Agroecology: Evaluation of 15 Years of AFD Support

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)