In January 2018, ESPA invited me to present the results of a report synthesising evidence for the
contribution of climate smart agriculture to poverty alleviation. The workshops
in Kenya and Malawi involved stakeholders from the country teams of EBAFOSA– the
Ecosystem Based Adaptation for Food Security Assembly.
Our synthesis suggests that scaling up climate smart agriculture
would probably work best (in terms of larger scale) with commodities that would
attract interest of private sector. However, such commodity value chains are
often not accessible for the most vulnerable, who lack land, transport and
other means to participate in this trade. As such, scaling up climate smart
agriculture may fail to ‘leave no one behind’, in the spirit of the Sustainable Development Goals.
The meetings in Kenya and Malawi brought some interesting
questions to the fore: there was a shared sense that climate smart technologies
exist, but that knowledge has to be synthesised and spread in each country.
However, relatively little discussion focussed on how to involve the most
vulnerable in it due to the focus on quick success that NGO financing
mechanisms force? Or to silos in which governments, experts and NGOs operate?
Or the fact that many smallholder farmers are ‘poor’ to begin with? And should
(climate-smart) agriculture be inclusive, or should other welfare instruments,
such as social benefits, take care of the most vulnerable people?
In both countries, the need to involve agricultural extension
officers (in charge of delivering information about agricultural practices to
farmers) in raising awareness of climate-smart practices was high on the
priority lists. But there are so many changes that go against decades of
‘traditions’ in farming (parentheses added because of the political forces that
drove ridging practices). How to change practices from ridging all land for
maize cropping, to irrigation in the wet season (insufficient rain) or
multi-cropping for resilience and food security? How to adapt prescriptive,
rigid methods to flexible, place-based and modern approaches in countries where
rural youth may soon create labour shortages?
Finally, the question was posed – should upscaling be based on
farmers’ needs, or on where ‘experts’ or ‘leaders’ think that they ought to go
in the face of climate change and other social-ecological drivers? Leading by
example may be better than just talking, but it is not sufficient – how can one
stimulate more widespread adoption, beyond the lead farmer along the road? This
ties in with some of the pushback from civil society organisations, trying to empower
smallholder farmers.