FOs may be interested in the WAW Initiative for three key reasons: 1) Agriculture impacts local farms and territories as well as global challenges, but these impacts manifest and are measured differently depending on farm type and location. 2) The timescales of agricultural impacts and sustainability are varied, with both quick changes needed to adapt but also long term and cumulative consequences of decisions. 3) Involving FOs in the debate is essential to design frameworks to observe impacts at various scales using local analysis and information, and ensure different stakeholder perspectives are considered.

1. Why could FOs be
interested by being
part of the WAW
Initiative?
Patrick Caron
General Director
Cirad
23rd February 2012

2. Three issues to start with
• Farming and impacts : agricultural holdings,
territories and global challenges ?
• Farming and impact : time scales ?
• Farmers’ Organizations : essential stakeholders to
join WAW ?
Madagascar
2

3. Farming and impacts
AgricultureS are at the nexus of
global challenges but:
– Expression at local level : farms
and territories Hypothesis : From ILC, 2012
– Types of farms, different impacts Different business models x territories,
different impacts :
– Structural change and impact Production (not only !)
Local resources and assets
Employment
? Distribution of incomes
GHG
Water availability
etc.
3

4. Time scales : farming and impact ?
Agriculture and sustainability ?
– Quick changes to adapt
– … but often medium and long term
processes, as for policy changes
– … whose impacts are long term and
cumulative, as for landscape
Hypothesis :
Different business models,
? Different consequences for
sustainability
4

5. FOs : essential stakeholder to
join WAW?
• Robust figures and evidences on time and
space impacts of different business models ?
• Engage in debate on business models and
policy options (eg Family farms vs Modern
Enterprises)
– Based on relevant, updated and validated local
analysis and information
– Taking on board different scales and at different
levels : territory, national, international
• Involving FOs in debate !
• Design with FOs conceptual and
methodological framework for observation
at territory and farm levels 5

6. In order to illustrate :
Madagascar

7. An initiated WAW…
First proposal … and work in progress
Bringing
stakeholders
together
Share
scattered
Observatory information
and data
management
Collective
understanding,
convergences,
conflicts
Management
Decision making
Policy making 7

8. An initiated WAW… : Illustrations
• Conceptual and methodological framework
available for discussion and improvement
• Pilot research project funded by Cirad to work
on methodological issues in partnership with
stakeholders
– Ex : Madagascar
8

9. Conceptual and methodological framework WAW
Proposal … and work in progress
9

10. LAKE ALAOTRA IN
MADAGASCAR
An observatory as
a process

11. Why Lake Alaotra?
 Rice Granary
 Agricultural employment
 Ecological richness; RAMSAR
Area
 System at risk: slash and burn,
erosion, biodiversity threats
 Coexistence of family farms and
farming entrepreneurs
 Agricultural Innovations
 Knowledge accumulation and
partnerships
 A consistent geographical
territory

13. Use of satellite information
1969 2006
Land Use Changes
13

14. Participatory identification of constraints and challenges
8 workshops and working groups in Antananarivo and
Lake Alaotra : from main issues to indicators screening
 Mobilization different stakeholders : unusual brainstorming
about their common territory
 Shared concerns about interactions between agricultural and
socio-economical and environmental issues
CLIMATE WATER
Increasing risks, Quality and fishing
climate change resource
PRODUCTION
Temporary labor
Lack of Input access
integrated
information to FOREST and PONDS
SOIL and RICE FIELDS
understand Rational cuttings,
Fertility, erosion,
clearings, biodiversity,
and manage invading species, fires
sand silting-up

15. Participatory mapping sessions
with local multiple stakeholders
Zone d’élevage de volailles
Interactions
Zone de pêche
highlighted by FOs :
Rice cultivation on
ponds and lack of reed
for craft use and house
building
Zone touchée par l’insécurité alimentaire
Zone touché par l’insécurité des biens et des personnes
Reduction of zebus, Terrain colonial
manure and rice yields Zone transformée en rizière

17. Existing data inventory at holding level
Indicateurs individuels Sources
3 different sources RFR :2008- ROR : (99)
RA : 2005 2011 2005-11
Different years Typologie des EA   
Different variables Caractéristiques structurelles

Capital  
Foncier   
  
Main d'œuvre   
Fonctionnement

Système d'activités  
Pratiques agricoles
Production   
Consommations
intermédiaires   
Marges brutes / production   
Revenus   
Sécurité alimentaire   
Capacités   
Energie   
17

18. Typology of farms
Farm Farm
income inc./ Self sufficiency in rice
(eur/yr) total
income
Access to landscape
A : Large rice farms 3 - 6 ha IR ; > 4ha up-land 2 390 100% units (irrigation)
extensive ; cattle
B : Rice farmers with 3 ha IR unsercured ; 2-3 ha up- 2 670 100% Off farm acticvities
unsecured yields land fully cultivated (market
oriented)
C : Selfsufficient farmers 1-3 ha IR unsecured ; <3h up- 700 62%
focused on upland fields land intensified (market
oriented) ; some small cattle or
off-farm activities
D : Diversified farmers > 1,5ha IR unsecured ; off-farm 820 67%
activities ; often cattle Conservation
< 0,5ha IR unsecured ; 1 ha up- 720 94%
agriculture : B & C
E : Non-selfsufficient
farmers, involved in land intensified ; agriculture
agriculture employment employment
F : Fishermen with 1 ha IR unsecured ; <0,5ha up- 670 31%
agriculture employment land ; fishery
G : Fishermen wihout Full-time fishery ; some
land nore farming agriculture employment
activities 18

19. Farming system modeling
• Assessing the impact of alternative cropping
systems Example : Type C farm
Farm Cash Balance
1 500
1 000
500
Reference
K ariarys
0
CA standard
2007 2010 2013 2016
-500 CA optimal
-1 000
-1 500
19

20. Farming system modeling
Assessing the impact of a shock : 50 % fertilizer price increase
The “optimal Conservation” system is the most resilient and remains
the most profitable, despite the use of fertilizers
Increase of fertilizer price - Cumulated Cash Balance
4 000
CA optimal
3 000
CA opti - Fert increase
2 000
CA standard
K Ariary
1 000
CA std - Ferti increase
0
2007 2010 2013 2016 Reference
-1 000
Ref - Ferti increase
-2 000 20

21. Evolution of assets’ structure
A panel of 252 households, surveyed from 1999 to 2006
3 major types of assets’ structure
Dynamic analysis :
Accumulation strategies among initially Adjustment strategies of initially medium
weakly endowed households (1999- endowed households, in regressive trend
2006) (1999-2006)
21

22. What Madagascar tells us…
• Performances and side effect impacts : references but not easy to
assess (space and time scales, functions, interactions)
• Metrics and challenges for making data / information useful
o Synthesis between knowledge sources ?
o Articulation with census ?
o Capture changes ?
o New data ?
• Involvement of FOs :
o From participatory brainstorming to policy making ?
o Develop partnership with stakeholders to improve data/information
availability and use 22

23. • Comments and inputs welcome
Way forward!
• « WAW sites » to address the
issue of Agricultural
Transformation through
collaborative project
• Feed the debate on the futures
of agriculture from national to
international levels trough
evidences
Include FOs in the
governance of WAW at
national levels and in the
global architecture ?
Contribution from
research ? 23

24. Thank you for your attention!
Contributions from
-Patrick Rasolofo
-Céline Ronfort
-Hélène David-Benz
-Eric Penot
-Jacques Imbernon
-Jean-François Bélières
-Nicole Andrianirina
-Lalaina Randrianarison
-Pierre-Marie Bosc
-Hubert George