AFD Evaluation
ExPost exPost
N° 58
October 2014
Agroecology: Evaluation of 15 Years
of AFD Support
Summary of final report Laurent LEVARD, Aurélie VOGEL, Christian CASTELLANET (Gret) and Didier PILLOT (Montpellier SupAgro)
Agence Française de Développement 5, rue Roland Barthes 75012 Paris www.afd.fr
Authors: Laurent LEVARD, Aurélie VOGEL, Christian CASTELLANET (GRET) and Didier PILLOT (Montpellier SupAgro) Coordination AFD: Constance CORBIER-BARTHAUX, Evaluation and Capitalisation Unit – corbierc@afd.fr Translated from French by Eric ALSRUHE The final report of this evaluation is available at the following address on internet: http://www.afd.fr/home/publications/travaux-de-recherche/publications-scientifiques/autres-collections
Disclaimer The analyses and conclusions presented in this document are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the official views of Agence Française de Développement or its partner institutions.
Publication Director: Anne PAUGAM Editorial Director: Laurent FONTAINE ISSN: 1962-9761 Legal deposit: 3rd quarter 2014 Cover photo: Rice sowing under Stylosanthes guianensis cover on a farmer’s plot in Midwest Madagascar in November 2013. © Cathy CLERMONT-DAUPHIN (GRET)
Layout: Marie EHLINGER
Agroecology: Evaluation of 15 Years of AFD Support – Summary of final report
Acknowledgements
The work enjoyed the support of a monitoring committee
BARTHAUX, Laure MONTCHAMP, Emmanuelle POIRIER-
called the ‘reference group’, made up of around 20 members:
MAGONA, Anne LEGILE, Claude TORRE, Marie-Cécile
Patrice BURGER, (Director of CARI association, ‘reference
THIRION, Veronika CHABROL, Nicolas ROSSIN, Hélène
group’ chairperson); Khalifa SAOUSSEN (MAE); Hacina
WILLART, Alain HENRY, and Tiphaine LEMÉNAGER (AFD);
BENAHMED (MAAF); Hervé SAINT-MACARY (CIRAD);
Didier SIMON (FFGE). We would like to give them special
Sébastien TREYER (IDDRI); Jean-Luc CHOTTE (IRD);
thanks here.
Robert LIFRAN (Supagro/INRA); Stéphane BELLON (INRA); Georges SERPANTIÉ (IRD); Sylvain BERTON (Agrisud);
We also thank all of our contact people, both in France and
Christophe CHAUVEAU (AVSF); Vera EHRENSTEIN (Ecole
in the countries where we have carried out site studies, for their
des Mines); Laurent FONTAINE, Constance CORBIER-
cooperation in making this evaluation possible.
Evaluation team
The evaluation team, which was coordinated by Laurent
Philippe DEYGOUT (Institute for Research and Application
LEVARD (GRET) and Didier PILLOT (Montpellier SupAgro),
of Development Methods – IRAM), Laure MONTCHAMP
was also made up of Aurélie VOGEL (GRET), Christian
(AFD), Constance CORBIER-BARTHAUX (AFD), Albert
CASTELLANET (GRET), Cathy CLERMONT-DAUPHIN
RAKOTONIRINA and Thierry RABARIJAONA (GRET) also
(IRD), Joël COUDRAY (consultant agronomist) and Julie
took part in certain stages of the evaluation.
SORÈZE (Montpellier SupAgro).
•
1
ExPost exPost
AFD 2014
Evaluation and Capitalisation Series • N°58
CONTENTS
Introduction
3
1. Overall evaluation of the projects based on OECD DAC criteria
7
1.1. Relevance and coherency
7
1.2. Effectiveness, results, efficiency
8
1.3. Impacts and sustainability
10
2. Key factors affecting DMC-related results
11
2.1. With regard to agricultural production systems
11
2.2. With regard to collective constraints and relations between systems of production
12
2.3. With regard to relations with the environment
12
3. Assessment of the tool/programme and of the learning approaches
13
3.1. How the tool/programme was structured
13
3.2. Programme management
13
3.3. Knowledge production
14
3.4. Scientific monitoring
14
3.5. Learning
14
4. Conclusions and recommendations
16
4.1. Conclusions
16
4.2. Operational recommendations
18
Acronyms and Abbreviations
20
AFD 2014
ExPost exPost
•
2
Agroecology: Evaluation of 15 Years of AFD Support – Summary of final report
Introduction
This document is a summary of the final report on the
Direct Seeding Mulch-based Cropping systems – DMC). The
external evaluation of 15 years of support actions by Agence
evaluation was carried out at the request of AFD, from July
Française de Développement and the French Facility for
2013 to May 2014, by Gret.
Global Environment – FFGE in agroecology (in practice, on Box 1. Direct Seeding Mulch-based Cropping systems (DMC): The three principles
DMC systems are part of a huge group of systems and techniques promoted within the framework of agroecology. They offer a theoretical technical alternative to the fertility crisis observed in many agrarian systems, following the reduction of fallow systems or the intensification of agriculture based on the Green Revolution. DMC systems are based on both the absence of tilling and the permanent cover of the soil by plants. The latter work simultaneously to enrich the soil with organic matter, vitalise its biological life and stop the development of weeds. Finally, crop rotation makes it possible both to optimise organic and mineral fertilisation and better control weeds and parasite cycles.
Context and objectives of the evaluation Direct Seeding Mulch-based Cropping, also called ‘con-
programmes. A ‘first circle’ of projects (Tunisia, Madagascar,
servation agriculture’, was first experimented and developed
Cameroon and Laos) preceded a ‘second circle’ (Vietnam
in Brazil in the 1950s. The technique was taken up and promoted
and Cambodia) several years later. Other projects with DMC
by teams from the Centre de coopération internationale en
components were also supported by AFD in Mali and, outside
recherche agronomique pour le développement (French
the framework of the PAA, in Gabon and Morocco. In Viet-
Agricultural Research Centre for International Development
nam, the experiments did not lead to significant diffusion
– CIRAD) in the 1990s and, from 2000, by French development
activities.
cooperation bodies (French Ministry of Foreign Affairs – MoFA,
• The Programme Transversal d’Accompagnement (Cross-
AFD and the FFGE) as part of their Plan d’Action pour l’Agro-
cutting Support Programme – PTA) was launched in 2000,
écologie – (Agroecology Action Plan – PAA).
followed by the Programme d’Actions Multi-Pays en Agro-
The PAA, officially launched in June 2000, was based on two main parts:
écologie (Multi-country Action Programme in Agroecology – PAMPA), in 2007. The purpose of these cross-cutting tools was to ensure coherency among the various PAA actions, the com-
• A group of actions to adapt and diffuse DMC techniques
plementary technical support actions, the communication and
in several representative countries with a diversity of agro-
exchanges among the various experiences, the capitalisation,
climatic zones, as part of specific projects or aspects of research
and the sharing of knowledge. For the PAMPA, a call for
and development (R&D) on rural development projects or
proposals was launched for the ‘research’ subcomponent.
•
3
ExPost exPost
AFD 2014
Evaluation and Capitalisation Series • N°58
IRD-INRA-CIRAD created a ‘consortium’ to respond to it, and
EUR 2.0 million (2%). If we consider only DMC-related actions,
its proposal, named the ‘initiative Réponse Intégrée Multi-
the amount is estimated at EUR 56 million, including 10%
Équipes’ (Multi-team Integrated Response initiative – RIME)
( EUR 5.5 million) for the cross-cutting programmes.
was selected.
The external evaluation sought to a) measure and assess
The financial amount of actions supported by AFD and the
the actions supported by AFD and the learning approaches at
FFGE that are specific to DMCs or that include a DMC com-
each project level and for the system as a whole, b) to describe
ponent is estimated at EUR 123.2 million, with projects prior
the factors of success and failure of the actions, and c) to draw
to the PAA excluded. Of this total, AFD funded EUR 88.7 million
lessons from them in order to work out recommendations for
(72%), the FFGE EUR 5.8 million (5%) and the French MoFA
AFD’s future actions in the agricultural domain.
1
Methodology of the evaluation The methodology used for the evaluation combined the
The work enjoyed the support of a monitoring committee
following: desk research, interviews in France with the AFD
called the ‘reference group’, made up of around 20 members
project officers and the CIRAD researchers involved, several
coming from AFD, the French MoFA, the French Ministry of
field visits (especially including interviews with farmers and
Agriculture, Agrifood and Forestry, and around 10 French
partner institutions). It was based on:
researchers from different organisations and all disciplines. The evaluation team met four times with the reference group,
a) The study of DMC components at 7 sites in 6 countries
making it possible to fine-tune the preparation for the studies
(technical content of actions, operating methods and institu-
of the sites and to discuss the analyses, syntheses and re-
tional systems). For each of the sites visited, a specific report
commendations.
(‘site study’) was written, sent to the partners for comments, and then finalised;
Two specific meetings were also organised with the CIRAD
b) A comparative synthesis of the site studies, which acted as
teams involved, before and after the site studies, for exchanges
a basis for the overall report;
on the hypotheses and methodology in the first meeting, and
c) The assessment of successive cross-cutting programmes;
on the initial conclusions at the second.
d) The working out of recommendations based on the lessons of the previous phases.
The following are not included: the PPI Farafangana and PPI Manakara projects in Madagascar, the DGPT project in Cameroon, PRODESSA in Laos, PDRI Kef and Siliana in Tunisia, the Hevea Village and SAM projects in Vietnam.
1
AFD 2014
ExPost exPost
•
4
Agroecology: Evaluation of 15 Years of AFD Support – Summary of final report
The sites studied The sites studied and visited (see Table 1 below) are located
Gabon (Estuaire Province) and Morocco (Middle Sebou). The
in Madagascar (Lake Alaotra and Vakinankaratra), Cameroon
independent evaluation conducted in Tunisia (Siliana-Kef and
(cotton production area), Laos (South Sayaburi, Plain of Jars),
North-West) by Iram for the FFGE was also taken into account
Cambodia (Kampong Cham and Battambang provinces),
in the overall evaluation.2
Table 1. The sites and the projects studied PRODESSA PTA PAMPA
Previous projects with DMC activities ‘First circle’ of projects ‘Second circle’ of projects
PHASE 1: PTA and launching pilot projects 1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
BV Lac 2
BVLac = Lake Alaotra watershed BVPI SHP = Watersheds and Irrigated Areas Project in the Southeast and the High Plateaus
Cameroon
2008
BV Lac1
Agrobiological Management of Soils
Madagascar
2005
PHASE 3: Farm and terroir approach
PHASE 2: Transition
BV PI – SE HP
DPGT (incl. PTA)
ESA 1
PSC – ESA 2
DGPT = Farm Development and Land Management Project ESA = Water, Soil, Tree projects
Laos
PRODESSA
PASS PRONAE – transition phase
PRODESSA = Rural development project in the South of Xayaburi Province PASS = Point of Application in Southern Xayaburi PRONAE = National Agroecology Programme PROSA = Sectoral Agroecology Programme
PHASE 1 Family-scale Rubber Growing
PHASE 2 Family-scale Rubber Growing
NUDP PROSA
DMC FFGE
Tunisia
Cambodia
PRONAE
DMC FFGE 2 PHASE 3 Rubber PADAC
PADAC = Cambodian Agricultural Development Project CANSEA = Conservation Agriculture Network in South East Asia
CANSEA
Morocco
PMH-Middle Sebou II
PMH = Small and Medium-scale Water Project
Gabon
PADAP
PADAP = Project to Support the Development of Periurban Agriculture PRODIAG = Project for Agricultural Development and Investment in Gabon
PTA
Cross-cutting
PRODIAG
PAMPA
Source: Authors.
2 In all, the evaluation team devoted 45 days (including by 2-person teams) to these field studies, the main objective of which was to evaluate the ex-post impact of DMC projects (which had often been finished by the time of the mission) and to analyse the factors explaining why the techniques proposed by the farmers were adopted or not.
•
5
ExPost exPost
AFD 2014
Evaluation and Capitalisation Series • N°58
Operating method All the projects were based on a standard intervention model
Box 2. Variations on the three phases of the intervention model
designed in three theoretical phases: • Phase A: experimentation in research stations. The proposed DMC systems were perfected and experimented in a research
In the beginning, all the PAA projects were designed to implement development research in three phases. However, the projects quickly sought to get by without
station. Different forms of associations between the plant grown and the cover plant were tested there, as were a range of formulas of fertilisation, sowing methods and rotations.
the first phase, by using the references obtained from research at other sites, adapting them, and having them tested directly by reference farmers of a new site. This
• Phase B: experimentation by farmers. The systems selected
way, the second generation of projects, like those of
were set up by reference farmers on their own plots, which
Vakinankaratra in Madagascar, of Battambang in
also act as a training tool and for visits for other farmers.
Cambodia or of Morocco was based on the references
The reference farmers enjoyed certain advantages (remune-
previously created on the Malagasy high plateaus, the
ration, free supply of inputs, subsidised credit). The systems
red soils of Kampong Cham in Cambodia, or in Tunisia.
can evolve to take into account feedback from the farmers.
These shortcuts sometimes turned out to be detrimental,
• Phase C: actual diffusion beyond the reference farmers. In practice, these three phases could be overlapped more
as the ecological and social situations of second regions are rarely the same as those of the first. In Battambang, for example, it took two whole years to realise that the soil pH, which was significantly more alkaline than
or less over time, with variations according to the country.
that of the red soils, required the use of totally different varieties of cover plants.
Photo 1. Cambodia, Kompong Cham (Cambodia): plot of cassava under vegetal cover
Operational systems Varied operational systems were set up. The projects were, for example, implemented a) by a public or parapublic institution; b) by an ad hoc organisation in which CIRAD played an important role; c) by CIRAD directly, in possible cooperation with other stakeholders; d) by other various operators, sometimes with various actions being delegated by the main organisation in charge of implementation; or e) by a producers organisation. Photo credit: Laure Montchamp.
AFD 2014
ExPost exPost
•
6
Agroecology: Evaluation of 15 Years of AFD Support – Summary of final report
1. Overall evaluation of the projects based on OECD DAC 3 criteria 1.1. Relevance and coherency Many farmers around the world, especially in difficult
Box 3. The interest of techniques other than DMC – examples in Laos and Madagascar
environments, are dealing with an ecological crisis (erosion, decrease in fertility management, water management) or the
In Laos, in the Plain of Jars, the knowledge now acquired
incapacity to sustainably increase production in a context
about the environment suggests that the most promising
of demographic growth. The negative environmental limits
possibilities for intensification are in extensive livestock
and impacts of the conventional model of agricultural inten-
production. Yet, this is where the Laotian national training
sification are increasingly obvious. Furthermore, the planet’s
centre on DMC was established. In Vakinankaratra, in
food security requires roughly a doubling of production in
Madagascar, hedging and fodder crops, as well as manure
the next half century, and this increase will have to take
management, now seem at least as promising in terms
place with less use of deforestation, less water and fewer
of innovation for farmers as the DMC models initially
inputs than in the past. In this context, research for alterna-
promoted by the project.
tive or complementary solutions to the dominant model of agricultural intensification, among which agroecology, seems highly relevant in view of the great challenges of sustainable development. On the other hand, the appropriateness of the initial programme focusing on only DMC practices must be put into question. This is because other agroecological techniques (sometimes not yet qualified as ‘agroecology’) were, at the time of launch of the programme, known and often implemented by many farmers, and these techniques also made it possible – potentially or in practice – to respond to the same challenges. In reality, analysis in the field confirms that DMC does not always correspond to the most suitable solutions to agroecological intensification. However, we can observe an opening up of certain projects to other agroecological practices from 2008.
3
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - Development Assistance Committee
•
7
ExPost exPost
AFD 2014
Evaluation and Capitalisation Series • N°58
Photo 2. Madagascar, Vakinankaratra: hedging with tephrosia hedge
Photo 3. Vakinankaratra (Madagascar): dried dung powder, used as organic manure on rice plot
Photo credit: Cathy Clermont-Dauphin.
1.2. Effectiveness, results, efficiency This focusing on DMC systems can be found in the
land, which made it possible to pass on knowledge and
reasoning and plans of action of the intervention. The
operational networks. But it may be difficult to grasp the
underlying hypothesis was that as long as there were
coherency of these successions of projects. Furthermore,
adaptations to local agro-climatic conditions, support from
the periods without funding between two projects often
competent technicians and measures for relieving the
became a decapitalisation that was harmful for the action,
‘constraints’ to their ‘adoption’ (lack of access to inputs, tools and credit; common grazing land; 4 land insecurity, etc.), the
especially from the scattering of the trained human resources.
DMC systems would be ‘adopted’ by the farmers because
The monitoring and evaluation systems quite often turned
they would make it possible to ultimately improve their income.
out inadequate for providing hindsight for projects and for
Participation by farmers in the research and development
reorienting their strategy if needed. This would have required
process was of course provided for – but not beforehand,
not only to recording the results of the diffusion of the technical
for defining the technical systems of intensification, but rather
model, but above all understanding the mechanisms that
afterwards – in order to adapt the latter to local contexts
are behind it. However, in reality, the monitoring and evalua-
and to perfect them. What was sought was thus not to respond
tion measures were often limited to collecting quantitative
foremost to the problems experienced by farmers, but to promote the diffusion of DMC.
‘adoption’ indicators (DMC surface area or number of farmers concerned). There was a lack of more qualitative studies,
The implementation of these systems was generally
which would have made it possible to better understand
hindered by the absence of long-term perspectives and
the choice of farmers. It must be pointed out that the project
continuity in the funding. A certain continuity was nonetheless
logical frameworks did not encourage more analytical
provided by the succession of projects on a single piece of
approaches to monitoring-evaluation.
Common pasture land: Collective right authorising herders to graze their animals on certain land, particularly on stubble fields and crop residues on all the plots that have been harvested.
4
AFD 2014
ExPost exPost
•
8
Agroecology: Evaluation of 15 Years of AFD Support – Summary of final report
Box 4. Monitoring-evaluation: The need to combine qualitative with quantitative – examples in Madagascar and Laos
For the BVLac project in Madagascar or on the PASS project sites in Laos, the project technicians recorded the statistical data that gave information on the models of adoption finalised by the research. However, they never really acquired the skills enabling them to perform critical analysis of the results they observed among the farmers they followed. They thus had difficulty understanding the results they obtained, especially the drop-outs, which were experienced as ‘failures’, even though these were often only perfectly rational adaptations by the farmers concerned. At the same time, an impressive number of more qualitative analyses and diagnostics were carried out on the perimeter of Lake Alaotra. These were often very interesting in terms of understanding the dynamics at work, but they did not have much impact on the technicians’ practices in the field.
By adding up the surface area cultivated in DMC at the
Photo 4. Middle Sebou (Morocco), Direct Seeding (wheat after wheat)
end of the projects in the countries for which these data are available (Cambodia, Cameroon, Madagascar, Morocco, Tunisia), we obtain a total (approximate and dispute) 5 of 10,700 ha. The diffusion of ‘full’ DMC (i.e., including no tilling, permanent coverage and crop rotation) is very variable from one site to another, and is everywhere very inferior to the objectives. There are also high drop-out rates after peaks of adoption, which are either due to opportunistic behaviour by the farmers (who ‘adopt’ to benefit from the services of the project), or show the difficulty in carrying out the investments required. At the same time, we often see a spontaneous process of innovations, which take up elements from the DMC system and recombine them in original systems that
Photo credit: Julie Sorèze.
respond better to the economic logic or the capacities of the producers. The monitoring-evaluation systems have not systematically included the monitoring of these adaptations, or have done so too late.
One assessment of the effectiveness/cost ratio was carried out, but it does not seem very significant in such R&D projects, all the more so because we do not yet have the advantage of hindsight. It was nevertheless possible to make approximate calculations of the DMC-related expenses per hectare of DMC on several sites. These give approximate results ranging from EUR 1300/ha (in Cameroon) to EUR 12,000/ha (in Laos and Madagascar).
In Lake Alaotra, for example, the project’s capitalisation document estimates the DMC surface area for the 2012-2013 season at 2,601 ha. But this figure includes the farmers who adopted it in the ‘first year’, even though several studies conducted on the site estimate that more than 60% abandoned the project after this first year.
5
•
9
ExPost exPost
AFD 2014
Evaluation and Capitalisation Series • N°58
1.3. Impacts and sustainability Summary data on the technical and economic impacts of
The projects’ exit strategies or strategies for continued actions
setting up DMC systems among smallholders is lacking, even
are variable. They include the existence of another project that
for the first-circle projects. Indeed, the first adoptions of the
takes over (for instance the succession of BV Lac 1 and BV
systems are less than six years old, and the continuity of DMC
Lac 2 projects in Madagascar), transfer to existing institutions
‘adoption’ can be judged only over the long term. Furthermore,
(SODECOTON in Cameroon, and IGAD in Gabon) or the
it may be misleading to single out the ‘DMC effect’ strictly
setting up of ad hoc systems (the ‘Maize Fund’ in Laos), with
speaking from the effect of supply in chemical fertiliser,
more or less success.
which was promoted at the same time as DMC. Generally, yield increases are fairly low and delayed in time. At the Vakinankaratra site, four to five years after adoption, rice
Box 5. After project completion, what relays?
yields increased 3 to 13% and maize yields around 50%. In Laos, the PASS actions were always carried out
Several DMC environmental services were revealed within
with the help of the agricultural extension service of
the framework of the cross-cutting RIME research (carbon
Sayaburi Province. Currently, several years after termi-
sequestration, diversity of plant cover, limitation of trickle-down
nation of the project, this service is maintaining a small
and erosion), though with a certain variability. The RIME results
team on-site, which is continuing to monitor groups
nevertheless also show that the herbicides often used in DMC,
using DMC and is developing value chains for impor-
especially glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, can persist in the field for at least one year and migrate into sediments and into trickle-down water at doses much higher than those
In Cameroon, SODECOTON, a powerful public institution
The impacts in production and diffusion of knowledge are
in charge of developing the cotton value chain, was also
sometimes appreciable. They include:
able to integrate elements from the agroecology projects
• The publication of scientific references as part of the RIME
into its own R&D system.
project, but more limited from the experimentation sites. The
In Gabon, it was the Institut Gabonais d’Appui au Dé-
references are moreover often difficult to use in operational
veloppement (Gabonese Institute for Development
terms. • Training and awareness-raising actions linked to DMCrelated themes, targeting a diverse public (smallholder farmers,
Support – IGAD), an association founded by Agrisud, the Gabonese state and Elf Gabon that developed DMC. All these configurations enable the activities to continue
technicians, decision-makers, etc.).
at least minimally when the projects are interrupted. In
With regard to institutional impacts, when the projects were
other cases, the local institutions managing the projects
implemented by stable institutions, they helped reinforce the
are too weak to maintain activities – beyond the formal
latter. Impact was weak when they were implemented by an ad hoc organisation or by operators not designed to work in the same areas on an ongoing basis.
ExPost exPost
original funding mechanism (the ‘Maize Fund’) based on voluntary contributions from export traders.
tolerated for drinking water.
AFD 2014
ting material for cultivation. They have also set up an
•
10
end of the project – that require long-term support.
Agroecology: Evaluation of 15 Years of AFD Support – Summary of final report
2. Key factors affecting DMC-related results DMC innovations are complete systems that shake up the
of capital accumulation and productive organisation of
entire productive organisation of the farms concerned, and
producers within their societies. There is thus no simple
they must be considered as medium-term investments. They
typology of ‘favourable’ or ‘unfavourable’ agrarian situations,
therefore fuel complex interactions between the economic and
but a range of factors that encourage or, on the contrary,
ecological environment on the one hand, and the processes
impede the adoption of DMC.
2.1. With regard to agricultural production systems: • Gains in yield and income are often real, but too limited
Box 6. Farmers’ interest in DMC highly dependent on labour time and calendar
to provide significant intensification. Furthermore, as they are scattered over time, the DMC actions represent an invest-
On the tanety of Lake Alaotra in Madagascar, the labour
ment with deferred profitability. The interest for DMC then
savings gained from no longer needing workers is more
depends on the farmers’ capital accumulation strategy, which
than offset by the difficulty in manually controlling the
in turn depends on their resources, other opportunities for
cover plants.
investment and their perception of the risk linked to DMC.
In recently cleared land in Battambang, Cambodia,
• The choices made regarding use of labour force and of
the most dynamic pioneers highly appreciate DMC,
liquid assets. The choice of farmers largely depends on two
insofar as it makes it possible to take advantage of
elements, namely a) the implications of DMC on the farmer’s
a mechanised sowing service that helps avoid use of
labour calendar and finances, and b) opportunity costs
paid labour, which is expensive in frontier zones (see
between labour force and available finances. However, DMC
Photo 5).
may generate savings in labour as much as new peaks in work. In motorised systems, the drop in costs linked to the
In Morocco and Tunisia, the main motive for farmers’
absence or reduction of tilling nonetheless represents a
interest in DMC is the related cost savings, as all
recurring factor of success.
the mechanised work is often carried out by outside services.
•
11
ExPost exPost
AFD 2014
Evaluation and Capitalisation Series • N°58
• Whether or not there is competition with livestock, or,
Photo 5. Cambodia: direct sowing equipment
on the contrary, synergies. Using a cover plant may act as an opportunity for fodder, but keeping biomass as ground covering conflicts with its use for feeding.
2.2. With regard to collective constraints and relations between systems of production Grazing rights 6 often limit the use of DMC. However, individual or collective solutions sometimes make it possible to overcome these constraints. Photo credit: Laure Montchamp.
2.3. With regard to relations with the environment • The agroecological conditions influence both the easiness of DMC implementation (for example, good rainfall furthers biomass production and thus the setting up of DMC) and its
Box 7. Land pressure, crucial for maintaining DMC – an example in Laos
In Botene (Laos), the DMC systems were continued
agronomic impacts (e.g., the impact of mulch 7 depends on
more than elsewhere after the PASS project was over.
the rainfall). • The level of soil degradation and land pressure. Farmers’ effective perception of a fertility crisis largely determines their interest in DMC. This interest is stronger when there
As this is where land pressure is highest in Sayaburi Province, the farmers have no other choice than to intensify their practices in a way that does pose the risk of soil loss due to post-ploughing erosion.
is not much land available and thus when land pressure is high (see Box 7). On the other hand, in frontier areas, the dynamics of land conquest or the comparative advantages
• Land tenure. Good security for access to land stimulates
of long-fallow systems do not encourage farmers to intensify
farmers to invest in the long term in the fertility of their soils.
their crop systems as would be required by DMC.
In this context, in which a range of factors that encourage or,
• The existence of favourable market conditions. When they
on the contrary, impede the adoption of DMC, the existence
can market their products at good price, farmers are able to
of overall analyses and the implementation of interactive and
make the new investments profitable.
flexible action plans are decisive. The top-down model of action advocated was a strong constraint to the effective diffusion of the recommended techniques. However, there was an
Grazing rights: collective right authorising breeders/rearers to graze their animals on certain pieces of land, in particular once the stubble and crop residue has been gathered.
6
evolution in systems from PAMPA’s launching in 2007.
7 Mulch: Material, such as straw, decaying leaves, bark, strubble, compost, or plastic cover, spread around or over a plant to reduce evaporation and erosion, to suppress weeds and protect roots from excessive temperatures
AFD 2014
ExPost exPost
•
12
Agroecology: Evaluation of 15 Years of AFD Support – Summary of final report
3. Assessment of the tool/programme and of the learning approaches 3.1. How the tool/programme was structured The PAA was structured in an original way, with an ambitious
• The combination of pilot projects in various contexts and
objective of the simultaneous development of practices and
a cross-cutting programme of exchange and capitalisation
knowledge related to DMC. This was to allow large-scale
of knowledge, enjoying flexible resources;
learning, with the use of a French body of skills and research, focused on DMC development.
• Integration of research and development as much in institutional terms as at the level of planned activities.
Certain characteristics of the system furthered such learning, in particular: • Its length (14 years), with several successive phases, but continuity as much in the field as in the cross-cutting programmes;
3.2. Programme management While the programme was an occasion for significant learn-
insufficient formalisation of the sharing of responsibilities
ing, it also revealed limits that were only partially corrected as
between project owner and project manager and of
the projects went along. For example, it remained restricted
responsibilities of the partners, and absence of specific
to an enthusiastic but too small a team for a long time, as much
scientific steering. Several recommendations from the
on the research side (CIRAD) as in management by AFD.
final evaluation of the second phase (PAMPA) thus remain
The running of the programme remained rather restricted. The joint management by the two cross-cutting programmes was insufficient and without real improvement over time:
pertinent: opening up to new teams, increase in resources for its information management, and improvement of the scientific monitoring.
absence of regular reports, deficient monitoring-evaluation,
•
13
ExPost exPost
AFD 2014
Evaluation and Capitalisation Series • N°58
3.3. Knowledge production Knowledge production was weak during the PTA but
and a broadening of its field of action. The research carried out
improved noticeably during the PAMPA. The RIME initiative
by the multi-disciplinary teams was shown to be worthwhile.
made it possible to accumulate knowledge about DMC, its
However, the extensive documentation stemming from the
impacts on the environment and the constraints to their
actions or dealing with them (various studies, abundant grey
adoption according to types of environment and agrarian
literature) has remained not very accessible or usable and
systems. It furthered gradual change in the method of action
insufficiently summarised.
3.4. Scientific monitoring AFD had trouble ensuring the programme’s scientific
actions, or of action research, that must both present criteria
monitoring and considered that CIRAD should take care of
of standard scientific quality and respond to the development
it. However, this had not been formalised between AFD and
questions at the heart of the programme). Finally, it would
CIRAD through a framework agreement, for example. CIRAD’s
have been desirable to entrust the scientific evaluation to
mechanisms for evaluating its researchers and research
peers from outside the institution in charge of the research,
units focus above all on the scientific quality of their publi-
in order to avoid institutional conflicts of interest and to
cations; therefore they alone do not enable evaluation of
guarantee a plurality of points of view and disciplines.
the programme as a whole (i.e., a set of finalised research
3.5. Learning The learning capacity of AFD and its partners over time
• The taking into account, at the local (terroirs) level, of
was manifested by evolutions in the following approaches:
practices and collective rights that can encourage or, on
• Incorporation of the ‘farm’ approach, in particular with
the contrary, slow down technical change (grazing rights, land
analysis of the socio-economic constraints within the farms with regard to DMC adoption;
• Involve farmers and smallholder farmer organisations
• Broadening of the range of proposed innovations: ‘ICSs’ (‘innovative cropping systems’) that no longer match the strict definition of DMC, use of joint farming and livestock production, agroforestry practices, erosion control;
AFD 2014
ExPost exPost
tenure);
•
14
ornetworks morer in designing experimentation actions and in the diffusion of innovations.
Agroecology: Evaluation of 15 Years of AFD Support – Summary of final report
This evolution was nevertheless uneven depending on the
Photo 6. Lake Alaotra (Madagascar): plot of vetch used as organic manure
project, with countries where it occurred faster (Cameroon and Madagascar) and others later or… not at all. The evolutions observed nonetheless did not put into question either the priority given to DMC as agricultural advice, or the traditional approach based on experimental research aiming for the ‘diffusion’ of technical solutions. Therefore, there was no research site where an intervention methodology was applied that would a) be based on identifying the objectives, problems and needs of farmers based on a participative process; b) give priority to exchanges among farmers to find solutions; and c) determine objectives for the research and agricultural advice according to these objectives, problems and needs.
Photo credit: Aurélie Vogel.
•
15
ExPost exPost
AFD 2014
Evaluation and Capitalisation Series • N°58
4. Conclusions and recommendations 4.1. Conclusions A courageous and ambitious change in paradigm…
There can therefore be no pre-established universal solution, differently from the Green Revolution model, which was largely
Fourteen years of actions by AFD and its PAA partners
free from the constraints of local diversities by having artificial-
represent considerable effort. At the beginning of the 2000s,
ised the environment by dint of irrigation, chemicalisation and
the importance of working to develop sustainable solutions to the intensification of agriculture was indeed far from being appreciated by all, and AFD, the French MoFA and FFGE were able to be precursors. This was a change in paradigm after decades of research and development focused on the Green Revolution. Furthermore, even though AFD did not
genetic simplification. The programme remained deaf for a long time to the alerts that had been given by both the initial evaluations and the research sectors (including CIRAD) or the development world, which over the same period was exploring many other agro-
have a mandate for funding the research, the choice of
ecological alternatives (joint use of farming and livestock
combining research and development within a joint
production, agroforestry, organic farming, etc.). The DMC model
programme with the French MoFA and FFGE, and then of
did, of course, enjoy the double benefit of:
adding a cross-cutting dimension of reflection, search for
• Being able to concentrate efforts on one solution that, as
support and capitalisation, was ambitious, courageous and
long as there were adaptations, seemed ‘ready-made’ and
appropriate.
that, compared to existing references, gave hope for significant
Today, hindsight allows us to see how far we have come, to draw lessons from the experience – including and above
results within a brief period of time; and • Mobilising AFD’s resources at a time when agriculture was
all the areas where insufficiencies have been identified –
not a priority.
and to seize on this capital to continue to build the future.
But due to the use of a single research team, which
… but a questionable approach and system
moreover is not always inclined to cross-cutting collabo-
While the programme initiators were far-sighted regarding
rations or to put into question its principle and methods of
the idea and the principle, the way in which they went about
intervention, and on a single technical model, the programme
it seems more questionable. The choice of restricting them-
was isolated instead of being put at the heart of society.
selves to one particular technical model, DMC, confined
The initial projects, for example, all applied the same method-
the programme to the promotion of a pre-established model. However, agroecological solutions are based on the interaction of biological parameters and are naturally
farmers beforehand in defining the objectives and forms of
variable socio-economic conditions in which the farmers
intervention, need to take into account local realities, and
live also determine the possibilities not of adoption but of
absence of a single miracle solution (even if adaptations of
integration of these solutions in the pre-existing production
DMC systems had been proposed to different contexts), etc.
systems and agrarian systems.
ExPost exPost
•
that had been obtained in development: system approach, importance of prior agrarian analysis and participation by
dependent upon the diversity of environments. The eminently
AFD 2014
ology and largely ignored a certain amount of experience
16
Agroecology: Evaluation of 15 Years of AFD Support – Summary of final report
All these projects created many reference techniques –
at the Madagascar centre and SODECOTON in Cameroon).
which is a significant gain. The research on DMC confirmed
However, these projects are reaching completion before
that the latter made it possible to restore fertility to degraded
these new orientations have really been able to be evaluated.
soil, to fight erosion, and therefore improve potential yields after several years. But they failed overall in providing solutions diversified enough to meet the needs of the farmers in the regions concerned.
However, despite the top-down model of diffusion, these projects generated innovations that were not initially planned. The smallholder farmers often seized on technical elements promoted by the projects, especially the cover
Diffusion of DMC thus remained at a low level, despite the
plants, and reintegrated them their own way into their
mobilisation of significant resources. The high drop-out rate
production systems: mulch on intensive market gardening,
for DMC after the end of the projects shows the low level
green fertiliser crops, new fodder combinations, hedging,
of lasting quality of the systems proposed, although the
or direct seeding on crop residue. These farmer innovations,
short duration of the projects relative to the objective sought
which at the beginning were largely ignored by the research
after (change in modes of production) also contributed to
and development bodies, also contributed to the evolution
this drop-out. There are nevertheless exceptions, in agrarian
of the projects.
situations where certain categories of farmers have a direct interest in investing in DMC and in which collective mobilisation makes it possible to adopt common rules favourable to this technical change.
All these initiatives represent a potential capital upon which it would certainly be possible to build the third generation of a large-scale cross-cutting programme, which would undoubtedly be of interest. Indeed, France cannot remain
Furthermore, the running of the programme remained
on the sidelines of an international sustainable agriculture
rather restricted, and AFD and its partners encountered
movement that is going to intensify both in the North and
great difficulties in managing the programme as a whole as
the South. The success of such slogans as ‘Doubly Green
well as the applied or finalised research that was an integral
Revolution’ or ‘Ecologically Intensive Agriculture’ shows
part of it.
that the research and development world has advanced to a stage where it puts sustainability and the agriculture-
Evolutions and initiatives that are limited but promising for the future
environment relationship at the heart of its concerns.
From 2007, the internal evolutions at both AFD and CIRAD opened up the way to more fertile research and capitalisation initiatives, especially the RIME initiative, which was a true success. However, its capitalisation, syntheses and the communication of results to development stakeholders meant that appreciation for the programme did not match the level of knowledge created. In the field, the putting into question of the top-down model lasted longer and was more limited. Some projects nevertheless opened up in terms of contents and methods, in particular by incorporating the ‘farm approach’ and then the ‘terroir approach’, often following local inducement (‘mavericks’
•
17
ExPost exPost
AFD 2014
Evaluation and Capitalisation Series • N°58
4.2. Operational recommendations Some principles drawn from the experience of the two previous phases could give structure to such a programme.
Internationalise the network of reference stations It is necessary to continue the work of creating references thanks to a network of stations, as CIRAD had done for
A technical, methodological and operational synthesis To start with, it would be important to round out the RIME capitalisation with a synthesis of the experiences gained from the whole programme, combining analysis of scientific publications, available reports and statements from experts. The idea is to develop an informed opinion on the concrete issues related to DMC and to produce a reference document intended for students, people in the development world,
DMC, but on a long-term basis and with a broader range of technical systems. Above and beyond the results (yields, margins, environmental impact, etc.), these experiments should deal with the study of processes leading to these results, because it is this understanding that makes it possible to use the models in diverse situations. This being the case, the creation of agroecology refer-
decision-makers and non-specialised researchers. The
ences is of global public interest, and it would be incoherent
projects supported by AFD would provide the raw materials
for each donor to fund the development of its own network
for this synthesis, but any project having contributed to
of references. We thus recommend starting up high-level
creating references should also be taken advantage of.
discussions, especially at the European level, pooling efforts
Continue the capitalisation research with a cross-cutting programme, with a mandate enlarged threefold
in this direction and considering supplementary support from the European Commission.
Next, it is essential to conserve the linkage between a
A broader range of projects
cross-cutting capitalisation programme and a group of field actions that fuel it and that can welcome and develop
The range of projects considered should be much broader
research or development experiments. It is just essential to
than now, by opening it up to innovative (and often smaller
enlarge the current scope of action clearly and transparently
and more flexible) projects implemented by NGOs, consult-
in three different directions:
ancies, agricultural organisations, and research networks
• At the technical level, all the agroecological systems
or institutes, as long as these operators have reference
should be considered;
terms and clear responsibilities with regard to objectives,
• The capitalisation should cover the issue of forms of
expected results and outcomes, and are connected to the
intervention. This implies supplementing the adaptive diffus-
cross-cutting component. The current projects should be
ion developed up to now by a broader set of practices:
continued, by reorienting them according to the gains in
smallholder farmer schools, ‘farmer-to-farmer’ processes,
experience. Generally speaking, it is important for all the
‘R&D terroir’-type approaches, etc;
projects to be able to receive support over the long term;
• It is important to cover the field of agricultural and
this is an essential condition for effectiveness in the agro-
development-assistance policies that are likely to promote
ecological domain. Stricter monitoring-evaluation mechan-
the ecological transition in agriculture. The experience gained
isms should be implemented, in relation with feedback from
from the PAA demonstrates the difficulty that smallholder
stakeholders (researchers, development bodies, farmers,
farmers in insecure situations can encounter when it comes
smallholder farmer organisations), the external scientific
to implementing agroecological solutions. It should be pos-
monitoring (agronomic and socio-economic) and the monitor-
sible to deal with the issue of subsidising this transition.
ing by donors.
AFD 2014
ExPost exPost
•
18
Agroecology: Evaluation of 15 Years of AFD Support – Summary of final report
While it is not the role of AFD to fund pure research projects, this is not the case for projects that put into relation exper-
Outsource the lead contracting of the cross-cutting programme
iments in smallholder farming, monitoring-evaluation of
The governance of the cross-cutting programme should
changes, and more large-scale development of innovative
avoid both its monopolisation by a single institution and the
techniques. Such projects, in which the themes of experiment-
lack of monitoring by AFD. The lead contracting could be
ation and research would be determined with participation
provided by a research and development institution that is
by smallholder farmers and their organisations, could be of
not likely to carry out the work directly, but is capable of
interest to and call on conventional research for more funda-
conducting active cross-cutting activities (of an Agreenium
mental work on specific themes.
or Agropolis International type). This governance, which
From the diffusion of a model to support for change
should associate equally actors of development (including NGOs), decision-makers and researchers, would decide on
Above and beyond the diversification of technical solutions,
the actions to carry out, with an explicit definition of the
renewal of producer-support approaches is indispensable.
terms of reference and the expected results and outcomes
This involves shifting from an approach of diffusion of a
for each type of these actions. It would evaluate the results
model to an approach of support for change. Experiences
of the actions and the progress of the programme. Compet-
exist, outside of the scope of DMC, that make it possible to
itive calls for tender or proposals would be set up, open to
bring together method references. The programme will have
all. The research financed by AFD should be finalised, but
to incorporate the lessons learned from DMC:
other financial mechanisms of an Agence Nationale de
• Agroecological systems are sensitive to environmental conditions, which are themselves diversified. They thus require great capacity of adjustment to these conditions; • They can work only by mobilising knowledge, which is broadly distributed between the farmers themselves and a variety of stakeholders, and not concentrated at the research and agricultural extension levels;
Recherche (French National Research Agency – ANR) type could be used to fund more long-term and more open research. A scientific research-evaluation committee made up of internationally recognised key figures should be set up, along with sufficient resources to carry out an evaluation of the programme’s scientific actions and publications, and provide recommendations on its strategy and orientations.
• Agricultural innovations originate not from linear diffusion,
If France were endowed with such a system and wanted
but from processes of deconstruction and reconstruction
to rise to the challenges, it could then negotiate with major
of the systems proposed. The spontaneous dynamics of
foundations, or with CGIAR (Consultative Group on Inter-
change thus contribute to creating useful references.
national Agricultural Research), to multiply the system that
The consequences of these upheavals in paradigms, in
it would have thus initiated.
terms of project organisation and training of contributors to the projects (and farmers) will have to be reflected on specifically within the framework of the capitalisation envisaged at the start of the programme.
•
19
ExPost exPost
AFD 2014
Evaluation and Capitalisation Series • N°58
Acronyms and Abbreviations AFD
Agence Française de Développement
ANR
Agence nationale de recherche (National Research Agency)
AVSF
Agronomes et vétérinaires sans frontières (Agronomists and Veterinarians without Borders)
BV
Lac Lake Alaotra watershed (project)
BVPI
Watershed irrigated area (project)
CARI
Centre d’actions et de réalisations internationales (Centre for International Action and Achievements)
CGIAR
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CIRAD
Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (Agricultural Research Centre for International Development)
CSI
Centre de sociologie de l’innovation (Centre for the Sociology of Innovation)
DAC
Development Assistance Committee
DGPT
Farm Development and Land Management Project
DMC
Direct Seeding Mulch-based Cropping
FFGE
French Facility for Global Environment
IDDRI
Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales (Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations)
IGAD
Institut gabonais d’appui au développement (Gabonese Institute for Development Support)
INRA
Institut national de la recherche agronomique (National Institute for Agricultural Research)
IRAM
Institut de recherches et d’applications des méthodes de développement (Institute for Research and Application of Development Methods)
IRD
Institut de recherche pour le développement (Development Research Institute)
MAAF
Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood and Forestry
MoFA
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PAA
Agroecology Action Plan
PAMPA
Multi-country Action Programme in Agroecology
PASS
Application Point in Southern Sayaburi (project)
PDRI
Integrated Rural Development Project
PPI
Small irrigated area
PRODESSA Rural development project in the South of Sayaburi Province PTA
Cross-cutting Support Programme
RIME
Multi-team Integrated Response (initiative)
SAM
Mountain Agrarian Systems
SCI
Innovative Crop System AFD 2014
ExPost exPost
•
20
Dernières publications de la série Les numéros antérieurs sont consultables sur le site : http://recherche.afd.fr Previous publications can be consulted online at: http://recherche.afd.fr
N° 57 N° 56 N° 55 N° 54 N° 53 N° 52 N° 51 N° 50 N° 49 N° 48 N° 47 N° 46 N° 45 N° 44 N° 43 N° 42 N° 41 N° 40 N° 39 N° 38 N° 37 N° 36 N° 35 N° 34 N° 33 N° 32 N° 31 N° 30 N° 29 N° 28 N° 27 N° 26 N° 25 N° N° N° N° N°
24 23 22 21 20
Évaluation des interventions de l’AFD dans les secteurs sanitaire et médico-social en Outre-mer Évaluation des activités de Coordination SUD dans le cadre de la convention AFD/CSUD 2010-2012 Évaluation et impact du Programme d’appui à la résorption de l’habitat insalubre et des bidonvilles au Maroc Refining AFD’s Interventions in the Palestinian Territories – Increasing Resilience in Area C Évaluation des lignes de crédit de l’Agence Française de Développement octroyées à la Banque ouest-africaine de développement (2000-2010) Évaluation stratégique de projets ONG dans le domaine de la santé (Mali, Burkina Faso et Cambodge) Secteur de l’hydraulique pastorale au Tchad – Évaluation et capitalisation de 20 ans d’intervention de l’AFD Réhabilitation des marchés centraux – Les leçons tirées des projets de Ouagadougou, Mahajanga et Phnom Penh Bilan des évaluations décentralisées réalisées par l’AFD en 2010 et 2011 Étude sur la facilité d’innovation sectorielle pour les ONG (FISONG) Cartographie des prêts budgétaires climat de l’AFD Méta-évaluation des projets « lignes de crédit » Bilan des évaluations de projets réalisées par l’AFD entre 2007 et 2009 Impacts des projets menés dans le secteur de la pêche artisanale au Sénégal L’assistance technique résidente – Enseignements tirés d’un appui au secteurde l’éducation en Mauritanie Évaluation partenariale des projets d’appui à la gestion des parcs nationauxau Maroc AFD Municipal Development Project in the Palestinian Territories Évaluation ex post de 15 projets ONG à Madagascar Analyse croisée de vingt-huit évaluations décentraliséessur le thème transversal du renforcement des capacités Étude des interventions post-catastrophe de l’AFD La coopération française dans le secteur forestier du Bassin du Congosur la période 1990-2010 Suivi de la réalisation des objectifs des projets de l’AFD : état des lieux Cartographie des engagements de l’AFD dans les fonds fiduciairessur la période 2004-2010 Addressing Development Challenges in Emerging Asia:A Strategic Review of the AFD-ADB Partnership Final Report, Period covered: 1997-2009 Capitalisation des démarches pour la mise en oeuvre des projets de formation professionnelle : cas de la Tunisie et du Maroc Bilan de l’assistance technique à la Fédération des paysans du Fouta Djallon(FPFD) en Guinée : 15 ans d’accompagnement Adapter les pratiques opérationnelles des bailleurs dans les États fragiles Cartographie de portefeuille des projets biodiversité Analyse sur la période 1996-2008Cartography of the AFD Biodiversity Project Portfolio:Analysis of the Period 1996-2008 Microfinance dans les États fragiles : quelques enseignements de l’expérience de l’AFD Un exemple d’amélioration de la gouvernance locale à travers le partenariat AFD / coopération décentralisée : capitalisation du projet de réhabilitation des marchés de Mahajanga Pratique de l’aide sectorielle : enseignements et perspectives pour l’AFD Sector Program Support in Practice: Lessons and Perspectives for AFD L’appui à l’hévéaculture familiale : capitalisation sur l’expérience AFD Developing Smallholder Rubber Production : Lessons from AFD’s Experience Évaluation rétrospective du projet FFEM d’efficacité énergétique dans la construction en Afghanistan Ex-post Évaluation of the FGEF Energy Efficiency Project in the Construction Sector in Afghanistan Évaluation des “Cadres d’Intervention Pays” (CIP) Études d’évaluation de la société immobilière de Nouvelle-Calédonie Les collaborations opérationnelles entre l’AFD et les ONG 2010 2010 Évaluation prospective • Projet Urban IV • Cartographie des projets d’efficacité énergétiques et d’énergies renouvelables AFD et FFEM Évaluation de l’usage de la concessionnalité dans les interventions de l’AFD en Afrique du Sud (1995/2005)