuations in the prices of its export commodities on world markets. Its economic and social development will, to some extent, be contingent on political stability in the country and the sub- region, its openness to international trade, and export diversification. (This section was adapted from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/burkinafaso/overview)
1.2 Short overview development DryDev in country since start in 2013 Like in Mali and Niger, 2013 and 2014 of DryDev implementation were mainly oriented at introduction, at selection of sites and of partners (NLO, IPs) and at contracting of these partners in a consortium that should implement the program. The consortium was initially composed by Réseau MARP as national lead organisation (NLO) and Tree Aid and Netherlands Development Organisation SNV as implementing partners (IPs). DryDev Burkina works in six sub-catchment areas. Under the direction of ICRAF there was a new review of the overall program in 2015 with changes from the 2013-14 plan, which led to an inception report for 2015-2018. The consortium (or ‘country team’) has had difficulties in implementing the work plans. In 2017 Réseau MARP left the consortium after long debates with ICRAF and the two IPs. ICRAF stepped in as temporary coordinator. Inevitably the changes had an inhibitory effect on implementation in the intervention areas. On the other hand, swift and remarkable progress has been made since 2017. MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 87
Drylands Development External programme Review
1.3 NLO and national level aspects of DryDev Réseau MARP has been NLO from 2013/14 until mid-2017, when ICRAF took over and installed a coordination team in Burkina Faso. Initially Réseau MARP coordinated most field work through its network of local farmers’ associations and NGOs in the six areas and it was responsible for work packages (WP) 2 and 3. Tree Aid and SNV were responsible for respectively WP 1 and 8 and WP 4, 5 and 6. From September 2017 until now the division of tasks has been geographic. Tree Aid and SNV cover each one three areas for all work packages, with exception of WP 7 (ICRAF). Réseau MARP has a long track record in the Sahel of Burkina in activities related to WP 1-3. Réseau MARP and ICRAF needed time to establish working relations, as they had to harmonise visions how to implement DryDev in Burkina Faso. The program made little progress until 2017.8 Once ICRAF stepped in as coordinator, the relations in the consortium (ICRAF and IPs) have become good. ICRAF has now local presence in DryDev Burkina. The main ICRAF researcher in West-Africa (based in Bamako) knows the country well as Burkinabé citizen, which facilitates as well collaboration in Burkina. Technical directions of ministries are familiar with DryDev Burkina, but there are no formal relations in something as an advisory body. Réseau MARP had been responsible for contacts at Ministry levels. This is now responsibility of ICRAF. The consortium informs local administration (“Préfets”) and state services of its work, which inform regularly their responsible ministries. The consortium has no contacts with umbrella farmer organisations (FO) as f.i. the “Confédération Paysanne de Faso” (CPF) or regional FO as UGCPA. DryDev has partnerships with research institute INERA and with a national forestry governance network (GAGF).
8 The Program Advisory Committee (PAC) already gave notice to ICRAF on the risks of this choice of NLO and of institutional set-up in 2014/15.
88 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
1.4 IP’s and implementation on the ground in locations Two NGOs cover all activities in the intervention areas: Tree Aid is responsible for work in the sub- catchment areas (SC) of Arbollé (Province of Passoré), Bassi (P/Zondoma), and Kongoussi/Tikaré (P/Bam); SNV for the SC of Kiembara (P/Sourou), Kyon (P/Sanguié), and Zogoré (P/Yatenga). The two partners have easy, pragmatic working relations, as they have to catch up considerable delays. ICRAF-Burkina limits itself to coordination and monitoring-evaluation. The collaboration between the three is above all functional and oriented at implementation: they inform each other, but little time for mutual learning and exchanges of each other’s competencies. This is visible in the locations as each NGO leaves its own marks. The two NGOs are experienced project implementers. They have made remarkable progress in a short time. They are familiar with their respective intervention areas. They have recruited field agents who speak the languages. Cooperation with target groups seems good.
1.5 Limitations/Bottlenecks encountered in country-level field work Security and conflicts remain a serious bottleneck in border zones with Mali and Niger. Two areas are close to these zones: Zogoré and Kiembara. The four remaining DryDev areas lie outside the high risk zones of Burkina. The security situation has not affected the choice of locations for fieldwork in this review. However, it has limited the amount of time that could be invested in community level fieldwork, as the evaluation team could not stay long in the villages.
2. Analysis of DryDev implementation and its results in Burkina Faso
2.1 Overall analysis of overall implementation and organisational and institutional set-up DryDev Burkina has chosen for a geographical division of tasks. Each IP has at least an agent per sub- catchment, while one coordinator per IP monitors the activities of his organisation. Besides coordinators, Tree Aid and SNV have each other thematic advisers that support the field teams. ICRAF is now lead organisation to which the other NGOs report. ICRAF-Burkina has a coordinator, M&E agent and learning-communication officer. Besides coordinating, reporting and M&E, ICRAF intervenes in specific WPs (1, 2, 3) which are sanctioned in protocols for field tests. Because of the delays little progress has been made. The national rural research centre (INERA) works with DryDev on tests in WP 1 and 2. The first NLO Réseau MARP has left DryDev after debates with ICRAF and the two NGOs. The latter two have been discrete and have tried to come to an agreement with the NLO. In 2016 they have informed ICRAF about work relations which hampered implementation. ICRAF decided to intervene in 2017 as too little progress has been made. R/MARP was released from its task as NLO. MoFA was informed about this. The evaluation mission did not have time to make a detailed assessment – Réseau MARP has not been interviewed – nor feels to have a mandate in this particular situation. It limits itself to a quick analysis of the set-up. The double function of a NLO that is responsible for coordination as well as for implementation has risks. It is difficult for a NLO to monitor other organisations and implement at the same time similar tasks. One question, for instance, is how a lead organisation can assure that it is as critical on its own performance as it is on others. Then, there is an inherent tension of being partner organisation and being sub-contractor at the same time; this was the case of Tree Aid and SNV, being accountable to R/MARP. The mandates in Burkina might have been well described, but the real test is how the
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 89
Drylands Development External programme Review division of tasks was interpreted in practice, what working space was allowed to each organisation, and how responsible staff of the organisations were able to come to mutual understanding about it. And they could not come to such understanding. And in this situation the set-up gave little space for the IPs to solve it.
2.2 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 1-3 (biophysical work packages) Sites and sub-catchment approach: DryDev Burkina has done an extensive characterisation study (2015) with detailed information. It has also conducted a study on vale chains and an analysis of policies and laws. Part of the characterisation study was a typology of households, which could be the base of tailor-made interventions for different groups of farmers (men and women). The report also introduced sub- catchments as geographic units, for which geographic studies have been made.
All six SC sites are found at the centre and centre-nord of Burkina Faso in the triangle between Ouahigouya, Ouagadougou and Dédougou. Kyon in the P/Sanguié cannot be classified as Drylands, as its still belong to the more sub-humid area (‘Soudan’ zone) of Burkina. All areas respond to the Dryland criteria of 400-800 mm. Another characteristic of the intervention zones is that they belong to old agriculture basins with relatively high population densities for Drylands (>50 hab./km ), with maybe the exception of Arbollé. The sub-basin or sub-catchment unit (or “sous-bassin versant”) in DryDev makes technically sense for WP 1 and 2, but not (yet) institutionally nor socially. The activities in Burkina are indeed defined along sub-catchment (SC) lines. DryDev installed sub-catchment management committees. Some SC find themselves within a communal territory, other are spread over two communes. This facilitates indeed soil and water conservation of WP 1 and 2. However, for all other activities, the communities put the notion of SC aside if it serves them better. They ask extension of actions to villages that do not belong to the SC, but with which they are familiar as they lie in the same territory. They do not feel part of a sub-catchment area but more of their communities’ terroir or the “territoire” of their Commune. WP 4, 5 and 6 follow markets and social organisation structures.
90 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
While institutional support to local management committees of infrastructures has started, the institutional embedding of the sub-catchment management committees raises questions: they are probably not viable, more project relays. The SC-committees have no relations links with the formal water committees which have been created in Burkina.9 Despite a series of trainings, the members can’t justify the relevance of the committees. From this angle DryDev Burkina has more the features of a program for land management and integrated rural development. This is confirmed by WP 8: Burkina’s lobbying and advocacy targets Land Act (2009) and forestry policies, which takes terroirs and “territoires” as geographic entities. DryDev does not support, or only on ad-hoc basis, local governments (“Communes”) in their development planning. It has been active in creating “sites polyvalents” and in rehabilitating or protecting areas (forests, rangelands) that will be sanctioned by Communes. DryDev is working, or wants to develop flood plains (for rice). The affiliated infrastructures fall under the responsibility of Communal administration which formally owns them (“maître d’ouvrage”). The risk is that sub-catchment management committees stand too much on their own. Changing their status from “committee” into an association does not necessarily help to get better anchors in the institutional environment. Communal authorities and local administration (“préfets”) are informed and know DryDev well. This is not enough: as Communes have the mandate to design, plan and monitor part of DryDev’s interventions, the collaboration can be intensified. DryDev’s community planning f. i. has to be linked to the Communal Development Plans (“PDC”). WP 1-3 Interventions: Following the field notes and the different reports (ex. 2017 Burkina Annual Report), there is an impressive list of DryDev activities going from community infrastructures and perimeters, anti- erosion measures to soil and plant management (see also Table 1).
9 See the Burkina policy on “Gestion Intégrée des Ressources en Eau” (GIRE, or IWRM in English). This policy (“PS/GIRE”) recognises committees and agencies for predetermined sub-catchment- and catchment areas. MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 91
Drylands Development External programme Review
Table 1. Visited DryDev interventions in May 2018. Site / Intervention type NRM Wa-I A-F SWC SFPM FCP MA FS Burkina : Zogoré, C/Zogoré X X X Nango Yarcé, C/Zogoré X X Boulounsi, C/Zogoré X X Arbollé, C/Arbollé X X X Dakiégré, C/Arbollé X X X Ekoulkouala, Kyon, C/Kyon X X X X NRM Sub-catchment or Territorial Natural Resources Management : committees and local institutions for (WP 1) land and water management/ for rangeland management (“schema pastoral”) Wa-I (WP Community Water Infrastructures: protected water pools for fishing and cattle drinking (“mare 1) surcreusée”), livestock wells (“puits pastoral”), micro-dams, water dikes, rice perimeters A-F (WP (Agro-) Forestry measures : natural regeneration (“régénération naturelle assistée”), tree plantations. 1 and 2) SWC (WP Soil and Water Conservation measures: contour ploughing (“ACN”), anti-erosion measures (stone lines, 1 and 2) hedges, “bandes enherbées”), Zaï, “démi-lune”, “diguettes” (with plants) SFPM Soil Fertility and Plant Management, including inputs (seeds, fertilizers) : rapid and classic composting, (WP 2) micro-dosage of fertilizer, improved seeds FCP (WP Food and Commodity Production: horticulture perimeter (“périmètre maraîcher”), rice perimeter, 3) fishing pounds (“étang piscicole”) MA (WP Market Access: elements of value chain development, local commercialisation of food products, trading 4) association (“MER”) FS (WP Financial Services : Savings and Loans Groups (“AVEC”), MFI, warehouse receipt system (“warrantage”), 5) … The work packages 1-3 are appropriate, but it is unclear to what degree farmers have already appropriated the techniques and practices, as most interventions have been introduced recently. Most steps have been made in 2017. DryDev has given a boost to rehabilitate horticulture perimeters. Women grow onions, vegetables and fruits for family consumption and sales at nearby markets. The innovations of WP 1-2 are the initiation of the hedgerows, on-farm water-retention in small basins, certain techniques of processing agricultural and forestry products. Most other ‘innovations’ are activities or practices known in the community. It would be more accurate to state that DryDev Burkina helps to improve the organisation of individual and collective cultural practices. Composting (in combination with Zaï or “demi-lunes”), improved seeds (grains, cowpea) and fertilizers (e.g. micro-dosage) are very well received. To a lesser degree idem ditto for beekeeping and tree plantations. Burkina has promising examples of ‘sustainable input delivery systems’ (“SADI”) including a test of yield assurances, as f. i. in Zogoré, and of cooperatives for agricultural equipment. Trainings have been given to farmers leaders/innovators. During the visits of the review team, practitioners of compost were scarce. There will not be enough manure to fertilise the depleted soils in the areas. The scarce available material will be prioritising Zaï and “demi-lunes” or house plots. What can be other fertilisation methods, typically through agro- forestry and green manure (e.g. “cultures fourragères”)? Current measures can be integrated in wider soil fertility and plant management strategies, which would require interventions at farming household level. These examples exemplify that there is not yet a real strategy to target individual farming households, while most elements of WP 2 and 3 require interventions and services at this level. DryDev would need more institutionalised services or systems (not only through ‘leaders’) that work on more tailor-made farm plans (as promoted by “family farm management systems” wherein SNV- Burkina has a long track record).
92 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
2.3 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 4-6 (value chain development and local support/service/governance work packages) At the end of 2014 DryDev Burkina undertook a detailed, extensive analysis of value chains. Five value chains were selected: beans, poultry, peanut, shea-butter and vegetables (marrow squash). DryDev is at the beginning of value chain development. Efforts have been made to structure chains with mixed results: the outcomes of the poultry platforms, the ‘rural entreprises’ (“MER”) and the processing of grains and pulses are unclear in their structuring (which added value) and of what markets they target, while there are interesting market dynamics around shea-nut, onions. Small economic activities and savings groups (VSLG or “AVECs”) respond well to the needs of farmers’ groups (especially of women). It is too soon to make remarks on “warrantage” systems put into place. DryDev has put efforts in (re-) dynamising local farmers’ cooperatives and associations. It does not, yet, collaborate with umbrella farmers’ organisations (FO) as CFP or UGCPA. As these FO can play a role in exit strategies (in the transfer of functions or responsibilities), it is not an option not to look how working with umbrella FO. As in Mali and Niger, value chain development (WP 4, 6) seems still in its preparation phase, it is useful to put market-based/ economic development in a wider perspective. The attention for value chains can be broadened, if we look at market dynamics in dryland areas, where we market and state imperfections are more rule than exception.10 Value chain actions for shea-nut and onion make sense. Besides that, most other market actions pass through extensive, traditional or informal trade networks, which were already in place before creation of cooperatives and platforms (or eventually inter-professions). These networks exist in all DryDev areas and they trade all available products. They are the most efficient in terms of volume, of lesser (transaction) costs and of responsiveness – and they get little attention in market analyses of development programs. Besides the two examples of value chains, it would be relevant to look at other marketing options of farm products in often nearby markets and existing trade networks. Probably DryDev has hardly added value in linking stakeholders who already cooperate for decades. It can work on lower transaction costs (or nearby markets), on low-cost information systems, on better storage and conditioning, on Communal tax systems that favour local products f. i. In this perspective it might be more effective to adopt a Local Economic Development approach wherein interventions are adapted to strategies of households, than a focus on mere value chain actions around pre-selected commodities. Burkina shows already elements of such an approach by working on storage, better conditioning, small/artisanal processing units, and input delivery (“SADI” and cooperatives).
2.4 Analysis of implementation and results of WP 8 (Lobby and Advocacy) The focus has been on application of land and forest governance. DryDev has supported several actions, mainly informing stakeholders on legislation on land and forest (f. i. by producing three policy notes on forestry and land tenure), but has not yet made much progress.
2.5 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 7 (M&E and learning) A series of diagnostics have been conducted by ICRAF and the NLO-IPs: characterisation, local visioning and value chain study, an analysis of policies and laws for land, water and forestry.
10 See the reflexion Box on LED and value chains in the Mali report. See Vorley, B., et al, 2013. Meeting small-scale farmers in their markets: understanding and improving the institutions and governance of informal agrifood trade, IIED/HIVOS/Mainumby, London/The Hague/La Paz. MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 93
Drylands Development External programme Review
An interesting element in the characterisation study is the typology in household categories. It is rudimentary, with can be used in the future design: what could be the appropriate activity for which category of households? DryDev’s interventions are documented, and mostly in a systematic way. The latter is also due to strict monitoring of ICRAF. Since 2015 the program has sufficient reports and plans that help to verify what is going on. However, there are in-coherences between results in 2015, 2016 and 2017 reports. It is not always clear what really has been realised and when. In principle DryDev indicators start from output level that are measured in the field and tracked for short-term progress. The program also has sub-outcomes and outcomes that are derived from end year surveys, which should project the programme’s real progress towards the targets set at the beginning (see f. i. the Baseline Survey report of ICRAF). It is unclear to what degree the NGO agents master the set-up and the direct ICRAF coordination is only at place since 2017. The reports are too much focused on long enumerations of activities and outputs, and less on outcomes (results) that would make it easier to understand how DryDev contributes to food and water security. The indicators do not always help: some just mention participation to events or trainings, or application one or two techniques, or being member of an organisation, or give numbers of hectares. That does not necessarily say how farmers now act or perform differently. It is difficult to assess these figures if we don’t know where farmers are coming from: what was the starting situation? A few exchange activities exist between countries: as for the latter, the three Sahel countries have done a joint value chain training in Burkina Faso with SNV. Burkina staff has attended a meeting in Ethiopia. Cooperation between partners in Burkina happens on ad-hoc basis/ on-demand. Joint monitoring missions with ICRAF have been the strongest mechanism for discussion and learning.
3 Appreciation of ICRAF/NLO and IP’s performance and results of activities
3.1 By beneficiaries All users’ groups, men and women, said to be satisfied with DryDev interventions. For women: especially savings groups, village cooperatives and small processing units (horticulture, tree products) were appreciated. Men underlined the access to seeds (ex. of cowpea) and fertilizers; to a lesser degree beekeeping and rice cultivation. Soil and water conservation measures have effects at longer term and are not yet applied at such a scale that farmers see major differences. They emphasise on infrastructure and mechanical measures: micro-dams, wells, ponds/pools. The members of the two sub-catchment management committees were not able to tell a comprehensive story about the raison-d’être of such commissions (or of future associations), nor to relate them to local authorities (commune councils) and to village councils (“CVD”). They make no link with the formal institutions that exist in Burkina: land management and local water committees. They mainly consider them as channels for project activities. The idea of DryDev is to change the management committees into development associations for SC. As is the case in Mali, a nuance is that most field interviews tended to be guided towards positive answers on the DryDev performance as the preselected users’ groups speculate on a follow-up of the program of which they could benefit again. Not without reason in Burkina, they have the feeling that they just got started, which is difficult to deny. This bias has been mitigated by taking time for the interviews and asking the same questions from another angle, by visiting interventions and asking questions again in a smaller group.
94 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
N° Questions Answers Argumentation, examples Changes in production Positive to Use of new techniques, tools, improved seeds, 1 conditions moderate horticulture (women) and cowpea most positive Comparison of yields: 2013/14 N.B. Program started late in Burkina: 2016/17, so only 2 - (Too soon) to 2017/2018 one-two seasons of results Changes in livestock herds: 3 Few effects Few activities in livestock 2013/2014 to 2017/2018 Contribution by DryDev to High commitment of IPs since restart of program in 4 Positive changes 2017 Changes on revenues from Positive to Individual examples of revenues from rain-fed 5 production: 2013/2014 to moderate agriculture, market gardening and transformation 2017/2018 Contribution by DryDev to Positive Effects of improved farming practices, hope for more 6 changes (>90%) yields Satisfaction of DryDev Positive High commitment of IPs since restart of program in 7 interventions (>90%) 2017
Nevertheless, even when taken this nuance into account, most interventions remained well appreciated, as people see small improvement or potential in protection of land, in production or in economic activities. Horticulture contributed to diversify food diets in households (more vegetables and fruits). People are less sure about economic gains. Women testified that the revenues serve as additional income for small expenses: school, health, food, but not for reinvestments in agriculture.
3.2 By key external stakeholders The local administration of “Préfets” and state services are satisfied with DryDev, as its interventions follow existing policies. Some agents are involved in training and field visits, or the services deliver materials (plants, inputs). The two local governments (mayors, secretaries of “Communes”) also state to be satisfied with DryDev. They are well informed, but often not actively involved. They express the wish that DryDev should be more accountable to local authorities, but for the rest they remain discrete, even when asked how the interventions should relate to their own development plans and actions; f. i. formally they are owner of some of DryDev’s infrastructures. The INERA sees potential for interesting research-in-development or continuing tests in WP 1-2. The work packages are relevant. As for WP 3, DryDev makes good steps in agro-forestry and inputs, but it could look more to farm management systems, especially in soil fertility. As long fallows and land reserves disappear, it would be interesting to look at intensification of the systems in a Dryland context. He also underlines the importance of diversification of revenues and of exploiting better the market opportunities of local economies instead of exploiting mainly markets outside the communal territories.
4. External factors and actors that have influenced implementation, results and outcomes
Burkina is confronted by increasing social division and unrest in a couple of regions, aggravated by religious extremism: violence has spread from Mali to border areas with Mali and Niger, where regular attacks can be counted, which have effects on some areas: Zogoré and Kiembara. For the moment these Communes are not targeted, but the events have negative effects on the movement of people and goods.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 95
Drylands Development External programme Review
Households in Burkina’s Drylands can be characterised as vulnerable. Most of the households in Zogoré, Bassi and Kongoussi/Tikaré are at least every three years confronted with food insecurity. Arbollé, Kiembara and Kyon show better living conditions. Access to, and control over natural resources, are at the heart of local conflicts and food insecurity in Burkina Faso – this is not basically different in Mali and Niger. In this context of vulnerability, the management of scarce land and water resources, and working towards an integrated approach of resources management DryDev could offer an opportunity to work on one of the causes of vulnerability at local level. Local governments and local management institutions are in principle key stakeholders in interventions for WPs 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8. Decentralisation slowly advances in Burkina. All communes should have a five-year policy document for the overall development of the commune, including NRM: the “plan de développement communal” (PDC). The central state has made promises in transferring competencies and powers to local governments and local management bodies: land management commissions and local water committees. Some steps are made, but most is still on paper. The communes have difficulties in getting their place as development agency. Despite practices of “gestion des terroirs” and a Land Act (2009), land management by local commissions advances slowly. For a long time the context has not been favourable: Burkina has a long history of a dominant central and of clientelistic webs of state politicians and local, customary chiefs, which are also in some DryDev areas. The country only got a democratic boost in 2014.
5. Conclusions
See table 2 below.
96 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Table 2. Burkina - Conclusions according to criteria Window/DAC Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness (potential) Sustainability (likelihood) Criteria Institutional * Coordination of ICRAF: see general * Since mid-2017 roles and * Consortium model and institutional * Impact by DryDev on IP: DryDev has conclusions. responsibilities in the Burkina arrangements (a) do provide quality reinforced the engagement of the two * Institutional model vis-à-two ToCs. consortium seem clear, and are support to farmers. partners in Dryland issues. As for The division of tasks is pragmatic for efficiently and effectively followed. (b) But in current set-up there is capacities, however, they basically 1st ToC (WP 1-6). * Use of financial resources: Not well limited policy and practice impact. It repeat what they already did and knew, with some small improvements * Better embedding in initiatives of managed until 2017. ICRAF had to has little expansion potential. This take over. would need transfer of functions and delivered by joint tests and national stakeholders (e. g. umbrella discussions with ICRAF. FOs) required for 2nd ToC. responsibilities to local institutions (Communes and land and water commissions) and farmers’ organisations and services deliverers. Such transfer-/exit strategies do exist but are not yet well developed. Sub-catchment * As developed before, the sub- * The various interventions (the WPs) * It is unlikely that significant synergy * It is unlikely that a sub-catchment catchment as unit of intervention has are not yet sufficiently integrated. will be generated among the work approach will be pursued by the limited relevance in Burkina. A solid packages at the sub-catchment levels implementing partners and local * The interrelationships between WP alternative is to build on existing 1, 2, 3, 6 would benefit from (SC). stakeholders in the future without geographic entities (“terroirs” and embedding in Communal * It is unlikely that DryDev’s enforcement by DryDev. “territoires”), while looking Development Plans. In that interventions are ‘saturating’ the sub- * It is unlikely that the inter- progressively at alignment with the perspective it would also be better to catchments. However, too soon to relationships between the sub- Burkina GIRE policy. apply a local economic development conclude. catchment level and farm level work * Socio-economic factors such as approach (for WPs 4, 5, 6) that can be will continue, without explicit markets, value chains, institutional attached to a local government attention to extension services at development and policy are territory. farm level. integrated in a sub-catchment * The inter-relation between approach in Burkina, but some are production and financial services and artificial. market linkages will likely continue. Technical: * The biophysical interventions of * Training and provision of support to * The targeted farmers take up the * It is likely that the various (a) Biophysical WPs 1 to 3 are technically appropriate farmers have been carried out in a technologies and practices at limited biophysical interventions will continue (Work Packages to achieve the intended objectives. cost-efficient manner. DryDev delivers extent and –scale. to be practiced by the involved * Since 2017 considerable efforts have ‘proximity services’. The * It is too early to pronounce if there farmers. They respond well to the
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 97
Drylands Development External programme Review
Window/DAC Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness (potential) Sustainability (likelihood) Criteria 1-3) been undertaken to inform their infrastructures have been subsidised are clear signs or evidence for large changes that they have to make to technical design. with village contribution in nature, but uptake, beyond what the farmers keep their farming systems viable. The remain at village level and are not big- already did before DryDev. likelihood to continue will probably be Soil and plant management can be better developed. scale. N.B. Some technologies are applied bigger on family-owned land than on the commons. * The bottleneck is at institutional since decades, which makes it difficult level (effectiveness and sustainability). to say what boost DryDev has given, * Unclear what positive side effects since the data base does not exactly occur on farmers not involved in * Another attention point is the give the starting points. DryDev. secondary position of livestock keeping in the interventions. Technical: (b) * Studies on value chains have been * Savings groups (AVEC) (WP 5) are * The SLVG and input delivery systems * The savings groups and input Socio-economic undertaken to inform the design. well performing; they respond to a support the biophysical interventions, systems probably continue in target (Work Packages * The socio-economic interventions of need. mainly targeting women in communities. They may do so in non- 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) WP 4 to 6 are relevant: small * It is too soon to assess the effects of horticulture or families in grains/ target communities. economic activities, cooperatives, the numerous cooperatives and of cowpeas. * Idem for shea-nut and onion. savings groups resonate well amongst warrantage. * The savings have financed small * N.B. these types of intervention farmers’ groups (esp. women). * Little dynamics in rural enterprises economic activities. The revenues exist in other programs. * SADI is promising. (“MER”). have contributed to small household expenses, and hardly to farm/field * Too soon to conclude for other * Too soon for conclusion on * A closer look to existing market investments. interventions. “warrantage”. dynamics and (informal) trade * Value chains some (processed) * The value chain approach has to be networks that serve far more farmers and are more efficient. products (ex. shea-nut, onion) are completed by an opener local promising. economic development approach.
Frameworks & * PMEL framework: see remarks in * The current frameworks and tools * The current frameworks and tools * The DryDev frameworks and tools fit Tools paragraph 2.5. been operationalised efficiently since been operationalised effectively since in, or complete existing ones used by * A gender strategy is not available. 2017. 2017 – hard to tell of period 2015- ICRAF and the consortium partners. 2017. They will continue to use them. DryDev applies a “promotion * Only point is how they can be scaled feminine” approach. up efficiently, as this need more * One risk is the scattered pattern of * A key step for saving DryDev’s * Planned comparisons (tests): Not ownership of local organisations and interventions. It might be better to results is a strategy for transfer of visited. Too soon to assess effects. institutions (local governments, concentrate the WP 1-3 on a couple of responsibilities and functions to local specialised commissions). DryDev is “terroirs”. institutions and organisations. DryDev
98 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Window/DAC Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness (potential) Sustainability (likelihood) Criteria * Scaling principles are not yet working on the latter, but can give can’t remain a NGO drive program. It sufficiently developed: the NLO more priority to it. is not yet “farmer-driven”. indicates state services and sub- * DryDev Burkina need some new catchment committees as succession frameworks or tools, as indicated in structures. This is too limited; chapter 2 in order to affect positively currently the SC-committees are not the overall efficiency and viable. effectiveness of the program. * The OxC approach is certainly interesting. Burkina has already a long history of bottom-up, participatory approaches. The packages are not that different between the sites which nuances the context specificity. DryDev remains more solution driven than local problem oriented.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 99
Drylands Development External programme Review
6. Recommendations
To ICRAF and IPs 1. Further development of the concept of Drylands that is not only based on climatological and rainfall conditions as 400-800 mm/y, but also on typical socio-economic and cultural conditions wherein people live ‘at the margins’ in often remote areas or in uncertain agro-ecological conditions. The current choice for Kyon and Arbollé could be justified as anticipation or prevention, but currently Kyon (and maybe Arbollé) cannot be considered as ‘Drylands’. This elaboration is needed to provide more integrated technical and socio-economic responses to livelihood development questions in drylands communities. It would include not only agriculture and agroforestry but also livestock rearing, non-agricultural activities and migration, and working out for Burkina concepts of resilience, mobility and risk management, which are defining features of Drylands. 2. While the sub-catchment approach is technically relevant for work packages 1 and 2, interventions in WP’s 3-6 can be linked to relevant institutions or organisation forms of decentralised governance, service delivery and economic development structures. The sub- catchment approach is relatively recent introduced in Burkina through IRWM (“GIRE”) policies, and its institutions and the sub-catchment division have for the moment less relevance than existing local government territories (“territoires des collectivités”) and village “terroirs”, which are backed by the Land Act and Decentralisation policies. DryDev can use these entities which are also more social-culturally embedded. 3. Reporting more on results (outcomes) than on activities and outputs, which would make it easier to understand how DryDev contributes to food and water security (as defined in the impact). Also the concept of resilience, part of the impact definition, can be better elaborated. There is enough ground for this: the inception report, the baseline survey report and annual reports give sufficient elements to make plausible how DryDev contributes to food and water security and resilience. DryDev could also look more actively at designing interventions, agricultural and non-agricultural, that fit better in the livelihoods of poor people and that can be different from appropriate interventions for wealthier groups. It has developed a typology that can be used for such designs. 4. The current consortium or ‘country team’ has implementing organisations with good competencies, capable of running DryDev: SNV and Tree Aid (besides ICRAF itself). The current set-up with ICRAF as NLO is temporarily, a good solution to solve an organisational problem, but it is not something to continue for a long period. Currently this coordination team does not add enough to justify this management layer. Looking back at the situation before September 2017, DryDev would probably perform in the future better with an organisational set-up without a dominant NLO, where all partners have enough or equal say in designing and implementing the program, bringing in their specific experiences and competencies. 5. Further development of an exit strategy, as the foreseen transfer to sub-catchment committees or future associations is probably not viable, and the transfer to state services is not sufficient as strategy. DryDev could formalise the existing collaboration with state services by inviting them f. i. in an advisory group at national level. Such a next step would include a transfer of responsibilities and of functions to local governments (“commune councils”). The sub-catchment committees could be an example for Communes as specialised commissions of the councils. The step would include as well a transfer of functions to umbrella/apex farmer organisations and (private) service delivers.
100 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
6. More attention to a gender approach in implementation, which moves beyond women’s participation in the programme and looks at more structural economic and political empowerment. Currently DryDev applies more a ‘women’s promotion’ (“promotion feminine”) approach. This will require opening up possibilities for interventions in other agricultural and productive areas than currently considered in DryDev (e.g. livestock fattening, breweries, petty commerce) and continuing examples of post-harvest activities and agro-processing from which women can benefit. It will also emphasis on power relations between men and women (e. g. in participation and decision making in commissions, organisations). 7. Designing and development of a more appropriate and diverse approach on economic development for Drylands communities’ target groups. Value chain is one element in a wider local economic development approach. Such an open approach requires to recognise that traditional agricultural and livestock markets in drylands’ areas have been functional for decades and are still motors of the local economies. Of course conditions for farmers and processors in these traditional and informal markets can be improved (as for example is already done by storage facilities and finance). At the same products might benefit from an approach serving more formal markets. Value chain development should be more strongly driven by market access opportunities instead of production and processing opportunities. 8. Support to services or systems (ex. extension, input delivery, farm planning) that are oriented at farming household level. In Burkina such systems exist since the 1990s (ex. “conseils à l’exploitation familiale” or family farm management systems). Currently most interventions are oriented at community level where DryDev have made progress. As a consequence, DryDev does not yet contact directly individual household or family levels where most biophysical practices have to be embedded.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 101
Drylands Development External programme Review
Annexes
1. Country visit and activity program
Date Activity Site 13-05-2018 Travel and interview Director SNV Ouagadougou - Meeting with DryDev Burkina 14-05-2018 Ouagadougou - Bilateral meetings with technical partners 15-05-2018 Field visits Zogoré, Ouahigouya 16-05-2018 Field visits Arbollé - Field visits Kyon, 17-05-2018 - Interview with director Tree Aid Ouagadougou - Restitution with staff DryDev Burkina - Bilateral meetings with ICRAF staff 18-05-2018 Ouagadougou - Travel
2. List of people interviewed
List of participants kick-off/briefing meeting 14-5 -2018 Kaboré WQ. Aime, Value Chain Advisor, SNV Dabre, Abdoulaye, Agriculture Advisor, SNV Tuina, Stéphane, DryDev Project Manager, SNV Clotaire Ouedrago, DryDev National Coordinator, ICRAF Sakougri, K. Sylvain, M&E specialist, DryDef team, ICRAF Gango Aboudlaye, Chief Project DryDev, Tree Aid Natama Diassibo, Project Officer Value Chains, Tree Aid
Name Structure, organisation Date Burkina Faso Director Netherlands Development Organisation SNV, Jeanette de Regt 13/05/2018 Ouagadougou Clotaire Ouédraogo, Sylvain Country coordination, ICRAF, Ouagadougou 14-17/05/2018 Sakougri, Fidelia Hounou Abdoulaye Gango, Natama NGO Tree Aid, Ouagadougou 14-17/05/2018 Diassibo, Niaopa Boukari Stéphane Tuina, Aimé Kaboré, NGO SNV, Ouagadougou 14-17/05/2018 Abdoulaye Dabré Researcher, Dep. Environment and Forestry, INERA, Jonas Koala 14/05/2018 Ouagadougou Mamadou Beldum (GAGF) « Centre pour la Gouvernance Forestière » 14/05/2018 Issa Ouédraogo Mayor of Commune de Zogoré, Zogoré, 15/05/2018 M. Ouédraogo Prefect of Département de Zogoré, Zogoré 15/05/2018 Technical services ‘Agriculture’, ‘Livestock’ and Local public services 15/05/2018 ‘Environment’, Zogoré
102 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Name Structure, organisation Date Sub-catchment development Association Bassnéré (former sub-catchment 15/05/2018 association (mixed) management committee) of Zogoré Director of Operations Micro-finance institution, Cash Abdou-Rasmané Ouédraogo 15/05/2018 register of UBTEC, Zogoré Focus group livestock (men) Members of « Plateforme Volaille », Zogoré 15/05/2018 Focus group agriculture (men) Village authorities and individual farmers, Nango Yarcé 15/05/2018 Focus group horticulture Members of village women group, Nango Yarcé 15/05/2018 (women) Focus group horticulture and Members of women association (production and 15/05/2018 savings (women) “warrantage”), Boulounsi Antoine Sawadogo 1st Adj. Mayor of Commune d’Arbollé, Arbollé 16/05/2018 Pape Wende Ouédraogo Prefect of Département d’Arbollé, Arbollé 16/05/2018 Technical services ‘Agriculture’, ‘Livestock’ and Local public services 16/05/2018 ‘Environment’, Arbollé CREER (« Centre de Ressources d’Entreprises Rurales »), Local NGOs 16/05/2018 SEMUS, Arbollé Focus group agriculture and Village authorities and individual farmers of “Site 16/05/2018 forestry (men) Polyvalent”, Dakiegré Focus group agriculture and Members of village women group of “Site Polyvalent”, 16/05/2018 horticulture (women) Dakiegré Focus group local Poultry trading association (“Micro Entreprises Rurales 16/05/2018 entrepreneurs (mixed) en volaille”), Arbollé Focus group processing and Members of farmer association Wendlassida and 16/05/2018 savings (women) savings group (“AVEC”) Lagam Taaba, Arbollé Focus group forestry (men) “Pépiniéristes” (tree nursery gardeners) 16/05/2018 Sub-catchment management « COGES du Sous Bassin Versant » of Arbollé 16/05/2018 committee (mixed) Focus group agriculture, Individual farmers, Eboulkouala 17/05/2018 horticulture and livestock (men) Focus group agriculture and Individual farmers, Eboulkouala 17/05/2018 horticulture (women) Focus group processing Members of women groups shea-nut (collection, 17/05/2018 (women) production unit shea-butter), Kyon Group forestry (woman) “Pépiniéristes” (tree nursery gardeners) 17/05/2018 Georges Bazongo Directeur Tree Aid Burkina 17/05/2018 Patrice Sawadogo, West Africa Coordinator ICRAF 18/05/2018 Clotaire Ouédraogo DryDev National Coordinator ICRAF 18/05/2018 K. Sylvain Sakougri M&E specialist, ICRAF 18/05/2018 Fidelia Hounnou Communication officer, ICRAF 18/05/2018
Debriefing and validation meeting at SNV, 17-5-2018 Kaboré WQ. Aime, Value Chain Advisor, SNV Tuina, Stéphane, DryDev Project Manager, SNV Jeannette de Regt, Director, SNV Sakougri, K. Sylvain, M&E specialist, DryDef team, ICRAF Hounnou Fidelia, Communication officer, ICRAF Gango Aboudlaye, Chief Project DryDev, Tree Aid Niaopa Boukari, Project Officer, Tree Aid
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 103
Drylands Development External programme Review
3. List of documents reviewed in relation to country review DryDev reports for Burkina: Baseline Survey Report, 2016. CAP Visioning reports. Inception Report, ICRAF, 2015. Burkina Annual Reports 2015/ 2016/ 2017. Synthesis of Characterization Study Burkina, 2015. Inventory and Analysis of Value Chains of Agro-Pastoral and -Forestry Products and of their Financing, 2015.
Studies, Articles : Gubbels, P., 2011. Échapper au Cycle de la Faim, Les Chemins de la résilience au Sahel (Pathways to Resilience in the Sahel), Groupe de travail sur le Sahel, Groundwell International, Ghana. Krätli, S., 2015. Valuing Variability: New perspectives on climate resilient drylands development, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London (www.iied.org/drylands- volatile-vibrant-under-valued). Nugteren, H. and C. Le Côme, 2016. Unleashing the Potential of Pastoralism to Develop West-Africa, Netherlands Development Organisation SNV/ Royal Tropical Institute KIT, Bamako/Amsterdam. Sandwidi, M., S. Parkouda et T. Bouda, 2015. Etude sur l’Analyse des Politiques, des Textes Législatifs et Réglementaires en Lien avec la Sécurité Alimentaire et Hydrique, l’Economie Rurale et l’Accès au Crédit et aux Services Financiers pour le Promotion du Développement Economique Rural, DryDev Burkina Faso, ICRAF/ Réseau MARP/ Tree Aid/ SNV, Ouagadougou. Van Walsum, E., et al, 2014. “From Vulnerability to Resilience: Agroecology for Sustainable Dryland Management”, Global Risk Forum Planet@Risk, in: GRF, Volume 2, Number 1, Special Issue on Desertification, March 2014, Davos. Vorley, B., et al, 2013. Meeting small-scale farmers in their markets: understanding and improving the institutions and governance of informal agrifood trade, IIED/HIVOS/Mainumby, London/The Hague/La Paz.
Burkina legislation and policies: See overview of policies in the report of Sandwidi, Parkouda and Bouda (2015). Loi n°034-2009 du 24 juillet 2009, portant sur le régime foncier rural. Loi n°055-2004 du 21 décembre 2004, portant code général des collectivités territoriales au Burkina Faso MARHASDA, 2015. Plan d’Action pour la Gestion Intégrée des Ressources en Eau du Burkina Faso 2016-2030, Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Hydrauliques, de l’Assainissement et de la Sécurité Alimentaire, Ouagadougou.
4. Results of surveys at the end of the FGD’s Synthesis of results in text above.
104 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
5. Results of the Biophysical WP’s works inspections Checklist assessment Work Packages 1 & 2 during Field Visits The list below only concerns WP 1 and 2 works that could be inspected during the field visit to Zogoré and is not representative of all the investments/WP’s in Zogoré
Location: Burkina, Region Nord, Yetanga, Zogoré
Location Extent Relevance Type Quality (H/M/L) Comments (estimate) (H/M/L)
Evidence of Soil & Water Conservation Activities (Sub-catchment and farm level):
Evidence of Management and Rehabilitation of water storage infrastructure:
Nango Yarcé Earth dikes/ 5-10 ha Low (quality of Medium, as it “Aménagement small dams compacting help to grow sommaire”, simple in flood earth, not yet rice and other construction to retain plain protected by food crops. and to reduce water stones) erosion The plain is far N.B. The rainy from the season floods are village. too strong to Constraint for build these dams women more upstream
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 105
Drylands Development External programme Review
Evidence of Management and Rehabilitation of water storage infrastructure:
Evidence of sub-catchment level land management improvements:
Evidence of any other land management interventions
Waterwell at 10 meters (15-20 meter Small (6 m2) M (well-tended, M (small), but Tree deep) In town and 1000 small, water one out of Nursery plants readily available several N.B. not constructed by DryDev
106 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Women’s Onion Nearby dam (not groups (two H (storage has Storage DryDev) is not storage high impact on Boulounsi M (small scale) retaining enough facilities) economic (not really water to remain simple quality return) WP 1 and 2) productive (few tons)
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 107
Drylands Development External programme Review
The list below only concerns WP 1 and 2 works that could be inspected during the field visit to Arbollé and is not representative of all the investments/WP’s in Arbollé.
Location: Burkina Faso, Region Nord, Passoré, Arbollé
Quality Relevance Location Type Extent (estimate) Comments (H/M/L) (H/M/L)
Evidence of Soil & Water Conservation Activities (Sub-catchment and farm level)
Low (little High as it helps Dam, water compacting to have access “Aménagement Dakiégré retention in +/- 3 ha of earth, no to water in dry sommaire”, simple pond protection season for construction yet) cattle
Evidence of Management and Rehabilitation of water storage infrastructure:
108 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Location: Burkina Faso, Region Nord, Passoré, Arbollé
Quality Relevance Location Type Extent (estimate) Comments (H/M/L) (H/M/L)
Horticulture is new activity in village For horticulture (mainly women). Solar powered plot (fenced) of Well also used for H (brand- Dakiégre well and tank appox 3 ha. 82 H (new activity) drinking water (not new) and fencing plot families treated). Not clear benefiting if water is also used for rice cultivation area
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 109
Drylands Development External programme Review
Location: Burkina Faso, Region Nord, Passoré, Arbollé
Quality Relevance Location Type Extent (estimate) Comments (H/M/L) (H/M/L)
“Aménagement High (earth High, as it helps sommaire”, simple Dikes (small dams to grow rice construction to Dakiegre dams) Rice 15 ha protected by and other food retain and to cultivation area stones) crops reduce water erosion
Evidence of sub-catchment level land management improvements:
H (demand for There are trees is very Capacity 2000 nurseries in all Arbollé Tree nursery M (small) high. Nursery is plants seven villages of very good sub-catchment business)
Evidence of any other land management interventions
110 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Location: Burkina Faso, Region Nord, Passoré, Arbollé
Quality Relevance Location Type Extent (estimate) Comments (H/M/L) (H/M/L)
High Beekeeping in (protection of Improvement of forest (not last forest traditional social- Dakriege directly land Unknown M (small) lands, economic activity, management but economic well appreciated relevant activity)
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 111
Drylands Development External programme Review
The list below only concerns WP 1 and 2 works that could be inspected during the field visit to Ekoulkouala and is not representative of all the investments/WP’s in Ekoulkouala.
Location: Burkina Faso, Sanguié, Réo, Ekoulkouala
Location Extent Quality Relevance Type Comments (estimate) (H/M/L) (H/M/L)
Evidence of Soil & Water Conservation Activities (Sub-catchment and farm level)
Demonstration High, if land is plots. Relevance scarce and depends on state Demi-lunes/ degraded. Elkoulkouala 2-3 ha High of land (scarce, Half Moons degraded or not). (Low if land is High labour abundant) demand.
112 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Location: Burkina Faso, Sanguié, Réo, Ekoulkouala
Location Extent Quality Relevance Type Comments (estimate) (H/M/L) (H/M/L)
Medium, question on advantages Good practice, but (higher upscaling? quality of High (new 4 compost manure) Elkoulkouala Composting techniques Questions how sites versus introduced) replicable constraints of composting is for water-, target groups labour-, manure availability
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 113
Drylands Development External programme Review
Location: Burkina Faso, Sanguié, Réo, Ekoulkouala
Location Extent Quality Relevance Type Comments (estimate) (H/M/L) (H/M/L)
Evidence of Management and Rehabilitation of water storage infrastructure:
Simple measure for conserving water Pond on farm on farm, allows to Elkoulkouala 2 ponds High High field preserve plants of house plots in drought periods
Evidence of sub-catchment level land management improvements:
114 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Location: Burkina Faso, Sanguié, Réo, Ekoulkouala
Location Extent Quality Relevance Type Comments (estimate) (H/M/L) (H/M/L)
Demonstration plots. Relevance High, if land is depends on state Rectangular Zai Elkoulkouala 0,5 ha High scarce and of land (scarce, pits (in series) degraded degraded or not). High labour demand.
Evidence of any other land management interventions
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 115
Drylands Development External programme Review
Location: Burkina Faso, Sanguié, Réo, Ekoulkouala
Location Extent Quality Relevance Type Comments (estimate) (H/M/L) (H/M/L)
High for trees Looking at Drip irrigation Elkoulkouala - 0,5 ha (test) High planted on investment, for for seedlings fields high value trees
116 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
V Country report Niger
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
1. Description of DryDev implementation in country
1.1 Socio-political and political context Niger is a vast, landlocked country covering over one million square kilometers. The estimated population in 2017 is 21.5 million, Niger is prone to political instability, chronic food insecurity, and recurrent natural crises (droughts, floods, and locust infestations), and is heavily reliant on uranium exports. With a poverty rate of 44.1% and a per capita income of $420, Niger is one of the world’s poorest nations. In 2016, it ranked second to last (187th out of 188 countries) on the United Nations Human Development Index. Niger is currently hosting over 300,000 refugees and displaced persons fleeing the crises rocking neighboring countries (Nigeria, Mali, and Libya). Refugee camps are concentrated in the southeastern region of Diffa and the northern and northwestern regions of Tahoua and Tillaberi, where a major humanitarian crisis is playing out. Despite a stable political climate in 2017, the security situation in the Diffa regions has been volatile since the arrival of Boko Haram. Niger has also been plagued by jihadist attacks and drug trafficking in the Tillabéry and North Tahoua regions. The Government has therefore extended the state of emergency in these regions, scaled up defense and security forces, and launched a new military operation. In July 2017 in Bamako, the G5 Sahel countries (Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger) launched a 5,000-strong joint force, which will patrol with French troops from Operation Barkhane and MINUSMA to combat terrorism in the region. Niger’s GDP growth is projected to be 4.5% in 2017. Security threats at the borders with Mali, Libya, and Nigeria and persistently low commodity prices expose Niger to serious macroeconomic risks. Despite showing a moderate risk of debt distress in 2014, Niger must continue to closely monitor its debt sustainability, owing to the rapid increase in external public debt from 27% to 35% of GDP between 2014 and 2016. This ratio is expected to climb to 37% in 2018, before declining as investment projects in the extractive industries are completed. The overall fiscal deficit improved and is forecast to be 7.5% in 2016. The security crisis and low commodity prices are weakening Niger’s public finances. Preliminary estimates suggest that increased spending on security and the hosting of refugees as part of the military operation against Boko Haram at Niger’s southeast border could cost 1% of GDP on an annual basis, and reduce available resources to finance economic development investments. In addition, increased dependence on extractive revenues could indeed make the budget more vulnerable to changes in commodity prices and production. (This section was adapted from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/niger/overview)
1.2 Short overview development DryDev in country since start in 2013 Like in Mali and Burkina Faso, 2013 and 2014 of DryDev implementation were mainly oriented at introduction, at selection of sites and of partners (NLO, IPs) and at contracting of these partners in a consortium that should implement the program. The consortium was initially composed by CARE Int. as NLO and Oxfam-Novib, World Vision Niger, NGOs Karkara and RAIL, livestock keepers’ organisation AREN and CRESA (University of Niamey) as implementing partners. DryDev Niger worked in five municipalities or “Communes”.
118 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Under the direction of ICRAF there was a new review of the overall program in 2015 with changes from the 2013-14 plan, which led to an inception report for 2015-2018. DryDev Niger came to full speed at the end of 2015. The consortium has had some difficulties to implement the work plans in some areas. In 2017 World Vision, CRESA and Oxfam left the consortium after several consultations with CARE. In the same year DryDev has decided to stop in the Commune of Torodi, as a consequence of the withdrawal of World Vision from DryDev. Inevitably the changes had an inhibitory effect on implementation in two Communes and in WP 4 and 8. In the remaining Communes and in WP 1, 2, 3, progress has been made since 2015.
1.3 NLO and national level aspects of DryDev CARE Int. is the national lead organisation designated by ICRAF for the Niger consortium (or ‘Country Team’), with responsibility for coordination, management and quality assurance of the program in Niger. CARE is responsible for WP 5 and 7 (WP 5 in collaboration with other partners) and since the withdrawal of Oxfam for WP 4, 6 and 8. With the withdrawal of CRESA in 2017 it now covers one intervention area: Commune of Dogon-Kiriya. CARE and ICRAF needed time to establish good working relations, as they had to harmonise visions how to implement DryDev in Niger. One ICRAF researcher has been working in Niger and knows well the country, which facilitates mutual understanding what is possible in Niger. ICRAF has other researchers based at the ICRISAT research station in Bamako that have visited Niger: ICRAF makes routine quarterly visits in Burkina and Niger. The Kenyan ICRAF coordinator for the three West- African countries has been present in West-Africa, but is now based in Nairobi, Kenya (he is also overall coordinator of DryDev). Technical directions of ministries are familiar with DryDev, but there is not somethings as an advisory body. The consortium informs local and regional state services of its work, which inform regularly the responsible ministries. CARE is well known at Ministry levels and some Ministries (ex. MoA) have a focal point for CARE – not specifically for DryDev. The consortium has contacts with umbrella farmer organisations as AREN and Mooriben. Both make part of DryDev partners. DryDev also uses the services of an experienced consultant, chair of the board of INRAN, who knows the Niger ministries and policies very well. Besides direct contacts with AREN and Mooriben, umbrella farmers’ organisations are not associated to DryDev.
1.4 IP’s and implementation on the ground in locations Except for CARE and Oxfam, initially each partner was responsible for implementation of field level activities within one municipality or “Commune”: World Vision Niger in the Commune of Torodi, CRESA in Dogon-Kiriya, RAIL in Malbaza, AREN in Aguié, and Karkara in Droum. Additional to a geographic responsibility, each partner has its own thematic expertise that can be used in other Communes. CARE and Oxfam-Novib assured the development and harmonisation of the thematic approaches. Oxfam would focus on WPs 4, 6 and 8. In 2017 World Vision, Oxfam and CRESA left the consortium after several consultations with coordinator CARE. During the same year DryDev has decided to stop in the Commune of Torodi, as a consequence of the withdrawal of World Vision from DryDev. CARE covers now the Commune of Dogon-Kiriya. CARE is now responsible for WP 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and uses expertise of the other NGOs for WP 4 and 5. A farmers’ organisation Mooriben stepped in to take over the activities of WP 4 from Oxfam, but Mooriben is sub-contractor and not part of the consortium; it has no member organisations in the four Communes. An experienced consultant helps CARE for WP 5, 6 and 8.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 119 Drylands Development External programme Review
The remaining four partners have functional working relations. They know each other from other programs and projects. The two national NGOs have similar profiles as project implementers at local levels. They are familiar with, and are known in their respective intervention areas. They speak the languages. The same applies for AREN in Aguié. AREN is a farmer organisation (h. l. of livestock keepers), but is in DryDev a project implementer like the two NGOs. Cooperation with target groups seems good.
1.5 Limitations/Bottlenecks encountered in country-level review fieldwork Serious tensions and conflicts in and amongst communities hamper development activities in border zones with Mali, Burkina Faso and Algeria. The same situation is in the eastern border zone with Nigeria (Diffa region). The four remaining DryDev Communes lie outside the high risk zones of Niger, but travel to these regions also involves risks. Considering this situation, the review work in Niger had to be limited to interviews in Niamey by one of the core team members and a national consultant, while the fieldwork was done only by the national consultant. Distances between the DryDev implementation sites also limited the possibility to conduct on-site visits and interviews. Therefore the country review activities in Niger in this exercise have been more limited than in the other DryDev countries.
2. Analysis of DryDev implementation and its results in country
2.1 Overall analysis of overall implementation and organisational and institutional set-up DryDev Niger has chosen for a geographical division of tasks, with the exception of WPs 4 and 5. Three national organisations (AREN, Karkara, RAIL) and CARE cover four intervention areas. Each
120 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review organisation has at least an agent per Commune, while one coordinator per NGO monitors the activities of his/her organisation. CARE is lead organisation to which the other organisations report. Besides field agents, CARE has a coordinator and M&E staff member. Three organisations have left DryDev in consultation with CARE. All three have had difficulties in delivering the outputs or in managing the available resources. CARE has interpellated the three on delays in the Communes of Torodi and of Dogon-Kiriya and in WP 4 and 8. It decided to intervene during 2017 as too little progress has been made. ICRAF was informed about this. Besides that, the opinions on the coordination style of CARE differ per (former and current) partner. What by one is considered as a decisive attitude and strong, enabling leadership is seen by another as an dirigiste or prescriptive attitude that does not per se favour collaboration. The evaluation mission did not have time to make a detailed assessment what went right and wrong between the partners, nor feels to have a mandate in this particular situation. It limits itself to a quick analysis of the set-up. First of all, a set-up of seven partners with different origins and organisation cultures that have to collaborate in several work packages, is by definition a precursor for a delicate, time consuming task of coordination that will sometimes lead to tensions. Any lead organisation would meet difficulties in such a complex set-up. In this case CARE does not make an exception. In a consortium of partner organisations, six are accountable to one – formally six sub-contractors to one lead – which does not favour equal positions. The mandates in Niger might have been well described, but the real test is how the division of tasks were interpreted in practice, what working space was allowed to each one, and how responsible staff of the organisations were able to come to mutual understanding about it. The inherent tension of partner/sub-contractor in the consortium set-up was further accrued in 2017 by the direct involvement of CARE in implementation. It is difficult for a NLO (CARE) to monitor other organisations and implement at the same time likewise tasks. One question, for instance, is how a lead organisation can assure that it is as critical on its own performance as it is on others’. Besides coordinating, reporting and M&E for DryDev in general, ICRAF intervenes in specific WPs (1, 2, 3) which are described in protocols for field tests. These technological tests have had more the character of ‘on-farm/applied research’ (“recherche-développement”) than of action-research. The latter would have required a more active participation of farmers’ organisations in the design, which is not the case. ICRAF provides also information and trainings on demand. Looking at the high potential of having CGIAR institutes as ICRAF, ICRISAT, World Vegetables Centre (WVC) in the region (Mali), this is below potential, below what research could bring in. ICRAF has (financially) little room of manoeuvre for conducting tests and depends on collaboration with the consortium (mainly with CARE). N.B. A national research institute (CRESA) was initially present in the consortium.
2.2 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 1-3 (biophysical work packages) Sites and sub-catchment approach: DryDev Niger has done an extensive characterisation study with detailed information. The study also introduced sub-catchments as geographic units. All sites are found at the western and central zones of the long south band of Niger. Besides a rainfall pattern below <800 mm, which counts for almost the whole country, a characteristic of the intervention zones is that they belong to old agriculture basins with relatively high population densities for Drylands (some over >100 hab./km ). There is a rationale behind such choices, although it was unclear during the visit if this has been a deliberate one. DryDev did not, yet, chose (agro-) pastoral areas lying north of the current intervention areas.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 121 Drylands Development External programme Review
The sub-catchment unit (or “sous-bassin versant”) makes technically sense for WP 1 and to a lesser degree for WP 2. However, the sub-catchment division is not a determining geographic entity for DryDev in Niger. First of all, WP 4, 5 and 6 follow markets and social organisation structures. Then, the sub-catchment division seems a heritage of the first years of DryDev (2013-14), where it also has been promoted by main donor DGIS. Most interventions started in 2015, and there are few interventions implemented along sub-catchment lines in Niger. The territory of the Commune is more a defining feature: DryDev Niger builds interventions around innovation platforms that start at village terroirs and end at Communal level. In Niger ‘sub-catchment’ has institutionally for the moment little meaning and the question is justified if DryDev should take it as starting point.11 The resource persons (at ministries) confirm this: compared to the long history of “gestion des terroirs” and the efforts put in the “Code Rural” and its institutions, like the “Commissions Foncières”, IWRM is at best at its beginning in Niger. 12 DryDev Niger has more the features of an integrated rural development program, wherein land management has been integrated.
WP 1-3 Interventions: Following the field notes of Aguié and Droum and the different annual reports (ex. 2017, 2016 Niger Annual Reports), there is an impressive list of DryDev activities going from community infrastructures and perimeters, anti-erosion measures to soil and plant management (see also Table 1). Table 1. Visited DryDev interventions in May 2018. Site / Intervention type NRM Wa-I A-F SWC SFPM FCP MA FS Niger : Aguié : town hall X Aguié : Tapkin Yaya X X X X Aguié : Guidan Daweye X X Maradi X X X X X Droum : town hall X X X Droum : Machaya X X X X Droum : Maissaje X X X Droum : Abdallah X X X X NRM Sub-catchment or Territorial Natural Resources Management : Innovation Platforms (IP); committees (WP 1) and local institutions for land and water management/ for rangeland management Wa-I (WP Community Water Infrastructures: protected water pools for fishing and cattle drinking (“mare 1) surcreusée”), livestock wells (“puits pastoral”), micro-dams, water dikes, rice perimeters A-F (WP (Agro-) Forestry measures : natural regeneration (“régénération naturelle assistée”), tree plantations, 1 and 2) using “Gayya”. SWC (WP Soil and Water Conservation measures: anti-erosion measures (stone lines, hedges, “bandes 1 and 2) enherbées”), stabilisation of dunes, Zaï, “démi-lune”, “diguettes” (with plants), using “Gayya” SFPM Soil Fertility and Plant Management, including inputs (seeds, fertilizers) : rapid and classic composting, (WP 2) micro-dosage of fertilizer, improved seeds, using CUMATs FCP (WP Food and Commodity Production: horticulture perimeter (“périmètre maraîcher”), rice perimeter, 3) fishing pounds (“étang piscicole”) MA (WP Market Access: elements of value chain development, local commercialisation of food products, trading 4) association, … FS (WP Financial Services : Savings and Loans Groups (VSLA or “MMD”), MFI, warehouse receipt system 5) (“warrantage”), …
The DryDev program is considered as a well-appreciated offering in its intervention areas. During the visit, everywhere in Aguié and Droum people remember the so-called identification surveys of local
11 There is a PAN-GIRE, derived from the Code de l’Eau (see “Ordonnance n°2010-09 portant Code de l’Eau au Niger”). This IRWM policy is young, not entirely finished. It lacked the long consultation rounds that were at the base of the Code Rural of Niger. 12 See “Comité National du Code Rural, Secrétariat Permanent, 2013, Code Rural - Recueil des Textes”.
122 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review innovations and talents. Everywhere dozens of innovations had been listed. These innovations mainly concern cultural practices, soil recovery and conservation activities (anti-erosion), the processing of agricultural products or forest products, etc. On individual farms, the main innovations described by the participants relate to the practice of zaï, tree planting, the realisation of ‘mini-water-retention basins’, the production and use of compost, ox ploughing, and the introduction of integrated poultry and fish farming. Collectively, we note the realisation of ‘half-moons’ (“demi-lunes”), the construction of hedgerows, the improvement of pastures and of pools/ ponds. As for organisational aspects, DryDev contributed to the establishment and/or the dynamising of several bodies: besides land commissions we see various local management committees for natural regeneration/forestry, tree nurseries, water points, horticulture perimeters (“périmètres maraîchers”), rangelands, etc. In addition, training and support for para-veterinary workers, women processors of agricultural and forestry products, equipment cooperatives (“CUMATs”) and agro dealers are levers on which the project has worked. Finally, DryDev highlights the systematisation of “Gayya” as a mobilisation and community engagement strategy. Cultural practices have known a certain technical improvement – at least theoretically. Improved seeds and fertilisers are well received. The farmers say that they know better how to do this or that in their fields; they claim to have better control over this or that aspect in their production process; women express their gratitude for the training received and the acquisition of equipment and materials for the transformation of a particular agricultural or forestry product; etc. In reality it is not easy to measure or observe the adoption and the concrete implementation of these different acquired skills. It is difficult to predict if massive action of tree planting will take place in the individual fields. In the same vein, it is for the moment difficult to foresee a constant dynamism around processing units of forest or agricultural products. Despite all claims, during the visits of the review team, practitioners of better compost were very scarce. Compost is an even rarer product than simple manure. There will not be enough to fertilise the depleted soils in the old basins. The scarce available material will be prioritising Zaï and “demi- lunes” or house plots. What can be other fertilisation methods, typically through agro-forestry and green manure (e.g. “cultures fourragères”)? Current measures can be integrated in wider soil fertility and plant management strategies, which would require interventions at farming household level. “Farmers’ experts”: these farmer talents or innovators are identified at the level of their villages and they are organised around five themes. After identification, expert farmers received training and capacity building. They initiate and supervise their peers to whom they give support-advice. They themselves are considered models practicing the technologies that they must teach other farmers. They work in their own areas but can also be asked to intervene outside their zone at the request of the IP or the program. This example shows that strategies are needed to target individual farming households, as most elements of WP 2 and 3 require interventions and services at this level. Community actions, trainings and of farmers’ experts have certainly effects, but in the end they have their limits. DryDev would need broader services or systems that work on more tailor-made farm plans at household level. DryDev also helped to restore +/- three thousand ha of pastures in the five communes in 2017. This included water and soil conservation, -restoration infrastructures, controlling the Sida cordifolia pest and dune stabilisation. DryDev also rehabilitated +/- 100 km of cattle corridors. There are examples of poultry and goat rearing, and a small experience of integrated poultry-fish farming. The density of actions for livestock is still low compared to agriculture/ horticulture, but these are steps forwards.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 123 Drylands Development External programme Review
The WP 1-3 packages are appropriate. Further on, infrastructures as dams, ponds are appreciated. DryDev has financed them, while villages have contributed by delivering labour and basic material (sand, gravel, stones). The real innovations are the introduction of para-veterinary agents, certain techniques of processing agricultural and forestry products, the initiation of the hedgerows and on- farm water-retention in basins. Most innovations are activities or practices known in the community; however, they were rarely used by a small minority of farmers. It would be more accurate to say that DryDev helps to improve the structuring of the social-institutional environment in the villages and Communes, and the organisation of individual and collective cultural practices.
2.3 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 4-6 (value chain development and local support/service/governance work packages)
Gayya and community action: “Gayya” (literally “invitation” in Hausa language) is presented as an innovative approach to community mobilisation and participation. It is used in the collective activities of soil and water conservation. The project succeeded in introducing this animation in the participating communities instead of the traditional ‘food for work’ or ‘cash for work’ strategies usually used in projects. Through a modest financial contribution, the project supports the IPs in organising a collective catering for the participants working in a Gayya. The Gayya then mobilises people (men and women; children and elders) from several villages around an action of collective interest. The new element is the meeting of several villages; and also the appeal to everyone, man & woman, adult & child, to participate with his/her own means (according to what he/she can offer). However, Gayya is promoted and evolves in an environment which is largely dominated by modes of community participation as food for work and cash for work. “They [the farmers] want it all the easy way and cash for work projects deliver that" (according to a technical service agent). "If Gayya persists, it's because of the IP; they also tell themselves that it’s a project, and something will be behind it” (another technical service agent). Gayya reflects probably far more how community action should work, but how will it resist to the food for work and/or cash for work fashions?
Value chains In 2014/15 DryDev Niger undertook a detailed analysis of value chains. DryDev has chosen to support the peanut, cowpea, sesame, poultry and sugar cane value chains. It seems to cover basically what farmers (women and men) are already producing. Until now most attention has been given to structuring of village groups into professional (e.g. cooperatives) and inter-professional organisations created around one or a group of the commodities. Stakeholders of the value chains above have been structured into 30 “professions” and 11 “inter-professions” in the five communes. FUGPN-Mooriben facilitated the elaboration of 30 value chain business plans. DryDev has encouraged savings and loans groups (VSLA or “MMD” in Niger): 306 groups were reached, for 98% composed of women. WP 4 and 5 have progressed timidly, or in other words, they find themselves more in a preparation phase than in full implementation. Mooriben filled in 2017 partly the gap of Oxfam’s departure and spent its time in structuring into professional and inter-professional organisations. The starting point appears that these would be the right structures for farmers and processors to participate in to-be- reinforced value chains. It is however too soon to draw conclusions on their dynamics: their relevance, their performance, and in what way they respond to market demands. Likewise, the structuring of value chains has yet to be developed. During the investigation in the field, it was not possible to treat this problem in depth. The exchanges with the actors in the field did
124 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review not allow to confirm which chains of values had been organised and were functional (in Tapkin Yaya, Machaya). As in Mali and Burkina Faso, value chain development (WP 4, 6) seems still in its preparation phase, it is useful to put market-based/ economic development in a wider perspective. The structuring above is motivated by the supposition that value chains need collaborating stakeholders in formal organisations, supported by well-functioning state regulation. The coercion to structure almost all chains under “inter-professions” makes part of the vision.13 The unilateral view above has to be nuanced if we look at market dynamics in dryland areas, where we find in general many market and state imperfections – they are more rule than exception. In reality the economies of the intervention areas show several forms of cooperation and trade, of which (inter-) professions are just one example. Most market actions pass through extensive, traditional or informal trade networks, which were already in place before creation of professions or inter-professions. These networks exist in all DryDev areas and they trade all available products. They are the most efficient in terms of volume, of lesser (transaction) costs and of responsiveness – and they get little attention in market analyses of development programs. DryDev Niger has made a first step in the identification of its products and stakeholders. But then it has to be careful and not going for a blue-print approach adapted for higher value in processing and new markets. This might work in a minority of cases, but it risks to skip the other marketing options of farm products in often nearby markets and existing trade networks. DryDev can work on lower transaction costs (or nearby markets), on low-cost information systems, on better storage and conditioning, on Communal tax systems that favour local products f. i. In this perspective it might be more effective to adopt a Local Economic Development approach wherein interventions are adapted to strategies of households, than a focus on mere value chain actions around pre-selected commodities. DryDev is already working on low-cost information systems, which fit well in such a more open approach. Under the lead of CARE, the program has established a market information system, using telephony, internet messaging, and community radio for wide dissemination. The companies Orange and Solanum collaborate currently with DryDev Niger on this system, which is promising and has a lot of potential.
Innovation platforms, decentralisation and land commissions: DryDev does support so-called Innovation Platforms. These platforms start at village level where it gathers all stakeholders working in WPs 1-5. In principle each WP has a representative in the village platform. Through village clusters (or “grappe des villages”) the stakeholders constitute IPs at Communal level. Representatives of the municipality (Commune), of technical services and of umbrella organisations also make part of the Communal Innovation Platform. Customary authorities (“chefs coutumiers”) can make part of Innovation Platform. The 2017 Niger DreyDev annual report states that “422 farmer organisations and VSLAs are affiliated with the innovation platforms (75 at Droum, 64 at Dogon Kiria, 131 at Aguié 131, 107 at Malbaza and 50 at Torodi)”. “Innovation platforms created with DryDev support are a unifying and transformative organ for the farmer organisations, local talents, leaders and young people on the one hand, while playing an important role in coordinating development actions, community mobilization and advocacy on the other hand. In the implementation of DryDev, they are at the forefront of
13 See the reflexion Box on LED and value chains in the Mali report. See Vorley, B., et al, 2013. Meeting small-scale farmers in their markets: understanding and improving the institutions and governance of informal agrifood trade, IIED/HIVOS/Mainumby, London/The Hague/La Paz.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 125 Drylands Development External programme Review community planning, heavily involved in implementation (DryDev is a farmer-led program) and are collecting data from the village rapporteurs”. It is clear that the innovation platforms are one of the motors of DryDev Niger. It is a main point of contact for DryDev. Information is channelled through the Innovation Platforms, and it is also the place where feed-back is centralised. This is an interesting set-up, although the real test is how these Innovation Platforms can function without substantial support from DryDev. Some questions remain about the composition and embedding of Innovation Platforms. A farmer-led platform may work at village (cluster) level, but one can ask himself how at higher (e. g. communal) level farmers (individual innovators or in association) will lead a structure where political authorities and technical services are present as well, unless an Innovation Planform has to be considered as an autonomous farmers’ organisation (FO). The latter seems not the case, because the Innovation Platform has members and takes actions that have little to do with an FO. In other words, there is ambiguity what an Innovation Platforms is or should be. During the several discussions on Innovation Platforms, stakeholders and resource persons state that an Innovation Platform could be considered as a sort of specialised commission of a Municipality Council. If an Innovation Platform has characteristics of a specialised organ that helps communal authorities in development activities, the following question is why there are so few links between the two. An IP has its own action plan, but there are no references to Communal Development Plans (“PDC”), which are the formal documents to conduct activities. Or why should an Innovation Platform need a separate plan if it can feed development plans (PDC) and draw activities from it? After these questions, there remains nevertheless sufficient reason to work on Innovation Platforms and to discover their real place at commune level. Local governments (communes) have difficulties in securing their place as development agency. Innovation Platform s can help to give an impetus to the communal development tasks as a proper platform or commission that gives voice to users’ groups from villages. DryDev Niger also accompanies land commissions (“Commissions Foncières” or CoFo-s) at local (CoFoB) and commune (CoFoCom) levels. These institutions have a central place in natural resources management: they can allocate, withdraw and sanction lands and settle conflicts. All stakeholders are represented in CoFo-s: local state and customary authorities as well as users’ groups. Land pressure and -conflicts are one of the big issues in Niger, which need regulations and institutions that guarantee land tenure security for different users’ groups. DryDev’s interventions and investments also presuppose such security and clarity on land occupations. DryDev Niger puts considerable efforts in making CoFo-s functional and dynamic, which is certainly a contribution to institutional development. They have contributed to community organisations taking charge of managing their local development.
2.4 Analysis of implementation and results of WP 8 (Lobby and Advocacy) DryDev has supported several actions, mainly informing stakeholders on legislation on land, water and finance, but has not yet made much progress. CARE and a consultant took over from Oxfam in 2017.
2.5 Analysis of implementation and results of WP’s 7 (M&E and learning) A series of diagnostics have been conducted by ICRAF, the NLO and IPs: characterisation studies, local visioning, a value chain study, a gender/vulnerability analysis and study on micro-finances. Particularly, since 2015, DryDev has sufficient quality reports and plans that help to verify what is going on.
126 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
The inception report and monitoring give sufficient ground to make it in principle plausible how DryDev contributes to food and water security which make part of global objective or impact definition. Like in Mali and Burkina, the reports are much focused on long enumerations of activities and outputs, and less on outcomes (results) that would make it easier to understand how DryDev contributes to food and water security. The indicators do not always help: some just mention participation to events or trainings, or application one or two techniques, or being member of an organisation, or give numbers of hectares. That does not necessarily say how farmers now act or perform differently. It is difficult to assess these figures if we don’t know where farmers are coming from: what was the starting situation? Finally, also the concept of resilience, part of the impact definition and a crucial concept for working in Niger, is not elaborated in the reports. A few exchange activities exist between countries: as for the latter, the three Sahel countries have done a joint value chain training in Burkina Faso with SNV. Niger staff has attended a meeting in Ethiopia. Joint monitoring missions with ICRAF or with Ministries have been the strongest mechanism for discussion and learning. DryDev is not a research nor an action-research program. The latter should have required a more active participation of farmers in the design, and not only in feed-back or commenting, which is not the case. The tests are mainly technological, related to WPs 1-3. The focus of DryDev is clearly on implementation.
3. Appreciation of ICRAF/NLO and IP’s performance and results of activities
3.1 By beneficiaries During the field visits, in total 5 groups were met in focus groups: 1. a group of men and a group of women in Tapkin Yaya (Aguié); 2. a group of men in Machaya, a group of men in Maissajé and a group of women in Abdallah (Droum).
A simple survey was administered at the end of these focus groups, but this didn’t lead to a wealth of findings, because all participants without exception responded in the same way to the seven questions asked, most likely because of considerable peer pressure and inclination of respondents to provide socially desired responses, so not the risk that the DryDev interventions are stopped. N° Questions Answers Argumentation, examples Use of new techniques, tools, improved seeds, better 1 Changes in production conditions Positive rotation plans Comparison of yields: 2013/2014 Individual examples of higher quantities of millet 2 Positive to 2017/2018 harvested (from single to double or more) Changes in livestock herds: Individual examples of acquisition or increase of the 3 Positive 2013/2014 to 2017/2018 number of animals Contribution by DryDev to Total Effects of « Habbanaye » (goat keeping by women 4 changes (100%) groups) and the para-veterinary agents Changes on revenues from Individual examples of revenues from rain-fed 5 production: 2013/2014 to Positive agriculture and market gardening 2017/2018 Contribution by DryDev to Total Effects of improved farming practices (Zaï, compost), 6 changes (100%) hope for more yield with CUMAT cooperatives Satisfaction of DryDev Total Currently beacon project in the area, or even single 7 interventions (100%) project for resilience and food security
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 127 Drylands Development External programme Review
All users’ groups, men and women, said to be equally satisfied with DryDev interventions. From the responses it becomes clear that the interventions are appreciated, as people see small or major improvement in food security, in protection of land, in production or in economic activities. The enthusiasm around project activities was very noticeable among the participants met during site visits, mainly Farmer Organisations’ members and communal councillors. This high appreciation with DryDeb is not surprising, considering the scarcity of other development projects, or even the absence of any intervention that is astonishing in the visited localities, especially in the Droum area. In this respect DryDev is more than a project; it appears as a lifeline and it raises a lot of expectations.
3.2 By key external stakeholders In Aguié, the technical services are at departmental level, while in Droum at communal level. Most of stated that they are involved in the DryDev program, particularly through the activities of IPs and some member organisations. Only in the Commune of Droum an agent noted the marginalisation of livestock keeping in the interventions: “we are not well involved, and several planned activities have not been completed or properly finished; DryDev neglects livestock keeping”. For this technician, the evidence is the failure of the introduction of integrated poultry and fish farming. This is an exotic activity, wherein the implementation was entrusted to neophytes, which would have led to the failure of the experiment. The agent questioned the choice of the activity, arguing that there were other opportunities and better adapted innovations for livestock. Another exception is the quality of monitoring the results or activities, for which they find the frequency of field trips too low which does not allow a good follow-up. Apart from remarks on livestock and monitoring, all technical services express a general satisfaction. In Niamey the state services are satisfied as well with DryDev, as its interventions follow existing policies. The members of the DryDev consortium are well known as good project implementers. Except for the Agricultural Engineering department, state officials and resource persons don’t see an added value of a sub-catchment approach. They think that the guidelines of the Code Rural are more appropriate in Niger. One person highlights the work with the Land Commissions (“Commissions Foncières”). One resource person joined the critical view on livestock and advised to integrate pastoralism in DryDev. Umbrella farmer organisations (FO) AREN and Mooriben are directly involved in DryDev as implementers/ service deliverers. This position makes them little legitimate as independent observers on DryDev. The mission has not met other FO.
4. External factors and actors that have influenced implementation, results and outcomes
The governments of president Mahamadou Issoufou are in place since 2011 in Niger. He was re- elected in a run-off election that was boycotted by supporters of his opponent Hama Amadou. Little by little Issoufou has installed a regime wherein he governs Niger with mailed fist. This might give a stability that Niger has not known in its history, but almost all political opposition is silenced; today even civil society organisations that had a track record in posing critical questions, start having troubles in raising their voices.
128 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Like other countries in the Sahel, Niger continues to be characterised by fragile state institutions, aggravated by (religious) extremism in the North and West (borders with Algeria, Mali and recently Burkina Faso). Unrest and violence provoked by Boko-Haram militia have spread to the South-East (Diffa Region), although last reports present a calmer situation. Households in Niger can be characterised as extremely vulnerable. Most are at least every three years confronted with food insecurity. Besides the obvious social and economic impacts of the events above on the communities, they have negative effects on further development of basic services, food security and local administrations in the affected regions. Access to, and control over natural resources, are at the heart of local conflicts in Niger – this is not basically different in Burkina Faso and Mali. In the 1990/2000s Niger has dedicated sufficient time to develop a framework law, the Code Rural, that gives space to work on natural resource management that take into account the interests of farmers and other users’ groups. In this context of fragility, the management of scarce land and water resources, and working towards an integrated approach of resources management DryDev can offer an opportunity to work on one of the causes of contention at local level. Local governments and local management institutions as Land Commissions (cf. to Code Rural) are in principle key stakeholders in interventions for WPs 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8. DryDev is supporting these commissions. Decentralisation shows a more ambiguous picture in Niger. All communes should have a five-year policy document for the overall development of the commune, including NRM: the “plan de développement communal” (PDC). Local governments (communes) have difficulties in getting their place as development agency. In Niger they are in a way suspended between a dominant central state and customary, traditional chiefs that have created bonds. This prevents the emergence of communal authorities that can operate beyond existing clientelistic webs of state politicians and chiefs.14 DryDev has put its cards on Innovation Platforms (IPs). They can operate, at least partly and for the moment, outside these webs. Co-optation is always a risk for successful organisation forms, which reinforces the idea that DryDev should reflect how to anchor IPs better in the political-institutional environment: if it does not address politicisation itself, politicisation will find IPs.
5. Conclusions
See table below.
14 Niger has even legislation that recognises “chefs traditionnels” as category with proper rights and advantages.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 129 Drylands Development External programme Review
Table: Niger, conclusions according to criteria Window/DAC Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness (potential) Sustainability (likelihood) Criteria Institutional Coordination of ICRAF: see general Until 2017 difficulties in roles and Consortium model and institutional Impact by DryDev on NLO and Impl. conclusions. delivery in the Niger consortium, arrangements (a) do provide quality Partners: DryDev has confirmed the For the Sahel, ICRAF has staff leading to departure of three support to farmers, engagement of the four remaining available, but coordination is too far implementing partners (IPs). (b) have some impact in practice partners in Dryland issues: of CARE, away from 3 countries (based in Since mid-2017 NLO & remaining IP (expansion potential) through and then of AREN, RAIL, Karkara. Kenya, English as first language). work more efficiently and institutional set-up: innovation Because of DryDev, CARE promotes Institutional model vis-à-two ToCs. effectively. platforms, land commissions, strongly innovation platforms. The division of tasks is relevant for Financial resources seem well (c) but in current set-up they have Questions remain. See §2.3. 1st ToC (WP 1-6). Better embedding controlled by ICRAF and NLO, but limited policy impact as long as As for capacities, they basically in initiatives of national implementation was lagging behind transfer of functions and repeat and develop what they stakeholders (e. g. umbrella FOs) in some areas (three IP had to leave responsibilities to local already did and knew, with some required for 2nd ToC. in 2017 because of weak delivery). governments (“communes”) is not small improvements delivered by The transaction time from DGIS to better addressed. joint tests with ICRAF. ICRAF, to NLO and then to IP is long. Sub-catchment As developed before, the sub- Efforts are made to integrate the It is unlikely that significant synergy It is unlikely that a sub-catchment catchment as unit of intervention various interventions (the WPs) in will be generated among the work approach will be pursued by the has limited relevance in Niger. A Innovation Platforms. packages at the sub-catchment implementing partners and local solid alternative is to build on The interrelationships between WP levels (SC). The interventions are stakeholders in the future without existing geographic entities 1, 2, 3, 6 would benefit from not designed along SC. enforcement by DryDev. (“terroirs” and “territoires”), while embedding in Communal Neither are DryDev’s interventions It is unlikely that the inter- looking progressively at alignment Development Plans, instead of ‘saturating’ the sub-catchments. In relationships between the sub- with the Niger GIRE policy. platforms. In that perspective it addition to above, catchment level and farm level Socio-economic factors such as would also be better to apply a The surfaces of the sub-catchments work will continue, without explicit markets, value chains, institutional local economic development are too big. attention to extension services at development and policy are not approach (for WPs 4, 5, 6) that can farm level. The inter-relation integrated in a sub-catchment be attached to a local government between production and financial approach in Niger, and do not need territory. services and market linkages will to. likely continue. Technical: The biophysical interventions of Training and provision of support to The targeted farmers take up the It is likely that the various (a) Biophysical WPs 1 to 3 are technically farmers have been carried out in a technologies and practices at biophysical interventions will (Work Packages appropriate to achieve the intended cost-efficient manner. DryDev limited extent and –scale. continue to be practiced by the 1-3) objectives. delivers ‘proximity services’. It It is too early to pronounce if there involved farmers. They respond
130 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Window/DAC Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness (potential) Sustainability (likelihood) Criteria Sufficient efforts have been favours community action like are clear signs or evidence for large well to the changes that they have undertaken to inform their Gayya with a minimum of financial uptake, beyond what the farmers to make to keep their farming technical design. Good steps made incentives. already did before DryDev. systems viable. The likelihood to with land commissions (“CoFo-s”), The infrastructures have been N.B. Some technologies are applied continue will probably be bigger on innovation platforms and subsidised with village contribution since decades, which makes it family-owned land than on the cooperatives (“CUMATs”). in nature, but remain at village level difficult to say what boost DryDev commons. Unclear what positive A attention point is the secondary and are not big-scale. has given, since the data base does side effects occur (on farmers not position of livestock keeping in the not exactly give the starting points. involved in DryDev). interventions. Technical: (b) Studies on value chains, on gender/ The VSLA or MMD (WP 5) exist, The SLVA and CUMATs support the The SLVA and cooperatives Socio-economic vulnerability, on micro-finance have seem well performing; they biophysical interventions. probably continue in target (Work Packages been undertaken to inform the respond to a need. Idem ditto for the upcoming communities. They may do so in 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) design. N.B. Warrantage is not studied in information systems for agri- non-target communities. Most socio-economic interventions field visits. production, markets, meteorology. of WP 4 to 6 are starting and not It is too soon to assess the effects yet well developed. of the numerous (inter-) Relevant are cooperatives and input professions, but the evaluation has delivery (e. g. CUMATs), savings and a question mark on the unilateral loans groups (esp. women). attention on such structures as the Promising initiative on low-cost main instrument in market-based information systems with Orange development. and Solanum. There is a risk of a bias to work primarily on structuring of organisations. They may not always be appropriate to achieve the intended objectives. Frameworks & PMEL framework: see remarks in The current frameworks and tools The current frameworks and tools The DryDev frameworks and tools Tools paragraph 2.5. have been operationalised been operationalised effectively. fit in, or complete existing ones A gender strategy is not available. efficiently. One risk is the scattered pattern of used by ICRAF and the consortium DryDev applies a “promotion Gayya seems a more efficient interventions. It might be better to partners. They will continue to use feminine” approach. collective action tool than existing concentrate the WP 1-3 on a couple them. Planned comparisons (tests) are ‘food-/cash for work’ mechanisms. of “terroirs” with small sub- A key step for saving DryDev’s technically relevant for WP 1, 2. Only point is how they can be catchments instead of targeting results is a refined strategy for
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 131 Drylands Development External programme Review
Window/DAC Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness (potential) Sustainability (likelihood) Criteria They belong more to “recherche- scaled up efficiently, as this need large sub-catchments. transfer of responsibilities and développement” than to action- more ownership of local . functions. research. Too soon to assess their governments, farmer organisations DryDev states that it is “farmer- effects. and an assessment how to relate to driven”, but that is not yet Scaling principles are present: the innovation platforms. DryDev is sufficiently the case. NLO indicates innovation platforms working on the latter, but can give as succession structures. For more priority to it. questions on the platforms, see §2.3. and Ch. 4. Besides that, DryDev collaborates with local management institutions. The OxC approach is certainly interesting – in the tradition of Niger’s former bottom-up, participatory approaches as f.i. “gestion des terroirs”. The packages are not that different between the sites which nuances the context specificity. DryDev remains more solution driven than local problem oriented.
132 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
6. Recommendations
To ICRAF, the NLO and IPs
1. Niger is a Sahel country or ‘Drylands’ by excellence. DryDev needs further development of the concept of Drylands that is not only based on climatological and rainfall conditions, but also on typical socio-economic and cultural conditions wherein people live ‘at the margins’ in often remote areas (f. i. pastoralists’ areas) or in uncertain agro-ecological conditions. This elaboration is needed to provide more integrated technical and socio-economic responses to livelihood development questions in drylands communities. It would include not only agriculture and agroforestry but also livestock keeping (pastoralism), non-agricultural activities and migration, and working out for Niger concepts of resilience, mobility and risk management, which are defining features of Drylands.
2. The current choice for old agricultural basins in the four Communes is coherent in terms of Dryland characteristics. The basins lie at the southern band of the Sahel, in areas where pastoralist livestock keeping is not, or no longer, a dominant livelihood. As pastoralism is an important Drylands’ livelihood, it would be interesting to connect the current choices with (agro-) pastoral areas up-north.
3. While the sub-catchment approach is technically relevant for work package 1 and to a certain degree for WP 2, interventions in WP’s 3-6 can be linked to relevant institutions or organisation forms of decentralised governance (which include the innovation platforms), of service delivery and economic development structures. The sub-catchment approach is recently introduced in Niger through IRWM (“GIRE”) policies, and its institutions and the sub-catchment division have at this moment not the relevance that other institutions already have. Through the Code Rural Niger and Decentralisation policies the existing local government territories (“territoires des collectivités”) and village “terroirs” seem more relevant. DryDev can use these entities which are also more social-culturally embedded.
4. DryDev Niger can report more on results (outcomes) than on activities and outputs, which would make it easier for third parties to understand how it contributes to food and water security (as defined in the impact). Also the concept of resilience, part of the impact definition, can be better elaborated, although the basics are present. There is enough ground for this: the inception report, the baseline survey report and the annual reports give sufficient elements to make plausible how DryDev contributes to food and water security and resilience.
To NLO and IPs:
1. The current consortium (or ‘country team’) has organisations with good competencies, capable of running DryDev: NLO CARE Int. and the IPs AREN, Karkara and RAIL. In a next stage DryDev would probably perform better with a more balanced organisational set-up, where all partners have enough or equal say in designing and implementing the program, bringing in their specific experiences and competencies. Currently there is a risk that the NLO dominates and takes most space, also due to the recent departure of three organisations (it fills up the void). Such specific contributions do exist, but DryDev could benefit more of them.
2. DryDev Niger should continue to develop an exit strategy, since the foreseen transfer to innovation platforms, land commissions (“Commissions Foncières”) and state services is a good first step, but not yet sufficient. DryDev could formalise the existing collaboration with state
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 133 Drylands Development External programme Review
services by inviting them f. i. in an advisory group at national level. Such a next step would include a transfer of responsibilities and of functions to local governments (“commune councils”), as well as to umbrella/apex farmer organisations and (private) service delivers. 1. As for the first, most local governments might have insufficiencies, but it is not an option to bypass them. The question is how the innovation platforms can be integrated the environment of Communal institutions. Members of the DryDev consortium have experiences in decentralisation. Umbrella organisations as AREN, FUGPN-Mooriben are present as project implementers, not as representative bodies of farmers that defend their interests and set the agenda. DryDev could see how to fill this gap. It can’t remain a NGO driven program. The title states that DryDev is “farmer-driven” – that is not yet the case and should be on the agenda in a next phase.
3. DryDev can give attention to a gender approach in implementation, which moves beyond women’s participation in the programme and looks at more structural economic and political empowerment. Currently DryDev applies more a ‘women’s promotion’ (“promotion feminine”) approach. This will require opening up possibilities for interventions in other agricultural and productive areas than currently considered in DryDev (e.g. livestock fattening, petty commerce) and more attention to post-harvest activities and agro-processing from which women can benefit, particularly in those situations where women cannot own land. It will also emphasis on power relations between men and women (e. g. in participation and decision making in commissions, organisations).
4. DryDev should design and development a more appropriate and diverse approach on economic development for Drylands communities’ target groups. Value chain and (inter-) professions can be elements, but certainly not exclusive ones, in a wider local economic development (LED) approach. This will require specific approaches, where economic development should be more strongly driven by market access- than by production opportunities.
A. In Dryland areas with such high population densities as in Niger, people deploy several activities of which agriculture is and livestock keeping make part, but are not the exclusive ones. Most households combine different activities. The majority of people have or look for activities beyond agriculture. Migration is a crucial element in the livelihoods. DryDev could look more actively at a broader range of agricultural and non- agricultural interventions. B. Such a LED approach also requires recognising that traditional, informal agricultural and livestock markets in drylands’ areas have been functional for decades and are still motors of the local economies. Of course conditions for farmers and processors in these traditional and informal markets can be improved (as for example is already done by storage facilities and finance). Under the lead of CARE Int. DryDev Niger currently develops information systems for farmers with the companies Orange (former France Télécom) and Solanum BV that fit very well in such a wider approach.
5. DryDev can support services or systems (ex. extension, input delivery, farm planning) that are oriented at farming household level. Currently most interventions are oriented at community level, where DryDev have made progress: think of the innovations platforms, CUMATs, the “Gayya” approach. Also the ‘farmer expert’ formula has its limits. As a consequence, DryDev does not yet contact directly individual household or family levels where most biophysical practices have to be embedded.
134 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Annexes
1 Country visit and activity programme
Date Activity Site 20-05-2018 Travel Niamey 21-05-2018 Meetings with DryDev Niger Niamey 22-05-2018 Bilateral meetings with technical partners Niamey - Travel Maradi 23-05-2018 - Bilateral meetings with technical partners - Restitution to DryDev Niger Niamey 24-05-2018 Field visits Maradi 25-05-2018 Field visits Zinder - Field visits Zinder 26-05-2018 - Travel Niamey 27-05-2018 Travel Bamako, Mali
2 List of people interviewed
Name Structure, organisation Date Niger Salamatou Bagnou, Peter Wright, Daouda Mahamane ONG CARE International Niger 21/05/2018 Sanoussi, Ahmet Dawalak, Ely Keita, + 3 Ali Hassane, Mali Sanoussi, ONG RAIL 21-23/05/2018 Adam Abdoulaye Abdoulaye Sanoussi, Guirguir ONG Karakara 21-23/05/2018 Abba, Yacouba Ibrahim Amina Mai, Boureima Dodo Organisation Paysanne (OP) AREN 21-22/05/2018 Ely Keita, Abdallah Ben Directeur et Dir. Adjoint CARE Int. 22/05/2018 Mabrouk Mahama Sanoussi Hassane, Idrissa Seydou, Aly Badoua, OP FUGPN - Mooriben 22/05/2018 Moussa Aly - (entretien annulé par WVI) ONG World Vision Niger 22/05/2018 Moussa Amadou, Cheibou Direction Nationale du Génie Rural, Min. Agriculture 22/05/2018 Adam, Hassan Gado Abdoul Karim Mamalo Consultant, Président du CA de l’INRAN 23/05/2018 Mahamane Sani Allassane Oxfam International Niger 23/05/2018 Pierre Longou, Max Francisco, Rand Khyami, (Dominique Entreprise Orange Niger 23/05/2018 Aubert) Aboubacar Seydou Secr. Gén. Adj. du Min. Agric. et Elevage 23/05/2018 1er Vice-maire, 2ème Vice-maire municipaux, secrétaire général de la mairie, communicateur de la mairie Autorités à Aguié 24/05/2018 Services techniques départementaux (Environnement, Génie rural, Elevage) Acteurs communautaires niveaux plateforme Acteurs à Tapkin Yaya 24/05/2018 d’innovation, grappes, et organisations paysannes Acteurs à Guidan Daweye Groupement femmes transformation des produits 24/05/2018
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 135 Drylands Development External programme Review
Name Structure, organisation Date forestiers non ligneux Hassan Bakar Coordinateur sous-bureau AREN Maradi 24/05/2018 Maire, 1er conseiller municipal, secrétaire permanent Autorités à Droum COFOCOM, services techniques communaux (Elevage, 25/05/2018 Agriculture) Acteurs communautaires niveaux plateforme Acteurs à Machaya 25/05/2018 d’innovation, grappes, et organisations paysannes Secteur privé Machaya Agro-dealer 25/05/2018 Exploitants du site maraîcher, membres des comités de Acteurs à Maissaje 25/05/2018 gestion (forage et mare) Acteurs à Abdallah Comités RNA, groupement féminin MMD 25-26/05/2018
3 List of documents reviewed in relation to country review
DryDev reports for Niger: Baseline Survey Report, 2016. CAP Visioning reports. Inception Report, ICRAF, 2015. Niger Annual Reports 2015/ 2016/ 2017. Synthesis of Characterization Study Niger, 2015. Identification of Agro-Pastoral Products and Analysis of their Value Chains in Five Intervention Communes, 2015.
Studies, Articles : Djedjebi, T. et al, 2008. Renforcer la Sécurisation Foncière au Niger, L’émergence des partenariats pour soutenir le Code Rural, Netherlands Development Organisation SNV/ Royal Tropical Institute KIT, Niamey/Amsterdam.
Gubbels, P., 2011. Échapper au Cycle de la Faim, Les Chemins de la résilience au Sahel (Pathways to Resilience in the Sahel), Groupe de travail sur le Sahel, Groundwell International, Ghana.
Krätli, S., 2015. Valuing Variability: New perspectives on climate resilient drylands development, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London (www.iied.org/drylands- volatile-vibrant-under-valued).
Nugteren, H. and C. Le Côme, 2016. Unleashing the Potential of Pastoralism to Develop West-Africa, Netherlands Development Organisation SNV/ Royal Tropical Institute KIT, Bamako/Amsterdam.
Van Walsum, E., et al, 2014. “From Vulnerability to Resilience: Agroecology for Sustainable Dryland Management”, Global Risk Forum Planet@Risk, in: GRF, Volume 2, Number 1, Special Issue on Desertification, March 2014, Davos.
Vorley, B., et al, 2013. Meeting small-scale farmers in their markets: understanding and improving the institutions and governance of informal agrifood trade, IIED/HIVOS/Mainumby, London/The Hague/La Paz.
136 MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 Drylands Development External programme Review
Niger legislation and policies: Secrétariat Permanent, 2013. Code Rural - Recueil des Textes, Comité National du Code Rural, Niamey.
Direction Générale de la Décentralisation et de la Déconcentration, 2011. Code Général des Collectivités Territoriales, Recueil des textes sur la Décentralisation, Ministère de l’Intérieur, de la Sécurité, de la Décentralisation et des Affaires Religieuses, Niamey.
Ordonnance N°2010-09 du 2010, portant Code de l’Eau au Niger. N.B. Un PAN-GIRE est en cours d’élaboration.
MDF Training & Consultancy Ede, June 2018 137