Suchergebnisse

The overall goal of decentralizing seed services is to increase the availability and accessibility of quality seed to farmers. The governments of Uganda and Tanzania have endeavoured to enhance access to improved seed for smallholder farmers. These efforts have achieved results and encountered challenges. The successes include an increase in the number of key players in the seed sector in general. In Uganda, the number of community seed banks (CSBs) has increased from one to five over the last five years (Adokorach et al., 2020). The number of Local Seed Businesses (LSBs)has increased from 27 in 2012 to 256 in 2020. In addition to the increase in actors involved in improved seed production, the interaction between them has also improved. The LSBs are developing strong links with the Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute (ZARDI), and the CSBs are working closely with the Plant Genetic Resources Centre. In Tanzania, the government has demonstrated willingness to support the production of Quality Declared Seed (QDS) through the enactment of the QDS Regulations in July 2020. The new regulations clarify hitherto grey areas and introduce fees for inspection, germination, and moisture tests, among others. In addition to introducing the regulations, the sector has also demonstrated steady performance over the years. QDS production has increased five-fold between 2015 and 2019. QDS farmers work closely with the Tanzania Agricultural Research Institute (TARI), the Agricultural Seed Agency (ASA) and district agricultural officers to ensure that farmers produce quality seeds. Despite these notable improvements, various challenges affect the performance of the decentralized seed system. The two specific services that have yet to be fully decentralized are the management of plant genetic resources in Tanzania and seed testing in both countries. Even though other seed services have been decentralized, further challenges persist. For example, some of the system's key players, namely the CSBs, LSBs, and QDS farmers, are not yet financially sustainable. These entities are still dependent on external project support. Without it they may not cover some of their operational costs. It is important to note that the decentralized system's challenges may be, because the system and some of the players are still in their infancy. The regulatory framework for QDS is yet to be finalized and implemented in Uganda. In addition, most of the CSBs and LSBs are less than seven years old. The first few years of their operations were mainly dedicated to setting up their governance and operational structures. An evaluation of their performance over the next few years would provide a completer and more comprehensive picture of their performance and the viability of various decentralized services. One notable difference between the QDS system in Uganda and Tanzania is the presence of a coordinating entity. In Uganda, Integrated Seed Sector Development (ISSD) Uganda has actively played the role of a coordinating agency to advance the production of QDS in the country. In Tanzania, such an agency does not exist. As such, many activities in Tanzania are less coordinated.

The overall goal of decentralizing seed services is to increase the availability and accessibility of quality seed to farmers. The governments of Uganda and Tanzania have endeavoured to enhance access to improved seed for smallholder farmers. These efforts have achieved results and encountered challenges. The successes include an increase in the number of key players in the seed sector in general. In Uganda, the number of community seed banks (CSBs) has increased from one to five over the last five years (Adokorach et al., 2020). The number of Local Seed Businesses (LSBs)has increased from 27 in 2012 to 256 in 2020. In addition to the increase in actors involved in improved seed production, the interaction between them has also improved. The LSBs are developing strong links with the Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute (ZARDI), and the CSBs are working closely with the Plant Genetic Resources Centre. In Tanzania, the government has demonstrated willingness to support the production of Quality Declared Seed (QDS) through the enactment of the QDS Regulations in July 2020. The new regulations clarify hitherto grey areas and introduce fees for inspection, germination, and moisture tests, among others. In addition to introducing the regulations, the sector has also demonstrated steady performance over the years. QDS production has increased five-fold between 2015 and 2019. QDS farmers work closely with the Tanzania Agricultural Research Institute (TARI), the Agricultural Seed Agency (ASA) and district agricultural officers to ensure that farmers produce quality seeds. Despite these notable improvements, various challenges affect the performance of the decentralized seed system. The two specific services that have yet to be fully decentralized are the management of plant genetic resources in Tanzania and seed testing in both countries. Even though other seed services have been decentralized, further challenges persist. For example, some of the system's key players, namely the CSBs, LSBs, and QDS farmers, are not yet financially sustainable. These entities are still dependent on external project support. Without it they may not cover some of their operational costs. It is important to note that the decentralized system's challenges may be, because the system and some of the players are still in their infancy. The regulatory framework for QDS is yet to be finalized and implemented in Uganda. In addition, most of the CSBs and LSBs are less than seven years old. The first few years of their operations were mainly dedicated to setting up their governance and operational structures. An evaluation of their performance over the next few years would provide a completer and more comprehensive picture of their performance and the viability of various decentralized services. One notable difference between the QDS system in Uganda and Tanzania is the presence of a coordinating entity. In Uganda, Integrated Seed Sector Development (ISSD) Uganda has actively played the role of a coordinating agency to advance the production of QDS in the country. In Tanzania, such an agency does not exist. As such, many activities in Tanzania are less coordinated.

In 2001, the Meeting of the COMESA Ministers of Agriculture raised concerns that proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could impact significantly on trade and food security in the region. This triggered studies on a regional approach to biotechnology and biosafety policy in Eastern and Southern Africa. The studies and stakeholder consultations revealed that farm incomes would increase if they switched from conventional varieties of cotton and maize to genetically modified (GM) counterparts. Commercial risks associated with exports to GM sensitive destinations, e.g., EU were negligible. Intra-regional trade would be affected since exports of GM sensitive commodities, such as maize, cotton, and soya bean, mainly go to other African countries. These findings justified the need to consider a regional approach to biosafety and led to the drafting of a regional policy in 2009. The draft policies were discussed in regional and national workshops between 2010 and 2012 for wider ownership. The workshops involved key stakeholders including ministries of agriculture, trade, environment, national biosafety focal points, biosafety competent authorities, academia, seed traders, millers, the media, food relief agencies, the industry, civil society, competent authorities, and political opinion leaders. The COMESA Council of Ministers in February 2014 adopted the COMESA policy on biotechnology and biosafety that takes into account the sovereign right of each member state. Key provisions of the policy include recognition of the benefits and risks associated with GMOs; establishment of a regional-level biosafety risk-assessment system; national-level final decision, and capacity building assistance to member states. The policies are the first regional effort in Africa to develop a coordinated mechanism for handling biosafety issues related to GMO use. A regional approach to biotechnology and biosafety is expected to foster inter-country cooperation through the sharing of knowledge, expertise, experiences, and ...

Cotton farmers in the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) face pest challenges, the most destructive of which is the African bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera). Reduction in these pest infestations can increase yields and improve welfare of cotton producers, consumers, and innovators. Currently, the control of bollworms in this region is done through application pesticides, which is a costly exercise in terms of cost of pesticides, spray equipment, and labor. A more effective and less costly way to control damage from bollworms and other insects that frequently damage cotton in the region is by adopting Bt cotton. Governments in COMESA region are debating whether to approve Bt cotton for commercial production. This decision requires empirical evidence showing the likely magnitude of anticipated gains for producers, consumers, and innovators of the technology. Using an economic surplus framework, this study shows that there are welfare gains from adopting Bt cotton in the region, and countries that are not adopting Bt cotton are losing. Overall, most gains accrue to Egypt while Kenya gains the least. However, gains per hectare are similar in all countries except Egypt, which gains about four times the other countries.

Sub-Saharan Africa faces low agricultural productivity amid a confluence of trends that include rapid population growth, climate change, and the rise of the middle class. To raise productivity, governments—in partnership with donors and development organizations—have launched numerous initiatives to encourage the development of sustainable and competitive agricultural input markets. Despite these efforts, markets remain underdeveloped in most countries and access to affordable seeds and fertilizers remains a major challenge for smallholder farmers. This paper explores evidence from recent multicountry analyses of input delivery systems to assess the possibility of a Green Revolution in Africa. It describes use and adoption levels, challenges, policy and regulatory issues, and investments needed to expand smallholder access to these productivity-enhancing agricultural technologies.

The second of three books in IFPRI's climate change in Africa series, East African Agriculture and Climate Change: A Comprehensive Analysis examines the food security threats facing 10 of the countries that make up east and central Africa - Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda - and explores how climate change will increase the efforts needed to achieve sustainable food security throughout the region. East Africa's populations is expected to grow at least through mid-century. The region will also see income growth. Both will put increased pressure on the natural resources needed to produce food, and climate change makes the challenges greater. East Africa is already experiencing rising temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns, and increasing extreme events. Without attention to adaptation, the poor will suffer.Through the use of hundreds of scenario maps, models, figures, and detailed analysis, the editors and contributors of East African Agriculture and Climate Change present plausible future scenarios that combine economic and biophysical characteristics to explore the possible consequences for agriculture, food security, and resources management to 2050. They also offer recommendations to national governments and regional economic agencies already dealing with the vulnerabilities of climate change and deviations in environment. Decisionmakers and researchers will find East African Agriculture and Climate Change a vital tool for shaping policy and studying the various and likely consequences of climate change.

Given limited resources, adaptation strategies must target those populations most vulnerable to global change and equip those unable to adapt—generally the poorest—with the tools and incentives that will enable them to do so. ASARECA has recently carried out a study to enhance the understanding of climate change in the 10 ASARECA member countries. This report profiles the available climate change–related datasets and their accessibility and procurement details in the 10 ASARECA member countries. The report additionally assesses the incorporation of climate change adaptation strategies in national development plans and discusses each country's position in the current UNFCCC negotiations. The study was conducted using a combination of extensive literature reviews and field visits to all 10 ASARECA member countries: Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda. The report is organized in four sections. The first provides a description of the available climate change–related databases, along with details about their sources and accessibility in each of the 10 ASARECA member countries. Section 3 is a review of the status of the incorporation of climate change adaptation strategies in national development plans, while section 4 discusses the countries' positions in the current UNFCCC negotiations. Finally, section 5 offers concluding remarks and suggestions for a way forward. In addition to the study report, separate files of existing climate change–related datasets are provided in EXCEL format.

PR ; IFPRI1; CRP7 ; EPTD ; CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)

The ten ASARECA member countries (Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda) have adopted, or are planning to adopt, a range of climate change adaptation strategies in agriculture (see Table 1 for a summary). Of the 26 strategies mentioned, only two are common to all 10 countries, while five more are common to five or more. The strategies common to all member countries include the development and promotion of drought-tolerant and early-maturing crop species and exploitation of new and renewable energy sources. Most countries have areas that are classifiable as arid or semiarid, hence the need to develop drought-tolerant and early-maturing crops. Strangely, only one country recognizes the conservation of genetic resources as an important strategy although this is also potentially important for dealing with drought. Biomass energy resources account for more than 70 percent of total energy consumption in ASARECA member countries. To mitigate the potential adverse effects of biomass energy depletion, ASARECA countries plan to harness new and renewable energy sources, including solar power, wind power, hydro and geothermal sources, and biofuels. Eight of the 10 countries cite the promotion of rainwater harvesting as an important adaptation strategy, either small scale with small check dams or large scale with large dam projects. The five measures that are common to more than five countries are (a) the conservation and restoration of vegetative cover in degraded and mountain areas; (b) reduction of overall livestock numbers through sale or slaughter; (c) cross-breeding, zero-grazing, and acquisition of smaller livestock (for example, sheep or goats); (d) adoption of traditional methods of natural forest conservation and food use; and (e) community-based management programs for forests, rangelands, and national parks. The promotion of environmentally friendly investments and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects that can be funded through carbon trading is a feature of only one country. Three examples of strategies that warrant greater region wide collaboration are the conservation of genetic materials, development and promotion of drought-tolerant species, and soil conservation. To date, the national adaptation policies of only three countries have indicated that they carry out these strategies. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1 ; EPTD

The second of three books in IFPRI's climate change in Africa series, East African Agriculture and Climate Change: A Comprehensive Analysis examines the food security threats facing 10 of the countries that make up east and central Africa - Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda - and explores how climate change will increase the efforts needed to achieve sustainable food security throughout the region. East Africa's populations is expected to grow at least through mid-century. The region will also see income growth. Both will put increased pressure on the natural resources needed to produce food, and climate change makes the challenges greater. East Africa is already experiencing rising temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns, and increasing extreme events. Without attention to adaptation, the poor will suffer. ; Chapter 1 Overview; Chapter 2 Methodology; Chapter 3 Burundi; Chapter 4 Democratic Republic of Congo; Chapter 5 Eritrea; Chapter 6 Ethiopia; Chapter 7 Kenya; Chapter 8 Madagascar; Chapter 9 Rwanda; Chapter 10 Sudan; Chapter 11 Tanzania; Chapter 12 Uganda; Chapter 13 Summary and Conclusions ; PR ; IFPRI1; CRP7; CRP2 ; EPTD; PIM ; CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS); CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)