Identifying Farm Typologies In Rwandan Agriculture A Framework For Improving Targeted Interventions

This paper explores the broad spectrum of commercial engagement by Rwandan farmers by grouping farmers according to characteristics of the head of household, the degree of commercialization of their farms, size of livestock holdings and other factors. We use statistical methodologies, including factor and cluster analysis, combined with existing knowledge of the agricultural sector to define five types of Rwandan farmers, separated into two broad groups. The first group (Group A) includes three types broadly classified as less wealthy, less commercialized, with a net negative gross margin. Within this group the three types of farmers include: Type 1—Less commercialized older male headed households with larger families, Type 2—Better educated, youth headed households, who are more market oriented but have smaller land holdings, Type 3—Older female headed households who produce relatively lower agricultural production value relative to their assets owned. The second group (Group B) comprises two types of farmers. This group are wealthier, sell more crops with positive gross margins and larger landholdings. More specifically, farm type 4 is commercialized with higher access to agricultural extension services and inputs and farm type 5, also highly commercialized, but has significant livestock holdings as well. Taken together, these two groups, and five farm types, provide a framework to aid in understanding how commercialization takes place in smallholder Rwandan agriculture. This framework may also help in understanding how potential interventions would be received by various types of Rwanda farmers, thereby facilitating more efficient targeting of agricultural interventions.

Engaging burgeoning youth populations in developing country agriculture is seen as an important strategy toward effective, efficient, and sustainable food system transformation. Yet the policy, institutional, technological, and capability barriers and ways to overcome them for successful participation of youth in agriculture are not fully understood. We use a conceptual framework that identifies key pathways to prosperity for youth and classifies contextual and driving factors that contribute to the success of youth engagement in agriculture. The framework comprises four broad categories of strategic interventions: policy and socioeconomic environment; institutional; technological/business infrastructure; and individual skills and capacities. In the context of this framework, we then present insights from cases of youth participation in agriculture in five countries: Guatemala, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Uganda. The countries and cases were purposively selected as part of ongoing research on youth engagement in agriculture. Policies and strategies play an important role in creating an enabling environment for youth engagement in agriculture, including by fostering transparency and accountability in the policy system and promoting youth engagement in the private sector through agricultural extension and other services. Institutions and intermediaries provide financial support, training, and access to market for youth entrepreneurs. Support in these areas should be strengthened. Systems approaches, such as multi-stakeholder platforms, provide holistic support to young agripreneurs (entrepreneurs in agriculture), but require effective coordination. Similarly, information and communication technologies can play a facilitating role by providing platforms to network and receive updated market information but need to be significantly scaled up. Individual capacities can drive youth engagement in agriculture and agripreneurship but must continue to be built up through expanded education and training on technical and functional skills. As policymakers and program managers search for interventions that can promote youth involvement in agriculture in their own countries, the insights from the five countries examined that are presented in this paper may be useful for identifying context-specific challenges and pathways to successful youth engagement in agriculture in their own countries. The framework presented here can be applied to study youth engagement issues in any country or in sub-national, decentralized contexts to generate evidence to guide the design of youth-in-agriculture development programs. There is a need to support, strengthen, and implement the driving factors identified in this paper for expanding youth engagement in agriculture.

This paper summarizes general demand- and supply-side issues for agricultural mechanization based on recent studies that focus on experiences and evidence from both Africa and Asia. The paper pro vides typologies of agricultural mechanization in Rwanda along with policy options within the context of its current mechanization support strategies. Provincial variations in agroecology and cropping systems, irrigated/rainfed systems, farm size, and labor use intensity, among other factors, characterize the key types of mechanization use in Rwanda. Support for mechanization in Rwanda can be broadly tailored to (a) irrigated medium-scale farmers in the Eastern province and Kigali; (b) rainfed medium-scale farmers in the Eastern and Southern provinces; (c) rainfed, small-scale highland farmers in the Northern province; and (d) irrigated small-scale farmers in the Western province. Recent experiences in other countries with rugged terrain and smallholder farming systems similar to Rwanda suggest that significant growth in the use of tractors is possible in the medium term among smallholders cultivating rainfed maize and legumes, in addition to irrigated rice. However, farm wages may still be too low in Rwanda and tractor-hiring fees may still be too high to induce a shift to mechanization in the short term. Therefore, it may be advisable for policy support for mechanization to focus on improving the understanding of mechanization needs among each type of farmers identified, knowledge of suitable machines, and required skills for their operations and maintenance. Such efforts should also balance the need to develop competitive markets and supply networks for promising machines, parts, and repair services at a viable and integrated market scale.

This framework presents ten interrelated principles/elements to guide Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization in Africa (SAMA). Further, it presents the technical issues to be considered under SAMA and the options to be analysed at the country and sub regional levels. The ten key elements required in a framework for SAMA are as follows: The analysis in the framework calls for a specific approach, involving learning from other parts of the world where significant transformation of the agricultural mechanization sector has already occurred within a three-to-four decade time frame, and developing policies and programmes to realize Africa’s aspirations of Zero Hunger by 2025. This approach entails the identification and prioritization of relevant and interrelated elements to help countries develop strategies and practical development plans that create synergies in line with their agricultural transformation plans. Given the unique characteristics of each country and the diverse needs of Africa due to the ecological heterogeneity and the wide range of farm sizes, the framework avoids being prescriptive.

A joint FAO and World Bank study which shows how the farming systems approach can be used to identify priorities for the reduction of hunger and poverty in the main farming systems of the six major developing regions of the world.

This document intends to provide an analysis of the outcomes of the application of the TAP Common Framework in the eight countries of the Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems (CDAIS) project. The TAP Common Framework (TAP CF) was developed at the global level as an initial activity of the CDAIS project in order to guide capacity development (CD) and strengthening of Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS). The project then tested this framework in eight pilot countries (Guatemala, Honduras, Burkina Faso, Angola, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Lao PDR, Bangladesh). The purpose of the transversal analysis was to understand how the CDAIS approach contributed to outcomes and impacts in a diversity of contexts and to propose recommendations for upgrading the Common Framework across its theoretical and practical dimensions. The two main guiding questions were: • What made the CDAIS approach transformational (or not) in diverse contexts? • How useful, usable and used was the TAP Common Framework? The comparative analyses consisted in drawing patterns of context-mechanism-outcomes from case studies from the different countries. Insights gained from some countries were checked and complemented with the data and lessons learnt from others. Common findings were merged, and particular cases were used to expand or refine the generic theory that was built on the case-by-case approach.

This report provides an overview of a study conducted in the NENA region in 2015-2016 in partnership with FAO, CIRAD, CIHEAM-IAMM and six national teams, each of which prepared a national report. In the six countries under review in the NENA region (Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Mauritania, Sudan and Tunisia), agriculture is carried out primarily by small-scale family farmers, the majority of whom run the risk of falling into the poverty trap, largely due to the continuous fragmentation of inherited landholdings. As such, the development of small-scale family farming can no longer be based solely on intensifying agriculture, as the farmers are not able to produce sufficient marketable surplus due to the limited size of their landholdings. An approach based strictly on agricultural activity is also insufficient (as small-scale family farms have already diversified their livelihoods with off-farm activities). In fact, developing small-scale farming cannot be achieved by focusing strictly on t he dimension of production.

Increased global demand for land posits the need for well-designed country-level land policies to protect long-held rights, facilitate land access and address any constraints that land policy may pose for broader growth. While the implementation of land reforms can be a lengthy process, the need to swiftly identify key land policy challenges and devise responses that allow the monitoring of progress, in a way that minimizes conflicts and supports broader development goals, is clear. The Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) makes a substantive contribution to the land sector by providing a quick and innovative tool to monitor land governance at the country level. The LGAF offers a comprehensive diagnostic tool that covers five main areas for policy intervention: Legal and institutional framework; Land use planning, management and taxation; Management of public land; Public provision of land information; and Dispute resolution and conflict management. The LGAF assesses these areas through a set of detailed indicators that are rated on a scale of pre-coded statements (from lack of good governance to good practice). While land governance can be highly technical in nature and tends to be addressed in a partial and sporadic manner, the LGAF posits a tool for a comprehensive assessment, taking into account the broad range of issues that land governance encompasses, while enabling those unfamiliar with land to grasp its full complexity. The LGAF will make it possible for policymakers to make sense of the technical levels of the land sector, benchmark governance, identify areas that require further attention and monitor progress. It is intended to assist countries in prioritizing reforms in the land sector by providing a holistic diagnostic review that can inform policy dialogue in a clear and targeted manner. In addition to presenting the LGAF tool, this book includes detailed case studies on its implementation in five selected countries: Peru, the Kyrgyz Republic, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Tanzania.