Building an Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa Building AGRA... · 2013-03-14 · Building an Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa ... linkages occur through demand from

Building an Alliance for a GreenRevolution in Africa

GARY TOENNIESSEN,a AKINWUMI ADESINA,a,b AND JOSEPH DEVRIESa,b

aThe Rockefeller Foundation, New York, New York, USAbAlliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, Nairobi, Kenya

Most of Africa’s people live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Thesepredominantly small-scale farmers face many challenges, including food insecurity, rising poverty,and natural resource degradation. To increase the productivity, profitability, and sustainability oftheir farms, they need greater access to affordable yield-enhancing inputs, including well-adaptedseeds and new methods for integrated soil fertility management, as well as to output markets wherethey can convert surplus production into cash. To address these needs, the Rockefeller Foundationand the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation established the Alliance for a Green Revolution inAfrica (AGRA). AGRA is now African led and is working within the context of the comprehensiveagricultural development program established by Africa’s leaders. From offices in Nairobi, Kenya,and Accra, Ghana, AGRA will support work across all key aspects of the African agricultural valuechain to help millions of small-scale farmers and their families lift themselves out of poverty andhunger.

Key words: agriculture; economic development; crops; soils; fertilizer; markets

Importance of Agriculture in Africa

Agriculture is critical for both human welfare andeconomic growth in Africa. In sub-Saharan Africa,roughly two-thirds of the population live in rural ar-eas and are dependent on agriculture for their liveli-hoods; nearly half live in extreme poverty, earningless than $1/day; and one-third are undernourished.1

Most of this poverty and hunger is rural, and the rootcause is lack of sufficient food production and incomegeneration from small-scale farming. Low farm pro-ductivity in Africa has many causes, including use oftraditional crop varieties, increasingly depleted soils,shrinking plots of land, scarce and unreliable watersupply, crop losses from pests and diseases, inequitableland-distribution patterns, inefficient and unfair mar-kets, and poor agricultural and transportation infras-tructures. Yet poor rural families in Africa have few,if any, good non–agriculture-dependent livelihood op-tions. In the poorest countries, such as Malawi, morethan 90% of the population depends on small-scalefarming for their survival (TABLE 1).

Address for correspondence: Gary Toenniessen, The Rockefeller Foun-dation, 420 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10018. Voice: 212-852-8336; fax:212-852-8442.

[email protected]

Agriculture currently contributes 30%–50% of na-tional incomes in sub-Saharan Africa and can generateconsiderably greater income and stimulate economicgrowth. In fact, in agrarian societies, such as thosethat predominate in Africa, agricultural developmentis an essential prerequisite to overall national economicdevelopment. Agriculture significantly affects broadernational economies through forward and backwardlinkages and consumption linkages.2 Forward linkagesexist because agriculture supplies farm outputs andraw materials to the nonagricultural sector, especiallyfor agroprocessing and marketing activities. Backwardlinkages occur through demand from the agriculturalsector for farm inputs, finance, and other services. Con-sumption linkages occur because higher incomes in theagricultural sector spur demand for consumer goodsand services that are produced in the nonagriculturalsector. Agriculture serves many purposes, includingthe provision of food and fiber; import substitutionand conservation of foreign exchange through domes-tic food production; release of labor into the industrialsector; provision of raw materials for industrial growth;lowering of food prices, thereby raising real wages;and generation of employment. Sustained economicgrowth will not occur in Africa unless farm produc-tivity and food production from agriculture increasesignificantly. As farm productivity and profitability in-crease, farm families have greater real incomes that

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1136: 233–242 (2008). C© 2008 New York Academy of Sciences.doi: 10.1196/annals.1425.028 233

234 Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

TABLE 1. Importance of agriculture (2000)

Population engaged Agricultural laborRegion in agriculture (%) (% of total labor)

Sub-Saharan 61 63Africa (SSA)

Northern SSA 77 78Eastern SSA 79 80Southern SSA 70 72Central and 51 52

Western SSASouth Asia 54 59East Asia 60 62Latin America 21 20Industrial countries 4 3

Source: FAOSTAT.

they can allocate between food and other needs, in-cluding health care and education. And when farmfamilies are more productive, wealthier, healthier, andbetter educated, they have greater opportunities for off-farm employment and entrepreneurship that can spureconomic growth in other sectors. Because agriculturehas yet to become an engine of economic growth inAfrica, urbanization is occurring without a reductionin poverty.

The Challenge

The low performance of agriculture in Africa is atthe heart of its food insecurity and slow economicgrowth. Cereal yields in Africa are a quarter of theglobal average. Despite periodic local progress, aver-age yields for sub-Saharan Africa have not increasedfor decades, whereas yields in Asia and Latin Americahave shown a steady increase. Africa has tried to keepup with its growing population’s demand for more foodby significantly expanding the area of production, thuscontributing to deforestation, and by reducing fallowperiods, thus contributing to land degradation. Morethan three-quarters of the farmland in sub-SaharanAfrica has been depleted of basic plant nutrients, andfarmers increasingly face severe soil fertility problems.Feeding most of the poor and vulnerable populationsin Africa, while preserving the natural resource baseand the environment, is one of the most pressing de-velopment challenges of the 21st century.

The challenge is serious because Africa’s popula-tion has already exceeded the productive capacity ofthe continent’s current food production systems, andpopulation growth rates remain high. By 2020, thepopulation of sub-Saharan Africa is expected to growto nearly 1 billion. Dire consequences for food security

are projected. The International Food Policy ResearchInstitute predicts that Africa will probably continue tobe the “troubled region” in terms of imbalance be-tween food demand and supply.3 Their projectionssuggest that Africa is the only region that will expe-rience major food shortages and where malnutritionis projected to rise over the next 20 years. Because ofpoor performance in its agricultural sector, Africa’sannual food imports are projected to rise from thecurrent $6.5 billion to $11 billion by 2020, with theeconomic, social, and political costs of relying on im-ported food being high. Clearly, much more needs to bedone by African governments, the international com-munity, and the private sector to reverse these trends bystimulating gains in agricultural productivity as the ba-sis for food security, poverty reduction, and economicgrowth.4

The First Green RevolutionBypassed Africa

The Green Revolution was one of the great techno-logical success stories of the second half of the 20th cen-tury. In many developing countries of Asia and LatinAmerica, the genetic improvement of staple food crops,combined with complementary agronomic practices,supportive policies, and strengthened institutions, en-abled overall food production to keep pace with popu-lation growth while both more than doubled. Modernvarieties first introduced into South Asia in the 1960swere planted on about 80% of the cereal area in Southand East Asia by 2000. Over the same period, averageyields roughly tripled.

When food production rises through such increasesin land and labor productivity, the rural poor gain.Thus, the benefits of the Green Revolution reachedmany of the world’s poorest people and the propor-tion of the population in Asia that is undernourisheddeclined from 41% in 1960 to 16% in 2000.1 Mas-sive famines that had been predicted for the world’stwo most populous countries, India and China, wereaverted. And, following the example set by all theworld’s developed countries in earlier decades, the in-creased productivity and profitability of Asia’s small-scale farms helped to kick-start the overall economicdevelopment that continues in that region today.5

In contrast to Asia and Latin America, Africa has notexperienced a sustained Green Revolution despite con-siderable funding and effort aimed at promoting agri-cultural development on the continent. Increases incrop yields have occurred in Africa but in recent yearshave tended to be project specific with little farmeradoption of yield-enhancing technologies beyond the

Toenniessen et al.: Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa 235

FIGURE 1. For the past four decades, cereal yields in sub-Saharan Africa have been stagnant and per capita foodproduction has declined. The right panel shows the % increase or decrease from 1961 which was assigned 100.

project’s geographic focus and time frame. The condi-tions for improving agricultural production in Africaare substantially different from and more challengingthan those that existed in Asia in the 1960s. Rain-fall is often too little or too much and erratic, thereis little irrigated land, the rural population is moredispersed, labor is scarce and labor-saving mechaniza-tion is mostly absent, the cost of inputs is high, andthere are few roads and railroads providing access tomarkets. Africa also has a much more diverse set ofagroecologies and cropping systems than Asia. Con-sequently, higher-yielding varieties developed by in-ternational centers and others have tended to havea limited range of influence. In fact, the increases inproduction that have occurred in Africa are largelythe result of expanding the area committed to cropproduction rather than increases in yields (productionper unit area). Between 1961 and 2001, for example,cereal production in sub-Saharan Africa did increasefrom 31 million to 77 million tons, but more than 90%of the increase was due to expansion of the area undercultivation. This increase has led to a rate of defor-estation two times the global average. Over the sametime frame, the population of sub-Saharan Africa morethan tripled to nearly 700 million, one-third of whomare now undernourished. Food production has not keptpace with population growth, and Africa remains theonly region where average yields have been stagnantand food production per capita has steadily declined(FIG. 1).

The type of Green Revolution that rapidly spreadacross Asia, raised agricultural productivity, and laidthe foundation for broader economic growth has, todate, bypassed Africa. The “one size fits all” approachthat worked so well for the vast irrigated regions of Asia

is simply not appropriate for the highly diverse rain-fedfarming systems of Africa. What Africa needs has beencalled a “rainbow” of crop improvement revolutionsthat combine productivity growth for many differentcrops and place greater emphasis on farmer participa-tion, local adaptation, strengthening national and lo-cal institutions, and the building of agricultural valuechains that enables farmers to generate profits fromsurplus production.6 With such locally well-adaptedinterventions, most African farmers have the land as-sets adequate to provide food security and to rise abovesubsistence farming. To do so profitably, they need tointensify production by combining genetic and agroe-cological technologies that require only small amountsof additional labor and capital, and they need greateraccess to markets.7

Building on the RockefellerFoundation Model in Africa

The Rockefeller Foundation has a long history ofhelping to build the national and international researchresources necessary to generate and disseminate agri-cultural interventions that can increase the productiv-ity, profitability, and sustainability of small-scale farmsin developing countries. For many years, the founda-tion’s agricultural funding has included a componentin Africa. The successes and failures of that work haveled to a better understanding of the diverse agricul-tural systems on the continent and of the special needsof African farmers and the agencies and institutionsthat serve them. Drawing on lessons learned from thisexperience, the foundation decided in 1999 that thetime was right to shift most of its agricultural fund-ing to Africa and to begin implementing an expanded


FIGURE 2. Theory of change.

program on the ground from its field office in Nairobi.The program strategy is based on a rather simple the-ory of change referred to as “market-led technologyadoption,” as depicted in FIGURE 2. There are threebasic components:

1. To help farmers increase the yield potentialof their fields by enhancing soil productivitythrough innovative farming practices that sup-ply adequate plant nutrients, improve the land’swater-holding capacity, and are labor saving

2. To help farmers realize a higher proportion oftheir farms’ potential yield by planting more re-silient varieties of Africa’s staple food crops thatsignificantly reduce losses and increase the sta-bility of yields while meeting human nutritionalneeds and consumer preferences

3. Helping to build and make more equitable boththe input markets that can deliver better seeds,small fertilizer packets, and other inputs to farm-ers, and the output markets that enable farmersto convert surplus production into profits andto generate greater income from cash crops andlivestock

Enhanced soil productivity combined with more re-silient crop varieties enables farmers to obtain higherand more stable yields and frees up land and laborfor other uses. In the presence of fairer and moreefficient markets, this leads to increased farm prof-its, which encourage even further adoption of yield-enhancing technologies. Higher yields and increasedprofits provide farm households with greater food se-curity and incomes and stimulate national economicgrowth. Whereas Asia’s Green Revolution had a some-what similar theory of change, the specific strategies forachieving each of these objectives need to be differentin Africa from what had been used in Asia. The differ-ences are as follows.

Resilient CropsIn Asia, the principal genetic factors limiting in-

creases in crop productivity were related to plant type.When provided with additional plant nutrients, Asia’straditional irrigated varieties simply grew taller. Witha little wind they tended to lodge, reducing both yieldsand the farmer’s incentive to use fertilizer. Thus, theprimary objective of breeding programs was to pro-duce a new plant type (semidwarf, short duration)that responded to fertilizer by growing more grain onshorter plants in less time.8 Breeding to reduce lossesand improve quality were secondary objectives that of-ten came later. For example, IR8, the first of the miraclerices, produced yields several times that of traditionalvarieties when provided with ample fertilizer and wateron experiment stations and yielded two or three timestraditional varieties on farmers’ fields. Even though itwas susceptible to pests and diseases and did not havethe desired taste and aroma of traditional varieties, IR8swept across Asia and Latin America because it mademoney for farmers and fed the starving.

On the predominantly rain-fed farms of Africa, thekey factors limiting crop productivity are the lack ofplant nutrients in the soil and the loss of a significantportion of the crop owing to pests, diseases, and abioticstresses. Thus, the primary objectives of RockefellerFoundation–supported breeding programs in Africaare as follows: (1) to reduce crop losses by introduc-ing genetic resistance for pest and disease control andfor tolerance of drought and other stresses, (2) to en-able the crop to use soil nutrients more efficiently, and(3) to do this in varieties that are well adapted to localconditions and meet farmer preferences. This goal re-quires many breeders working on many crops in manylocations, all using the best breeding lines that theycan obtain from each other and international centers,the best tools that science has to offer, and in-depthfarmer knowledge obtained through new and more ef-fective farmer participatory methods.9 The result hasbeen the release of hundreds of locally well-adaptednew varieties. These include maize varieties combin-ing disease resistance, drought tolerance, and nitrogenuse efficiency with traits unique to local growing con-ditions and consumer preferences; rice varieties thatcombine the yield potential of Asian rices with theweed competitiveness, disease resistance, and qualitycharacteristics of African rices; cassava and banana va-rieties resistant to major diseases that had devastatedproduction in some regions and had been spreadingacross Africa; bean varieties with various combinationsof multiple stress resistance targeted to specific loca-tions; four improved sweet potato varieties targeted to


specific locations in Uganda; and maize varieties thatuse a herbicide seed treatment for resistance to the par-asitic weed Striga. But just funding breeding programswas not sufficient. The foundation is also investing in(1) African-based training programs designed to pro-duce and put to work in Africa whole new cadres ofadditional crop breeders; (2) local, African-owned seedcompanies that can multiply seed and distribute it tothe locations where it performs best; and (3) a networkof retail shops that sell the locally adapted seeds andfertilizers directly to farmers while training them in theproper use of these inputs.

Soil ProductivityDuring the Green Revolution in Asia, soil fertility

and water were seldom important factors limiting cropproduction. In 1960, Asia already had 86 million haof irrigated land and vast areas of fertile alluvial soils,chemical fertilizer was readily available and cheap be-cause of subsidies (often funded by donors), and laborwas abundant and used to expand irrigation and to usemore intensive crop management practices.

The opposite is true for Africa. Most African farmsare rain-fed, often receiving too little or too much wa-ter; fertilizer is expensive, if available at all; labor is inshort supply; and donors now shun subsidies (throughsome still shower them on their own farmers and dumptheir resulting surpluses on Africa). Most of Africa’ssoils are ancient, derived from granite weathered overmillennia. Driven to meet the food demands of a grow-ing population, African farmers have steadily aban-doned traditional practices that restore soil nutrients,such as leaving fields fallow for several years betweenplantings. Without replacing lost nutrients, after 5–10 years of cultivation, nitrogen, phosphorous, potas-sium, and other trace nutrients are insufficient to sup-port adequate crop growth. More than 95 million haof sub-Saharan Africa’s arable land, or 75% of thetotal, now has serious soil fertility problems, and farm-ers are still losing 8 million tons of soil nutrients eachyear, estimated to be worth $4 billion.10 With less plantgrowth, soil organic matter also becomes depleted, re-ducing the soil’s water-holding capacity, which furtherreduces nutrient use efficiency. Meanwhile, few small-scale farmers in Africa can use fertilizers to restore soilhealth because either it is simply not available or theycannot afford to purchase inputs. Today, sub-SaharanAfrica (excluding South Africa) uses only 1% of theworld fertilizer supply and at 1/10 the average ratecommonly applied on farms around the globe.11

The Rockefeller Foundation learned useful lessonsfrom investments that it has made aimed at tryingto improve the soil fertility of African farms under

these difficult conditions. Cereal rotations with grainlegumes are one of the most promising strategies. To beeffective, they often required small amounts of phos-phorous fertilizer and legume varieties, such as promis-cuous soybeans, that produce larger amounts of or-ganic leaf matter as well as fixed nitrogen. Being ableto market the legume grain in addition to the cereal iskey to farmer adoption.

It is also possible to improve soil fertility by usingcombinations of “strictly organic” methods, such asgreen manures, cover crops, agroforestry, and collect-ing and composting crop residues and other availableorganic materials. Often, however, these methods arenot broadly adopted by farmers beyond the projectsites. Technically they work, but for most farmers thesemethods do not increase the yields of their staple foodcrops sufficiently to warrant the extra labor requiredof the farmer, who is often a woman seeking to maxi-mize returns relative to a limited labor supply. Growinga cover crop can be just as difficult and labor inten-sive as growing a food or cash crop. Only with specialincentives, such as subsidies or guaranteed premiumpricing, does organic farming alone generate sufficientreturns to achieve broad adoption. Again, however, ifjust a little carefully formulated inorganic fertilizer isused along with the organics methods, yields increasesufficiently to warrant the extra labor.

The foundation also funds projects aimed at pro-moting locally adapted fertilizer blending and themarketing of fertilizer in smaller packets that farm-ers can afford. Even these small amounts of fertilizercan improve crop productivity, but the yield increasesachieved are sometimes not sufficient to warrant thehigh unit cost of fertilizer. Again, adoption is limitedwithout some form of subsidy. Hence, in Malawi andKenya the foundation is experimenting with “marketsmart” subsidies that stimulate demand for fertilizerand seed from private markets by providing farmerswith targeted vouchers redeemable at local shops tohelp cover the cost of specific inputs.

The most effective approach to enhancing soil fer-tility is various forms of integrated soil fertility man-agement (ISFM). The ISFM strategy involves assessinglocal soil and water resources and considering how or-ganic matter, fertilizers, cropping systems, and farmerknowledge can work in concert to create highly pro-ductive and environmentally sustainable approachesto soil revitalization. It combines judicious use of in-organic fertilizer with locally adapted “organic” meth-ods. The two types of inputs, organic and inorganic, arehighly synergistic. The fertilizer is formulated to meetlocal needs and greatly increases production of organicmatter. In turn, organic matter in the soil improves its


water-holding capacity and increases the efficiency offertilizer use by crops. Building on what works best, thefoundation now focuses its support on development oflocally well-adapted ISFM practices while simultane-ously trying to reduce the price of fertilizer and makeit more readily accessible to small-scale farmers. Thiseffort included helping to organize and sponsor theAfrican Fertilizer Summit in Abuja, Nigeria, in June2006, where African leaders pledged to improve fertil-izer access for small-scale farmers by establishment offinancing mechanisms, providing tax and tariff reduc-tions, building supply chains, and training farmers inISFM practices.12

MarketsThe rate of uptake of agricultural technologies by

poor farmers is positively correlated with the state ofmarket institutional development. When critical mar-kets are missing or existing markets fail, technologyuptake and productivity growth are low. In Asia, oneof the reasons that the Green Revolution spread asrapidly as it did in the 1960s and 1970s is that gov-ernments and donors manipulated input and outputmarkets to promote adoption of yield-enhancing tech-nologies. In India, the Green Revolution was state ledand state supported. Governments built infrastructure,including roads; subsidized inputs, such as seeds andfertilizers; and provided financial services, includingprice supports that helped ensure that farmers madea profit from surplus production. To reduce risks, theyestablished grain reserves that helped stabilize pricesand served as insurance against famine-associated pro-duction shortfalls.

Across most of Africa these types of complementarygovernment investments have been limited. Wherethey did exist, structural adjustment programs imposedby donors have “restructured” them by promotingprivatization of government agencies, liberalizationof markets, removal of government from agricul-tural markets, and elimination of subsidies. It was as-sumed that the private sector would be able to per-form marketing functions more efficiently and wouldsubsequently increase investments in critical marketinfrastructure, especially storage, transport, marketinformation systems, and grades and standards. Thesemarket improvements were in turn expected to leadto increased sale prices for poor farmers and stimulatemore widespread adoption in improved agriculturaltechnologies.

The reality has not been as predicted. It is nowwidely accepted that market reforms have had nega-tive effects on poor farmers, especially those in areasfar from major markets. Prices for food and agricul-

tural inputs have increased substantially. Although theprivate sector did move into markets for agriculturalinputs and outputs, their investments have been con-centrated in areas closer to urban centers with bettermarket infrastructure. In most rural areas, where mil-lions of the poor live and earn their livelihoods, farm-ers now face significant difficulties in getting access toseeds, fertilizer, and other inputs and often cannot selltheir farm produce at profitable prices. When they pro-duce a surplus for the market, they are often forced tosell at low prices. Moreover, these farmers have not ef-fectively organized themselves to achieve economies ofscale in bulking, storage, and marketing their produceor in accessing agricultural input and capital markets.Consequently, they have not been able to drive downtheir market transaction costs.

Although building markets had not been a tradi-tional forte of the Rockefeller Foundation, lack of mar-kets was increasingly recognized as an impediment toAfrican farmers’ adopting yield-enhancing technolo-gies generated through foundation support for workon improved seeds and soils. Thus, the foundation be-gan supporting projects that were trying to reduce thesearch costs and travel times of farmers looking forinputs, improving on-time access to inputs during thecrop production season, providing inputs in appro-priate quantities, and lowering the farm gate priceof inputs through a reduction in market transactioncosts. Then, to help farmers sell their surpluses at bet-ter prices, the foundation supports work to reduceinefficiencies in output markets by improving mar-ket coordination between buyers and sellers, reduc-ing market transaction costs, improving economies ofscale through collective action in storage, bulking andmarketing, and improving transparency and equity byusing market information systems. This endeavor iscomplemented by interventions directed at improvingon-farm product development, product transforma-tion, and value addition for crops, so that poor farmerscan increase their share of the income generated fromtheir crops. The foundation also seeks to improve theoverall policy environment for agriculture, includingthe gradual process of moving agriculture away fromsubsistence systems into more market-oriented systemsthat can better support the incomes and livelihoods offarmers.

With the difficulty of building markets, there isa strong need for multiple institutions to work to-gether from the public, private, and civil society sec-tors. For that reason, the foundation is increasingly fo-cusing on joint projects where grantees work togetherto solve the multiple problems faced by farmers. Forexample, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Gatsby


Charitable Foundation jointly helped to establish theAfrican Agricultural Capital Fund to address the cap-ital constraints facing local companies serving ruralareas, particularly seed companies.13 However, therewas also a lack of small retail shops in rural areas thatcould sell the seeds and complementary inputs, such asfertilizer, directly to farmers. To build the input supplypipeline, the foundation supported nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs) that train local shop owners tobecome agrodealers. The NGOs train these village re-tailers to develop their technical, product, and businessmanagement skills. Those that meet the requirementsare certified as agrodealers. Certified agrodealers arelinked to the seed companies and other input supplyfirms using partial credit guarantees that cover 50%of the default risk. Agrodealers are also organized intopurchasing groups to facilitate bulk purchasing andto provide joint collateral to guarantee repayment.Some agrodealers repackage seed and fertilizer intosmall packets (e.g., 1 kg for seeds, 2 kg for fertilizer) toincrease the affordability for poor farmers. And, in-creasingly agrodealers serve as extension agents con-ducting demonstrations of new technologies for inputsuppliers, governments, and donors. Agrodealers havecontributed significantly to the increases in crop pro-duction that have recently occurred in Malawi.

In Africa, the foundation has had to support thedevelopment of the whole agricultural value chain,from building the capacity required to create the in-puts farmers need, to delivering these inputs directly tofarmers, to helping farmers convert their surpluses intovalue-added products and other profitable outputs.

Monitoring and EvaluationIf the foundation’s theory of change is correct, then

African small-scale farmers with access to input andoutput markets should readily adopt new farming prac-tices and improved crop varieties that can enhancesoil fertility and reduce crop losses, thereby increasingfarm productivity, food security, and incomes of therural poor. To determine whether this is indeed oc-curring and to accelerate learning about the effective-ness of each component of the strategy, the foundationis also funding a monitoring and evaluation compo-nent. Foundation officers work with grantees to ensurethat cohorts of farmers in test groups are informedof and provided access to improved crop varieties,soil management technologies, and collective market-ing opportunities. The progress of farmer adoptionof each intervention is now being monitored, farmerinterviews are being conducted, and comparisons arebeing made with locations where similar farmers didnot have access to the interventions. All grantees in the

target region meet regularly with the monitoring andevaluation team to discuss results. There have beenspirited discussions, much has already been learnedabout why farmers do or do not adopt technologies,and useful modifications have been made in how thefoundation seeks to help build agriculture value chainsin rural Africa. Much of this learning and many of theseRockefeller Foundation–funded activities are now be-ing transferred to the Alliance for a Green Revolutionin Africa (AGRA).

Establishing the Alliance fora Green Revolution in Africa

In 2005, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation be-gan an exploration of several new areas for programfunding, including agricultural development. This de-velopment was welcome news to the agricultural sectorbecause this relatively new foundation was by far thelargest in the world and had already revitalized theglobal health sector with significant funding, innova-tive programming, and new leadership. Board mem-bers and program officers from the Gates Foundationtraveled to Africa as part of this exploration and vis-ited several agricultural development projects, includ-ing those supported by the Rockefeller Foundation.Intrigued by the promising initiatives they saw, theserepresentatives began discussions concerning a poten-tial partnership. The two foundations had previouslyworked together effectively in the health sector andsaw real opportunities to do the same in agriculture.

Initially the discussions concentrated on seed sys-tems. However, after a meeting of the presidents andkey vice presidents of the two foundations, the de-cision was made to establish a more comprehensivepartnership for agricultural development in Africa thatwould build on current Rockefeller Foundation supportfor seeds, soils, and markets; expand to include workon extension, water resources, policy, and other inter-ventions as necessary; and attract complementary fi-nancial commitments from national and internationalsources. AGRA was established in 2006 to implementthis comprehensive funding program from Africa.14

During this startup phase, four program officers fromthe Rockefeller Foundation served as the corporateofficers of AGRA while a permanent and predomi-nantly African staff was being recruited. A significantportion of the Rockefeller Foundation office space inNairobi was provided to AGRA for its headquarters,and many of the foundation’s support staff in Nairobiwere transferred to AGRA. In September 2006, the Billand Melinda Gates Foundation provided $100 million


FIGURE 3. Funding programs of the Alliance fora Green Revolution in Africa. M&E, monitoring andevaluation.

and the Rockefeller Foundation provided $50 millionto AGRA to initiate its funding program on Africa’sseed systems. In late 2007, the two foundations com-mitted $180 million to AGRA for its soil health pro-gram. AGRA is currently developing a proposal ofroughly similar magnitude on building markets thatwill soon be submitted to the two foundations andother donors. Additional proposals will be developedby AGRA, and AGRA might host funding programsdeveloped by others as long as they reinforce AGRA’sprogrammatic mission.

AGRA now has an eight-member board of directors,including five distinguished Africans. Former UnitedNations Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan serves aschairman. Recently, Dr. A. Namanga Ngongi, formerexecutive deputy director of the World Food Program,was elected as AGRA’s president. Two RockefellerFoundation program officers remain seconded to workfull-time for AGRA, one as vice president for policyand partnerships and one as director of the Programfor Africa’s Seed Systems. Several additional programofficers have been hired by AGRA, and more pro-fessional staff are being recruited. AGRA will have aregional office in Accra to serve West Africa as well asits headquarters in Nairobi.

Although the full extent of AGRA’s funding pro-grams are still evolving, they are being developedwithin the context of the Comprehensive African Agri-cultural Development Program established by Africanleaders through the New Partnership for Africa’s De-velopment. In this way AGRA can focus its support onnational priorities in collaboration with national gov-ernments and other donors. As depicted in FIGURE 3,AGRA’s programming will probably focus on nationalcrop intensification zones. These are the regions ineach country where most poor, small-scale farmers

are located and where the types of interventions thatAGRA supports have the greatest potential for increas-ing the productivity, profitability, and sustainability ofthese farms. It is expected that programs funded byAGRA, the national government, and others will cometogether and be integrated on the ground in theseprime agricultural zones (FIG. 3).

Each of AGRA’s programs will work across the fullvalue chain, have training and capacity-building com-ponents, include farmer participation as an integralpart of the work, and have a built-in system for mon-itoring and evaluation. AGRA’s Program for Africa’sSeed Systems was funded first, has carried out the mostgrant making to date, and serves as a model for howother AGRA programs are likely to be developed. Asdescribed later, it is making carefully targeted and inter-dependent grants by following a business plan that hasfour components making up the seed “value chain.”

Education for African Crop ImprovementWherever postgraduate training is judged to be of a

sufficiently high caliber, Master of Science–level train-ing is supported in-country. This approach reducescosts while building national institutions and allowsstudents to perform their thesis research within theirown country on topics that are relevant to local farm-ers. M.Sc. fellowships are generally funded at a level of$30,000–$40,000, which includes 1 year of courseworkand 1.5 years of field study and thesis writeup.

Two centers of excellence for Ph.D.-level trainingin plant breeding are being developed. One is at theUniversity of Kwa–Zulu Natal (the African Center forCrop Improvement), and the other is at the Universityof Ghana–Legon (the West African Center for CropImprovement). Cornell University is providing backupsupport for both centers. Ph.D. fellowships are fundedat an average of $200,000 per student for a 5-yearprogram, which includes 2 years of coursework at themain campus and 3 years of thesis research and writeupat the home institution.

In addition to M.Sc. and Ph.D. fellowships, AGRAwill develop and fund inservice training initiatives oncritical topics of practical importance for breeding andseed development for both public- and private-sectorcrop and seed specialists. The training will be at re-gional centers, such as the International Institute forTropical Agriculture in Nigeria, and at one or moreregional seed companies that have offered to host suchtraining events.

Improvement and Adoption of African CropsAGRA operates a continuous “searchlight” func-

tion that analyzes how African farmers lose crop yieldsbecause of poor-performing crop varieties and then


supports breeding programs to address those yieldlosses. Most of these breeding initiatives are imple-mented by breeders working within their own country’sagricultural research institute, where AGRA fundingof operational costs is matched by government fundingof fixed costs. However, where a unique opportunityexists to fund breeding within international centers orlocal seed companies, AGRA will also provide fundsfor these initiatives. Over time, many of Africa’s ac-tive plant breeders working for national agriculturalresearch institutes will receive funds to accelerate andimprove their breeding programs. AGRA program of-ficers will work closely with prospective principal inves-tigators to design high-impact, farmer-participatory,agroecology-based breeding strategies that attempt todeliver newly released varieties in the minimum timenecessary. In addition, as Ph.D. students graduate fromthe training programs, AGRA will attempt to createalignment between their newly gained knowledge andfarmers’ needs and fund their breeding programs todevelop and make popular improved, adapted cropvarieties. The average size of grants for crop breedingis $150,000 over 3 years, renewable for an additional3 years on the basis of progress made.

Seed Production for AfricaAGRA expects to follow up support for the devel-

opment of improved crop varieties with funding forthe multiplication and dissemination of seed of thesevarieties to farmers. The primary goal is to establisha continuous supply of quality seed of improved va-rieties among poor farmers. One way of achievingthis goal is by facilitating the establishment of small-and medium-sized private seed enterprises that are lo-cally owned and managed. AGRA program officerswill work closely with the executives of Africa’s youngseed enterprises to develop business plans that deliverbetter seed to farmers via sustainable channels. AGRAis supporting the emergence of these “grass roots” pri-vate seed companies through two channels: (1) modest-sized grants of $100,000–$200,000 for startup seedcompanies to multiply and distribute seed and educatefarmers on the value of seed through demonstrationplots, radio messages, and farmer field days and (2)larger ($300,000–$2 million) debt and equity invest-ments to allow Africa’s better-established seed com-panies to grow into larger seed firms covering two ormore countries. Grants to start up seed companiesshould generate 300–600 tons of seed per grant over2 years and are made directly by AGRA after exten-sive, onsite interaction between program officers andthe management of seed companies. Private equity in-vestments in seed companies are designed to permit

companies to expand their production from roughly600 tons annually to several thousand tons annuallyand will be made through placement of AGRA fundswith intermediary investment funds or banks. For trulynoncommercial products, such as planting materialsfor cassava and sweet potato, AGRA funds foundationstock multiplications by researchers and production of“certified” planting stock through farmer-based mul-tiplication schemes. This endeavor provides for rapid,decentralized dissemination of new varieties of thesecrops to farmers. Likewise, when the private sectorfails to express any interest in investing in the dissem-ination of a new, seed-based crop variety, AGRA willsupport public sector and NGO-based seed initiativesto disseminate seed.

Agrodealer Development ProgramFew African farmers live close enough to seed

companies to buy seed directly from the producers.Therefore, AGRA is funding a major effort aimedat establishing and professionalizing the supply ofseed, fertilizer, and other inputs at the village levelthrough agrodealers. AGRA works closely with serviceproviders (usually NGOs) with a proven track recordin agroenterprise development to extend the reach ofAfrica’s emerging seed companies into remote ruralsettings. These service providers increase the quantityof seed that agrodealers can keep in stock by setting uploan guarantee schemes between banks and input sup-pliers. They also improve business management skillsamong agrodealers by providing management train-ing through locally sourced, qualified business trainers.When agrodealerships are nonexistent, the NGOs pro-vide small-business loans to local entrepreneurs to startup operations of such businesses. AGRA also helps tocreate national associations of agrodealers, which serveto provide business owners with information on newproducts, establish and disseminate best practices, andprovide dealers with ways of selling and buying sur-plus stocks according to their needs. AGRA expects tosupport the certification of roughly 10,000 agrodealersacross Africa over the next 5 years.

In 2006, AGRA’s Program for Africa’s Seed Sys-tems made 40 grants in 10 African countries, totalingmore than $34 million. Moving forward annual fund-ing at roughly this level is expected for each of AGRA’sapproved programs.

Conclusion

AGRA was established by the Rockefeller Foun-dation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundationas an African-led, broad-based partnership dedicated


to helping millions of Africans lift themselves out ofpoverty and hunger by dramatically improving theproductivity, profitability, and sustainability of small-scale farming across the continent. AGRA’s approachis comprehensive, addressing key challenges across theagricultural value chain, ranging from the develop-ment of more resilient crop varieties that can copewith pests, diseases, and harsh climates, to new meth-ods of integrated soil fertility management and wa-ter management that can supply crops with necessarynutrients while restoring the natural resource base, tostrengthening local and regional markets, and to build-ing and strengthening extension and other forms oftechnology delivery systems for farmers. Building onfunding programs initiated in Africa by the Rocke-feller Foundation, AGRA is making good progress. Itsinvestments have already strengthened the capacity ofseveral African institutions and are helping to delivernew technologies that are enabling Africa’s small-scalefarm families to improve their livelihoods. Its fundingprograms are expected to expand significantly over thenext few years.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. FAO. 2006. The State of Food and Agriculture. U.N.—Foodand Agriculture Organization. Rome.

2. DELGADO, C.L. et al. 1998. Agricultural Growth Link-ages in Sub-Saharan Africa (Research Report 107).

International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington,DC.

3. IFPRI. 2007. 2020 Focus Briefs on the World’s Poor andHungry People (2020 Vision Focus Special Edition). In-ternational Food Policy Research Institute. Washington,DC.

4. WORLD BANK. 2007. World Development Report 2008:Agriculture for Development. The World Bank. Wash-ington, DC.

5. EVENSON, R.E. & D. COLLIN. 2003. Assessing the impact ofthe green revolution. Science 300: 758–762.

6. INTERACADEMY COUNCIL. 2004. Realizing the Promise andPotential of African Agriculture. InterAcademy Council.Amsterdam.

7. CONWAY, G. & G. TOENNIESSEN. 2003. Science for Africanfood security. Science 299: 1187–1188.

8. JENNINGS, P. 1964. Plant type as a rice breeding objective.Crop Sci. 4: 13–15.

9. DEVRIES, J. & G. TOENNIESSEN. 2001. Securing the Harvest:Biotechnology, Breeding and Seed Systems for AfricanCrops. CABI Publishing. Wallingford, UK.

10. SANCHEZ, P.A. & M.S. SWAMINATHAN. 2005. Hunger inAfrica: the link between unhealthy people and unhealthysoil. Lancet 265: 442–444.

11. HENAO, J. & C. BAANANTE. 2006. Agricultural Productionand Soil Nutrient Mining in Africa: Implications for Re-source Conservation and Policy Development. IFDC—An International Center for Soil Fertility and AgriculturalDevelopment. Muscle Shoals, AL.

12. Africa Fertilizer Summit Proceedings. 2006. IFDC—An In-ternational Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural De-velopment. Muscle Shoals, AL.

13. Investing in Small and Medium-Sized Agricultural Enter-prises in East Africa. 2007. Accessed December 30, 2007,at http://www.aac.co.ke.

14. About the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.2007. Accessed December 30, 2007, at http://www.agra-alliance.org/about/.

Documents

Building an Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa Building AGRA... · 2013-03-14 · Building an Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa ... linkages occur through demand from