5. Country CSA
Programme
I. Preface by MoA &
MoE
II. Executive Summary
III. Situation Analysis
IV. Vision & Objectives
V. Results Area 1:
Productivity
VI. Results Area 2:
Resilience
VII.Results Area 3:
Mitigation co-benefits
VIII.Coordination
IX. Financing
X. Monitoring, reporting
& verification
6. Recommendation 1: Ensure an ‘authorizing
environment’ for planning processes
Challenge: Integrate
diverse & rep. opinions
- Government (MoA,
MoE, Finance, Met, etc.)
- NGOs
- Researchers
- Farmer groups
- Private sector
7. Recommendation 2: Develop creatively
facilitated process eliciting innovative thinking
Challenge: Thinking big
and broad
- Programs not projects
- Range of options
8. Lesson 3: Timelines challenge the ability to
develop evidence-based planning
Challenge: Lack of
evidence base
- Avoiding wish lists
- Setting priorities
CSA is catching on like wildfire and becoming the hallmark for policies and programs.
For example:
GASCA: 500 million farmers
NEPAD: 25 million farmers
Reaching these types of figures would require mobilization of a massive scientific and development effort
Development activities are based on a fundamental assumption that there is a significant scientific basis of CSA.
That is there there is a basis for improved practices and
That there is a basis for synergies among the three components of CSA
We are attempting to answer that question: What is the scientific basis for CSA?
Over the past year, ICRAF and CCAFS have tried to organize the available information on CSA by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
We looked at approximately 65 field level practices and 15 indicators of performance. A practice here is from the farmers perspective (something he or she would implement on their farm). What that means is we are looking at 65 practices at the level of ‘leguminous intercropped agroforestry’ not aggregate practices like agroforestry itself. as leguminous intercropped will have a much different impact than border planting with timber species.
1. We searched Web of Science with general and discpline oriented keywords and returned 144,000 possible papers.
2. Abstracts and titles were then reviewed against inclusion criteria that included things such as taking place in a developing country, a baseline/control and improved practice and then we had 16,254 candidate papers. Papers were screened by person with at least an MS in a relevant field and some were in the middle of PHD
3. We then reviewed the full text of these papers to be sure they met the criteria and we believe there will be about 6100 papers (there are about 3000 papers left to screen that we are having trouble getting access to). We have extracted data from 1,200 of these papers so far and QA/QC only 150 of those. Extrapolations based on our current rate of data inclusion, we expect the final database to be approximately 120,000 disappoints.