Common bean is a major food and cash crop for more than 90% of smallholder farmers in Burundi. Beans provide 20% of required calories and 50% of proteins, and are an entry point to tackle food insecurity, poverty and malnutrition.
The current average bean consumption is about 30 kg per person, per year.
However, Burundi also has high prevalence of malnutrition including micro-nutrient deficiencies - about 58% of children under five years are stunted, 56% are anemic, 35% are underweight and 7% are wasted. In addition, Zinc deficiency affects about 47% of the population.
Prompted by the need to address these constraints, the High Iron Beans Compact of Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation (TAAT) is set to address these micro-nutrient deficiencies in Burundi through scaling of three new High Iron Bean (HIB) varieties - MAC 44, RWV 1129 and MOORE88002.
The Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, working in partnership with the Institute of Agricultural Science of Burundi (ISABU), is promoting these three varieties alongside Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs), nutrition education and processed bean products.
Key channels for seed distribution include Confédération des Associations des Producteurs Agricoles pour le Développement (CAPAD), Catholic Relief Services (CRS), World Vision, Tworore Tuiguze Imbuto, Terimbere Murimunyi, and Appui au Développement Intégral et la Solidarité sur les Collines (ADISCO).
Sponsored by the African Development Bank as part of its Feed Africa Initiative, TAAT’s main objective is to improve the business of agriculture across Africa by raising agricultural productivity, mitigating risks and promoting diversification and processing in 18 agricultural value chains within eight priority intervention areas.
The programme increases agricultural productivity through the deployment of proven and high-performance agricultural technologies at scale along selected nine commodity compacts which include High Iron Bean.
These work with six enabler compacts addressing transversal issues such as soil fertility management, water management, capacity development, policy support, attracting African youth in agribusiness and fall armyworm response.
Led by Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, the TAAT High Iron Bean Compact's interventions build on the Pan Africa Bean Research Alliance (PABRA) model and the “Bean Corridor” as a market-driven approach to transformation at scale
Within one year of implementation, the TAAT-HIB Compact had catalyzed production of over 300 MT of breeder and basic seed and more than 700 MT of certified seed reaching close to 40,000 farmers. The early maturing and higher yielding HIB varieties have seen bean productivity in the interventions rise to 1.8 tons/ ha against an average of 0.75 tons/ ha in the region.
The HIB Compact has also catalyzed private sector investments in the commercialization of HIB products that are healthy and easy to cook.
Totahara, one of the processors of HIB value-added products in Burundi started out in the backyard of Mme. Christella’s Ndayishimiye, using open firewood to roast beans and tarpaulins for drying. She has since expanded to open up a factory that is distributing up to 110 tons of bean flour per month throughout Burundi and neighbouring countries.
Totahara has scaled up production and now supplies to 40 retail outlets in Burundi and exports to countries such as D.R Congo and Rwanda. Totahara flour – a porridge flour that incorporates HIBs - has become popular among development partners that focus on child nutrition. The use of the flour in 22 schools resulted in reduction of stunting levels from 58% to 52%.
“Since I started the factory, I have employed 12 people on permanent contract and have 30 youth distributors. My supportive husband has also joined the team and works full-time in the business. From one shop, I am currently distributing the Totahara flour to 40 other shops and also work with the Ministry of Health and NGOs such as World Vision who work on nutrition. It is not easy being a successful businesswoman in a male dominated business field, but learning, consistency and commitment is my key to business success” says Christella, the owner of Totahara.
The TAAT HIB Compact envisages that through public-private partnerships, bean farmers (including women and youth) will have access to better quality seed and complementary productivity-enhancement technologies.
Synergies are being built with development partners for up-scaling these technologies in line with the Feed Africa imperatives
PAMACC News: The Covid-19 crisis has put a spotlight on the global health science community. Rapid requests for scientific evidence about the virus have spread and health scientists have become more publicly prominent. Advisory councils have been set up (such as in France and South Africa) and renowned scientists have directly advised governments (such as in the UK and Kenya).
But the reality is more nuanced than this. To reuse the words of the UNEP Chief Scientist at an Adaptation Futures webinar in April, there have been some “disconnections between the science and political decisions.” Reflecting the differences in timeframes and priorities between the need to gather solid evidence on one hand and the need to make immediate decisions on the other, conflicts have emerged with decisions opposing the scientific advice (such as in the US), scientists being sacked (such as in Kenya) and even the World Health Organization being challenged for its handling of the crisis.
What is clear is that the relation between science and policy seems to have reached a crossroads, challenging ever more the role that science plays or should play for society.
During the Petersberg Climate Dialogue XI in April, the German Federal Environment Minister stated that “we are learning to listen to the scientists.” Will this changed relationship provide opportunities for more concerted climate action?
Science and the climate change crisis
Many parallels have been drawn between the health crisis and the climate crisis. On social media, the climate change community has joyfully compared the new prominent role for science given by policy-makers with the IPCC, wondering if the same weight could be given to climate science informing policy.
Not long ago, local policy-makers asked me what the research community could bring to policy in the context of climate change, a question that somewhat surprised me.
Having worked in a research environment for over five years as part of UMFULA, an applied research project focusing on co-producing climate information for adaptation in vulnerable countries in central and southern Africa, the answer to this question was very clear to me.
UMFULA and how science can inform policy
UMFULA, and its wider Future Climate for Africa programme, has at its core the objective of improving science in terms of climate processes and projections and climate impacts on the African continent to inform policy for more sustainable development and greater resilience to climate change.
For five years, we have worked in partnership with policy and decision-makers in Malawi and Tanzania. By better understanding their needs, we have been more effective in producing information that is useful and potentially useable in the sectors of water, energy, food and biodiversity. In Malawi we co-developed future scenarios of water availability and discussed management options in terms of infrastructure operation and water allocation, taking into account demand from different sectors.
As a result of the trust built through this process, we had the opportunity to inform national policy processes in Malawi, providing advice to the government on climate information, participating in the National Technical Committee on Climate Change and providing inputs to draft policy documents.
Revisiting the relationship between science and policy for climate change
While considerable efforts have been put into this collaboration with policy-makers, and progress has certainly been made – after five years UMFULA has still only reached the tip of the iceberg.
One could ask, what would it take to strengthen how science and policy interact? The research community has touched on the question, for example
n the context of the IPCC and its various reports requested by and targeted at policy-makers via the UNFCCC. Both parties need to play their part to open the way for a renewed collaboration.
What can the science community do?
To better engage with and be relevant to policy-makers, Howarth and Painter (2016) highlight how important it is to have research outputs that are clear, succinct, more accessible and contextualized. Enabling this requires open channels of communication between researchers and policy-makers. Ways of engagement have been discussed at length within FCFA and in particular various co-production methods have been tested. UMFULA has also explored how to make climate information useful, useable and used in policy and practice in the sub-Saharan context. More on this will be published later this year.
But perhaps before engagement can take place, there needs to be a conversation about the role of research in policy. In this context, Hulme (2016) distinguishes the “curiosity-driven research” from the “research oriented towards decision support for the large and diverse constituency of stakeholders” such as in support of climate services. He also adds a word of caution to those embarking on the latter in the context of the IPCC, not to think naively they could make a difference to the world of politics.
Curiosity-driven research is not connected to policy priorities and demand but instead explores unchartered territories, can lead to innovation and ultimately make important breakthroughs for society.
Policy-oriented research doesn’t always impact policy development, especially as there are many considerations policy-makers have to work with. But a first step would be to recognize that contribution to policy development takes many forms and that it is not always apparent or immediate.
There is value in collaborating with policy and practice not just for society but for research itself if our minds move away from the linear approach of science into policy to a mutual learning exercise on a more equal footing.
What can the policy community do?
The case of recognition can also be made to the policy community. Recognising what science has to offer is key, not only information on temperature changes or weather extremes but also solutions-oriented knowledge such as on climate-resilient development pathways or poverty reduction. Interdisciplinary programmes, of which FCFA is one of many examples, attempt to address the difficulty of making science more applicable in a complex socio-economic system.
Recognition is also about what science cannot bring. Climate change, like Covid-19, is a highly complex, often called wicked problem, and it faces a significant level of uncertainty. Rainfall projections have been a challenge for example, but there are many areas of agreement in climate models that show the scale of the crisis we are facing and open doors for concrete actions. But not being 100% sure of exactly what will happen in the future is no excuse for inaction. There are also robust methods to work with uncertainty, as we have done in UMFULA. Uncertainty has never been an obstacle to act and make decisions in other sectors and as we have seen with the Covid-19 crisis. It should also not be a reason for inaction on climate change.
Preserving human lives
The current health crisis has taught us many lessons but is also giving an opportunity to rethink how science and policy can work together to address more effectively a global crisis. Preserving human lives has been at the top of all countries’ political agendas for the last two months. Addressing climate change is equally about preserving human lives, as well as livelihoods and our economy. Calls and examples of collaboration and solidarity have multiplied. We have shown we can do it with the Covid-19, it is time we do it with climate change.
This article was written by Estelle Rouhaud, previously at the London School of Economics and UMFULA Project Manager.
PAMACC News: The Covid-19 crisis has put a spotlight on the global health science community. Rapid requests for scientific evidence about the virus have spread and health scientists have become more publicly prominent. Advisory councils have been set up (such as in France and South Africa) and renowned scientists have directly advised governments (such as in the UK and Kenya).
But the reality is more nuanced than this. To reuse the words of the UNEP Chief Scientist at an Adaptation Futures webinar in April, there have been some “disconnections between the science and political decisions.” Reflecting the differences in timeframes and priorities between the need to gather solid evidence on one hand and the need to make immediate decisions on the other, conflicts have emerged with decisions opposing the scientific advice (such as in the US), scientists being sacked (such as in Kenya) and even the World Health Organization being challenged for its handling of the crisis.
What is clear is that the relation between science and policy seems to have reached a crossroads, challenging ever more the role that science plays or should play for society.
During the Petersberg Climate Dialogue XI in April, the German Federal Environment Minister stated that “we are learning to listen to the scientists.” Will this changed relationship provide opportunities for more concerted climate action?
Science and the climate change crisis
Many parallels have been drawn between the health crisis and the climate crisis. On social media, the climate change community has joyfully compared the new prominent role for science given by policy-makers with the IPCC, wondering if the same weight could be given to climate science informing policy.
Not long ago, local policy-makers asked me what the research community could bring to policy in the context of climate change, a question that somewhat surprised me.
Having worked in a research environment for over five years as part of UMFULA, an applied research project focusing on co-producing climate information for adaptation in vulnerable countries in central and southern Africa, the answer to this question was very clear to me.
UMFULA and how science can inform policy
UMFULA, and its wider Future Climate for Africa programme, has at its core the objective of improving science in terms of climate processes and projections and climate impacts on the African continent to inform policy for more sustainable development and greater resilience to climate change.
For five years, we have worked in partnership with policy and decision-makers in Malawi and Tanzania. By better understanding their needs, we have been more effective in producing information that is useful and potentially useable in the sectors of water, energy, food and biodiversity. In Malawi we co-developed future scenarios of water availability and discussed management options in terms of infrastructure operation and water allocation, taking into account demand from different sectors.
As a result of the trust built through this process, we had the opportunity to inform national policy processes in Malawi, providing advice to the government on climate information, participating in the National Technical Committee on Climate Change and providing inputs to draft policy documents.
Revisiting the relationship between science and policy for climate change
While considerable efforts have been put into this collaboration with policy-makers, and progress has certainly been made – after five years UMFULA has still only reached the tip of the iceberg.
One could ask, what would it take to strengthen how science and policy interact? The research community has touched on the question, for example
n the context of the IPCC and its various reports requested by and targeted at policy-makers via the UNFCCC. Both parties need to play their part to open the way for a renewed collaboration.
What can the science community do?
To better engage with and be relevant to policy-makers, Howarth and Painter (2016) highlight how important it is to have research outputs that are clear, succinct, more accessible and contextualized. Enabling this requires open channels of communication between researchers and policy-makers. Ways of engagement have been discussed at length within FCFA and in particular various co-production methods have been tested. UMFULA has also explored how to make climate information useful, useable and used in policy and practice in the sub-Saharan context. More on this will be published later this year.
But perhaps before engagement can take place, there needs to be a conversation about the role of research in policy. In this context, Hulme (2016) distinguishes the “curiosity-driven research” from the “research oriented towards decision support for the large and diverse constituency of stakeholders” such as in support of climate services. He also adds a word of caution to those embarking on the latter in the context of the IPCC, not to think naively they could make a difference to the world of politics.
Curiosity-driven research is not connected to policy priorities and demand but instead explores unchartered territories, can lead to innovation and ultimately make important breakthroughs for society.
Policy-oriented research doesn’t always impact policy development, especially as there are many considerations policy-makers have to work with. But a first step would be to recognize that contribution to policy development takes many forms and that it is not always apparent or immediate.
There is value in collaborating with policy and practice not just for society but for research itself if our minds move away from the linear approach of science into policy to a mutual learning exercise on a more equal footing.
What can the policy community do?
The case of recognition can also be made to the policy community. Recognising what science has to offer is key, not only information on temperature changes or weather extremes but also solutions-oriented knowledge such as on climate-resilient development pathways or poverty reduction. Interdisciplinary programmes, of which FCFA is one of many examples, attempt to address the difficulty of making science more applicable in a complex socio-economic system.
Recognition is also about what science cannot bring. Climate change, like Covid-19, is a highly complex, often called wicked problem, and it faces a significant level of uncertainty. Rainfall projections have been a challenge for example, but there are many areas of agreement in climate models that show the scale of the crisis we are facing and open doors for concrete actions. But not being 100% sure of exactly what will happen in the future is no excuse for inaction. There are also robust methods to work with uncertainty, as we have done in UMFULA. Uncertainty has never been an obstacle to act and make decisions in other sectors and as we have seen with the Covid-19 crisis. It should also not be a reason for inaction on climate change.
Preserving human lives
The current health crisis has taught us many lessons but is also giving an opportunity to rethink how science and policy can work together to address more effectively a global crisis. Preserving human lives has been at the top of all countries’ political agendas for the last two months. Addressing climate change is equally about preserving human lives, as well as livelihoods and our economy. Calls and examples of collaboration and solidarity have multiplied. We have shown we can do it with the Covid-19, it is time we do it with climate change.
This article was written by Estelle Rouhaud, previously at the London School of Economics and UMFULA Project Manager.
NAIROBI, Kenya (PAMACC News) - The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has invested its second tranche of $2.5 Million to boost the share capital of the Agri-Business Capital Fund (ABC Fund).
The ABC Fund is an innovative initiative by AGRA, the European Commission through its EU-ACP agreement, the Luxemburg Government and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)to support sustainable and inclusive agricultural value chains for smallholder farmers and small-to-medium sized rural agribusinesses (SMEs) in developing countries.
“ABC Fund is a global facility but 80% of the investments will be made in Sub Sahara Africa,” said Hedwig Siewertsen, the Head Inclusive Finance at AGRA.
The fund is composed of different types of shares with different risk and return profiles.
According to Siewertsen, the funds come in form of loans and equity, specifically tailored to the needs of smallholder farmers and agri-SMEs.
“To reach them most effectively, these products are made available either directly to farmers’ organizations and SMEs, or indirectly via financial institutions,” she said.
The main focus of the money is on investments that can drive economic and social development and generate economic opportunities for smallholder farmers, in particular women and young people, with an aim of improving livelihoods of more than 4 million individuals over a predetermined period of 10 years.
According to plan, the tranche from AGRA will be used to provide loans to agricultural SMEs that service smallholder farmers and have a business track record of minimum 3 years with a turnover exceeding USD200,000 with a financial need of more than USD 250,000substantiated by a business plan.
It will also lend to financial intermediaries that have an agricultural portfolio targeting smallholder farmers. Such organizations can apply for the funds through the fund managers who are Bamboo Capital Partners based in Nairobi, and Injaro Investment Limited which is based in Accra and Abidjan.
So far, the current 10 approved investments are located in Ivory Coast, Mali, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya and Uganda, and will benefit over 15,000 smallholder farmers in these countries.
Targeted entities for the funds include producers of primary agricultural products, input suppliers such as manufacturers or distributors of seeds, companies that produce, maintain or operate storage facilities, and service companies, traders, veterinarians, mechanization.
Other beneficiaries include aggregators and/or processors of primary agricultural products, logistics companies that transport and handle primarily agricultural goods, and finally, processors of secondary agricultural goods/ food products.
“Investing in smallholder farmers and agri-SMEs enables them to increase their productivity, improve their livelihoods, strengthen their resilience to climate change, and better benefit from participation in value chains,” said Siewertsen noting that targeted investment will help generate employment and economic opportunities for millions of rural women and the youth.
This comes at a time national, regional and global food markets are growing to feed a swelling world population and meet increasing demand for more diverse and sophisticated food products, thereby presenting huge opportunities for smallholder farmers and agri-SMEs.
This is the second tranche AGRA has invested in the ABC fund. The first tranche of investment of a similar amount was done last year.
