Upload
truongminh
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Final Impact Assessment [Conservation Agriculture Policy]
The Final Impact Assessment provides a more detailed assessment of the ultimately
policy/legislative/ regulations/ other proposal. In addition, it identifies (a) mechanisms
for monitoring, evaluation and modification as required; and (b) a system for
managing appeals that could emerge around the implementation process.
1. The problem Statement/ Theory of Change
1.1.A summary of the identified problems to be addressed and the root cause(s)
of the problem that will be addressed by the new rule.
a) Summary of the proposal (Summary Background of the proposed
policy/bill/ regulations/ other)
It is broadly accepted within the scientific community that current crop
(and often livestock production systems) are not sustainable – they often
result in the physical as well as chemical degradation of natural
resources, notably soil health and soil quality. The current crop
production systems based on intensive and continuous soil tillage have
led to excessively high soil degradation rates in grain producing areas.
According to Le Roux et al. (2008), the average soil loss under annual
grain crops in the country is 13 ton ha-1yr-1. This is much higher than the
natural soil formation rate and implies, for example, we are losing almost
3 ton ha-1yr-1 for every ton of maize produced every year. This leads to
uneconomical production systems, based on high levels of external
inputs. Eventually, without a policy to influence the shift to sustainable
production system, the decline in soil health will seriously affect food
security, poverty alleviation efforts and ultimately national security. The
yield of conventional systems on maize is low, while the production cost
is higher owing to reliance on diesel due to multiple use of tractors.
b) Problem/s and root causes that the proposal is trying to address
2
Identified Problem Root causesReduction in natural
resources
Unacceptable Conventional farming
practices leading to decline in soil
quality, increased water runoff, soil
erosion, reduction in soil carbon
Natural disasters (prolonged drought,
floods, extreme weather condition.
Lack of capital to implement.
sustainable agricultural practices.
Reduced agricultural
productivity and increased
food insecurity.
Poor knowledge and skills in optimum
production practices.
Unsustainable land management
practices leading to soil degradation
and deteriorating soil quality.
Overgrazing.
Persistent drought.
Global climate change due to
excessive tillage based, high energy
use implements and agricultural
waste, not correctly managed
Competition rather than
complementarity between crop and
livestock farmers.
Deforestation Overharvesting of trees for wood and
clearing of land for agriculture
Poor adoption of
Conservation Agricultural
(CA) practices.
Lack of coherence in the promotion of
CA
Lack of step-by-step operational
guideline for CA production.
Lack of awareness by land users and
farmers
Lack of access to and high cost of CA
machines.
3
Identified Problem Root causes Limited access to CA research
funding
Lack of coherence in the promotion of
CA
Lack of step-by-step operational
guideline and coherence for CA.
Challenges of weed control in CA
Technologies.
1.2.Describe the intended outcomes of the proposal
To enhance protection and sustainable use of natural resources
To optimize productivity of agricultural production through:
o Increased soil organic matter
o Reduced production input costs
o Reduced greenhouse gas emission
Access to CA information and technologies
Management of NR and sustainability of bio-diversity in the eco-system
Increase CA-Related On-farm research
Innovative farming and private sector involvement in creating jobs.
Poverty reduction and improved food security
Improved training in accredited CA courses.
1.3.Groups that will benefit or bear the cost from the proposal, and the groups
that will face the cost. These groups could be described by their role in the
economy or in society. As a minimum, consider if there will be specific
benefits or costs for the poorest households (earning R 7000 a month or
less); for black people, youth or women; for small and emerging enterprise;
and /or for rural development. Add more rows if required.
4
Groups that will benefit How will they benefit?Farmers / Land owners /
Land users
Increased crop and livestock productivity and
income through enhanced soil health resulting
from reduced soil degradation, better soil
moisture retention and improved soil microbial
activities.
Reduced production costs and increased
profit.
Compliance to Environmental laws
Exposure to CA Information and technologies.
Capacity building through accredited training
and skills development.
Modern farming methods and technologies
promoted.
Improved environmental and ecosystem
services.
Communities Increased sustainable food security and
improved livelihoods.
Increased work opportunities.
Availability of disposable income to farmers.
Access to healthier food products.
Youth New opportunities for jobs.
Youth Participation in viable and sustainable
agriculture.
Private sectors New business opportunities (Financial
support; supply of implements, seeds,
laboratory and technical services).
New markets for associated implements.
Investors New technologies and industry opportunities
for CA technology manufacturing promoted.
Government Ensuring protection of agricultural resources.
Private Public Partnerships enhanced.
Less expenditure on social responsibility
5
Groups that will benefit How will they benefit?programme / redirection of fiscus/ finances or
other priorities.
Planners and Policy
makers
Policy shift and advocacy.
Research institutions Increased funding for CA research.
Property developers Better utilisation of resource for planning.
Reduced costs for land rehabilitation.
Insurance companies Good conservation practices lead to better
resilience to climate shocks and hence less
claims.
Lower premium for CA farmers.
Groups that will bear the cost or lose
How will they incur the costs or lose?
Government (DAFF,
PDAs)
Implementation and Incentive costs: New
implements, infrastructure, research, training
and incentive schemes.
Cost of capacity building.
Land users/ Farmers Initial capital cost and cost of switching from
Conventional to CA.
Investment in soil health improvement
Soil correction and mapping
Private sectors Capital and compliance costs
1.4.Behaviour that must be changed, main mechanisms to achieve the
necessary changes. These mechanisms may include modifications in
6
decision making process systems; changes in procedures; educational work;
sanctions; and or incentives. Also identify groups inside or outside
government whose behaviour will have to change to implement the proposal.
Add more rows if required.
Groups inside Government
Behaviour that must be changed (Current Behaviour)
Main mechanism to achieve the necessary changes
PDAs Extension and Advisory
services:
Operations in isolations
with no or low
interactive approached
with other related
departments.
Top down approach
followed by extension
to provide service to
farmers.
Streamlined decision making.
Adoption of community participatory
approach.
Training of extension personnel.
DAFF Misaligned programmes
with duplication,
contradiction, no synergy
(e.g. Extension Recovery
Programme, CASP, Illima
letsema, LandCare).
Lack of understanding of
the CA concepts and
formulation of promotion
strategies
Integrated planning,
Implementation, Monitoring
and Evaluation of programmes
and projects..
Alignment of policies through
mainstreaming of CA priorities.
Integrated grant framework
and standard operating
procedures.
Establishment of CA task
team: national, province and
local level incorporating private
sector and civil society.
Training in accredited CA courses,
7
Groups inside Government
Behaviour that must be changed (Current Behaviour)
Main mechanism to achieve the necessary changes
Seminars and workshops.
DRDLR Overlap of mandates
Operations in isolations
with no or low
interactive approached
with other related
departments
Consultation with DAFF as the lead
sector for project planning.
Improvement of regulatory
mechanisms to advance CA.
Improved Intergovernmental
Relations (Engagement with other
Departments for Cooperative
governance )
DEA Government
Departments operating
in isolation.
Duplication of
functions.
DEA should promote, coordinate and
provide guideline for Climate Smart
Agriculture (CSA), in consultation
with DAFF
Cooperative
Governance
and Traditional
Affairs
Poor LandCare
ethos: Sub-optimal
management of
land resources.
Communal LandCare authority
needs to be regulated and
monitored.
Advisory services from expertise
should be in place.
Improved adherence to municipal
plans and IDP.
Improve good communication
between Chiefs and Ward
councillors.
Municipality Principles of CA are
not incorporated in
the IDP.
Issues of Agriculture
are not clearly
outlined in the IDP.
Involve all local, provincial and
national stakeholders in planning
and implementation.
8
Groups outside Government
Behaviour that must be changed (Current Behaviour)
Main mechanism to achieve the necessary changes
Land
Users/Farmers
Reluctance and
slow adoption of CA
practices due to
ignorance, traditions
and lack of
exposure.
Awareness and capacity building
Provision of Incentives
Active promotion of CA principles
and technologies.
Awareness creation through
evidence based and innovative
appropriate research.
Continuous farmer innovation and
adaptation
Cooperatives
Extension
services
Prescriptive
requirement not in
line with CA
principles
Programme to support
implementation of CA.
Insurance
companies
Currently there is no
distinction between
premiums for CA
and Conventional
farming
practitioners.
Promote lower insurance premium
for CA practitioners.
Private Sector
(Manufacturer
s of CA
Equipment)
Make the CA
equipment and
technologies
available at
affordable prices
Special discount and tax rebates
should be introduced to support
the initiative.
Planners/
developers/
Bad attitude and
sometimes too
harsh towards CA
from platforms
/groups
Attitude change.
Awareness creation through
evidence based and innovative
trials.
9
1.5.Report on consultations on the proposal with the affected government
agencies, business and other groupings. What do they see as the main
benefits, costs and risks? Do they support or oppose the proposal? What
amendments do they propose? And have these amendments been
incorporated in your proposal?
10
Table on consultations:
Affected Stakeholders
What do they see as main benefits, costs and risks?
Do they support or oppose the proposal?
What amendments do they propose?
Have these amendments been incorporated in your proposal?
1) Government Departments and Agenciesa) Department of
Environmental
Affairs
Benefits:* Effective protection of
natural resources.
Cost* Regulation cost
Support Work in collaboration
with other relevant
departments to pursue
common agenda and
avoid duplications.
Yes
b) Provincial
Departments of
agriculture.
Benefits:* Effective protection of
natural resources.
* Improved credibility and trust among farmers
CostCost of capacity building.
* Disaster reduction cost.
* Administrative cost:
Support * Work in collaboration
with other relevant
departments to pursue
common agenda and
avoid duplications.
* Improve Extension
Personnel’s
involvement in farming
through effective
programmes that
Yes
Affected Stakeholders
What do they see as main benefits, costs and risks?
Do they support or oppose the proposal?
What amendments do they propose?
Have these amendments been incorporated in your proposal?
support CA.
2) Other Groupinga) AgriSA Benefits
* New business
opportunities in CA
Cost* Compliance cost
Supports Commercialise
agriculture
Yes
b)Farmers Benefits* Increase resilience and
improved ecosystem
services.
* Increase productivity and
profitability.
* Job opportunities.
* Improved livelihood.
Cost * Cost of shifting to CA.
Supports * Incentives from
government.
* Capacity building in
CA.
* Market for CA
produce.
Yes
c) Research and Benefits Supports Increase funding for CA Yes
12
Affected Stakeholders
What do they see as main benefits, costs and risks?
Do they support or oppose the proposal?
What amendments do they propose?
Have these amendments been incorporated in your proposal?
Academic Institutions
(ARC, CSIR, Water
Research
commission,
Universities)
research and
development.
3) Business:
b) Agribiz-
Agribusiness
Benefits* New business
opportunities in CA
Cost* Compliance cost
Supports Insurance for farmers
against risk
Yes
13
1.6.Possible disputes arising out of the implementation of the proposal, and
system for settling and appealing them. How onerous will it likely be for
members of the public to lodge a complaint and how burdensome and
expeditious is the proposed dispute-settlement procedure?
Groups Possible dispute MechanismHerbicide
Manufacturing
Companies
Preferred herbicide
for weed control is
an issue
More research and trials
will be required.
Industrial development
support for CA specific
herbicide businesses.
Fertilizer
companies
There will be a
reduction in the
requirement and use
of fertilizer as being
promoted by various
companies.
Crop rotation principles
and legume
technologies will
minimise the need of
chemical fertilizers.
Industrial development
support for CA specific
fertiliser businesses.
Implement
manufacturers
CA will reduce their
sales.
Get involved in CA.
Invest in CA equipment
Existing
Conventional
farmers
They might refuse to
adopt the CA
principle
Ensure compliant
through Conservation of
Agricultural Resources
Act.
The Department should
support farmers that are
unable to shift to CA.
Crop and
livestock farmers
under communal
system.
Reluctance to shift
animals from CA
field.
Proper integration and
management of livestock
within CA systems to be
encouraged.
Increase mix farming
Groups Possible dispute Mechanismsystems.
Organised
Agriculture
Regulatory Courts.
Commercial
farmers
Not getting
subsidised
Subsidies/incentives for
all.
2. Impact Assessment
2.1.The costs and benefits of implementing the proposal to the groups identified
in point 6 above, using the following chart. Add more rows if required (Cost
drivers)
Group Implementation Costs
Costs of changing behaviour
Costs/Benefits from achieving desired outcome
Comments
Farmer Input/
implementation
Training,
Workshops,
Awareness,
Capacity Building
Increased Yields,
Improved
Livelihoods,
Improved Soil
Health
Government Incentive, disaster
cost reduction,
Administrative cost:
Extension
officers, public
and farmers and
agricultural
industries
Payment for
ecosystem
services.
Reduced payment
for disaster cost.
Increase resilience
and
Improved
ecosystem
services.
Public Inputs: Taxes Training,
Workshops,
Awareness,
* Positive effect on
environment
resulting health
15
Group Implementation Costs
Costs of changing behaviour
Costs/Benefits from achieving desired outcome
Comments
Capacity Building society.
* Increase
resilience.
2.2.Changes required in budgets and staffing in government in order to
implement the proposal. Identify where additional resources would be
required for implementation. It is assumed that existing staff are fully
employed and cannot simply absorb extra work without relinquishing other
tasks. (Do you need extra Directorate, Offices, or existing staff, additional
budget or reprioritisation of programmes)
National Treasury must allocate funds for Conservation Agriculture
and LandCare programme of DAFF
Government must mainstream CA into existing programmes.
The current pool of extension staff need to be trained on CA principles.
Additional resources will be required in provinces to train and
capacitate extension staff and farmers in order to implement the CA
policy successfully.
Introduce social scientists and social innovation approaches skills.
2.3.Describe how the proposal minimises implementation and compliance costs.
The proposal will be implemented through LandCare and other related
agricultural programmes complimented by educational, training and other
value chain initiatives. Additional injection of budget to LandCare programme
will ensure effective and efficient upscaling of conservation agriculture.
16
3. Managing Risk
3.1.Describe the main risks to the achievement of the desired ends of the
policy/bill/regulations/other and/ or to the national priorities (aims) that could
arise from adoption of the proposal. Also describe the measures taken to
manage the identified risks. Add more rows if necessary. (what are risk that
will hinder your achievement e.g. budget, some risk you may identify during
consultation)
Identified Risk Mitigation MeasuresNo budget Resource mobilisation of donor funding
Lack of capacity to implement
appropriate CA approaches and
technologies
Relevant Training in CA approaches
and technologies
Lack of access to CA equipment Government mechanisation
programmes and Incentives, Access to
Green Climate Fund.
Extensive loss of topsoil None
System failure Mapping/zoning of soil suitability
Stakeholder buy-in Proper consultation
Training and demonstrations trials
Soil borne disease and pest
infestation
Crop rotation
Integrated pest management
CA takes a minimum of 3 years to
yield positive results
Farmers will be encouraged to start the
CA practices in phases
Availability of CA equipment Manufacturers and importers will be
encouraged to supply the equipment
Availability of cover crop seeds Seed companies will be encouraged to
start producing the seeds
Negative perception on CA Training and Knowledge transfer
Study tours
Farmer field schools
17
3.2.Describe the mechanisms included in your proposal for monitoring
implementation, evaluating the outcomes, and modifying the implementation
process if required. Estimate the minimum amount of time it would take from
the start of the implementation process to identify a major problem and
remedy it
A PM&E framework should be developed and implemented on national,
provincial/district, and farm level) measuring different criteria constituting
social, natural, physical, human and financial capital. This framework should
be a collaborative effort by the public and private sector. A committee
consisting of respected public and private sector scientists, farmers and
representatives from consumer and producer organisations should be
constituted to guide the development and implementation of this framework,
which would include the identification, measurement and evaluation of key
indicators of CA use.
Indicators will assess the adoption of CA and the extent of its impact on
sustainability and production. These indicators include area under CA, ideally
specified per farmer category (scale of farmers). Other indicators suggested
include GHG emissions, a carbon stock inventory, soil health indicators, input
use, stocking rates; production figures, etc.
4. Summary
4.1.Summarise the impact of the proposal on the main national priorities (How is
your proposal contributing to this national priority)
National Priority Impact1. Social Cohesion Healthy, happy, vibrant rural and urban
communities.
Improved family cohesion: Women in agriculture
will generate more income for the families
2. Security (Safety, Financial, Food, Food security, financial security, energy security
18
National Priority ImpactEnergy and etc.)
3. Economic Growth Sustainable regenerative long-term growth
Increased and sustained contribution of
agricultural sector to GDP
4. Economic Inclusion (Job Creation
and Equality)
Sustainable job creation and increasing women
and youth participation in agriculture
More productive land available, more yields
resulting in more jobs along the value chain
5. Environmental Sustainability Improvement of soil health and biodiversity
4.2. Identify the social and economic groups that would benefit most and that
would bear the most cost. Add more rows if required. (ranking of groups in
terms of benefits and cost, will it be supported by commercial /smallholder)
Main BeneficiariesCitizens of South Africa
Future generations
Government
Main Cost bearersGovernment, Farmers / Land
Users/Land Owners /
Government/ Farmers/Land
Users/Land Owners/
Government
4.3. In conclusion, summarise what should be done to reduce the costs, maximise
the benefits, and mitigate the risks associated with the
policy/bill/regulations/other. Note supplementary measures (such as
19
educational campaigns or provision of financing) as well as amendments to
the draft itself, if appropriate. Add more lines if required. (Summary of your
intent, benefits, reduce cost, risk - how to mitigate , intergovernmental etc)
Consistency?
a) Use existing LandCare programme governance model and expand the
conditional grant of the programme.
b) Update all sustainable use of natural resources policies and regulations
to advance Conservation Agriculture
c) Update farmers support funding criteria to include practising or intention
as a minimum requirements
d) Update insurance premium criteria and disaster support to favour farmers
practising Conservation Agriculture
4.4.Please identify areas where additional research would improve
understanding of the costs, benefits and/ or risks of the
policy/bill/regulations/other
(Research identified to inform the policy)
Research on cost and benefit of the CA practice
Development of CA related equipment
Conducting on-farm trials for new CA equipment and technologies
Cover crops and mulching availability and trials
Quantification of water conservation and productivity
Soil fertility management
Crop rotation and management
Weed control and management of herbicides and its environmental
impact
Labour productivity under CA and economic analysis
CA and Climate change
Integrated and participatory research approach. Natural systems are
not linear.
For the purpose of building SEIAS body of knowledge please complete the following:
20
Name of Official/s Ramakgwale Klaas MampholoR.L Bosoga
Designation Director & Deputy DirectorUnit Land use and Soil ManagementContact Details 012 319 7687Email address [email protected]
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CA............... Conservation Agriculture
DAFF ........... Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
21