Thirty-seven and Car-Wig

Today is my birthday. I am celebrating with pecan nut bread and peppered cheddar, something I couldn't imagine back in the great Zam.

I'm in Pretoria (Centurion to be exact), South Africa today up to Thursday for a meeting with the CA Regional Working Group, or CARWG "Car-Wig". CARWG is more or less a the vehicle by which country programs in Eastern and Southern Africa get together and "share" CA experiences. The quotations (or as they're known down here, inverted commas) come from the difficulty we have sharing experiences across such a vast area. To whit ... the country's represented at this plenary (Zambia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa, Namibia, and Malawi) are for the most part the size of 8.5 times the state of Texas.

Fly across Texas sometime (or drive, though that is a heart-rending). Consider how different East Texas is from West Texas, then multiply that by 8.5 ... you'll get the picture.

Anyway, I won't comment on that. The area is mind-blowing (as is every trip I've made to RSA); you can't imagine the development. Indicative of this is the rare ability I exhibited of dozing off in the back of the car taking us from the airport to the Protea ... the roads are that smooth. RSA (at least these parts) resembles something like the Beltway region around D.C., albeit with far more wall fences, electrified or razor wire, and with an apparent plethora of security guards. And the "cold" (again with the inverted quotes) puts ours to shame.

Not much else to mention. Strange society relative to north of the Limpopo; seeing whites in "common" jobs (cleaning up, busing tables, etc.) is odd. Not in the mean way; just something you forget in Zambia. The tourist literature is something off the planet as well, reflecting the duality of history hear. The hotel website refers to the Voertrekker Monument as either "an historical landmark" or "a grim reminder of the apartheid era". It also refers to the monument as being just outside of Pretoria, with the alternate name of Tshwane appearing in parentheses. This doubling of history lingers, reminding me (though to a lesser extent) of the names of Civil War battlefields differing between the Blue (rivers) and Grey (towns). Antietam / Sharpsburg; Bull Run / Manassas; Stone's River / Murfreesboro; etc.

Good Things Come in Threes!

Last Monday on the heels of a horrible day in Lusaka that involved a visit to the post office (2 hours), Northmead for a meeting with other agencies over Conservation Agriculture (2 hours), Makeni [CAMCO] where I was testing a not-so-efficient rice grader whilst arguing with the manager over the lack of quality (1 hour), pulling my hair out in Mt. Makulu trying to get the prices for pre-basic (foundation) seed (1 hour), and practicing nose-breathing whilst in the car stuck in Lusaka traffic (?? hours), I came back to the office after 6 p.m. to find out that I have had a paper published in the Journal of Agricultural Sustainability that is somewhat eponymous with the URL of this site. I tip my hat to my adviser, Dr. Bill Bland, on that one ... it was his persistence that kept the paper alive. I need to get a copy to the host family back in Monze (which I just realized I haven't visited in 1.5 years ...)

Tuesday was even better ... Accenture agreed to fund phase II of the CA programme in Zambia and Malawi, doubling it's funding amounts to $3.2 million for another three years. It's really exciting as it means I have a job past February next year (*** A brief aside ... one of the worst parts of development work is that your jobs aren't neither long-tenured or secure. ***) It is the culmination of about six months of project concept notes, proposal writing, budgeting, etc., etc. Real team effort on that one between our guys in Dublin, Malawi, and here.

Sunday, I bought a rice cooker (ironically the same Sunbeam (C) model I owned in the States; purchased it from Game in Lusaka, owned by Mass-Mart, owned in turn by Wal-Mart ... flattening world indeed). That seems really blase, but it really cuts down on the soupy rice.

Greetings my few readers! 

Here is an example of what we refer to as a political (and economic) agroecological context. 

Slightly over two months ago, the Zambian government (for reasons that remain a well of speculation) entirely dropped the subsidies on fuel and cut the subsidies for maize production / consumption. It was greeted at first with confusion that soon turned into anger, particularly with the 15% jump in fuel prices. The Zambian economy, including the small-scale farmers who are still consumers of things like sugar, cooking oil, clothes, etc., etc., suddenly saw their costs jump 20% literally overnight, as everything in this country depends on fuel. This was abetted in no small part by the fact that every can use fuel prices as an excuse to squeeze out some more profit, particularly as the chain from producer to consumer involves on average, four or five exchanges of goods (manufacturer -> regional wholesaler -> local wholesaler -> rural trucker -> retailer [tuck shop] -> consumer).

The maize subsidy reduction didn't kick up that much ruckus; however, my suspicion is that the cuts to FISP (Farmer Inputs Support Programme) won't be recognized until much closer to the farming season; oh, how will people holler when they have to pay half (rather than a fifth) of the price.

Anyway ... suddenness of the announcement caught everyone off-guard (including the government representatives, who appeared not to know about it). The sudden bump in consumer prices got everyone buzzing, and their was an order issued for government ministers to explain the reason for the reduction in subsidies; it is claimed that the money freed up will be used for rural development. 

As a guest in this country, I don't cross some lines of discussion, particularly in a public forum. I can say though that in my past experiences working around FISP, maize production and purchase subsidies have created a forcing context that seems to discourage crop diversification; this is particularly acute in the areas (esp. the current region, Western) that I've worked in that are marginal at best for maize production; to whit, our district average maize yield in Mongu was 0.38 t/ha ... that is like planting two football fields to maize and getting 8 x 50kg bags. To put that in context, farmers in Iowa achieve something like >8t/ha; even commercial farmers here achieve 5~6t/ha. Farmers grow maize due to it's historically monolithic support by the government, and any move away from that is a step in the right direction. Mark my words ... it will be a shock to the agricultural system of Zambia as significant as an ecological event. 

Below are scans of the leaflet released two weeks ago (the English version and the Lozi translation).

The other blog ...

For those of you who don't know, I publish things for work that are much sunnier (mostly I'm quite dour and pessimistic about things; if you ever read Animal Farm in high school, I would be Benjamin).

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/06/26/conservation-agriculture-fights-hunger-in-africa

It then got picked up by these guys:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/conservation-farming-africa_n_3510088.html?utm_hp_ref=impact

Unlike blogs like this, which people dig around for, you get some interesting comments in the public world; to which I quote from the aforementioned equine:

"Fools! Do you not see what is written on the side of that van?"

Osmotic Adoption

Relaxing in the Korea Gardens hotel in Lilongwe, Malawi ... traveled east for work and enjoying a restful Sunday of deleting emails, reviewing reports, and typing some advocacy documents.

I'm being a bit lazy today, but I wanted to post this paper (unpublished as far as I know) by a friend of mine in Malawi by the name of Stephen Carr; if you really dig into African agricultural literature, you might come across the title Surprised by Laughter, a quasi-autobiographical book he wrote about 10 years ago. You might also, if you Google the name, find that he was a relatively large voice in the quest to reinstate fertilizer subsidies in Malawi in 2006, largely due to his correct assertion that subsidizing inputs was far cheaper than sending food aid.

The paper is incredibly relevant to the work I do in that quality of delivery and appropriateness of interventions beats great inputs any time. Great read for those in ag. development.

Anyway, here goes:

---------------------------------

Author:           Stephen Carr

Date:               2004

Title:               OSMOSIS OR PROJECT ACTIVITY? THE SPREAD OF AGRO-FORESTRY IN MALAWI

ABSTRACT:

Unlike a number of new technologies and crops introduced into Africa in the past, the agro-forestry initiatives intended to improve soil quality are not spreading rapidly from farmer to farmer. This paper reviews the reasons for this failure in Malawi and describes current activities aimed at remedying this situation.

African small scale farmers have shown themselves eager to adopt innovation which they see as offering obvious benefits. In many parts of the continent farmers mainly plant crops which have been introduced from the Americas together with exotic trees from various parts of the world. They have also adopted new technologies such as ox-ploughing and the use of inorganic fertilizers. Most of this rapid spread of new crops and technology has been by a process of “osmosis” from farmer to farmer with little or no formal extension. Why then are agro-forestry technologies for improving soil quality not spreading in the same way? The reasons include faulty technology, a lack of appreciation of farmers’ labour constraints and the absence of a striking short term impact on productivity. The response to this situation has been the development of more appropriate technologies and the intensification of formal extension. As a result there has been increased uptake of the technology by farmers associated with projects but little osmotic spread. Fresh initiatives are now need which make greater use of the extensive informal networks which exit in the Malawian rural sector.

Key Words: crop productivity, extension, small-scale farmers, soil fertility, technology adoption

INTRODUCTION

The dramatic changes which took place in Sub-Saharan African small-scale farming during the first half of the twentieth century were largely due to the rapid spread of new ideas from farmer to farmer. These changes all provided obvious immediate benefits in terms of increased productivity per unit of labour or access to additional sources of food and cash. The challenge face a growing number of smallholders in Africa to-day is of a different nature. Counteracting the slow but steady loss of soil fertility on permanently cultivated land involves the use of quite unfamiliar concepts and offers benefits and returns which are less immediate and obvious than the switch from sorghum to maize or hoe to ox-plough. At the same time the people who shouldered the responsibility for developing appropriate technologies to meet the challenge of declining fertility of the often difficult soil conditions of Africa were moving into unfamiliar territory. In consequence, some of the early advice was faulty and this has also served to limit adoption by farmers. The technologies are now being further refined, but experience to date shows that intensive extension effort has been required in order to elicit farmer response. As a result the level of adoption remains far too low to have any impact at the national level. Malawi with its high population density and degrading soils offers a good example of the challenges posed by the factors described above.

EAGER ADOPTERS

Few countries in Africa were not touched by the spread of new crops from the Americas in the first half of the last century, but it is the rapidity of that spread which is particularly striking. Examples can be drawn from a wide range of ecological conditions which demonstrate this point. Cocoa was introduced from Central America to the Gold Coast (Ghana) at the end of the nineteenth century and spread rapidly from farmer to farmer so that production grew from 2,400 tons in 1902 to 176,000 in 1919 (Hill 1956). Cassava was not a major food crop in Nigeria in 1920 (Faulkner and Mackie 1933) but was the staple food of millions a couple of decades later. Sweet potatoes were so rare in Northern Uganda at the start of the last century that the vines could be used to replace cattle as a dowry (Driberg 1923) and yet by 1935 about 250,000 ha. Were recorded (Tothill 1940. Maize also spread rapidly across the East and South of the continent replacing sorghum and millet as the staple food of millions of families. There was not only a switch to more productive crops but quite new technologies, such as ox-ploughing, were also taken up with remarkable alacrity. An example of this can be drawn from Eastern Uganda where a handful of chiefs’ sons were trained in ox-ploughing in the early 1920’s. No further government help or encouragement was given and yet by 1936 it is recorded the 15,388 ox-ploughs were in use in Teso country alone (Tothill 1940).

All over the continent farmers demonstrated their eagerness to adopt new crops, new technologies, new foods and new trees and this adoption was almost entirely unrelated to any formal extension service but was the result of the flow of information from farmer to farmer by what can be described as osmosis. A much more recent example occurred in Malawi in the 1990’s when the government lifted its ban on smallholder production of burley tobacco. Within five years of the change in policy some 250,000 farmers were growing a crop which requires considerable skill in both production, curing, and marketing.

When African farmers have demonstrated so clearly their eagerness to adopt new crops and technologies together with the effectiveness of their own networks, why is it that there has been so little spread of agro-forestry innovations intended to deal with the problems of soil fertility with which many farmers are now 

faced?

FAULTY ADVISORS

One reason for the slow spread of the agro-forestry approach to raising soil quality was the weakness of some of the initial recommendation given to farmers in Malawi. The earliest work concentrated on alley cropping with Leucaena. The hedges grew strongly on the exceptionally fertile soils of Chitedze research station and gave encouraging results. After several years of research there was a major push to popularise this approach on farmers’ fields. It soon became obvious that the levels of growth at Chitedze were totally different to those obtained on the degraded soils available to farmers and after a few years the initiative was dropped. Unfortunately many farmers and had planted the hedgerows, seen no benefit from them and been made suspicious of agro-forestry. A range of different plants were then tried in alley cropping experiments both under the national research programme and by ICRAF. From these Senna spectablilis was selected as the plant of choice for the next major extension campaign. From the earliest stages of this work there were doubts in some quarters as to whether the plants were really drawing fresh nutrient supplies into the upper layers of the soil rather than simply recycling them. More importantly it soon became apparent that for poor families with no access to paid labour this was too risky an approach. Just a couple of weeks delay in pruning in the early part of the growing season could lead to a level of competition between the hedgerows and the young maize which seriously depressed crop yields. Attention then moved from alley cropping to inter-planting with Sesbania as the shrub of choice. ICRAF pioneered this work which consisted in raising thousands of seedling it polythene pots and transplanted them in a short “window” of time which clashed with the crucial first weeding of the maize. The whole process required unreasonable amount of expenditure and labour in relation of the benefits it produced and was impracticable for small scale farmers. Thus another three years was lost on a course which had been embarked upon with insufficient appreciation of the real conditions faced by farmers.

Throughout this time efforts were made to popularise the planting of Faidherbia albida in farmers’ fields as a long term contributor to soil fertility. Thousands of farmers were encouraged to establish nurseries in small polythene pots and the transplant the seedlings into their fields at the start of the rains. The results were disappointing. Most of the young trees put on virtually no growth in the first year and the tiny seedlings were walked on or hoed out because they were not noticed in a weedy crop. The occasional plant made excellent growth and survived leading to a situation where a farmer might have two or three Faidherbia plants actually growing in a field out of a hundred which had been planted. This was obviously not encouraging and the interest in Faidherbia faded.

These failures panned about fifteen years and have certainly contributed to the lack of widespread enthusiasm for the use of agro-forestry for raising soil fertility.

A FRESH START

These failures led to the development of new technical strategies of which the three most importer were:

1. A move from alley cropping to inter-planting to increase biomass and reduce the loss of area planted to the main crop;
2. The choice of Tephrosia vogelii for the inter-planting because it thrives under poor soil conditions in most of Malawi and can be planted directly in the maize crop rather than being raised in nurseries and transplanted;  
3. A change in the method of growing Faidherbia to overcome the problems of root damage caused by raising seedlings in small pots on the ground. This involved both direct seeding and the production of seedlings in much larger pots placed on racks to provide air pruning.

Once the technology had been improved the focus of attention moved to the challenge sharing it with farmers. The first major initiative came under a combined World Bank and IFAD project aimed at improving soil quality. This was a $17 million investment which used the 2,000 extension workers employed by the Ministry of Agriculture. At the end of five years very little had been achieved and the most optimistic estimate was that about 2,000 farmers had adopted some method of improving soil quality. This failure was blamed on the poor motivation and organization of the staff. Two bi-laterally funded projects subsequently took over the task. The Promotion of Soil Conservation and Rural Production (PROSCARP) project funded by the European Union works through the Ministry of Agriculture. The Malawi Agroforestry Extension Project (MAFE) works with the staff of 21 NGOS’s and 19 CBO’s. Both have outstanding senior staff who are not constrained by the limitations of a government department and are able to provide technical advice, training, leadership and encouragement to the front line extension staff of the government and the voluntary agencies. Both organisations encourage farmers to improve the quality of their soils through a range of activities including conservation, the use of manure and compost, crop diversification and agro-forestry. The main thrust of the last is inter-planting of Tephrosia and both have achieved remarkably similar results over the past four years as is shown by the following figures:

	Number of farm households involved	Number of ha. of Tephrosia planted
PROSCARP	66,780	5,134
MAFE	57,000	5,841

While these figures are a lot more encouraging than the results of the Ministry of Agriculture’s initiative funded by the World Bank they still represent a small fraction of the farming population and demonstrate that even the adopters are only using the technology on small part of their land. The limitations of this achievement is highlighted by the fact that some 35,000 additional families take up farming each year as a result of population growth so that the proportion using agro-forestry to improve soil fertility is actually declining.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

The “problem” needs to be seen form two perspectives. The first is that of the project managers who perceive it in terms of the quality and performance of extension staff. MAFE blames “low levels of expertise and motivation among extension staff, limited use of up-to-date extension materials, lack of co-ordination among service providers and inadequate monitoring and evaluation of what is working and why” (MAFE 2001). PROSCARP has similar perceptions. This focus on the problem as being institutional clearly demonstrates that the technology is not spreading from farmer to farmer by “osmosis” but is wholly dependent upon extension staff influencing individual farmers, which is inevitably a slow task which would take generations to have a nation impact even with an improvement in the quality of extension performance. The government has by far the largest cadre of field staff but even they have only one extension worker per 2,000 families while for the NGO’s the ration would be more than twice that number. Until the main route of adoption is from farmer to farmer there will only be a small proportion of the land under improved management using agroforestry.

The second aspect of the problem is, therefore, why are farmers not just copying from their neighbours as they have done with so many other innovations? It is certainly not a reluctance to plant trees. A recent survey revealed that 90% of farmers had planted trees at their homesteads and 86% had planted trees in their fields. (PROSCARP 2001). These were mostly for food, medicine, fuel or timber. This is further confirmed by MAFE’s recent experience with encouraging the planting of trees (as opposed to leguminous shrubs) where they have 210,000 participating families planting some 9 million trees per year (MAFE 2001). Why the reluctance to interplant Tephrosia? There are several fairly obvious reasons. The first is the shortage of examples of farmer success with the technology. Among the few thousand farmers who have attempted to use this technology only a small proportion have followed the critical rules for early planting, correct spacing and proper incorporation of the green manure during cultivation. Poorly developed stands of stunted Tephrosia plants do not provide an adequate boost to the following maize crop to convince farmers that the effort is worth the return. Really striking examples of enhanced fertility are few and far between, largely because of delaying planting of the Tephrosia. MAFE research indicates that where there has been a good stand of Tephrosia that in the first season it will raise the following maize crop yield by 20% (W. T. Bunderson, pers. comm. 2002). For an 800kg crop that is an additional 160kg. This is a useful addition but compares poorly with farmer experience of the impact of 100kg. of fertilizer which would more than double the yield. If the farmer persists then the second planting of Tephrosia will raise the yield by 40% which offers a more convincing example of the value of the technology. Poor experience in the first year means that examples of successful consecutive Tephrosia crops are even harder to identify. The second reason is that farmers are being asked to embark upon a quite new form of activity which does not relate to their previous experience. This is quite different to switching to an alternative food crop or planting a tree for timber or fuel. Instead of inter-planting pumpkins, beans or groundnuts the farmer is being asked to plant a crop which cannot be eaten, provides no human medicine and little fuel and yet must be treated with the same care and precise time as a food crop. Most smallholders in Malawi have little understanding of the role of rhizobia or the importance of organic matter in the soil so that it is not surprising that the technology is not spreading with the rapidity of an attractive new food crop or fuel wood tree. The switch from sorghum to maize required no totally new agricultural concept and therefore needed no education programme to foster adoption. The use of leguminous shrubs for green manuring does involve quite new concepts and therefore farmers need some basic education in soil fertility and not just a proposal to plant some strange seeds in between their maize plants.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Based on the two classes of problem outlined above what can be done to help many more farmers to discover effective ways of stemming the current degradation of their land with a low cost innovation? This paper makes three suggestions.

The first is that the focus of the current extension efforts should be more on quality than on quantity. Until communities can see really successful examples of the use of a technology there is little likelihood of any farmer to farmer spread. Given the crucial importance of early planting, correct spacing and appropriate use of the resulting biomass it is essential that field staff are encouraged to have some well-distributed examples of the successful use of Tephrosia rather than large numbers of mediocre stands which have little impact on crop productivity. This will involve staff in hands on work with selected farmers to ensure that the job is done properly rather than giving instruction at a meeting. The same applies to the establishment of Faidherbia.

The second is that the extension effort will need to look more fundamentally at educating farmers in the basic concepts of soil fertility. Farmers whose ancestors have been able to rely on fallows to naturally restore fertility for them, have little traditional knowledge of what is happening to their farms now that they are under continuous cultivation. Without such an understanding it is unlikely that there will be any widespread adoption of technologies which seem quite alien to the farmers’ experience. For most extension staff this is something quite new. Farmers can be encouraged to switch to hybrid maize varieties without having to know the underlying principles hybridization, but dealing with the comparatively new problems of soil degradation does require a fresh understanding by farmers. Most extension staff in Malawi are not particularly good educators having been used to giving orders rather than embarking on a dialogue. There are ongoing efforts to change these deep seated attitudes but these efforts will also need to prepare staff to pass on more fundamental knowledge to farmers in an imaginative way.

Thirdly the widespread adoption of better soil management is going to depend on the better used of the thousands of informal groups which exist in the rural villages of Malawi. Throughout the Malawian countryside there are church women’s groups which meet regularly, mosque groups, choirs and traditional societies which are will defined and have widespread networks. These have the potential of providing thousands of volunteers to complement the work of formal extension officers. At present they have only been tapped by a small number of NGOs but they offer the one channel that could reach out to really large numbers of farmers. An extension worker who has worked with a few farmers to develop really successful examples of agro-forestry and then recruited a hundred volunteers who have had basic training in soil fertility and seen the successes, is likely to have a far wider impact than one who feels that he or she alone has the professional qualifications to carry out extension. Neither the government nor the NGO community can possibly employ enough staff to carry out this educational task without an army of volunteers. The groups are there in the rural areas. What is now needed is the courtesy, humility and understanding of the professional extension staff to elicit their support and through them initiate the osmotic spread of agro-forestry as a tool for counteracting the soil degradation which has become such an urgent problem for so many Malawian smallholders.

CONCLUSION

There is increasing evidence that currently available agro-forestry technology is capable of making a significant contribution to enhancing soil quality on the small scale farms of Malawi. It is currently being used by a small fraction of farmers and is spreading only though the direct action of formal sector extension workers despite abundant past evidence of farmers’ readiness to embrace new technologies. What is now needed are more obvious examples of the successful use of agro-forestry by farmers, more education of farmers in the basic principles of soil fertility and the use of the abundant network of village societies as a source of thousands of volunteers to supplement the work of formal sector extension staff. In this way the spread of the technology will change from being dependent on project activity to an osmotic movement from farmer to farmer.

REFERENCES

Driberg JH (1923) The Lango. Fisher and Unwin, London, UK

Faulkner OT and Mackie JR (1933) West African Agriculture. Cambridge University Press, UK

Hill P (1956) The Gold Cost Cocoa Farmer. Oxford University Press, UK

MAFE (2001) Annual report October 2000 to September 2001 Blantyre, Malawi

PROSCARP (2001) Information for management topic paper no. 25 Blantyre, Malawi

Tothill JD (1940) Agriculture in Uganda. Oxford University Press, UK

The Development Set

From an unnamed colleague far saltier than me:

The Development Set

Excuse me, friends, I must catch my jet-
I’m off to join the Development Set;
My bags are packed, and I’ve had all my shots,
I have travellers’ checks, and shots for the trots

The Development Set is bright and noble,
Our thoughts are deep and our vision global;
Although we move with the better classes,
Our thoughts are always with the masses.

In Sheraton hotels in scattered nations,
We damn multinational corporations;
Injustice seems so easy to protest,
In such seething hotbeds of social rest.

We discuss malnutrition over steaks
And plan hunger talks during coffee breaks.
Whether Asian floods or African drought,
We face each issue with an open mouth.

We bring in consultants whose circumlocution
Raises difficulties for every solution-
Thus guaranteeing continued good eating
By showing the need for another meeting.

The language of the Development Set
Stretches the English alphabet;
We use swell words like ‘epigenetic’,
‘Micro’, ‘Macro’. and ‘logarithmetic’.

Development Set homes are extremely chic,
Full of carvings, curios and draped with batik.
Eye-level photographs subtly assure
That your host is at home with the rich and the poor.

Enough of these verses — on with the mission!
Our task is as broad as the human condition!
Just parry to God the biblical promise is true:
The poor ye shall always have with you.

Lessons learned [learnt]

Ugh ... time goes by like a spinning wheel while you feel like your spinning your wheels.

Neglecting a blog I guess isn't that big a deal, especially one as inspiring and as popular as mine. It's only the legacy that you used to post more often that drives you to post again, though with less frequency than before.

However, this is an agroecological blog; despite personal contexts being relative constraining to my particular holon, the universe that is Zambian agriculture stumbles along. May is roughly the beginning of autumn (if such a Westernization of the climate can be thus approximated) in terms of weather; however, the harvest started for most around the Ides of March. The above normal, but poorly distributed rainfall pattern crushed the maize crops in most cases; that three-week dry spell in the latter half of January and early February put away all chances of food security for the nonce. Most of the project farmers have called their conventional harvest a loss; the Conservation Agriculture was somewhat less so, but many of the poorest beneficiaries have already consumed whatever they grew and are already turning to other livelihood strategies, mainly basket fishing and piecework (food-for-labor). The groundnuts and bean crops were a failure as well; the groundnuts just can't find enough calcium in between the large particles of sand (not that it would matter anyway with the soil so dry that there was none in plant available form), and the beans were a magnet to every critter south of the Congo.

In the NGOs world, you never admit failure. Even if the walls are coming down around your head, you never say anything to the effect of "that was a big mistake" or "we shouldn't have done that". There is doubtless a great fear of failure, or admitting failure, because of the expectation that donor funding may   clamp down, shut off, end, etc. Instead, you refer to ongoing failures as "challenges" and confirmed failure as "lessons learned" [learnt in the Queen's Eng]). Some of our failures can be spun as follows:

Failure #1. Sugar beans should not have been selected as a third crop.
LL #1:       In future programming, sugar beans should not be utilized as a rotation crop.

Failure #2:  Selection of beneficiaries was incorrectly done and inadequately verified by staff and partners due to the high ratio of beneficiaries to officers, meaning numerous extremely poor beneficiaries were excluded from the programme.
LL #2:        Community leaders need to be sensitized in beneficiary selection criteria.

I could go on but I won't. This year logistically went the best of all three, but the heavens failed us. How do you write a lessons learned for poor rainfall distribution? Who do you blame? Where do you point the finger?

Oh well; I keep remembering what Grant said to Sherman on the evening of first day of the Battle of Shiloh (TN):

Sherman encountered Grant under a tree, sheltering himself from the pouring rain. He was smoking one of his cigars while considering his losses and planning for the next day. Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."

Guess P.T.G. Beauregard didn't apply his lessons learnt. Now we just need to find our own Don Carlos Buell.