Relief and recovery programs have become a regular and significant component of rural development efforts in Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA). These respond, in the first instance, to transitory shocks caused by drought, flooding and civil conflict. But, many of these programs have evolved into on-going responses to chronic conflict and food insecurity. Correspondingly, the scope of these programs is widening, and the distinctions between relief and development are blurring.

ICRISAT, and its sister CG Centers, have historically played a relatively minor role in the design and implementation of relief and recovery programs. This participation has concentrated on the identification of seed varieties suited to targeted regions. In some cases, the CG Centers have helped to source seed for these programs.

In the process, we have begun to recognize the potential contributions of these investments to technological change. For example, much of the adoption of new seed varieties in ESA has resulted from the dissemination of these seeds through relief programs. This has provoked growing interest in using relief programs to fund a wider array of development interventions targeting improvements in crop management, rural infrastructure and market services.

The growing size and consistency of relief and recovery programs in ESA calls for a more considered response. Can relief programs contribute more effectively to the delivery of new varieties, while building seed markets? Can relief programs encourage the dissemination of crop management technologies offering sustained improvements in resource use efficiency? Can subsidies underlying most relief investments be used to offset risks inherent in the development of rural markets? How can the current tendency to respond in an ad hoc manner to each individual crisis be translated into an institutional framework supporting more sustained investment?

Degraded natural resource base and highly variable weather conditions are among the major factors contributing to the prevailing uncertainty and instability in crop production and food insecurity. Although a number of promising technologies that can potentially contribute to increased productivity and prosperity in the region are available, their adoption by farmers is low due to reasons such as the livelihood risk. Farmers, generally show risk-averse behavior and adopt conservative management strategies that reduce negative impacts in poor years, but at the expense of reduced average productivity and profitability, inefficient use of resources, and sometimes accelerated natural resource degradation.

If deliberate attention is not directed to managing risks associated with climate, soil and water, majority poor farmers in semi-arid areas will face higher insecurity in food and incomes and the environment and the natural resources will be degraded further leading to declining agricultural production, reduced assets, and thus increased vulnerability to crisis.

The comparative advantage of ICRISAT lies in the strength of its technology development efforts targeting drought prone regions. In complement, we are gaining a reputation for our capacity to offer innovative options for better targeting and delivery of relief assistance.

Remain focused enough to assure significant impact.

Mitigate the impacts of acute and chronic crises linked with drought, desertification, and degraded environments through improvements in the effectiveness of relief and recovery programs in ESA.