KACPs institutionalization in development realm

Institutionally, a more critical lens into the institutionalization of KACP through ViA, WB and other international partners (SIDA and Syngenta) partnership implies a ‘business as usual’

scenario in policy and practice discourses. It seems KACPs promotion of ‘climate smart agriculture’ is similar to many development interventions that studies have shown to be ‘old wine in new bottles’. This is a replication of older agricultural technologies into seemingly newer technologies to serve ‘the whims of today’s hot development topic(s)’-e.g. climate change. For instance, the study gathered that a number of the SALM practices such as soil and water management (terracing and contour ploughing) are a replication of what the Ministry of Agriculture and other agricultural development agencies, including ViA, have been promoting through its extension services a few decades in the past to address soil degradation. The study found out that many international and national development agencies, such as KACPs key partners the WB and ViA, have failed to uphold the principle of development ethics¹⁰ where on closer scrutiny, policy and practice are deceptively ‘worlds apart’ regarding common but, differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) in climate change adaptation and mitigation burden-sharing (Ringius et al. 2002)

It is claimed that WB was meant to be a carbon credits broker and not a buyer per se’ as is the state of affairs currently. One KACP staff at the management level reported that there is a

10 It refers to upholding the principle of fairness and distributive justice in sustainable development and across international relations and engagements e.g. states’ conscientious take-up of responsibilities in climate change adaptation and mitigation burden-sharing (Ringius et al. 2002).

116

rampant misperception by researchers and critics alike, on KACPs financial responsibilities especially moderation of carbon revenue and various financial flows which involve other ViAs projects implementation processes besides SALM. In fact, he insisted that researchers and critics should strive to understand that ViAs mandate as KACP implementing agency obligated it to be the project’s pre-financer and not the implementer in its entirety (including carbon revenue intricacies and deliberations). He went on to recommend that ‘World Bank should assist ViA in implementing KACP on the ground’. This suggests that the project may be facing implementation challenges within its mandate but there seems to be a ‘silent’ power relations strife between ViA and WB owing to their differential stakes in the KACP. As such, the issues of development ethics and the divergence between policy and practice sharply emerge as major drawbacks when KACP institutionalization is closely examined and more so regarded as ‘climate smart agriculture’. From earlier discussions, contrary to the study findings that established substantial changes in farmers’ rural livelihoods generally, KACP has been critiqued on the uncertainty of actual socio-environmental impacts which are allegedly not readily tangible. To this end, some propositions about policy and practice as envisioned and elaborated by Mosse (2005) puts forward the study’s key criticism on the institutionalization of KACP.

First, policy primarily functions to mobilize and maintain political support- This is seen in the legitimization of practice rather than its presupposed transformative orientation. WB has endeavored to remain relevant in today’s ‘climate change politics’ by not only pushing for efficacy in CC adaptation and mitigation projects through voluntary carbon markets creation for forests (REDD) but also for agricultural soils carbon sequestration projects (such as financing KACP’s carbon revenue). This scenario, Mosse asserts, ‘…inspires allegiance, conceals ideological differences…thereby generating political legitimacy…’ that often successfully enrolls different interests that are necessary to bring a new project, such as KACP, into existence.

Second, development interventions are not driven by policy but by exigencies of organizations and the need to maintain relationships- Here, it is observed that project designs are technically expressed but politically shaped based on vested interests and priorities of international development agencies, national governments, implementing agencies, collaborating NGOs, research institutions and donor advisors (Mosse 2005). KACP overall operationalization comprises of closely knitted network of public and private development politics ‘big wigs’. As

117

Mosse claims, such a project (KACP) design and operationalization as run and deliberated by WB and ViA alongside SIDA and Syngenta¹¹, is an ‘art’ of making a convincing argument (climate smart agriculture). It develops a causal model that relates inputs, outputs and impacts i.e. agricultural soils carbon sequestration for climate change adaptation and mitigation, higher agricultural yields and food security attainment. This is oriented to justify the allocation of resources (carbon revenue from BioCarbon-Fund) by validating higher policy goals in the expansion and legitimization of the voluntary soil carbon markets under international climate policies.

Third, development projects work to maintain themselves as coherent policy ideas and operational systems. The coining of KACP as ‘climate smart agriculture’ purports a generalized model of misrepresentation that consciously campaigns to stabilize authoritative interpretation of blueprint project models such as KACP as the first agricultural carbon sequestration project in Africa (Mosse 2005). He claims that such models conceal contradictions and weak causal connections¹² between project activities (SALM implementation) and claimed outcomes (increased farm yields, improved incomes and food security attainment). He further points out that model projects such as KACP ‘reveal and conceal, explain, justify, label and give meaning’

to dominant interpretations (climate change adaptation and mitigation) where ‘success’ and

‘failure’ are policy-oriented judgements that obscure actual project impacts on the ground.

Summarily, the study establishes that KACP has not generated SALM practices as new agricultural practices to address climate change but rather, has sustained them as replicas of older agricultural practices to justify international climate policies. Nevertheless, WB and ViA need to uphold the principles of development ethics by conscientiously promoting SALM implementation more, rather than too much institutional emphasis on agricultural carbon credits financing and marketing.

11 It is a multi-national seed manufacturing company that collaborates with KACP to provide improved seeds variety as well as different fertilizer brands.

12 Where old agricultural practices for soil degradation are replicated as ‘new’ SALM technologies for CC change adaptation and mitigation through soil carbon sequestration- an unclear argument in its entirety because soil carbon emissions and sequestration are allegedly subject to impermanence.

118

4.3.6 Summary on farmers’ understanding of carbon financing and marketing