Date: 19, February, 2014

Location: Lilongwe, Malawi

Systems and livelihoods meta-analysis workshop

In attendance:

No. Name Institution CRP-DS/Position 1 Lulseged Tamene CIAT

2 Sikhalaso Dube IRLI

3 Everisto Mapedza IWMI Water resources

4 Gift Ndengu CIAT Research assistant

5 Sabine Homann-Kee Tu

6 Saskia

7

8 Rhoda Zulu CIAT Nutrition

9 Fredrick Atieno Bioversity international

Agricultural bio-diversity

10 Nelson Mango Socioeconomic baseline surveys

11 Sileshi Gudeta Former-ICRAF

Production ecologist/ICRAF coined the name Chinyanja Triangle since 2001

12 Robinson Lance IRLI Institutions and governance systems Kenya and Ethiopia

13 Godfrey Manyawu PLE Partner in Changara: integrating crops and livestock

14 Karin Reinpretcht ICARDA CRP leader- gender research

15 Claudio Gule DPA Livestock Head of Departent Tete Province ICRISAT and IRLI

16 Fernando Assane DPA Head of extension Tete Province

17 Zwide Jere TLC Biophysical characterisation

18 Annily Msukwa DAES District agricultural Development Officer for Ntcheu

19 Henry Phombeya Land Resource Centre

NGO tree seed and land restoration

20

21 Joseph Chimungu LUANAR University: Sustainable Land Management in Ntcheu

22 Patson Nalivata LUANAR University: Sustainable Land Management in Ntcheu

23 Timothy Gondwe LUANAR University: Livestock specialist Ntcheu

24 Joice Njoloma ICRAF Agro-forestry

25 Henry Sibanda UNDP Country Representative

26

28 Austin Tibu Dept of Land Resources

Land conservation

29 Paul Demo CIP Orange Freshed Sweet Potatoes

in Ntcheu

30 Nolipher Mponya DARS Agricultural bio-diversity

31 Powell Mponela CIAT Research assistant

Apologies:

No. Name Institution CRP-DS/Position

Observers:

No. Name Institution CRP-DS/Position

Announcements

Introduction and welcome remarks by Lulseged Tamene. After self introductions, Dube Sikhalazo

highlighted the purpose of the meeting as to synthesize existing information, identify and establish

links between regions and find common research questions between the two sites in Chinyanja

Triangle (Ntcheu and Changara).

Agenda points

During the morning and afternoon of day 1, lectures and presentations were made to contextualise

the systems approaches used, sampling framework and strategy, and baseline characterisation of

study sites. Group discussions focusing on livelihood strategies, challenges, drivers and

opportunities and innovation platforms took place during the late afternoon of day 1 and the whole

of day 2.

1. PRESENTATIONS

1.1 CRPDS_CT_P1 Systems approaches in agricultural research- by Lance

On the realisation that conventional agricultural research that employs the need->select->test-

>scale-out approach has faced challenges especially at “scale out” stage. Farmers sometimes don’t

adopt new seeds, new NRM, and researchers ask themselves why? The proponents of systems

research recognise the complexity in people’s livelihoods and the need for specialised interventions

to develop capacity of farmers. Often research has been technology supply driven and linear. With

systems approach, the key is to identify and establish linkages between knowledge domains

(farmers) and this was highlighted as the big part of CRP DS CT workshop. The challenge is

compounded in dryland agriculture and livelihood systems due to inherent key features of it being

complicated, complex and chaotic.

1-0 complicated, e.g. variability in labour availability, transport, inputs etc, extension

2-0 complex---definitions eg. Different systems: different disciplines draw different boundaries,.

Hydrology (catchment), ecologist (several catchments). There is to understand the existence of

different systems and try to work on their interactions.

3-0 chaotic – tipping point. Eg a farmer may know how to improve production but the approach could

not be ecological. Hence the need to find the “Positive tipping point”- balance system change to

something more desirable. Important in research.

The implication arising from these inherent key attributes is that conventional strategies are

constrained. For technological adoption to take place there is need to pay closer attention to local

context for different locations.

Suggested approaches includes:

1-0 systems analysis and \synthesis

a. understanding livelihoods

b. engage stakeholders

c. qualitative analysis- Example group of pastoralists who drew the influence diagrams. +/-

contributes as one component grows influences the others in the system. Capitalise on positive

desirable effects.

2. Large scale domains: test things in a variety of contexts.

3. Multi level innovation platforms: at different levels, local, ecosystem, policy nation. Establish

connections.

4. “Innovation” despite being part of research needs to be researched as well

1.2 CRPDS_CT_P1: Vision: Food secure future in drylands amid cascade of challenges, by

Sikhalazo

Big challenge! The target of CRP DS is to enable 1.6 billion people who live in drylands to be food

secure and rehabilitate 3 billion hectares land. Limited resources lead to inequitable distribution and

eventual conflicts. The aim is to help smallholder farmers realise potential. If left unattended, men

abandon women to look elsewhere. Women and young men get stuck in dryland. How could

researchers help these vulnerable groups? One would ask, in a small area with lots of challenges,

what can be done? Are there sustainable ways that research could reveal?

To achieve these, the CRPDS developed six IDOs including: (1) Resilience; (2) Wealth and wellbeing;

(3) Food access; (4) NRM; (5) Gender empower; and (6) Capacity to innovate.

An achievement of these objectives calls for first, identification of the target. DS system recognises

that at the centre of all interventions, key to success are the people whose livelihoods need to be

improved. A deliberate call was therefore made for scientists and development practitioners to

interact and use ingenuity to improve the livelihoods of targeted people.

Question: What strategies are put in place to ensure that the targets are achieved?

Re: this calls for more stakeholders to be engaged, not only within the DS system, but also from

other organisations working within DS. One activity would be to identify and register champion

farmers from different projects.

Question: With several IRTs could there be linkages as enshrined in the systems approach?

Re: For management purpose, they are 2 but in principle there is only 1. The ultimate aim is to have

1 even for management.

1.3a CRPDS_CT_P3 Site selection strategy for more detailed intervention by Lulseged

The CT falls within two SRTs of the CRPDS. Srt2 focuses on Mitigating Vulnerability and Srt3 on

Sustainable Intensification. Within CT, initially institutions have been working in different parts

without linkage. The CRP DS provides a platform to link and identify areas where institutions in

different sectors (CGIAR centers and NGOs) could work together

Fist, the systems within CT were mapped and four zones were identified along the gradient from

Changara in Mozambique and Southern Malawi with livestock dominated system to Ntcheu in

Malawi and Chipata in Zambia with crop-livestock farming system. CG-centers working within these

zones were mapped and probable collaborations have been identified. It was also noted that there

are marked similarities among zones within the farming systems. For collaborative work, the CRPDS

will then first focus on two zones:

1) Ntcehu transect which traverses an altitudinal gradient from highland plateaux to lowland Bwanje

valley. The variability in climate and soils differentiates farming systems along the gradient. It is also

reflected in interconnectedness between the regions in that events happening upland affects those

on lowland. High rainfall upland results in flooding plains.

Question: What were the criteria for choosing the action site among the 3 countries? It was noted

that despite the similarities between Ntcheu and Chipata, the two are different in terms of labour

availability. Moreover, one character of the system is complexity, with the current approach, it would

not be ideal to take lessons from Ntcheu and apply to Chipata. It was then suggested that Chipata

could be included as the action site.

Re: For 2015, start working together in small areas. Similar methods and approaches developed

could be used in future for areas with similar conditions. At present, lessons are drawn from

elsewhere such as the ICARDA-systems analyst and Multi agent simulation in West Africa.

Concern: Choice of changara ;;; not really a chinyanja (people don’t speak Chinyanja).

RE: It is the major part of Drylands and has the distinct livelihood system.

It was highlighted that the district has been sub-divided into two administrative units:

Malala/Changara. Hence there is need to locate exactly where the action site falls and change the

name if it happens to be in Malala.

Question: Definition of dryland. Ntcheu not dryland!!!

Re: The CGIAR RPs focus on two climatic zones: humid and drylands. The transition (sub-humid zone)

was left out. It has been included in the DS, to focus on ‘sustainable intensification’.

1.3b CRPDS_CT_P4 Changara action site by Sabine and Fernado

Changara is a quite interesting research area. It is a really remote and the institutional memory still

exists from remnants of war. Notably, there are harsh living conditions with no infrastructures as

people sell animals and crops in open space. Agricultural production is characterised by small fields

and low input usage. However, livestock production is quite high than continental average. Mortality

rates though are high necessitating incentives for people to be able to buy both food and feed. In the

current state, farmers may not manage as incomes are low.

The discovery of coal, of which Tete province supplies 25% of worlds demand, has increased the

demand for meat. The Government of Mozambique has put in place deliberate policy to ensure that

mines invest in agriculture. However, the Changara area has so far not benefited from these reforms.

Despite the challenges, the general trend in animal production is increasing (though some animals

such as goats and sheep are not registered). Other districts within Tete use national programs to

access markets and have good infrastructure, Changara is left out.

At local level, the challenge is that farmers are not in good position and there is a general lack of will

to participate in supply chains. Moreover, with limited infrastructure, remote areas are difficult to be

accessed by service providers. IRLI has allocated more staff on the ground to bridge the

communication and facilitate access.

In terms of institutional context, there are four government service units. There are four NGOs that

work with provincial directorate for agriculture. DANIDA is the major donor.

Question: Do farmers supplement feed?

Re: they do not. IRLI is introducing new fodder and creates linkages between farmers and companies

and government programs.

Question: what is the population of sheep?

RE: There are some though numbers are small, the estimate could be an underestimation as census

are not done. Sheep are not sold, mostly used for ceremonies.

Question: are there markets and agrodealers:

Re: there are temporary markets that take place 3 times a week during which farmers bring almost

all produce and livestock and sometimes big agrodealers come and sell merchandize. Some small

shops within the village also sell inputs. Noting huge investiment required in fertilizer, IRLI is

introducing other technologies: crop rotation,

1.4 CRPDS_CT_P4 Existing data and planned activities

1.4a CRPDS_CT_P4 Existing data by Lulseged: 1119

Soil health and landscape (8 sites)

Agronomic survey: compare yields among households (3 sites)

Socioeconomic survey (6 sites)

1.4b CRPDS_CT_P4 Existing data agricultural biodiversity by FRED: 1126

FGD (# EPAs)

Household survey in 6 EPA.

There is a challenge of getting production data as mostly it is aggregated at district and EPA level.

Data at farm/community level is not available?

From the preliminary analyses and field observations, it has been noted that despite being in similar

ecological zone, some areas such as Manjawira are dry/infertile while other parts such as

Shapevalley are dry/productive. It was then suggested that there is need for differentiated

interventions.

1.4c CRPDS_CT_P4 Agricultural water resources by Everisto:1134

The IWMI conducted baseline surveys on agricultural water management issues within CT.

From preliminary analyses, it has been noted that households face challenges in accessing

interventions, income, communication, extension service, ICT, but also have low social capital.

Lessons drawn from surveys were that farmers are innovating: gender groups come up with different

interventions. It was pointed out that farmers operate in systems mode. However, researchers go

with choices often limited to address the multitude of challenges that farmers face. Therefore, the

systems approach should not be about telling people how u r doing it, but people should see it

happening. Now the challenge for CRPDS is to prove the systems approach.

1.4d CRPDS_CT_P4 Data and planned activities in Changara by Sabine and Fernado

In Changara, the baseline surveys has been conducted and activities already outlines. Lessons have

been drawn from past projects on livestock, crop livestock interactions and sorghum.

Different approaches have been developed. For capacity development, IP has been found to be more

effective. With IP farmers have been moved from venerable to resilience and profitable state.

However, there are several different barriers that requires solutions. The project may not solve all,

hence the need for partnerships through IP.

It was also noted that among the crop livestock technologies, the project tries to engage farmers into

forest. Forest is considered an essential resource, it is in degraded state and efforts are required to

regenerate.

The studies conducted during the CRPDS include: 1) Goat value chain analysis to find best market

model; 2) Systems analysis: farm types were categorised into three categories - the resource poor

mainly in crop production, middle category of farmers that integrate crop and livestock and the rich

with intensified crop and livestock farming. Stepping up the resource poorwould call for

differentiated interventions required for the three categories. There is need to get them into high

level structures. 3. Bio-economic modelling

On gender, deliberate efforts are being made to engage women in IP.

Building on the past projects, the current follow up project for 2015-2018 aims at “nudging

sustainable transitions using IP and market oriented development”.

1.5 CRPDS_CT_p5 Reporting structure for CRP DS by Karin 1150

Structure: CGIAR>CRP DS...5 action sites and 8 centres being funded by 3 donors.

Question: where are the partners including local NGOs?

Re: May be they small to be included in the structure. It was however, noted that the local partners

for the IRTs and work with CGIAR centres.

1.6 CRPDS_CT_P: Change pathway

Socio-cultural elements and ecological elements influence (DS strategic gender research-drives transformation of gender roles) social status, social roles, gender roles, social networks whose tradeoffs drives (DS gender-responsive research-feedbacks into the system) gender relations, decision making, power relations and behaviour and results (DS responsive research-driving change) in vulnerability risks, distribution and livelihood opportunities. 1.7 CRPDS_CT_P: Innovation platforms by Sabine and Saskia, day 2 14:49

Process moving farmers form low productivity to higher levels through: experimentation, capacity

development, facilitation and mgt, comm. and Participatory M&E.

2. GROUP DISCUSSIONS

2.1 CRPDS_CT_D: mapping, who is doing what? By Sabine 1205

Instructions

Identify research and development activities, implementing organizations and major

outputs/outcomes

Map the activities by thematic areas ( technologies, institutions, governance and policies) and how

they are linked

Discuss partnerships, gaps and missing links for systems research and development

Results (Table 1)

Paradoxically, separate groups discussion the two sites came up with a list of 11

organisations/institutions operating within each. As seen in Table 1 there are more activities on

technologies but less on institutions and governance. It was also observed that the activities

identified are more inclined to IDO 6.

Action points:

There is need to link the activities to other IDOs.

In changara, the involvement of policy makers at IPs is happening, but this should be more strategic, in future..

2.2 CRPDS_CT_D: Differentiating livelihoods 1435-15:43

Instructions:

What are the main types of livelihoods at the Action Site?

Key differences may relate to geography, gender, wealth, ethnic group or other factors. In your group

discuss and decide on one or more ways of categorizing different types of livelihoods at the Action

Site.

For each livelihood group, identify the key challenges, and at least one opportunity for improving

livelihoods

Discuss how the challenges and opportunities for livelihoods differ for these different groups

Results (Table 2)

As indicated in table 2, the two discussion groups used different approaches indicating the

differences in livelihood strategies. However, the challenges faced by farmers in the two sites seem

to be similar ranging from decreasing plot sizes, poor extension/information service, lack of markets

and infrastructure, and low self esteem by farmers.

The Changara team focused more on commercial activities than on production for food. Main

differentiating factors include gender, wealth and age. Women are more in crop production while

men take care of animals, trading of livestock and engaged in off-farm activities. In terms of wealth,

the poorer are more engaged in cropping crops that are not for sale while the middle and and better

off are engaged in commercial activities. In terms of age, young people are more into cropping non-

cash crops and sale of livestock while in terms of ownership, the older own more livestock. In terms

of marketing the decisions are made by both husband and wife though men are the ones who take

the animals to the market and negotiate the price. It was highlighted for Changara that there are

only two extension officers for the entire district with huge farmer:extension ratio.

For Ntcheu transect, it was noted that that challenges on farm have higher impact on livelihoods

than off-farm activities. It was also observed that the district being more matrineal there are notable

gender differences in involvement in livelihood strategies. Women tend to focus on food while men

on cash/economic activities. It was also noted that farmers are delineated by wealth as low income

earners are engaged in charcoal, small stocks of livestock, vegetable production and ganyu while

those with high income have access to dambo and cultivate vegetables. Livestock is mainly done for

dairy, meat is not the major product and there is also a “unique goat”. It was also discussed that

current market system favours men. The markets are far and its only men who manage to travel long

distances cycling.

Action points:

In Changara, there is need to aggregate satellite marketing points

Rebuild dams that were poorly built by government.

Find a way of engaging mines to take on their social responsibility

2.3 CRPDS_CT_D: Trends and Drivers

Instructions

Identify major drivers and estimate trends by 2050, to understand how they might influence the

systems evolutions

Discuss overall direction (positive, negative, neutral) Write a short statement about the overall change Define key variables that are likely to affect the development Discuss the direction, magnitude and likely rate of change Describe the rationale for the changes

Results:

The results from this exersize further illustrated that changara is more commercial oriented than

Ntcheu. In Chanagra the major drivers included land and soil degradation, improved varieties and

breeds, export trade of livestock and agricultural policy while in Ntcheu, population, climate

variability, government policy and urbanization were seen as important ones. The future of Changara

is more likely to be dictated by the coal mining activity.

The group for Changara visualized a positive overall direction, but indicated that it will require early

appeal for investment and proactive engagement to prepare for what will happen after the closing of

the mine.

By 2050 Ntcheu will have faced many serious challenges. With resilence, agricultural productivity will

increase. Overall success will depend on policy and urbanization.

Questions:

1) On the timeframe, 2050 seem to be far? 2) how will the data be used as projections have

generally failed and some of the variables changed; 3) Could we try to look back and project future?

RE: Think out of the box and gave example of northern Malawi where people projected that livestock

production will double in future due to increasing population.

Action points:

2.4 CRPDS_CT_D: Influence diagrams

Instructions

Create an influence diagram showing the factors affecting livelihoods and influencing the challenges

and opportunities for rural livelihoods at the site.

Differentiate contributory and inhibitory causal relationships by using different colour arrows.

Contributory relationship: green or + sign

Inhibitory relationship: red or - sign

Place “livelihoods” at or near the centre of the diagram and the external drivers at the outside edges

Phrase relationship positively. Instead of “lack of inputslow yield” indicate “input yield”; but also try

to provide detail, instead of “climate variability poverty” indicate “climate variability production

Results:

For Changara livestock sales (Influence diagram A). the livestock sales would increase due to

increase in mining. Three areas to focus include: market, policies and land tenure. Extension

services negatively affect sales from livestock as there are only two officers at the moment for the

whole district. Gender is not a major issue as culturally people in Changara are Manyungwe

(Patrineal) and men dominate in selling livestock though decisions to sell are made by both husband

and wife.

For Ntcheu livestock and crop / off farm lowland (Influence diagram B), the major drivers include

bush fires that impact on livestock and inputs that impact greatly on crop yield. The crop livelihood

(Influence diagram C) is directly influenced by soil fertility, climate and pest and diseases. Gender

has both positive and negative effects and needs to be considered. Gender relations affect tenure,

access to inputs and market access.

Action points:

It was noted that gender is considered as cross cutting issue, and often overlooked. There is need to focus on direct effects and relations. The participants also indicated the need for verification of future visioning with farmers. Projections made by participants would be a dangerous attempt as they may not reflect the real challenges on the ground. It was also pointed that that there is need to assess impacts of policies on systems. For instance, policy analysis should focus on establishing evidence of interventions that enhance systems production and resilience.

2.5 CRPDS_CT_D: IP and networks

Instructions:

Decide the overall pathway/direction dryland systems (RP DS) research will contribute to

Which institutional structures/networks/partners will be needed (existing, new), at what levels and

doing what?

to facilitate the development at the action sites

((to coordinate research activities within RP DS ))

SWOT analysis for the most critical structures, with regards to stakeholder engagement and

successful implementation of activities.

Results:

3. IMPLICATIONS – POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS

See Annex 6.

Next meeting scheduled: Place, Date

Minutes taken by: Powell Mponela

Document approved by: _________________________________

List of Annexes

Annex 1 – Table 1 Mapping who is doing what for Changara and Ntcheu

Annex 2 – Table 2 Livelihoods clustering in Changara and Ntcheu

Annex 3 – Table 3 livelihood drivers and trends Annex 4 – Livelihood influence diagrams Annex 5 – IP and networks + swot analysis Annex 6 – Implications – possible action items

Annexes

Please paste below according to order above

Annex 1: Table 1 Mapping who is doing what for Changara and Ntcheu

Instituion Technologies Capacity Policy and governance

CHANGARA IWMI/ICRISAT With local extension on food feed

crops .legumes for soil fertility .improved crop management for sorghum .drought tolerant maize, cowpeas, groundnuts, pigeon peas .livestock feeding Rehabilitation of forage bank for local seed multiplication

Helpage,CCM,DANIDA Water harvesting Livestock New varieties of crops

Aceagrarios Veterinary drugs .Train farmers on drugs .Improved housing

DPA/SDAE Broilers Brahman

ICRISAT IIAM/BOKU The project engaged with existing IP Market study

Identify structures for institutional collaboration and communication NOTE: Involvement of policy makers at IPs is happening, but this should be more strategic, in future..

ITC/Eceagrarios Legalised the IP association

Future: Jindal is a large mine in Changara. They should commit to social corporate responsibility, but have not done so. They have been contacted by government. Vale mine in other areas has been improving livelihoods; lessons can be learned for Changara in future. China is opening other mines in Mufa Caconde. Branding the livestock from Changara is an option that is being tried in other areas. A new investor in Moatize buys livestock and labels for export. Gaps: Institutional linkages for cooperation and market development Government policies on livestock and crops: Government distribute seeds, farmers can grow these but have no markets. Livestock keepers don’t eat much meat. Can we work more closely with nutritionist for farmers to include animal protein. There are no studies on nutritious foods.

Ntcheu

Bioversity Agri-biodiversity assessment Manual and guidelines

IWMI Water/irrigation technologies Capacity for managing technologies

Land tenure

CIAT Integrated soil fertility testing and outscaling Sustainable land management

Farmer training

ICRAF Soil fertility management Fodder, Fruit

UNDP Governance and policy

LUANAR Capacity building

DARS Capacity building

TLC Capacity building Advocacy National task force

Chancellor college Capacity building

Soil health consortium

Policy and governance

District council Extension Land resource conservation department Forestry, Livestock, Irrigation

Other NGOs (local and international)

Major development partners

Annex 2: Table 2 Livelihoods clustering in Changara and Ntcheu

A. Changara

Gender Wealth Geography Age Challenges

Crop production and sales**

WM Middle to better off

All district All

Plot sizes, threat by expanding mines to decrease arable land Extension: farmer ratio skewed ( 2officers by district) Poor input markets (inputs at marara market 3 x a week, but do not get to distant farmers) Lack of motivation of extension officers and farmers, lack transport, lack of support and inspirations

Livestock production and sales**

Men take animals to markets, decision often jointly

Middle to better off

All district All, but older own more

Lack of market policies Lack of infrastructure, e.g. aggregation points but no holding facilities, scale

Cropping for others

WM Poorer All Mostly young

Neglect own farm

Trading livestock

Men Middle Close to markets

Young boys

Starting capital, credit, roads, poor networks

Off farm income**

Men All Mostly along road

Young-middle

Vegetables More by women, but also men

Middle Along rivers, seasonal

Middle Market linkages, processing, water

Opportunities

Operational livestock markets 3 times a week, but not good enough, need satellite aggregation points,

Water dams and harvesting, ability to build dams, sustainability as previous failed dams were poorly constructed, funded by

government or BTC for livestock

Mines – social responsibility – we need to get them involved

B. Ntcheu

Wat crops they grow Food / cash

Gender (matrineal)

location challenges

Maize-legume (rainfed)

Both Women Entire district • Productivity – Lack and access of farm inputs

– Climate variability : Flooding: affecting low altitude

– Small land holding size : Land pressure

– Soil erosion and degraded soil: Low soil fertility

– Credit

– labour – Deforestation

– Limited crop diversification • Marketing Limited access to markets: road network to

rural areas • House food sharing

Livestock (dairy and unique goat)

Cash Men Bwanje valley Theft

Small land holdings affecting pastureland

diseases due to poor veterinary services

Marketing

genetic potential

poor management

climate change

Tobbaco (rainfed) Cash Men Middle Similar to those faced by maize-legume

Cotton (rainfed) Cash Men Bwanje valley Similar to those faced by maize-legume

Vegetables, irish potato, onion and tomatoes (irrigartion and rainfed)

Cash Both Upper/middle Similar to those faced by maize-legume

Other livelihood sources/coping mechanisms for Ntcheu

Off-farm employment

Cash Men Poor payment Limited opportunities

Charcoal burning Cash Men Low altitude

Gathering of non- Food Women High altitude

timber forest products

Beer brewing Cash Women

Opportunities

Avialbility of markets

Wetlands – water resources for irrigation

Vegetable processing- value addition as Ntcheu town is growing fast due to opportunities in business and other sectors

. integrated crop-livestock system--- use of manure and to replenish soil and crop residues to feed animals

. SLM---legume, cereal, fertiliser tree fodder

. Breeding to improve genetic potential

. markets access—improve value chain

NB: current market system favours men. They can manage to travel long distances cycling

Annex 3: Table 3 livelihood drivers and trends

A. Changara

Indicators/ variables Direction Magnitude Rate of change Rationale

+ - = big, small %

Land and soil degradation increasing

(mines)

decreasing

(agriculture)

mining - big;

agriculture -

small

100% Mines do not invest in environmental rehabilitation;

In agriculture better land use and more knowledge

on environmental services

Agric. land size (ha/hh)

Herd size (TLU/hh)

Fertilizer use

Improved varieties / breeds increasing big 500% Currently extremely low

Livestock input uses

Livestock input prices

Livestock output prices

Trade - livestock exports increasing big 150% Revert from livestock imports to exports; human

population increasing & export to supply to world

market

Crop production trends

Livestock production trends increasing big 100% population,

50% productivity

market incentives, technologies,

small stock more than cattle

Agricultural policy -

amount of budget for

agriculture

increasing small 100% (from 7% to

15%)

livestock as source of national revenue

Mines will first expand tremendously, but by 2050 they will be depleted (estimates reserves for 20 to 25 years).

o Higher population density, more urbanization, attracted by the mines

o As less land will be available, the value of land will go up.

o The mines will attract investment, e.g. infrastructure, markets, services (stepping stone)

o After the mines will move to other areas, they will leave behind large sections of degraded land in Tete. Deforestation

and mine extraction enhance degradation.

A big dam will be build, Phanda Kua dam.

The livelihoods will change, as people move out of agriculture, and production to market systems will commercialize

The number of farming households will decrease, as people move out of agriculture. Farm households will have larger croplands.

They will produce more crops in a more intensive way, for food, feed and other uses.

Herd sizes will increase and farmers will also produce livestock in a more intensive way, following the increasing demand for

livestock products. They will grow more forages. Due to land scarcity they will also buy more supplementary feed, at affordable

prices. There will be changes in the feed industry, as truckloads of feed will be coming from outside of Tete.

Through growth in the livestock sector, Mozambique will emerge from importing livestock products to an export system, e.g. to Arab

countries or rest of the world. Changara is an area that might remain a producing ground for livestock, even after the mines are

gone, since livestock set the land in value.

How will communities in Changara be affected by the mines? There are mines in Changara and new ones are being established; they

have not yet committed to social corporate responsibility. ITC has been legalizing communities and their land.

Looking at the challenges of mines, we need to work even more at provincial level to raise alertness on how communities can be

protected in their rights, awareness creation, land use intensification now.

Mines have plans for the next years. These are with government and available.

Prepare for land use after the mines. Learning from South Africa we should start now to plan, develop and implement rehabilitation

strategies, e.g. grazing land for livestock.

The huge impact expected through mines might need us to review our research strategy. DS in CT is about sustainable

intensification. Will this be of priority, if we know that the mines will take off that land? Should we not talk about rehabilitation of

degraded land?

B. Ntcheu

Driver direction change magnitude rate of change

Population + large

climate variability + large

government policy +/- ?

markets + medium

technologies + ?

urbanisation + large

soil fertility

land sizes

education

dietary habits

overall +

Annex 4. Livelihood influence diagrams

A. Changara: Livestock sales

Policies on land tenure are not there. We need to work with government at provincial and national level and what needs to happen to

secure livelihoods and livestock production as major source, apart from crop production and off-farm income. Research can facilitate

such process, starting in Tete and Maputo – Saskia.

Markets are the ultimate driver. If established they can inform about veterinary and quality requirements (Gule).

What are key marketing policies?

Grading policy

Infrastructure created by government against taxation (fence, scale, disease control, insurance)

The infrastructure should be managed by the local association, AAPACHIMA. Revenue should be used to pay back loans and invest in

maintenance and development.

What research should we do? What does it mean to us? What should we look for?

Better understanding of gender relations and cultural aspects

Trajectory of systems components and implications, including influence of mines

Urbanization – what will it mean

Policies – where will we go? Realignment of constitutions, etc

What parameters are we looking for? What are our entry points for engagement?

Strategies, partnerships

Everisto: Gender was not incorporated as it is a cross cultural issue and thereby lost. How can we maintain systems approach, and

integrate key components?

Godfrey: Take the pictures and discuss with people on the ground to see whether the vision relates to reality.

Sabine: Engage with policy makers across sites.

Nelson: take inventories with policies. Assess impact of existing policies.

Regina: Important is to have insights to the system and how it works.

Total land care: Finding core livelihoods and structures that lead to that. Find areas of interventions. Privatize based on areas of

interventions.

Research activity: Convert policy influencing in researchable area and set of question.

Ethiopia: Want an expert on mentoring policy and impact, develop an approach on conveying research to policy makers.

Governance structures at local level. What are the structures at local level? What changes should take place for programs to succeed?

Analysis how markets work? We have done value chain analyses in Changara, now engage farmers with NGO to explore market

opportunities. Can we repeat for Ntcheu.

Re-examination of our mind sets.

Social relations

In Ntcheu women more empowered. What can we do to improve gender relations. Will only men benefit from markets?

Do we start to mess things up, if we bring interventions in from other areas?

B. Ntcheu lower crop-livestock

C. Ntcheu crop dominated livelihood

Annex 5. IP and networks

A. Changara

Sabine/Saskia

B. Ntcheu

Level Institutional structures/Forums/ Platforms/Networks Partners

Local level Area Dev’t Cttee Village Dev’t Cttee Farmer clubs EPA DAO

Concern U. TLC Africare Hunger Project WV

District level Local government (District Council) District Dev’t Cttee

NASFAM Concern U. TLC Africare Hunger Project WV Media

National level DARS, DAES. LRCD, DAHI, DCP, DoI, National Statistics Office National Conservation Agriculture Task Force Soil Health Consortium Legume Development Platform Cotton Development Trust Tobacco Assoc of Malawi ASSMAG

Land Resource Centre NASFAM UNDP FUM, RUMARK WB Monsanto ACE, Agora, CISANET, CEPA LUNAR

SWOT analysis of one key structure/forum/platform

DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Strengths Weaknesses

Government goodwill Bureaucratic

Operationalization Low capacity

Multi-stakeholder Low participation of community members

Sustainability Parallel governance structures

Opportunities Threats

Connecting w. District Dev’t Plans Political interference

Pooling resources / leverage Vested interests

Increasing sense of ownership

Assist w. enforcing government policy

Formulation of by-laws

IMPLICATIONS

Facilitate creation of IP at District level

DDC is still a key partner.

Implementation at local level. Representatives from local level participate in district

level IP

22 drylandsystems.cgiar.org

Annex 6. IMPLICATIONS – POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS

ACTION ITEMS

ACTION ITEM WHO WHEN

Take the systems model to the farmers and other stakeholders. Verification

exercise.

Changara – Sabine,

Godfrey

Ntcheu – CIAT/Bunda

By May

Document a methodology for doing systems diagrams w. farmers and other stakeholders

Lance By March

How to engage in policy? (Inventory of policies has been done. Now…)

o Assess impact of existing policy (incl. extension policy).

IWMI/ICRAF - Everisto May

o Evidence of the impact of interventions. (Work with partners on this).

o Investigate impact of IPs Changara - Sabine

o Need to know how to engage.

Investigate IPs and partnerships as a researchable phenomenon.

o Manual/working paper on IPs Sabine/Saskia/Godfrey

(w. Nelson, Joyce,

Henry)

April

o Establish appropriate partnerships (incl. for advocacy).

Value chain analysis.

o … in Ntcheu on livestock (and compare to Changara)

o … in Ntcheu on vegetables &

o … in Ntcheu on seed systems

o Contribute analysis of role seed in fodder production

Saskia & Godfrey to

carry this forward w.

ICRISAT

CIAT/TLC/IIAM /

Bioversity - Philip

May

May

23 drylandsystems.cgiar.org

ICRAF/Land Resource

Centre/CIAT/ILRI -

Enoch

ICRAF / ILRI - Joyce

May

July

Research on local governance (what needs to change in local governance?).

Market analysis (esp. livestock markets)

o For Changara (already being done – needs to be shared)

o Repeat for Ntcheu?

Re-examination of our mindset.

Social-ecological typology of farmers (Ntcheu)

CIAT/Bioversity/IWMI July

All partners working in Changara come together to do joint planning

Sabine tonight

All partners working in Ntcheu come together to do joint planning

Lulseged. All Centres. April

Joint data analysis and reports. Lulseged. All CG

Centres.

May –

prelim

Sept. -

final

Strategic gender research – common instruments

Everisto May