Research into Action. Synergising research and Outreach for Development and Food Security in Malawi. Mid-Term Review of the Agricultural Research and Development Programme (ARDEP)

The Project

Norway’s partnership with Bunda College of Agriculture in Malawi started in 1998. An evaluation in 2005 of the Norwegian support led to a split of the program into two main components. The review is looking at one of these, the Agriculture Research and Development Program (ARDEP). ARDEP is a five-year program with national coverage, and an overriding goal to contribute to enhanced productivity in Malawi’s agricultural sector with a view to contributing towards the improvement of the quality of life and social well-being of Malawians through a powerful, effective, and efficient national research and outreach system.

Interesting Findings

• There has been a very positive development concerning collaborative relationships since the last evaluation, in 2005, that augurs well for the future. A transformation of collaborative relationships into a workable model where all relevant stakeholders are involved from the scientists, ministry departments, NGOs to the farmers at the grassroots.
• The novelty of ARDEP is its mode of operation. First, its defining characteristic is the involvement of multiple stakeholders across sectors into a coherent system of implementation so as to ensure concerted action towards common goals. Second, the micro projects are based on demand-driven research and outreach from the ultimate beneficiaries at the grassroots: the farmers themselves, in conjunction with and on the advice of the scientists. In such a bottom-up approach extensive sensitisation and mobilisation have been necessary. Third, the pilot micro projects are fully integrated into established government structures, especially those of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security. ARDEP fits squarely into the overall government policy framework for the agricultural sector: the Agricultural Development Programme (ADP).
• There is a legitimate concern that the cost of each of the 19 pilot projects is on the high side and that the cost of a major scaling-up might be more than the state budget can absorb. However, the pilot projects are realistically expected to be self-sustaining after their productive capacity has been heightened. The anticipated scaling-up exercise does not need to be nationwide at one go. It could be incremental over a longer period of time so as to make it easier to accommodate the cost within constrained budgets.
• The ARDEP concept and design are definitely sound. The current structure and functionality of ARDEP is arguably its greatest achievement to date, especially in view of the point of departure with less than harmonious relations between stakeholders in the past.
• On the negative side, the pilot projects are being developed and implemented without clear environmental and climate change impact guidelines. Their implementation is behind schedule due to a number of factors, especially the lengthy ARDEP inception phase.
• ARDEP has made a very good start with promising prospects if potential risks are managed and mitigated in a timely manner. At the core of the success potential are the enthusiasm and the sense of ownership shown by the beneficiaries at the grassroots level. Timely delivery of inputs, supervision, and frequent M&E are key ingredients to allow the enthusiasm and ownership to come to fruition.
• Almost all the ARDEP micro projects fit into the climate change impact adaptation strategy, especially when dealing with food security and sustainable development at the household level. But they are susceptible to disruption or destruction from environmental catastrophes such as erosion and flooding.
• The relevance of ARDEP is very high in terms of the ADP, poverty reduction and food security. All micro projects are implicitly addressing climate change as adaptations. But they address climate change mitigation to a lesser extent.