AGRA has failed to improve Africa's food security, report finds

An independent evaluation has found that although the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa has built a more viable business environment for smallholders, outcomes for these farmers were mixed — suggesting that “AGRA did not meet its headline goal of increased incomes and food security for 9 million smallholders.” AGRA has “worked to enhance smallholder African farmers’ productivity and prosperity” since 2006, the evaluation notes. “In 2017, AGRA launched a five-year strategy called Partnership for Inclusive Agricultural Transformation in Africa,” aiming “to increase incomes and improve food security for 30 million farming households across 11 focus countries by 2021.” To mark the end of the strategy, the evaluation was initiated by PIATA’s resource partners: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the U.K. Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office; The Rockefeller Foundation; the U.S. Agency for International Development; and Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Researchers from Mathematica, the independent organization tasked with the evaluation, found that “PIATA was successful in developing key policy reforms, mobilizing flagships and partnerships, and reaching farmers with extension and seeds.” The strategy also helped “incentivize private sector engagement in the production and delivery of improved seeds” in some countries. But “PIATA’s impact on inclusive finance, output markets, and farmer outcomes was mixed,” as “seed companies, agro-dealers, buyers, and farmers … reported acute credit constraints … despite PIATA’s investments in inclusive finance.” The evaluation also said, “PIATA also had limited success stimulating output markets across focus countries.” Maize yields improved in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Nigeria under the program, but not in Tanzania, Burkina Faso, and Kenya. Meanwhile, “only farmers in Burkina Faso experienced improved maize sales as a result of PIATA.” Mathematica concluded that the findings suggest that AGRA did not meet its goal of increasing incomes and food security for smallholder farmers. In a response to the evaluation, AGRA’s management said its findings are “an expected outcome and a true reflection of the realities that farmers, AGRA, and other institutions that support farmers today live with daily.” According to the organization, the evaluation “underscores the need … to understand the complex issues that farmers face in the farming landscape especially external factors that impact farmers and their place as small farming enterprises.” “The evaluators point to farmers’ binding constraints, such as the ability to afford both seeds and fertilizers. Some farmers cannot buy inputs at all due to a lack of financing,” the response stated. “AGRA’s support focused on providing extension, demonstration on seeds and fertilizers use and support to proximity of and choices of inputs in village shops (agrodealers) – but we do not fund individual farmer’s access to inputs.” Agnes Kalibata, AGRA’s president, said the organization cannot increase productivity and incomes on its own. “It's just too much to expect of one institution,” she said. “In many places, the evaluators find that things have gotten worse. As African food producers have said, it is time to change course.” --— Timothy Wise, senior adviser, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy “AGRA committed to strengthen an environment for local SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises] to exist in the private sector. I believe we have done a fantastic job of that,” she said. “How that impacts farmers depends on the choices that farmers make and depends on the impact on the landscape and depends on additional public investments that happen.” By creating an enabling environment, AGRA businesses are able to supply seeds and fertilizers to farmers and help them increase their yields — which, Kalibata noted, the report said had happened in some countries. “For us, that is what sustainability looks like. It's not about us doing the work; it's about empowering businesses to do the work,'' she said. But Timothy Wise, a senior adviser at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy — whose research had previously pointed to AGRA’s failures — said donors should be shocked and embarrassed that their funding has produced such limited impacts on small-scale farmers' productivity, incomes, and food security. “The initiative has done a poor job over 15 years monitoring its results, and this evaluation shows that recent efforts are doing little for small-scale farmers,” he wrote. “In many places, the evaluators find that things have gotten worse. As African food producers have said, it is time to change course.” He added that donors should just stop funding AGRA. AGRA has received $1 billion in funding to date, or an average of $67 million per year, which it has invested across 18 countries, according to its evaluation response. Enock Chikava, interim director for agricultural development at the Gates Foundation, said the foundation — which is one of AGRA’s biggest funders — still believes that “AGRA has a critical role to play in helping countries implement the priorities and policies contained in their national agricultural development strategies and building resilient regional food systems.” “The report provides valuable insights for AGRA and the broader development community on the evolving needs of African smallholder farmers who are working to support their families and strengthen rural economies,” he wrote in an email. Kalibata said the institution is currently consulting various partners and stakeholders and will release a new strategy in the coming months. “We selected very difficult areas, knowing they are very difficult areas,” she said. “We actually did make progress and headway in those very difficult areas that we selected.”