St. Kitts Agricultural Development Strategy (ADS) (2013 – 2016)

St. Kitts Agricultural Development Strategy (ADS) 2013 – 2016 St. Kitts 2013-2016 Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS) Department of Agriculture February 2013 making ScientificExecutableNeededSustainableEconomic Promoting standards & good practices for high yields & safe products Involving stake holders in the design and implementation of activities & projects Responding to the need for food self reliance & youth involvement in agriculture Managing scare water & land resources & mitigating risks to farming Strengthening capacities for production, marketing and profitable business making ScientificExecutableNeededSustainableEconomic Promoting standards & good practices for high yields & safe products Involving stake holders in the design and implementation of activities & projects Responding to the need for food self reliance & youth involvement in agriculture Managing scare water & land resources & mitigating risks to farming Strengthening capacities for production, marketing and profitable business This Agricultural Development Strategy (ADS) provides a framework and guide for actions to improve the production and marketing of crop and animal food and non-food products in St. Kitts over the 2013 to 2016 period. Its implementation will be led by the Department of Agriculture (DoA), working in collaboration with partners and stakeholders. The ADS is to be viewed as a ‘living document’ that can and should be adjusted to take into account any dynamics in the international and national environment for agriculture. These dynamics could either impede or enhance achievement of goals and objectives for agriculture. This demands period realignment to ensure that above all, the actions, planned and undertaken, make SENSE and provide benefits to key stakeholders, i.e., the small and medium farmers and processors, youth, communities and consumers, as well as the rest of our business community and other economic and social actors. Cover images: http://www.thestkittsnevisobserver.com m.sknvibes.com http://www.sknsidf.org/projects www.stkittsipa.org i THE 2013-2016 AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AT A GLANCE V is io n A vibrant, sustainable and diverse farm to market system for selected crop and livestock products Goals Sectoral Priorities 1 Stable, safe, affordable food supplies ► Enhance availability and utilization of selected locally produced foods; ► Engage and support youth involvement in agriculture; 2 Sustainable and resilient farming systems ► Reduce vulnerability to production risk & climate change impacts; ► Engender a culture of sustainable farming & resource use; ► Raise producer productivity and profitability levels; 3 Innovative, profitable agri-business ► Integrate the supply chain to build critical mass ► Forge farm to market linkages ► Foster development of value adding to local farm produce Institutional Goal: Efficient and cohesive agricultural policy and institutional framework; The platform and vehicle for efficient and effective implementation through a ‘Realigned, modernized and efficient DoA Year 1 Operational Plan 2-Pronged Strategy High Impact Actions Core Programs Taking innovative strategies to tackle majors limiting problems to agricultural development Consolidating/focusing routine services to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery 2 P ro je c t: Reducing Farm Risks from Monkeys and Roaming Animals Engaging youth through Student Training by Agricultural Immersion (STAI) project 4 P ro g ra m s : Operation Food Security (OFS) Farming and Agricultural Systems Transformation (FAST) AgiBusiness and Market Development Agriculture Risk Management & Climate Change Adaptation ii ADS 2013-2016 Table of Contents Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................... iv Glossary of Terms: .............................................................................................................................................. v Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... vii Background - The 2006 ADS ..................................................................................................................... vii The 2013 ADS – A Different Approach ....................................................................................................viii Formulating the 2013 ADS - Process ......................................................................................................... ix ADS 2013-2016: Recommended Strategy for Implementation ........................................................... x Detailing a Year 1 Operational Plan ...................................................................................................... x Constituting Program Teams .................................................................................................................. xi Completing the Process ............................................................................................................................. xii Part I: The Situation ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Key Points ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1 Understanding Agriculture’s Situation ........................................................................................ 13 1.1.1 Agriculture in the domestic economy ................................................................................... 13 1.1.2 Sectoral Performance (2004-2008) ......................................................................................... 14 1.2. Adjusting to Changes in the Development Context ............................................................... 20 1.2.1 The 2007 food crisis ..................................................................................................................... 20 1.2.2 The 2008 international financial crisis ...................................................................................... 21 1.2.3 The 2008 EU-CARIFORUM EPA .................................................................................................. 21 1.2.4 The 2010 Cancun Agreement on climate change ............................................................. 22 1.3 Recognising emerging Opportunities ......................................................................................... 24 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 30 Part II: The Vision, Development Goals, Priority Areas .............................................................................. 32 2 2013-2016 Agricultural Development Strategy ............................................................................. 32 2.1 Scope of the Strategy .................................................................................................................... 32 2.2 Vision and Guiding Principles ....................................................................................................... 32 2.3 Agriculture Development Goals (ADGs) ................................................................................... 33 iii Part III: The Planning for Implementation Framework ............................................................................... 38 3. Implementation Framework ............................................................................................................. 38 3.1 Programs as the Common Framework and Platform for Action ...................................... 39 Program #1: Operation Food Security (OFS) ..................................................................................... 39 Program #2: Farming and Agricultural Systems Transformation (FAST) ......................................... 41 Program #3: Agricultural Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation (ARMCCA) .. 41 Program #4: Agri-Business and Market Development ..................................................................... 42 Part IV: The Institutional Development Plan ............................................................................................... 48 4.1 DoA Institutional Realignment Requirements ........................................................................... 48 Role of the DoA (Department of Agriculture) .................................................................................... 48 Realignment Requirements ................................................................................................................... 49 Program 5: Institutional Realignment ................................................................................................... 50 Constituting Program Teams ................................................................................................................. 51 Constituting Common Support Services ............................................................................................. 52 4.2 Critical Success Factors ................................................................................................................. 53 4.3 Financing the Programs ................................................................................................................ 54 What Was Accomplished? ....................................................................................................................... 56 Key Elements to Complete the Planning Process! ............................................................................... 56 iv ACRONYMS Acronyms: Technical Terms A4T Aid for Trade FT Fair Trade GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GDP Gross domestic product GHG greenhouse gas GIs geographic indications ICT Information and Communication Technology OA organic agriculture MDGs Millennium Development Goals MoU Memorandum of Understanding REDD UN Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation REDD+ REDD (+ conservation, sustainable forest management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks) UN Comtrade United Nations Commodity Trade Database Acronyms: Regional Groupings, Institutions and Global Trade and Economic Initiatives CARICOM Caribbean Community CROSQ CSME Caribbean Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality CARICOM Single Market and Economy ECS Eastern Caribbean States OECS Organization of Eastern Caribbean States NFIDC Net-Food Importing Developing Country SIDS Small Island Developing State CARDI Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute CFNI Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean DoA Department of Agriculture EU-CARIFORUM EPA European Union-Caribbean Forum Economic Partnership Agreement FAVACA Florida Association for Volunteer Action in the Caribbean & Americas FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation IMF International Monetary Fund PAHO Pan-American Health Organization WTO World Trade Organisation ADS Policy-Specific Terminology ADGs Agriculture Development Goals ADS Agriculture Development Strategy CIP Core Institutional Program ER Expected Result FAST Farming and Agricultural Systems Transformation IDG Institutional Development Goal OFS Operation Food Security PA Priority Areas SAS Sugar Adaptation Strategy YAAEP Youth Agriculture Apprenticeship and Entrepreneurship Program v GLOSSARY OF TERMS:  Agriculture commodities: refers to farm outputs, i.e., from the primary sector largely in their fresh or non-transformed state.  Agricultural diversification: a structural change in farming and food processing/manufacturing system and economy aimed at reducing expanding the productive base to optimise economic opportunities, enhance flexibility to market signals, and spread risks.  Agricultural incentives: provision of economic and other benefits by Governments to the agriculture sector similar to those provided for manufacturing, such as enhance availability of/access to credit, infrastructure and equipment and other inputs and facilities for development aimed at to improving productivity and reducing production costs.  Backyard gardening: crop and/or livestock production occurring within the vicinity of the home for either household consumption or sale.  Biodiversity: the quantity and variety of living organisms on the planet, including genes, species and ecosystems that support life through a system of inter-dependence within a specific geographic region.  Change management: activities aimed at introducing new values and/or redefining/ reorienting attitudes, norms, behaviours to encourage acceptance of new/productivity enhancing technologies/systems within an organization, firm, cluster or industry.  Climate change adaptation: initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate change effects.  Commercial farming: market-focused and profit-oriented production of fresh commodities.  Domestic food production capacity: the extent to which local resources can satisfy a defined portion of national food needs.  Ecosystem: the combined physical and biological components of an environment.  Environmental services: waste management, water and oxygen-producing attributes of the natural environment/ecosysten beneficial to human society, but which are not traditionally valued in terms of a market price.  Food and nutrition security: the position where all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.  Governance: the combination of processes and structures implemented by an administrative body in order to inform, direct, manage and monitor activities toward the achievement of target objectives.  Mauritius Strategy: the current and only global sustainable development strategy to address specifically and exclusively the problems Small Island Developing States (SIDS) for the period 2005 to 2015, managed by the United Nations.  Natural resources: living (air, water, soil, and forests, etc.) and non-living (such as fuels, minerals) resources occurring in nature used to create wealth. vi  New agriculture: an agri-food system that is not confined by traditional boundaries and driven by innovation in practices, technologies and operational processes to solve problems and capitalize on opportunities for wealth generation, human welfare and efficient natural resource use.  Gender: the different roles and responsibilities attributed to men and women in society, not limited to the biological definition of sex as male and female, but also how these biological definitions are constructed in a social context, subject to historical and cultural change.  Results-based management: a comprehensive management strategy focusing on the degree to which a development intervention or a development partner operates according to specific criteria/standard/guidelines or achieves results in accordance with stated goals and plans.  Self-reliance: the capacity of individuals, households and/or organised groups/clusters to largely support/provide for self/home/group or depend on own abilities and resources rather than fully depending on those of others.  Small farmer: a farmer who operates on 1 acre or less of land with the objective of providing for own/family consumption and/or profit.  Stakeholders: a person, group or organization that affects, or can be affected, by policy decisions and planned actions/interventions. In certain contexts, can be appropriately interchangeable with beneficiaries.  Subsistence producers: farmers whose farming system enables production of just enough to sustain him/herself and his/her family.  Sustainable development: a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come. Notes ► ► ► ► ► ► ADS 2013-2016 ~ Introduction February 2013 vii INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND - THE 2006 ADS The previous 2006 ADS agriculture policy framework was consistent with the macro objectives of the Sugar Adaptation Strategy (SAS). Six broad policy objectives were prioritized, namely (i) promote sustainable development of the agricultural sector and rural communities; (ii) increase the competitiveness of the agricultural sector; (iii) accelerate diversification of the production base and exports; (iv) increase food production, enhance food security and improve the nutritional status of the population; (v) strengthen inter-sectoral linkages; and (vi) improve income distribution and contribute to poverty alleviation. The previous 2006 ADS was a five-year program (2007-2011), comprised of three major components: (i) Crop Production and Marketing, (ii) Livestock Production and (iii) Fisheries Development. For effective implementation, a new institutional and operational framework was proposed, including five major changes in the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) to strengthen its role and provide aggressive leadership and direction: (i) restructuring of the Department of Agriculture; (ii) reorganization of the Fisheries Department; (iii) creation of a Policy and Planning Unit; (iv) creation of a Regulation and Supervision Unit (RSU); and (v) the establishment of an Advisory Council on Agriculture (ACA). Institutional modernization was also to be achieved through a more effective incentives system, increased public spending on agriculture, agricultural planning being more deeply integrated into national transformation planning processes, and clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the public and private sector actors. The previous 2006 ADS defined: (i) policy objectives for agriculture, (ii) sub-sectoral programs along the traditional sub-sectoral approach, (iii) a program for institutional realignment for implementation and (iv)a policy framework required to drive and support actions in the sub sectoral programs. Such an industry or sub-sectoral approach to planning provides the opportunity to focus in one particular area. It also supports the traditional institutional framework structured around technical specializations and simplifies the process of reporting on actions taken. However, the previous 2006 ADS did not sufficiently define the framework to link and integrate the various core program elements. The three Crop, Livestock and Fisheries programs were all developed independently. An inter-connecting framework and indication of how actions in these programs would combine to contribute to the achievement of a common goal and/or objective was not as explicitly developed as the individual elements themselves. In the current environment for development, the traditional ‘silo’ ‘sub-sectoral’ approach to planning is no longer adequate or even strategic. The emerging trends speak to and validate the need for development planning which map development goals to actions and outcomes. ADS 2013-2016 ~ Introduction February 2013 viii THE 2013 ADS – A DIFFERENT APPROACH The key differences between the 2006 and 2013 ADS are that the 2013 ADS:  uses development goals and not sub-sector objectives, as its reference for action The approach to the 2013-2016 ADS is built on development goals, and does not depend or even promote independent crop, livestock or fisheries programs. The development goals and objectives expressed in the 2006 ADS continue to be valid for the current period. The only difference is that in the 2013 ADS, these development goals and associated general objectives are established up-front and provide a clear ‘finishing line’. The development goal approach facilitates identification of priority areas for action, which is the foundation for detailing a strategic action plan. Importantly, this approach works around a number of limitations, including absence of national policy for agriculture. It sets actions within the context of well-defined national development goals that are relevant both at the macro (wider economy) and sectoral (agriculture industries) levels and are consistent with regional and global consensus.  places emphasises on recognising and positioning for opportunities Shifting the tone of the 2013 ADS, by working from the ‘opportunities backwards’ as opposed to working from the ‘constraints forward’, provides for a much more focused and outcome-based strategic plan. In this way the SWOT is presented from an opportunities (O) perspective, making the ADS less preoccupied with alleviating the usual long and disconnected list of constraints and more proactive to create the enabling environment for seizing opportunities. This allows for more effective allocation and use of limited resources in areas that will capitalize on existing strengths (S) and interventions to minimize weaknesses (W) and threats (T) that could potentially and in a direct manner limit the development thrust.  specifies programs as the common framework and platform for actions Implementation has always been a major deficiency in the agriculture policy process. This is due, in part to the separation and time lags between the stages of policy design and operational planning. The result has been the development of number of short-term, discrete activity-based actions that are often implemented independently, yielding similarly limited results. Reducing the gap between policy articulation and programming enhances the efficiency and likelihood of success in implementation. This also enhances policy stability, policy integration and more efficient monitoring and evaluation systems. Integrating the policy and programming stages can support the identification of practical actions and mechanisms that cut across and apply to all sub-sectors, to enhance MoA operational performance. This will allow the Ministry to better define and develop key areas of technical capacity and improve on its demand-driven services. The latter will be of particular value to the stakeholders. This is distinctly different from the traditional and often independent crop, livestock or fisheries programs. ADS 2013-2016 ~ Introduction February 2013 ix The development goal – outcome based approach also:  offers improved scope for designing integrated and coherent policies and actions, compared to the ‘silo’ practice of defining sub-sectoral interventions;  provides more scope to create a more flexible human resource pool integrated through results-based actions as opposed to subject-based (livestock, plant health, fisheries, etc.) priorities;  offers greater scope for public-private sector partnerships based on an improved basis and process for differentiating between what can be considered essential ‘public goods’ for agricultural development and ‘commercialisation’, which though contributing to the same goal, will require differentiated engagement processes and policy instruments for achieving results. The 2013 ADS defines a two-pronged strategy based on the requirements for development: 1. the Sectoral [Technical] Strategy - which focuses on development of the sector itself. By the mandates of the DoA, the ‘sector’ covers only crop and livestock production, food processing and marketing. Priority Areas and technical actions, are defined in a manner that seeks to upgrade the capacity of selected crops and livestock to contribute to the three Agricultural Development Goals, namely; Safe, affordable and stable food production for food and nutrition security Innovative and profitable agribusiness for economic growth and development Sustainable and resilient farming systems 2. the Institutional [Management] Dimension - which focuses on the DoA as the main vehicle to take action and give effect to achieving the Sectoral Goals. In this context, the Institutional Development Goal is defined as: Efficient and cohesive agricultural policy and institutional framework FORMULATING THE 2013 ADS - PROCESS In developing the current ADS, the following key steps were taken: 1. Determination of the current situation: macro-economy, sectoral performance and external policy environment for agricultural growth development. This provided critical baseline information and useful lessons learned; 2. Identification of opportunities and the associated strengths, weaknesses and challenges to capitalizing on same, for a more strategic determination of intervention points; 3. Definition of key elements of the Strategy - Vision, Agricultural Development Goals, Priority Areas for Action and Programs, which together provide the framework for developing the Plan of Action for the 2013 to 2016 period; 4. Development of Year 1 Programmatic Plans of Action, which will specify the key performance indicators, targets and provide the template for operational planning of the various Divisional Units. ADS 2013-2016 ~ Introduction February 2013 x Steps 1 and 2 were undertaken through stakeholder consultations conducted by the DoA over the last two years, indicative plans proposed for specific agricultural commodities and supplemental analysis using relevant secondary information obtained from regional and international sources. These comprise Part I of the document -The Situation. Step 3 constitutes the core of the ADS and the content emerged from a strategic analysis of priorities, informed from conclusions, current priorities of the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis and international development priorities and obligations. Step 3, which is Part II of the ADS - The Vision, Development Goals, Priorities and Programs- provides the base for developing the operational targets and details which are critical inputs to defining the DoA Strategic Plan. In depth discussion and consensus on Step 3 was critical to develop Step 4. In Step 4, Part III -The Planning and Implementation Framework- contains the specific actions and targets for the Program Approach, and provides the base for budgeting, resource planning and implementation. The ADS is presented as follows: 1. Part 1 – The Situation 2. Part II – The Vision, Development Goals, Priorities and Programs 3. Part III – The Planning For Implementation Framework ADS 2013-2016: RECOMMENDED STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION Detailing a Year 1 Operational Plan In implementing the ADS, priority will be given to developing a detailed Year 1 Operational Plan which is intended establish the critical base and set the stage for planning for full implementation over the duration. This is essentially Step 4, a process which will require both internal and external engagement with clients and stakeholders. In this regard, Year 1 of the ADS will pursue actions on two distinct but inter-connected tracks: 1. Define and undertake clear high impact actions that would generate broad interest, public awareness and partnerships for almost immediate results; 2. Streamline and enhance efficiencies in Core Services and Support, reconstituted into Core Programs With respect to the high impact actions in Track #1, the DoA will place emphasis on: 1. risk management, with an initial Year 1 focus on damage from monkeys and roaming animals; and 2. youth engagement, by initiating a Student Training by Agricultural Immersion (STAI) project built on inter-ministerial collaboration (Agriculture and Education) and strategic partnerships with both the local business community and regional/international development agencies. ADS 2013-2016 ~ Introduction February 2013 xi With respect to Track #2, the DoA will realign its services and support around the 4 Core programs, specifically: 1. Operation Food Security (OFS), placing emphasis on selected schools, home gardens and public spaces to improve practices, productivity and ultimately impact positively on (a) household and community food and nutrition security status and (b) youth engagement in agriculture; 2. Farming and Agriculture Systems Transformation (FAST), premised on the principle of achieving efficiency gains and expanding output by (a) reducing wastage in resource and input use, and (b) introducing and expanding utilization of improved production and farm systems technologies and practices; 3. Agribusiness and Market Development (ABMD), with a primary focus on strengthening and improving efficiency in systems that link farms to market in order to (a) complement national capacity food and nutrition security, and (b) build profitable and competitive value added products for trade; 4. Agriculture Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation (ARMCCA), which will focus on guiding the critical process of transformation and adaptation to a more high risk environment and changing climates. Constituting Program Teams The ADS programs will be implemented through the re-allocation and constituting of Program Teams from the current human resources available in and to the DoA as opposed to suggesting the establishment of Units, which will require a more demanding and formal institutional restructuring requirements. The Team approach offers more operational flexibility to redeploy existing staff, pull in non-DoA individuals as required, from other public sector agencies, the private sector, civil society organisations and networks, etc., as needed for specific activities from time to time. Program Teams will thus be responsible for guiding the development of the implementation plan and leading actual implementation of activities. These teams will be supported by two Common Services, which will be critical to implementation of all programs:  Training, Information and Promotions which will focus on, inter alia,  Projects and Partnerships Services responsible for, among others, ADS 2013-2016 ~ Introduction February 2013 xii COMPLETING THE PROCESS Implementing the 2013-2016 ADS requires that the DoA will be required to: undertake a Human Resource Accounting/Audit and re-deployment This exercise will validate strengths and weaknesses, and lead to the development of a Human Resource Development Plan that: (a) enables a better match between priorities and skills/capacities; (b) informs a more efficient recruitment process; and (c) guides a more effective process of acquiring/procuring external consultants. This can be done without the need for extensive, lengthy public sector wide institutional reform. reorient the approach to internal planning This is essential. There will be need to sensitize and reorient the purpose and format of planning and reporting processes. Internal planning for all departments, units and professionals will be based on a common programmatic approach. In this regard, enhancing the capacity of the Planning Unit to guide and monitor the process will be a prerequisite for a successful transition. This will also provide the additional opportunity to improve systems of internal dialogue and reporting and importantly development more effective engagement processes with stakeholders for a more participatory process. reorient the approach to budget preparation This follows logically from the previous bullet. Operational budgets, and not necessarily staffing budget, will be tied directly to specific programs, which provide for improved financial management, policy impact analyses and public sector accountability. The process could potentially enhance the determination and differentiation between public goods requiring sustained public sector investment over time and private sector initiatives. This will also provide a firm and credible platform for developing and managing an ADS resource mobilisation strategy to garner external technical and financial support to augment and complement domestic resources. These issues need to be defined in an Institutional Development Plan for the DoA matched to the implementation needs of the ADS, including importantly, monitoring and evaluation processes and mechanisms. In this regard, the Institutional Goal for the 2013 ADS is ‘Efficient and cohesive agricultural policy and institutional framework” as the platform and vehicle for efficient and effective implementation. This process will also support and provide the grounding for constituting the Program Teams. The recommendations of the 2006 ADS with respect to a new institutional and operational framework will need to be revisited, particularly in terms of strengthening the Policy and Planning function, and creation of capacity for Regulation and Supervision which will be absolutely critical for effective implementation of the 2013 ADS. Since the 2013 ADS promotes and requires stakeholder consultation and participation in the design, implementation and monitoring of the activities, then this will, in part, contribute to the objectives of the previous recommendation for the establishment of an ACA. Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 13 PART I: THE SITUATION KEY POINTS:  despite its small relative share to GDP, the economic potential of primary agriculture needs to be properly evaluated and harnessed for growth;  good performers, notably tomato, carrot and pumpkin, sweet and white potatoes and goat and sheep, provide a firm platform for investment and growth in agriculture;  progress made in the 2006-2011 ADS provide good building blocks for continuing the agricultural development agenda in the 2013-2016 ADS The ADS 2013- 2016  responds to some major changes in a post-2006 global environment, critically climate change and resource scarcity;  recognises the prominence and global consensus on sustainable development and hence is grounded in a sustainable agriculture agenda;  acknowledges that despite the projected intensification of challenges, towards 2015, agriculture will be an indispensable part of the solution 1.1 UNDERSTANDING AGRICULTURE’S SITUATION 1.1.1 Agriculture in the domestic economy Agriculture, measured by its sub-sectoral composition of crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry, contributes 4% or less to gross domestic product (GDP) in St. Kitts and Nevis. Despite this relatively small share, primary agriculture has exhibited the capacity to generate high rates of growth. This was evident between 1999 and 2008, when despite bouts of economic recession (such as in 2001-2002) and slow growth (between 2007 and 2008), growth in primary agriculture was substantially higher than national growth. Despite its small relative share to GDP, the economic potential of primary agriculture needs to be properly evaluated and harnessed for growth. However, in an economic structure dominated by services, led by Government Services, followed by Banks and Insurance, Wholesale and Retail Trade, Transport and Hotels and Restaurants, in that order, competition for resources is a continuous challenge. The 2006-2011 ADS recognised this internal competition for resources as domestic threats to the development of agriculture. In particular, tourism is earmarked as a lead sector in fuelling economic growth and development in St. Kitts and Nevis. This is consistent with the Mauritius Strategy, which encourages the international community, as well as local investors, to invest in sustainable tourism development. However, this thrust has created an inherent bias against agriculture, and is exacerbating challenges associated with conversion of former sugar cane lands and availability and cost of agricultural labour. These, as well as a number of other issues, have exerted considerable influence over agriculture’s performance between 2004 and 2008. Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 14 1.1.2 Sectoral Performance (2004-2008)  Food production: In the five years between 2004 and 2008, St. Kitts and Nevis showed relatively good progress in expanding capacity for a range of crops (Table 1). Table 1: Production Volume (kg) of Major Commodity Crops 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Avg. kg 2004-08 Est. 2009 Vegetables Tomato 158,349 108,144 173,266 181,864 157,864 155,897 85,000 Pumpkin 161,682 114,850 120,795 153,736 159,882 142,189 122,000 Carrots 88,798 78,023 82,977 82,200 174,500 101,300 133,000 Onion 71,364 25,000 38,962 52,735 84,809 54,574 82,000 Cabbage 101,825 66,573 69,705 85,730 65,730 77,912 44,000 Sweet pepper 51,832 27,400 48,192 38,680 33,680 39,957 86,000 Squash 19,163 28,727 26,114 17,057 17,284 21,669 na Eggplant 17,852 11,614 11,307 10,464 10,464 12,340 na Water nuts 41,364 43,182 43,636 43,636 44,091 43,182 na Peanut 32,000 25,000 56,364 86,000 43,000 48,473 35,000 Root Crops Sweet potato 169,364 158,241 255,829 230,864 242,591 211,378 230,000 White potato 120,000 88,182 110,000 126,000 239,000 136,636 200,000 Yam 16,364 20,000 15,750 16,409 19,691 17,643 18,000 Dasheen 6,818 6,818 6,818 6,818 6,818 6,818 na Eddoes 5,682 5,909 5,909 5,955 5,955 5,882 na Tannia 4,545 4,545 4,545 4,545 4,545 4,545 na Fruits Mango (*) 119,795 275,091 203,125 205,398 205,852 201,852 Avocado 14,820 16,432 16,666 16,666 16,666 16,250 Grapefruit 4,568 9,318 9,318 364 364 4,786 Lime 42,932 49,864 49,864 49,864 49,864 48,477 Pawpaw 6,316 17,955 7,455 4,091 4,091 7,981 Banana 20,921 43,500 21,195 24,909 25,364 27,178 Watermelon 139,292 147,659 217,478 135,200 99,000 147,726 126,000 Pineapple 15,898 14,091 55,727 59,600 69,000 42,863 100,000 Cantaloupe 6,864 7,352 13,613 14,284 14,511 11,325 Honeydew melon 6,202 15,034 11,208 7,352 7,761 9,512 Source: Department of Agriculture, St. Kitts Fresh vegetables, in particular, performed relatively well, enhancing the food availability situation in domestic markets. This performance was relatively stable, despite the occasional adverse weather (drought and heavy rains), resurgence of pests and diseases, and inadequate supplies of improved (tolerant) vegetable varieties and farm inputs. Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 15 Root crop production, led by sweet and white potatoes (Table 1), was also estimated to have generally increased over the same period. The Small Farmers Agricultural Supplies revolving fund which procures and supplies farmers with essential inputs played an important role in facilitating this improved performance in food crop production. Fruit production, comprising tree crops and other fruits, was an important component of the diversification thrust linked to the promotion of consumption of more fresh fruits for healthy lifestyles. The establishment of fruit trees on vegetable farms was actively facilitated as a strategy for farm income enhancement and risk management, as well as part of a fruit tree expansion program which targets schools, institutions and private homes. An estimated 70% of fruit trees propagated by Government centres were ‘donated’, to schools and households and other targeted stakeholders. Success of this strategy was built on civil-society participation, which augers well for expansion in other crops appropriate for school and home gardening. Livestock production, an important component of the agriculture and food production sector in St. Kitts and Nevis, experienced mixed performance (Table 2). Between 2004 and 2008 goat and sheep production grew by 83% in contrast, to beef, which experienced high output variability. Beef, the leading livestock activity, is produced largely in boneless form, which accounted for 65% of the total number of cattle slaughtered for 2009. Bone–in beef was also produced and sold to the school feeding program and the Cardin Home. Pork production was estimated to have remained relatively constant over the period of review. Table 2: Livestock Production Volume (kg) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Avg. kg 2004-08 Est. 2009 Beef 121,700 85,600 60,200 90,400 108,000 93,180 104,500 Pork 61,900 68,800 73,900 74,600 71,700 70,200 59,800 Chevon 13,600 11,300 12,100 14,600 12,600 12,840 11,700 Mutton 9,600 8,900 9,700 8,600 11,000 9,560 10,300 Chicken (eggs) ‘000s 2,715 3,222 3,269 3,321 3,354 3,276 3,892 (*) unimproved cv’s [*] egg production and prices are recorded for dozens of eggs. Source: Department of Agriculture, St. Kitts From 2008, poultry and rabbit production were important components of the diversification thrust. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Initiative for Soaring Food Prices Project (ISFPP), led to the establishment of a poultry producers’ association. Additional support to this association from a PAHO/CFNI small grants project provided much needed inputs and equipment, namely three pluckers and other assistance in the value of $25,650.00. However, the main challenge of high cost of feed and other inputs and unfair competition from illegal entry of lower-priced eggs lingered. Despite these challenges, in 2009 egg production was an estimated 16% increase over 2008 estimates. Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 16 Rabbit production was introduced as a new area of priority for agriculture and food security. Despite the fact that the country had no prior experience or tradition in rabbit production, there a high-tech slaughter facility was opened at the Government-owned Abattoir in Basseterre in late 2010 (December 14th). Support for this facility was obtained under the Alba Alimentos Project (Venezuela), including continued support under the FAO ISFPP for livestock, animal feed, construction materials, and other inputs. Rabbit production would contribute to food and nutrition objectives and an expansion in small-scale production and home gardening. Value adding and agro-processing activities in St. Kitts and Nevis are built around a relatively large range of local crops such as guava, cassava, tamarind, gooseberry, hot peppers, coconut, kakanga root, mauby bark, ginger, sweet potato and several other fruits and livestock meats. The main products are jams and jellies, drinks (non/fermented) and fruit and vegetable wines, pastries and sauces. These activities are dominated by small and cottage type operations supplying local consumers. Livestock processing occurs on a relatively more commercial basis, to satisfy the strong domestic demand. This is particularly so for boneless beef which is produced year round. Although it is difficult to ascertain how much these activities contribute to total agricultural earnings, they play an important supplementary role to primary production. While total output was estimated to have increased over the 2004-2008 period, significant opportunity gaps in production for several crops and livestock commodities still exist (Table 3). The information indicates that there exists opportunity for increased production to capture a larger share of the domestic market and as an attraction for entrepreneurs to invest in agriculture. Table 3: Indicative Opportunity Gaps for selected commodities (kg) Items 2008 Production 2009 Production National Demand % Produced in 2009 Opportunity Gaps Sheep and goat meat 23,600 11,700 201,000 5.8 189.300 Pork 71,800 59,800 454,000 13.2 394,000 Yam 18,000 18,000 72,000 25.0 54,000 Onion 51,000 82,000 324,000 25.3 242,000 Sweet Pepper 27,000 26,000 96,000 27.0 70,000 Cabbage 61,000 44,000 156,000 28.2 112,000 White Potato 239,000 200,000 600,000 33.3 400,000 Water Melon 64,000 126,000 300,000 35.3 174,000 Peanuts 43,000 35,000 90,000 38.8 55,000 Sweet Potato 197,000 230,000 492,000 46.7 262,000 Tomato 117,000 85,000 156,000 54.5 71,000 Beef 108,000 104,500 155,000 67.0 50,500 Carrot 172,000 133,000 174,000 76.4 41,000 Pumpkin 94,000 100,000 156,000 78.2 34,000 Source: computed by the Department of Agriculture, St. Kitts Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 17 The data for 2009 suggest that sheep and goat rearing for meat production offers the greatest potential in terms of the gap between national demand and supply. Imports therefore appear to play a relatively important role in meeting demand for sheep and goat meat. Given the global concerns over ‘food miles’ or ‘carbon footprints’ and the small but growing global movement to eat locally grown foods, this could offer opportunities for well-targeted investment to develop and expand sustainable and appropriate models of sheep and goat farming. If the analysis is a close reflection of what obtains on the domestic market, then at the other extreme, it would also appear that investments in cattle production for beef, and in expanding tomato, carrot and pumpkin production have yielded results and hence these commodities, while still not yet at their full output capacity, offers less scope of expansion relative to sheep and goat meat. Importantly, there is a sufficiently diverse range of vegetable and root crops with fairly large opportunity gaps so as to make investment in production expansion a lucrative option. These commodities also have better potential for production increases in the context of the scale of resources required to increase output and the duration of time within which both economic returns and full output can be realised. Fruit tree crops, though an important element of the agriculture sector, would require a much larger investment in both land and capital resources and as well a longer gestation period to maturity and the realisation of returns on any such investment. As noted above, the options for expanded crop and livestock production are not limited to the commodities represented in Table 3. The thrust towards food security has stimulated the reintroduction of poultry for increased output of meat and eggs and the introduction of rabbit production and crops, such as breadfruit and breadnut, among others. It is important to recognise that while several of these crop and livestock commodities have been promoted under the food security objective, given the small size of the domestic market, building production systems that satisfy conditions for exports will be an important and complementary aspect of the agricultural development strategy.  Agriculture and Food Trade Agricultural exports comprise a relatively limited number of commodities (Table 4), dominated by fisheries products, mainly crustaceans. Although agricultural export earnings experienced a sharp, 89% fall, in 2005 from 2004, due to the closure of the sugar industry, trade performance has showed signs of recovery, earning EC$ 12.1 million (US$ 4.48 million) in 2008, a 2.73 factor growth since 2005 (UN Comtrade 2011). This growth is very encouraging and provides additional evidence to support a view that domestic agriculture can contribute to reducing the food import bill and export growth. Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 18 Table 4: St. Kitts and Nevis Top Agricultural Exports, US$ Product (HS 1996) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Agriculture Exports 11,805,650 1,329,121 3,010,626 3,184,507 4,482,860 306: Crustaceans $195,758 $122,219 $237,854 $411,725 $458,780 401: Milk and cream, neither concentrated nor sweetened $2,758 $16,984 $372,606 $36,086 $24,450 305: Fish, cured, smoked, fish meal for human consumption $2,592 $431 $3,220 $7,790 $21,800 709: Vegetables nes, fresh or chilled $5,189 $504 $4,830 $6,714 $1,311 406: Cheese and curd $4,359 $214 $206 $37 $7,599 1006: Rice $2,214 $444 $3,613 710: Vegetables (uncooked, steamed, boiled) frozen $1,473 $261 $1,704 $4,306 $30 714: Manioc, arrowroot, salep etc, fresh, dried, sago pith $2,683 $598 $580 $398 $2,574 203 : $26 $176 $22 $5,256 307: Molluscs $222 $1,978 $1,259 303: fish, frozen, whole $897 $107 $24 $721 $1,333 405: Butter and other fats and oils derived from milk $1,247 $167 $78 $396 $1,069 Source: UN Comtrade Database, 2011 Food imports account for over 60% of St. Kitts and Nevis food supplies with increases experienced in all major categories (Table 5). This makes the country highly vulnerable to rising food prices. The country imports around US$50 million worth of agricultural and food products annually, which constitute 17% of total merchandise imports. The agriculture trade balance has been increasingly unfavourable for St. Kitts and Nevis, with an average trade deficit1 for 2000 to 2008 estimated at EC$ 101.3 million, increasingly sharply by 42% in 2008 as a result of rising food prices from late-2007. Annual earnings for agricultural exports averaged at EC$17.6 million, contributing only 17% to the food import bill and to the growing agricultural trade deficit. 1 This refers to SITC Revision 1 commodities 0, 1, 21, 22, 24, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 4 Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 19 Table 5: St. Kitts and Nevis Top-10 Imported Food Items (US$) Product (HS 1996) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Agriculture Imports 38,259,399 41,547,233 50,416,305 55,162,780 61,973,864 207: Meat, edible offal of domestic poultry $3,552,844 $4,125,108 $3,921,056 $4,409,346 $5,420,196 406: Cheese and curd $1,249,911 $1,343,789 $1,435,517 $1,430,507 $1,743,530 402: Milk & cream, concentrated/ sweetened $962,639 $1,133,812 $907,599 $1,099,352 $1,276,173 305: Fish, cured, smoked, fish meal for human consumption $793,126 $884,539 $930,846 $958,061 $1,075,788 303: Fish, frozen, whole $490,468 $521,130 $1,040,660 $601,583 $1,053,253 401: Milk and cream, neither concentrated nor sweetened $384,883 $460,839 $673,217 $649,865 $889,168 1006: Rice $678,731 $727,313 $807,454 $703,722 $772,491 602: Live plants nes, roots, cuttings, mushroom spawn $344,971 $228,662 $229,229 $267,974 $679,041 203: Meat of swine, fresh, chilled/frozen $575,580 $538,392 $683,007 $499,128 $620,665 304: Fish fillets & meat, mince except liver, roe $288,874 $247,267 $522,044 $684,049 $620,160 Source: UN Comtrade Database, 2011  Agricultural linkages Forging and sustaining linkages between agriculture and the industry/manufacturing and tourism sectors has been a long-standing national development policy objective. There has been a well-established model of agri-tourism linkages in Nevis with the Four Seasons Resort. A similar marketing arrangement through a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was established between the Marriott and the St. Kitts Farmers Cooperatives Society in 2008. An important element of the MoU is the Marriott’s insurance policy which while providing the hotel with some form of protection, may have adverse impacts on farmers’ ability to sell and hence stability of incomes in periods of depressed demand. The Marriott also makes open market purchases of fresh produce from other local farmers. 2009 marked the second full year of contractual arrangement. In general, the value of business in 2009 decreased by 60% when compared with 2008. This could have been attributed to the adverse impacts of the financial crisis on the tourism industry, where tourism in the Caribbean in 2009 was described as ‘taking a hit’. Hence this would have led to lower demand for food products and hence reduced demand for local purchasing. The overall value of sales for the year 2008 stood at EC $91,218.00 while in 2009 it was EC $31,135.00. The need to develop ‘synergistic inter-sectoral linkages that expand the scope of agricultural activities and thus support employment and real development’ has been accorded priority in the 2011 Budget Speech. Agriculture’s performance provides some evidence that despite its relatively small measured share in gross domestic product (GDP), averaging less than 4%, agriculture has been making important contributions to economic integration and growth, improved quality of life and environmental health. Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 20 1.2. ADJUSTING TO CHANGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT The most fundamental changes occurring in the international environment since the articulation of the previous 2006-2011 ADS, that have implications for agricultural development in the post 2011 period are briefly highlighted below. 1.2.1 The 2007 food crisis From March 2007, there were dramatic increases in world food prices, creating a global crisis and causing political and economic instability and social unrest in all regions, including the Caribbean. Several factors, including increased demand for food, oil, and energy supplies, particularly in emerging economies, such as, China and India, rising fuel prices leading to rising energy costs, lower crop yields as a result of adverse weather conditions in major food producing and exporting countries leading to prices for basic commodities, combined to cause soaring food prices. The impacts of the food crisis continued well into the late 2009, raising fresh concerns about the state of food security in St. Kitts and Nevis, a Net-Food Importing Developing Country (NFIDC). This experience demonstrated that food security is a very real and ever-present threat in the Caribbean. The dependence on a narrow range and imported food commodities - mainly wheat, rice, corn, potatoes (staples), soy bean (fats) and their derived products – the bulk of exacerbates the vulnerability of the region. As global producers imposed export bans/limitations on wheat, rice and corn, several Caribbean countries experienced significant price inflation, as well as rising energy costs making both inputs and distribution more expensive. This is an important consideration because under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and now under the World Trade Organisation (WTO), countries have maintained the right to cut off exports of agricultural commodities in circumstances that essentially undermine their ability to supply their own local markets (e.g. fires or floods affecting harvests). More than 30 countries have reacted to rapidly rising prices by restricting exports of key commodity items such as wheat (Stewart 2010). In response to the food price crisis, the 2006-2011 ADS introduced the ‘Operation Food Security’ program to expand domestic production capacity and encourage local consumption of a number of crop and livestock products. These products were explicitly identified as major food and nutrition security items to provide carbohydrates and protein, respectively, including the breadfruit and breadnut and rabbits and poultry. Consequently, the potential to reduce the country’s vulnerability to food and nutrition insecurity will continue to rest significantly on the capacity of agriculture to expand and sustain domestic food production. Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 21 1.2.2 The 2008 international financial crisis St. Kitts and Nevis is a relatively highly open economy and any slowdown in leading world economies is likely to have an immediate and profound impact on the national economy and development prospects. It was recognised that the financial crisis came on the heels of a global food crisis and energy prices that reached unprecedented levels in 2007 and 2008. Therefore, many CARICOM countries would face a dual crisis of sharp and simultaneous increases in inflation and unemployment.2 Tourism was projected to be the most adversely affected by the financial and economic crisis. The impacts of the financial crisis on ‘a tightening of external financing conditions, a lower demand for regional exports, including tourism, and a severe drop in the terms of trade’ would increase fiscal pressures and intensify the domestic competition for scare development resources. According to an ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) report, the global financial and economic crisis hit CARICOM trade hard, mainly because, as exporters of a limited number of commodities, the economies in the region depend heavily on external markets. In 2009, the value of CARICOM goods exports dropped sharply. As this region’s goods exports consist mainly of fuels and other commodities, the decrease in volume was exacerbated by the drop in commodity and food prices in the same year.3 While CARICOM services exports suffered relatively less from the crisis, data show that the tourism sector in CARICOM countries declined. The decline in tourism in St. Kitts and Nevis was dramatic, moving from growth of roughly 4% in 2008 to a decline of over 25% in 2009. The vulnerability of the leading tourism sector coupled with the food crisis provided additional stimulus for economic diversification and a renewed focus on agricultural development. The main challenge therefore revolves around mobilising development resources for agricultural development amidst domestic fiscal difficulties and international financial volatility. 1.2.3 The 2008 EU-CARIFORUM EPA The landmark signing of the European Union (EU) Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with CARICOM and the Dominican Republic (CARIFORUM) in late 2009 established a new paradigm for negotiating trade and economic relations with other partners. The EPA is part of the Economic and Trade Pillar of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. The EU has traditionally been the largest providers of development assistance to agriculture in the Caribbean and the EPA represents a fundamental shift in trade relations between the EU and CARIFORUM states. 2 The Global financial crisis and its effect on delivery of health & educational status in the Caribbean, presentation by Roger McLean to the Opening Session of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Council for Human and Social Development (COHSOD), 3-4 June 2009, Montego Bay, Jamaica, Press release 211/2009, (03 June 2009) 3 Chapter IV -Caribbean trade and integration: trends and future prospects, Preliminary (edited but not formatted) version, ECLAC, 2010 Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 22 Several of the objectives specified in Part I of the Agreement - Trade Partnership for Sustainable Development, directly impact agricultural positioning and development in CARICOM member states, such as, ‘provision of support measures to promote private sector and enterprise development (especially small entrepreneurs) and enhance competitiveness and diversification’. Development Cooperation, also included in the EPA, is a crucial element of the Partnership. Such co-operation can take financial and non-financial forms and complements the Development Cooperation pillar of Cotonou. Several of the Cooperation Priorities also directly impact on agricultural positioning and development, particularly that of supporting increasing investment, private sector initiative, enhancing supply capacity, competitiveness and economic growth. Among the objectives defined for Chapter 5 on Agriculture and Fisheries, is that of contributing to increasing the competitiveness of production, processing and trade in agricultural and fishery products in both traditional and non-traditional sectors, consistent with the sustainable management of natural resources. Exploring and exploiting the provisions of the EPA will be critical at a time when the region is taking steps to stimulate entrepreneurship and build competitive value chains for food security and trade expansion. In the EPA, a significant and diverse range of agricultural products, both primary and value added, were negotiated for exclusion from tariff liberalization thus providing the opportunity for the development of agriculture industries, such as, poultry, beef, fisheries, honey production, vegetable farming, among others. When these lists are combined, it is seen that the EPA agriculture schedule of commitments has been negotiated in a manner that affords the primary producer the opportunity to shift and/or expand production upstream and hence extract more value and profits in the process. However the provisions on trade-related measures, including sanitary and phytosanitary standards and technical barriers to trade, require adoption and implementation of international standards that will impose substantial challenges in terms of costs and technical personnel. Technological innovation will also be a deciding factor in the ability of agriculture industries in St. Kitts and Nevis to take full advantage of opportunities emerging from the EPA.4 1.2.4 The 2010 Cancun Agreement on climate change There is a global consensus that climate change is one of the most fundamental and common challenges facing nations. Its impacts are already showing and are projected to intensify over time in the absence of concerted mitigation and adaptation efforts. The Kyoto Protocol, negotiated in 1997 and only ratified into force in February 2005, is the current multilateral treaty that provides limits to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from developed countries, a key factor in global warming and temperature increases. It also provides funds to developing nations' governments. 4 Chapter IV-Caribbean trade and integration: trends and future prospects, Preliminary (edited but not formatted) version, ECLAC, 2010. Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 23 St. Kitts and Nevis is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, which led to the country ratifying the Kyoto Protocol5 in July 2007. The projected impacts of climate change on the country are expected to be similar to that experienced and predicted for other Caribbean islands and SIDS in general. Rising temperatures and sea levels, among others, will exact heavy environmental, social and economic costs to small island developing states, particularly in terms of the costs of disasters induced from an event, such as hurricanes, storm surges, or drought. The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012 and global partners have been on an accelerated drive to define a successor agreement. The December 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which endorsed the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and called for "an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015”, was an important, but inconclusive step in the process. The Cancun Agreement, arrived at in December 2010, was deemed to have made substantially more progress. The Cancun Agreement acknowledges the need to keep temperature rises to 2C and includes emissions cuts pledges, albeit non-binding, made under the voluntary Copenhagen Accord. It also includes an agreement to set up a green climate fund as part of efforts to deliver 100 billion US dollars (£60 billion) a year by 2020 to poor countries to help them cope with the impacts of global warming and develop without polluting. It includes a scheme to provide financial support for countries to preserve their forests, in a bid to combat deforestation which accounts for almost a fifth of global annual emissions, and makes progress on how countries' actions are going to be monitored and verified. Issues relating to climate change impacts were not included in the 2007-2011 ADS. As a SIDS, agricultural development in St. Kitts and Nevis must, of necessity, be managed in the context of the emerging realities of climate change. Acceleration of global dialogue and activity on the climate change agenda is an evolving situation which needs to be closely monitored and as far as possible, built into the 2013-2016 ADS. The green climate fund should be of particular interest to St. Kitts and Nevis as it seeks to pursue a sustainable agriculture agenda. These recent developments could exacerbate the existing challenges to agricultural development in St. Kitts and Nevis, as summarised below (Box 1). 5 The Kyoto Protocol pursues the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC: "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." 184 Parties of the UNFCCC have ratified its Protocol as of 2009. Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 24 1.3 RECOGNISING EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES For the last five (5) years, there has been a growing interest and global consensus on the importance of agriculture and food security. This provides opportunities to capitalise on such global consensus in support of the 2013-2016 ADS. As nations of the world accelerate efforts to meet their targets under the 2015 MDGs, development aid attached to some specific policy themes is currently high. Issues related to food and nutrition security, rural prosperity, climate change adaptation, eco-systems preservation and fuelling growth in developing countries have been accorded top priority on the agenda. A common thread among the policy themes is that of mainstreaming women and youth in the development agenda. In general, an environmental scan suggests that for agricultural development in St. Kitts: the current global policy environment is enabling and can be mined! The current high interest, consensus among politicians, institutions and civil society and commitments of development resources offer avenues for securing specialized and highly favourable technical and financial assistance that can be strategically ‘mined’ to implement development interventions. Box 1: St. Kitts Agriculture Sustainable Development Challenges Economic: Environmental: Institutional: Social:  Structural weaknesses associated with small scale & low technology production units;  Relatively low government budget & limited domestic resources for agricultural development;  Agriculture’s relatively weak linkages & integration into the rest of the economy;  Accessing international financing amidst high domestic debt burden and financial volatility;  Reliance on increasingly dynamic & volatile international agri-food markets;  Limitations of the physical resource base (land, soils, water) &vulnerability to over-exploitation;  Intense sectoral competition for scare land, water and other natural resources;  Extreme vulnerability to unpredictable and adverse natural hazards and climatic changes;  Deficiencies in the planning & monitoring capacity of public sector agricultural institutions;  Inadequate and/or inefficient agricultural infrastructure;  Fragmentation of stakeholders and inadequate platforms for fostering dialogue and consensus;  Inadequate technical and technological capacity and readiness  Aging farming population and low educational attainment of agriculture stakeholders;  Under developed rural areas;  Tendency to be the ‘labour sink’ in periods of economic recession; Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 25 the current market environment can be taken advantage of! High concerns for food and the environment coupled with the mainstreaming of St Kitts and Nevis tourism in the global tourism industry offer opportunities to expand range of agricultural products and services in strategic areas that satisfy economic (income and employment), social (food security and poverty reduction) and environmental development objectives. production systems must now be built on sustainable principles and practices! Taking advantage of market opportunities, particularly filling the ‘opportunity gaps’ identified, must be built on a platform of innovative research and development, entrepreneurship, strategic marketing and synergistic inter-sectoral linkages that foster and support sustainable farming systems and sustainable livelihoods. The following adjusted ‘SWOT’ is presented in a format that: specifies and connects the broad areas of agricultural development in order to add focus to the nature and scope of the issues and their corresponding interventions. These broad areas are (1) Enabling environment, (2) Market Situation and Trends, and (3) Production Structure and Capacity. This enables determination of what is directly within the MoA’s scope and what requires macro-level intervention. Also allows for a more strategic analysis of feasible/ practical interventions over the 5-year strategic framework. These are also categorised according to types of strategies/actions that could be undertaken. underscores the need for interventions to be market-led and/or demand driven and as well one which acknowledges the important role and influence of a current enabling environment at the global, regional and national levels. more directly associates the concept of comparative advantage to strengths in order to establish an evidence-basis for a determination of whether capacity exits to take action/convert potential opportunities into viable economic activity; directly connects weaknesses and threats to the ability to take advantage of the identified opportunity, recognising that while there may exist a strength/comparative advantage, certain underlying and macro-level weaknesses may hinder the capacity of the sector to use its current strengths to capitalise on the opportunity identified. This allows for the identification of ‘intervention points’ which can more strategically inform what should be done over the next five years and as well, what will be required over a longer time frame; has implications for policy and strategy which form the base for determining the overarching framework for action. This provides a clearer framework and parameters for defining a strategic development agenda for agriculture and food production systems. The capacity to take advantage of the opportunities presented through this current enabling external environment depends largely on existing strengths and weaknesses and potential threats. Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 26 Box 2: Opportunities in ... the Enabling Environment and Capacity to Take Advantage of Same Situation Strengths Weaknesses/Threats  high global political & civil society interest, consensus and provision of development aid for addressing environmental and climate change development challenges St. Kitts: is signatory to SIDS/MSI that provides guidelines for actions & leverage for mobilising international resources; enjoys strong political and working relations with national, regional & international development orgs. which is positive for obtaining support; absence of a national environmental and climate change adaptation policy and strategy framework; high current national debt burden compromises ability to mobilise international financing; poor track record in ODA for agriculture (even with CDB); vulnerability to external shocks (natural hazards, price increases, etc.) may divert existing and pipeline resources from productive investments to disaster recovery  high global political & civil society interest, consensus & provision of development aid for prioritising food & nutrition security St. Kitts endorsed the RFNSP as the blueprint for national interventions which provides leverage for international resource mobilisation; strong political and working relations with national, regional and international organizations providing development support to agriculture; high current national debt burden compromises ability to mobilise international financing; absence of a national food and nutrition security policy and strategy framework to guide interventions vulnerability to external shocks (natural hazards, price increases.) may divert existing and pipeline resources from productive investments to disaster recovery  continued integration into global trade and economic relationships and opportunities to be derived from new and emerging ideas, technology, capital, etc in agriculture membership within OECS and CARICOM; inadequate financial and technical resources to support participation and influence in decision-making (absent from the table);  built-in support mechanisms in international trade & economic agreement for capacity building in development countries SIDS-MSI, Aid for Trade (A4T), REDD and REDD+, weak institutional (human, infrastructure etc) resources and capacity for compliance to international agreements resulting in outdated legislation; sub-standard product quality protocols limiting market access,  political interest in developing the national agriculture sector Ministry of agriculture has built good relations with other key Ministries budget limitations reduce/cut the budgetary allocations required over the 2011-2015 timeframe Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 27 Box 2: Opportunities in ... the Market Environment and Capacity to Take Advantage of Same Situation & trends Strengths Weaknesses/Threats  growing shift in competitiveness drivers away from only price to issues linked to bio safety, environmental services and climate change adaptation St. Kitts has a wealth of biodiversity which can be effectively managed and marketed to create additional value with minimal environmental disruption Inadequate assessment of status and potential of existing forestry and agricultural biodiversity resources Weak capacity for innovation and product development  Strong/growing external markets for tropical, ‘ethnic’ and high value speciality food and ingredients for strategic exports linked to trade labels, e.g., organic agriculture (OA), fair trade (FT), etc. proximity to major food-import dependent Caribbean countries (e.g. Antigua & Barbuda, USVI, BVIs, Netherlands St. Kitts already mainstreamed into the world tourism market which focuses on high value specialty products depressed demand in tourism market; inadequate export transportation facilities; capacity to sustain strong partnerships with tourism policy makers for coordinated actions; inability to comply (technical, infrastructural, financial) with international standards  growing tourism sector offers scope for expanding product range for both food (fresh, processed crop & meat products and condiments) and non food products and services some experience with agri tourism linkages as base for expanding inter-sectoral relations and value adding; increased domestic investments in tourism implies future growth and time to build supply capacity a number of small entre preneurs seizing opportunities in tourism to establish and support a wide range of businesses depressed demand in tourism market and weak links to tourist, hospitality, food services inadequate budgets and investment for product development and marketing; high current national debt burden compromises ability to mobilise international financing; inadequate support for expanding and developing agro-processing enterprises and firms  blooming domestic market (homes & offices) for horticulture products and services provides opportunity to develop the industry beyond tourism; emergence of small horticulture-related businesses seizing opportunities in tourism market economic downturn will depress demand for horticultural products and services; inadequate regulatory systems leading to poor and unsafe practices Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 28 Box 2: Opportunities in ... the Market Environment and Capacity to Take Advantage of Same Situation & trends Strengths Weaknesses/Threats  growing health consciousness and high domestic demand for safe and nutritious foods provides opportunity for capturing local market share (eg. high vegetable import bill of EC$13million) current aggressive promotion of complex carbohydrates to reduce incidences of non communicable diseases opens the door to promote local food consumption; strong domestic consumption for local foods, particularly meat existing linkages to school feeding and Elderly homes experience in promoting and facilitating backyard gardening; weak farm to market integrating mechanisms, incl. functional producer organisations & inter-sectoral linkages heavy reliance on imported foods in the tourism sector drives demand, especially for vegetables growing consumption habits towards convenience foods and unavailability from local agro-industry contributing to food import reliance praedial larceny and other production risks not adequately addressed and mitigated act as disincentive to expand production Notes ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 29 Box 2: Opportunities in ... the Production Structure and Capacity to Take Advantage of Same Situation & trends Strengths Weaknesses/Threats  physical scope and opportunity for intensive farming through more efficient use of un and/or under- utilised lands in both rural and urban areas and through appropriate technologies, such as offered through protected farming current strong interest and traditional farming experiences in a number of agricultural commodities, including livestock; release of large tracts of sugar estate lands with good potential for expanding into non-sugar crop and livestock production; high interest among former sugar workers in crop farming; implementation of the Ogees Farm Settlement Pilot Project which will provide a good model for developing farmers groups and sustainable & integrated production systems (model for use of estate land); vulnerability to external shocks (natural, markets etc..) may divert existing/ pipeline resources from investments to disaster recovery, slow and improper use of agriculture lands can lead to conversion into non-agriculture activities (tourism); availability/cost of productive factors: water, credit, energy, labour, inputs. exposure to exotic pests, diseases invasive alien species weak DoA institutional and producer capacities for efficient farming systems, agricultural health and food safety traceability, and pest/disease control; weak farm to market and sectoral integrating mechanisms limiting sustained penetration and presence in local retailing; continuous availability/ easy access to imported processed foods as dis-incentive to agro-processing praedial larceny/other production risks not adequately addressed/mitigated  increased institutional support for applied research/ innovation to modernise/ build resilience appropriate to small-scale production systems strong institutional linkages with regional and international technical development support (e.g. CARDI, FAVACA, etc.) for improved farming systems; weak human, technical and infrastructure capacity of DoA for research and technology transfer low level of technology know-how and use among farmers and processors  small size of farming population favours pooling for supplying farm equipment and inputs – (no current interest or capacity of private sector supplier of several critical farm inputs/ equipment) the DoA is the only major supplier providing the unique advantage and opportunity to promote research in local input production and exercise greater quality control over imported agro-chemicals; inadequate budget to consistently provide required inputs and services; Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 30 CONCLUSION The 2006-2011 ADS was implemented within the framework of the 2006-2013 SAS which sought to transform the economic and associated social adjustment processes created by the cessation of sugar production. Agricultural diversification was among a mix of macroeconomic policies and interventions aimed at reducing economic and social vulnerabilities, improving competitiveness of productive sectors, facilitating investment and improving public sector institutional efficiencies, all within a sustainable development agenda. The previous ADS sought to make agriculture more efficient and competitive, while at the same time contributing to the transformation process, sustainable development and improved economic and social well being of the population. In addition to economic and social objectives, the previous ADS provided a platform for good governance, proposing a new institutional and operational framework aimed at strengthening public sector leadership and management capacity. Areas of progress that can be considered building blocks for the 2013-2016 ADS include:  a steady capacity of the non-sugar sub-sectors, particularly short-term crops and livestock, to increase output volumes and generate economic linkages, trade opportunities and growth in agricultural GDP despite its relatively small sectoral share. An important contributor to this growth has been efforts taken to reduce the length of time taken to distribute former sugar lands to farmers for agricultural diversification activities;  a gradual improvement in the domestic production capacity in relation to a limited number of crop and livestock commodities and products, including pumpkin, sweet and white potato and pork;  a growing interest and inclination among producers, including former sugar workers, to make the shift from subsistence small-scale production to small-scale commercial production;  a growing thrust towards developing the domestic agriculture and food markets and identifying and orienting commercial production to take advantage of strategic high-value opportunities where they exist regionally and internationally.  the emergence of building blocks, from the bottom-up, that will facilitate the development of value chains as a strategy for modernisation, productivity and profitability in the sector;  an appreciation of the need to evolve the role of the Department of Agriculture in terms of its organisational structure and operations and critically in terms of its relations with stakeholders, including other Government Ministries, in the process of managing the transition to a ‘new agriculture’. However, the capacity of agriculture to continue to deliver and sustain its positive contributions to growth and development will be affected by a number of factors. Among these include indications that internal competition for resources will continue to intensify, a situation which could unduly undermine the agriculture development strategy. This internal competition for resources is expected to be worsened by the current debt burden and fiscal situation of the economy. Part I: Assessing the Situation ADS 2013-2016 31 The curtailing fiscal realities facing the government of St. Kitts and Nevis will be a major limiting factor in financing the implementation of programs and projects proposed under the 2013-2016 ADS. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has recently advised the St. Kitts and Nevis authorities to prioritize government capital spending, and also seek financial injections from multilateral institutions to support structural reforms that will enhance competitiveness, reduce vulnerabilities and support growth. Against this backdrop, the positioning and development of a ‘new agriculture’ becomes of even more important in light of changes that have occurred in the external environment since 2006 and during the course of implementing the 2007-2011 ADS. In addition, the St. Kitts and Nevis 2013-2016 ADS is being articulated at a time when:  the socio-economic prospects for Caribbean countries are predicted as ‘dire’ due to the high current indebtedness of Caribbean governments and stagnating economies, with implications for accessing resources and investments for development;  the region is accelerating its regional integration process through the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) and at the sub-regional level through the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Economic Union, with expectations of stronger policy coordination and functional cooperation in all key sectors; a process that is fully cognisant that regionalism is a key strategic collective response to common development challenges, international obligations and the changing global economic environment;  agriculture is currently receiving high priority in the region with an expectation of an increased level of human and financial resources being mobilised to support development interventions. Such mobilisation of resources is being undertaken through a number of regional policy and strategic frameworks designed to add value to national agricultural and food security development goals and priorities; The sectoral performance suggests that some critical inroads have been made in expanding non-traditional crop production and in improving the conditions for livestock production and marketing. There are opportunities to consolidate and further expand on these inroads. The SWOT also identifies opportunities which could be used to further the agricultural development agenda in a post-2011 environment. Despite its small size, primary agriculture, led by fisheries and crop production, has exhibited relatively high and robust growth since 2007, indicative of its potential to be an effective contributor to economic growth. In this regard, efforts towards modernising and expanding the productive base, dominated by small producers, through technological improvements, diversification, inter-sectoral linkages and compliance with international quality and safety standards, will remain a priority. The country’s medium-term fiscal and economic realities and the multiplicity of development challenges, demands that the 2013-2016 development strategy be grounded in a sustainable development agenda. This is not an option; it is a matter of survival and human development! Sustainable agenda also demands an integrated approach to policy planning and programming. Part II: The Vision, Development Goals and Priority Areas ADS 2013-2016 32 PART II: THE VISION, DEVELOPMENT GOALS, PRIORITY AREAS 2 2013-2016 AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 2.1 SCOPE OF THE STRATEGY The scope of 2013-2016 ADS is limited to crop and livestock production and processing at two levels: (i) commercial and (ii) subsistence/semi-commercial. This limited scope derives from the mandate of the Division of Agriculture, which is responsible for primary crops and livestock production and to some extent, associated non-farm economic activities. The development of strategies for the Fisheries and Forestry sub-sectors is being guided by separate processes within the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of the Environment, respectively. 2.2 VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES St. Kitts and Nevis, as a SIDS, is at a critical juncture in its national development when sustainable development as an overarching objective must be incorporated into policy and planning at all levels. Agriculture, more than any other sector, can individually and through its inter-sectoral linkages, lead this national thrust towards sustainable development. This Vision establishes the future situation that agriculture will contribute to, must achieve and/or come close to achieving.  By 2016, agriculture will be innovative, resilient and sustainable, supporting food and nutrition security, viable livelihoods, economic linkages and biodiversity conservation Guiding Principles Recognising that St. Kitts and Nevis is a SIDS country, its development challenges and the important and multi-functional role of agriculture to sustainable development, the following principles represent the core value system to guide the development and execution of the ADS. Balance, integration and equity in interventions designed to further economic growth, food safety, rural prosperity and environmental health, with attention given to recognising the role and development needs of women, youth and small farmers and the role of agriculture in the wider economy. Respect for and compliance with external obligations built into strategies, programs and projects to create and strengthen the enabling environment for innovation, entrepreneurship, profitability and investor confidence. Stewardship, leadership and corporate and social responsibility for the building of social capital and in the allocation, use and management of natural, human and development resources, approaching agriculture and food production from a systems perspective. Part II: The Vision, Development Goals and Priority Areas ADS 2013-2016 33 Consultation, collaboration and partnerships among stakeholders at all levels and stages of decision making and implementation. This is as equally important with respect to inter Ministerial and Government-private sector collaboration and partnerships as it is to actors in supply and value chains. Flexibility, efficiency and accountability in implementation of programs in a manner that accommodates the changing circumstances of the national economy, Department of Agriculture and its main clients - agriculture producers. 2.3 AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (ADGS) Strategically, agricultural development in St. Kitts and Nevis must respond to two imperatives, the need to: i. contribute to national development objectives, and ii. address problems inherent to the agriculture system itself. Establishing clear development goals is therefore essential to the policy process, in setting objectives and in program design. Agriculture is well placed to contribute to such wider societal development objectives. The MDGs, the Mauritius Strategy for Implementation of the SIDS agenda, among others, provide a good platform for goal identification. The experiences of the 2007 to 2009 food and fuel crises validate a sectoral focus on food and nutrition security as a matter of national security. Similarly, projections of adverse impacts of climate change, particularly on resource-scarce and environmentally fragile SIDS, such as St. Kitts and Nevis, forces attention to sustainable agriculture as a development imperative. Agriculture also needs to address inherent problems along the production and marketing continuum. Issues related to productivity improvements, competitiveness, income generation and profitability, and risk and vulnerability reduction within a framework of sustainable agriculture are of particular concern. Based on above, and in keeping with the 2016 Vision, three distinct, yet inter-connected Agriculture Development Goals (ADGs) are proposed: 1) Provide safe, affordable and stable food for food and nutrition security 2) Generate innovative and profitable agri-businesses for growth and development 3) Create sustainable and resilient farming systems capable of adapting to hazards and changing climate These ADGs cannot be fully accomplished in a five-year strategy but they provide a focus for actions and interventions aimed at making progress towards the overall Vision. Part II: The Vision, Development Goals and Priority Areas ADS 2013-2016 34 Goal 1 is defined to contribute to society’s objective of food and nutrition security (FNS). It is well understood that FNS is a multi-dimensional and multi-sectoral responsibility. However agriculture plays an important and direct role in FNS through food production. Goals 2 and 3 are defined for the sectoral level, reflecting the strategic direction for the outputs of crop and livestock-based agricultural activities over the policy period. Traditionally, economic and socio-environmental objectives have been viewed as competing. However, the increased economic integration of agriculture has elevated the relative importance of social environmental issues in national and sectoral policies and development agenda, forcing the need for integrated planning. For emphasis, the:  ADGs establish the contributions that agriculture will make to wider society (ADG 1) and to the sector itself, by 2016 (ADGs 2 & 3).  the ADGs respond to the dimensions of sustainable development, namely: ADG-1 to the socio-cultural/human dimension, ADG-2 to the environmental sustainability dimension and ADG-3 to the economic dimension. Together, these three goals provide the framework for action, i.e., they point to some specific outcomes, or changes to the current situation that could result from well-targeted interventions in agriculture.  General Objectives (GO) and their Desired Outcomes (DO) provide the specific sub-themes or components in which resources will focus to enable agriculture to meet the ADGs by 2016;  Priority Areas (PA) provide even further specificity in terms of directing where actions need to be taken over the 2013-2016 period to build on past results and continue the process of agricultural development in the medium term. As indicated, there will be more than one PA to achieve the desired outcome. Individually, each PA is designed to alleviate a critical constraint, address a specific problem and/or take advantage of a particular opportunity. They also provide the base for planning and programming and as well, for redefining and reorienting the institutional fabric of the Division of Agriculture (DoA), which is ultimately responsible for implementing these actions. For convenience and ease of reference, these three ADGs will, from this point, be described as Sectoral ADGs, as distinct from institutional goals to be defined for the DoA as the institution implementing the sectoral plan. Building the Strategy as a logical flow from broad development Goal to Core Program provides a cohesive and common framework for rationalising what could become a long list of priority areas for action, as an essential step in the process of defining comprehensive Divisional work programs. Part II: The Vision, Development Goals and Priority Areas ADS 2013-2016 35 Box 3: Agricultural Development Goals (ADGs) and their Objectives 2016 ADG General Objective Desired Outcome s Priority Areas 1) Provide safe, affordable and stable food for food and nutrition security To expand the range, volume and availability of key local foods for food and nutrition security 1. Reduced exposure to global food market volatility 1) Maintain and support production a selected basket of priority food commodities for local consumption 2) Promote and facilitate marketing, purchasing and utilisation of locally produced foods 2) Generate innovative and profitable agri businesses for growth and development To enable the growth and development of modern, market oriented and integrated agribusiness 2. Expanded economic opportunities, linkages and investment in business along the agriculture production-trade chain 3) Promote and facilitate systems agriculture to build critical mass and enhance efforts at clustering and chain integration 4) Strengthen mechanisms for application of science and technology for innovative product development 5) Improve capacity for compliance with trade and environmental requirements 3. Engaged and empowered youth agripreneurs and innovators 3) Develop sustainable and resilient farming systems To support the shift towards sustainable and adaptive farming systems that preserve agricultural natural resources and bio-diversity 4. Effective land, water and biodiversity management 6) Mainstream and integrate sustainable land, water and waste management into sectoral planning and farming practices 7) Enhance capacity for, and adoption of small-scale farming systems solutions, technologies, innovations 5. Climate-smart and risk-managed farming systems 8) Improve response mechanisms and capacity for agricultural risk and disaster management 9) Develop measures to adapt and build resilience to climate change Part II: The Vision, Development Goals and Priority Areas ADS 2013-2016 36 Priority Areas Over the 2013-2016 implementation period, interventions in agriculture will focus on specific Priority Areas in order to contribute to achieving the general objectives, desired outcomes and ultimately the ADGs. Identifying these Priority Areas pre-defines the scope of actions and establishes the parameters for developing the Core Programs for agricultural development. The scope of actions to be taken is already defined as the primary crop and livestock production, processing and marketing. A set of Priority Areas have been identified (Box 4). Interventions and actions to be implemented in these eighteen Priority Areas will be designed, managed, monitored and evaluated under the following four Core Programs. These are: Box 4: Programming Priority Areas Priority Areas Core Programs 1) Maintain and support production of a selected basket of priority food commodities for local consumption 2) Promote and facilitate marketing, purchasing and utilisation of locally produced foods Operation Food Security (OFS) 3) Promote and facilitate systems agriculture to build critical mass and enhance efforts at clustering and chain integration 4) Strengthen mechanisms for application of science and technology for innovative product development 5) Improve capacity for compliance with trade and environmental requirements Agri-Business and Market Development (ABMD) 6) Mainstream and integrate sustainable land, water and waste management into sectoral planning and farming practices 7) Enhance capacity for, and adoption of small-scale farming systems solutions, technologies, innovations Farming and Agricultural Systems Transformation (FAST) 8) Improve response mechanisms and capacity for agricultural risk and disaster management 9) Develop measures to adapt and build resilience to climate change Agricultural Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation Part II: The Vision, Development Goals and Priority Areas ADS 2013-2016 37 Notes ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► Part III: the Planning for Implementation Framework ADS 2013-2016 38 PART III: THE PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 3. IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK It is good to remind at this point, that a Plan is not a Strategy, but is an essential accessory or route map that defines the starting point, the desired destination and a time-frame to get there. The strategy defines the various routes or options to move from starting point to destination. It is unlikely that the strategy will be realised in a single stage; and at the very least, the plan should show where annual expectation targets, and the estimated budget/resources required to achieving these targets6. Implementation has always been a major deficiency in the agriculture policy process. This is due, in part to the separation and time lags in the process of policy design and operational planning. The result has been the development of number of short-term, discrete activity-based actions that are often implemented independently, yielding similarly limited results. The ADS has simultaneously undertaken the process of specifying development goals, defining policy objectives and developing strategies and programs to achieve the outcomes. This approach also enhances policy stability, policy integration and more efficient monitoring and evaluation systems. This is intended to enhance the operational performance of the Ministry. The development-led outcome-based approach:  offers improved scope for designing integrated and coherent policies and actions which moves away from the ‘silo’ practice of defining sub-sectoral interventions;  offers greater scope for public-private sector partnerships based on an improved basis and process for differentiating between what can be considered essential ‘public goods’ for agricultural development and ‘commercialisation’, which though contributing to the same goal, will require differentiated engagement processes and policy instruments for achieving results.  provides the scope to create a more flexible human resource pool integrated through results-based actions as opposed to subject-based (livestock, plant health, fisheries, etc) priorities; The framework plan provides the details required for comprehensive operational planning for implementation at the level of the respective DoA Units. In terms of implementation strategy, a comprehensive One-year Operational Plan will initially be developed as the basis for implementing the ADS. 6 http://www.lascon.co.uk/st00100.htm Part III: the Planning for Implementation Framework ADS 2013-2016 39 Implementation of this One-year plan will provide the opportunity to validate the nine (9) Priority Areas that flow from and linked to the ADGs and make a more informed and evidence-based determination of the specific actions to be implemented through the 4 Core Programs defined above. On an annual basis, the ADS will pursue actions on two distinct but inter-connected tracks: 1. Define and undertake clear high impact actions within the Core Programs, that would generate broad interest, public awareness and partnerships for almost immediate results; 2. Streamline and enhance efficiencies in Core Services and Support, reconstituted into Core Programs and Common Support Services 3.1 Programs as the Common Framework and Platform for Action The 2013-2016 ADS will be implemented through four Programs designed to address one or more of the PA and in a coordinated manner. The interventions or specific actions for implementation of these programs could take the form of: Short-Term Actions: which can be utilised to get quick action in a particular aspect of a priority area, such as important pre-requisites for implementation, but do not require continuous actions, beyond a 9-month to one-year duration. Some examples: acquisition of small processing equipment; building a an irrigation pond; writing a project for funding; writing a subject-specific policy to support a particular project; Projects, which may be of 1 year duration or which may run the course of the ADS. Program #1: Operation Food Security (OFS) St. Kitts is classified as a net-food importing country. The high debt burden and the dire economic situation will affect all segments of society, but especially the lower-income brackets. It is in these brackets that household expenditures on food will be reduced as prices increase and other needs take priority. Predictions of continued volatility and rising food prices on the international market make it imperative that the country take action to build self-reliance for food production.  The Objective: to improve the level of self-reliance as a means of enhancing resilience to food shortages and sharp increases in food prices.  The Scope: the OFS program is focussed on identifying and providing development support for a selected basket of commodities based largely on their capacity to secure the nutritional needs of the citizens of St. Kitts and Nevis. Part III: the Planning for Implementation Framework ADS 2013-2016 40  The Target: households and communities, with a particular focus on facilitating small food production units - households, schools, small-scale farmers and specific aspects of urban agriculture (utilising agriculture crops (tree crops) in urban landscaping).  The Strategy: to continue and build on the OFS program in order to strengthen and build capacity among households and communities for greater self-reliance in the production of a portion of their food needs through home and school gardening units and use of public green spaces. OFS will use agriculture as one of the vehicles to contribute to, and impact the wider societal objective of food and nutrition security. This program addresses human development and national security by strengthening the country’s capacity to feed its citizens and to reduce their exposure to global food market volatility, with a particular focus on the more vulnerable. The OFS is not designed to address all the development needs of agriculture, or to support all and/or established crop, livestock and processed food producers. The selection of the FNS food basket will be guided by the research and recommendations of the Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute (CFNI). Priority will be placed on crop and animal products that: are already included in government food procurement programs; offer a relatively affordable and balanced daily meal; can be cultivated efficiently in mixed and small farming units, including school gardens, with minimal imported costs derived from dependence on seeds, fertilisers and agri chemicals; offer opportunities for the development of small-scale food preservation and minimal processing. Due to the multi-sectoral and multi-dimensional nature of food security, the core strategies which will underpin activities in this program must include: (a) public education and awareness, (b) strategic partnerships, and (c) project preparation and resource mobilisation. Dissemination of success stories and good practices will be an important aspect of public awareness, so too will stronger and more formal partnerships with relevant Ministries, such as, Education and other key stakeholders. Part III: the Planning for Implementation Framework ADS 2013-2016 41 Program #2: Farming and Agricultural Systems Transformation (FAST) St. Kitts, relative to other Caribbean countries, faces physical limitations in terms of farming. These physical constraints are worsened by the current state of extreme high indebtedness of the economy, which further compromises the capacity of agriculture to attract a larger share of government budget and mobilise external financing. Contributing to the goal of reducing vulnerability to a projected continuation of volatility in international food markets will require substantive improvements in domestic food production capacity. Such improvements will need to positively impact efficiency in use of limited agricultural resources, increases in farm productivity and enhance farmer incomes and the marketability of farm output in selected crop and livestock commodities.  The Objective: to raise the level of farm productivity, profitability and competitiveness of farm outputs.  The Scope: a ‘public goods’ intervention focussed on entrenching scientific and sustainable principles and good practices into all farming systems  The Target: farmers  The Strategy: a focus almost exclusively on building efficiency, productivity and resilience. The integrated nature of agriculture and food production and marketing is well recognised as the preferred development strategy. However supply side constraints demand explicit and focussed attention on actions to develop productive and efficient farming systems. FAST seeks to address the deep-seated, supply-side constraints to agricultural productivity and competitiveness. The program underpins most if not all of the interventions to be implemented in the 2013-2016 ADS. Program #3: Agricultural Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation (ARMCCA) Most farmers in St. Kitts operate under open field conditions. This alone renders them vulnerable to risks, with projected adverse climate change impacts ranking high among these. However, an immediate and major risk factor is a large population of monkeys and roaming animals, which destroy crops especially fruits, vegetables and root crops. Monkeys, in particular, are difficult to control. They attack year round, with slight relief during the local fruiting season only (August to October). Roaming animals are also a nuisance to public health and safety and a problem for farmers. Part III: the Planning for Implementation Framework ADS 2013-2016 42 The DoA needs to take effective action against the immediate risk of monkeys and roaming animals, and as well, in response to the imminent threat of climate change. Reducing these risks will be essential to sustain farming, boost agricultural development and enhance food security. The DoA is also required to enhance and maintain its services with respect to its ongoing program for managing general agricultural health, including control of current pests and diseases and increasing vigilance to limit potential entry of pests, diseases and/or other harmful organisms. Efforts will also continue in initiatives to assure food safety, through continued promotion and training for good practices on farms and in processing facilities, including slaughter houses.  The Objective: to identify and implement measures that reduce risks to farmers and facilitate adoption of effective on-farm practices to reduce and/or manage risks associated with animals and climate change  The Scope: Animal nuisance (monkeys and roaming animals i.e., cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, dogs), and farm water management.  The Target: farmers, ports of entry, processing facilities, including slaughter houses  The Strategy: to identify and implement problem-specific solutions for direct impact. Responses to agricultural risk, particularly those of natural origin (including monkeys and stray/roaming animals), and more recently impacts of climate change are increasingly being addressed from regional and global perspectives and responses. Strategically, St. Kitts and Nevis can position this aspect of its ADS into the global dialogue and leverage its position as a SIDS to mobilise development resources geared towards poverty. Such interventions will have positive and complementary externalities to the efforts undertaken under Programs 2 and 3. This program area will be an important element of the enabling environment of the ‘new agriculture’ in a post-2011 environment. Program #4: Agri-Business and Market Development Within the Leeward group of Islands, St Kitts is considered to have relatively more productive capacity than its tourism and food import dependent neighbours. St Kitts and Nevis produces a wide range of primary and value-added products, but in relatively small quantities. The bulk of these products are geared largely to meet a strong local demand, with smaller volumes of a limited number of products exported to neighbouring Caribbean countries. There is scope to improve both the volumes and quality of fresh and value-added products domestically and as well to regional (mostly in the Leeward Islands) and extra-regional markets. Part III: the Planning for Implementation Framework ADS 2013-2016 43 However, current marketing capacity and arrangements do not create the ‘pull effect’ needed to encourage farm-level productivity, increased volumes of ‘market-ready’ products, or consolidate supply chains as an essential first step to building viable value chains. Consequently, market opportunities that are available within and outside the region remain underutilised.  The Objective: a business-oriented program aimed at expanding commercial opportunities and linkages for agribusiness growth and trade development, with a special focus on Micro Small-Medium Enterprises (MSMEs).  The Scope: focus on leveraging existing market opportunities by coordinating farm output with market demands to ensure that final goods conform to consumer/market specifications (product form, presentation, availability, etc.). For this program, ‘the market’ is broadly defined to include fresh consumer market, local and/or export, food processing, and any other existing, new and/or emerging opportunity that was/could not previously be explored, such as, links to sports, medicines, cosmetics, professional services, etc. Central to this emphasis is the imperative to develop such linkages through viable businesses along the micro to medium scale, including home-based and family businesses through, inter alia Entrepreneurship Development and Dialogue and partnership Building Strategies.  The Target: the category of producers who operate in the semi-commercial and commercial realm of agriculture It is in this category of producers, whether small, medium or large, and whether operating on farm, in factory or in the market, that some basic and core commercial principles exist to form building blocks for efficiency, productivity and profitability enhancements.  The Strategy: to profile existing MSMEs and existing/desired markets and apply the principles and best practices gleaned from ‘linking small farmers to markets’ initiatives undertaken regionally and globally. The FAST and AgriBusiness programs are both designed to impact structural change and productive capacity in crop and livestock-based agriculture at the semi-commercial and commercial levels. Success in these programs will be instrumental in unlocking the potential of sector, in and of itself, and enabling its ability to generate profits and improve standards of living for its stakeholders and hence to contribute to national employment, wealth creation and economic growth. Part III: the Planning for Implementation Framework ADS 2013-2016 44 Box 5: 2013 Indicative Action Plan - Summary Programs Target Objective Sub-Programs Type of Action Yr. 1 Targets Operation Food Security (OFS) Youth To utilise the school system as a practical and sustainable tool to engage, expose, educate and involve youth in farming and other agriculture activities and careers Helping Out Our Pre/Primary and Secondary Schools (HOOPSS - St. Kitts) Core Program 1. HOOPSS-St. Kitts Concept & Action Plan (including plans for integrating CXC/CAPE in curricula); 2. Upgrade/establish farms and training camps in selected schools; Student Training by Agricultural Immersion (STAI) summer program High Impact Action 1. Initiate STAI with 2 to 4 students in Dominica and Trinidad Households & Communities To promote and support integration of food crops into landscaping for more efficient use of backyards and rural urban open spaces Home Gardens and Community Greens (HG&CG) Core Program 2. Home Gardens and Community Greens survey, concept & plan; 3. Home gardens & community greens sites upgrade, maintenance, and/or establishment Farming and Agricultural Systems Transformation (FAST) Farmers (crop and livestock) To introduce improved production technologies, tools, inputs and production systems Farming Systems Modernisation Core Program 1. Improve Genetic Stock: to establish productivity based system transformation (crop & livestock varieties) 2. Farm Input Development: reducing dependence on imported inputs (forage, fertilisers, pesticides); 3. Protected Agriculture and Sustainable Farming Systems: enhancing production stability and safety 4. Farm Resource Use efficiency: water management To improve producer capacities, farm practices and management operations Culturing Farm Managers Core Program 1. Develop skills and building capacity through training in improved technologies, production systems and input production Part III: the Planning for Implementation Framework ADS 2013-2016 45 Box 5: 2013 Indicative Action Plan - Summary Programs Target Objective Sub-Programs Type of Action Yr. 1 Targets AgriBusiness and Marketing Development (ABMD) Producers (Farmers & Processors) To improve systems for efficient and effective marketing and trade among producers and for products Building Market Supply Capacity & Critical Mass Core Program 1. Establish producer standardisation and certification 2. Support Beekeepers and enhance marketing of honey products 3. Support training in GAP and GMP Producers, Buyers, Service Providers To provide strategic market analysis and support building of relations/ engagement between exporters and potential partners for expanding trade opportunities Facilitate marketing and trade Core Program 1. Support development of differentiated marketing strategies Agricultural Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation Farmers, Communities, Households; General Public To reduce risks and losses to farmers caused by damage from monkeys and roaming animals Reducing Farm Risks From Monkeys and Roaming Farm and other Animals High Impact Action 1. Introduce/adapt Protected Agriculture systems that prevent access of monkeys access to farmers’ fields 2. Explore options to link monkey population control from ‘trapping’ activities to slaughter and sale as food product 3. Strengthen Abattoir and Animal Pound facilities to support control of roaming farm animals To improve conditions for agricultural health and food safety management Agricultural Health and Food Safety Core Program 1. Maintain and upgrade services with respect to entry inspection, regulations and risk assessments To reduce farm vulnerability/ risks of water variability due to climate change impacts Water Management Core Program 1. Support development and implementation of a water for agriculture strategy and projects. Part III: the Planning for Implementation Framework ADS 2013-2016 46 3.2 Developing the Annual Program Operational Plan In addition to defining Program objectives, each Core Program will develop a Program Profile that will contain the following key information: Program Building Blocks, which will document past and current activities undertaken on which planned activities will build on, strengthen etc. These building blocks also act as essential gateways to strengthening partnerships in support of program activities. The Strategy and Actions, which will specify key sub-programs, as necessary, their critical intervention points, specific activities, inputs, budgets outputs/deliverables and progress/results indicators. It is this aspect that will form the base of the plan for further development of Individual work plans and budgets and other implementation aspects. This is also critical to Step IV in the process – Operational Planning Key Partners, which will identify all potential partners/collaborators and the specific aspects in which their partnership may be optimised. This information will be important to mobilise external support (both technical and financial) to complement limitations of budgetary allocations for ADS implementation. Expected Benefits and Beneficiaries, which will serve to focus the programs by identifying up-front, who the program will work with/for to more effectively guide the design and delivery of target specific interventions. Program Risks and Mitigation Options; as with all development initiatives there are risks and unforeseen policy and other shifts that could disrupt activity or make a plan un implementable. The clear acknowledgement of risk factors for each program and the attempt to identify mitigating factors is critical to effective planning and enhances the chances of successful implementation in terms of what is feasible and as well in finding alternative and innovative ways towards achieving a set goal amidst the challenges. Success Factors and Sustainability Measures; as stated in the title of the ADS, all interventions which form part of the ADS must make SENSE. i.e., they must be grounded and rooted on:  Scientific principles, particularly with respect to adoption of production technologies and innovations and health and safety regulations and practices.  Executable actions, which demands attention to both the process and content of project preparation and operational planning;  Needs, which should emerge from an evidence-based process that clearly validates the actions, a pre-requisite for stakeholder engagement and ownership and which is essential to achieving results, impacts and  Sustainability. And equally so, they must bring  Economic benefits to the stakeholders, to the DoA and to the country, from use of stakeholder time and effort, use of scare national budgets and effective use of external support (in time and money). Part III: the Planning for Implementation Framework ADS 2013-2016 47 Notes ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► Part IV – The Institutional Development Plan ADS 2013-2016 48 PART IV: THE INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 DOA INSTITUTIONAL REALIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS Role of the DoA (Department of Agriculture) The DoA is the public agency responsible for agricultural development (mandate is for crops and livestock), acting on behalf of stakeholders/clients in guiding the agricultural development process. It is therefore charged with the responsibility for implementing the 2013-2016 ADS. Through consultations, the DoA recognizes that fundamental change in the environment for development requires a ‘business unusual approach.  at the macro level, an extreme national financial crunch, budget deficit and external debt situation, rapid advances in technologies along the entire value chain, greater awareness and expectations of pro-environmental policies and actions and political tensions and distractions create a challenging environment for agricultural development.  at the micro level, greater unmitigated risks to farming, low and declining productivity and a general lack of confidence in the sector add further complications to an already tenuous situation. The DoA has a tradition of defining development initiatives and providing support services to clients and stakeholders for crop and livestock development. These interventions have remained stable over time, in terms of contributing towards achieving goals of food security, improved farmer incomes and increased export earnings from agriculture. Given the DoA’s operational realities and the continued need to contribute to achieving national development goals, the DoA has redefined its strategy for agricultural development within its ADS 2013-2016. Developing the Institutional Plan for the ADS therefore will constitute next Step (5 and Part IV) of this process, once the ADS Sectoral Strategy is approved. This aspect is equally and perhaps even more important, particularly with respect to expectations of how the DaA will reconfigure its institutional arrangements and management processes to ensure efficient implementation and effective service delivery. Such detailed discussion is also important to prioritise the specific problems that can reasonably be addressed in the 2011-2015 time frame and the on-going initiatives that provide a firm platform for further development. Part IV – The Institutional Development Plan ADS 2013-2016 49 The Institutional Plan provides indicative areas for action in strengthening the DoA to manage the process, including resources, organizational structures for effective implementation, and monitoring and evaluation processes and mechanisms. The realities of agriculture in St. Kitts and Nevis require that consideration be given to Change Management as a pivotal to the strategy. Realignment Requirements In order to fulfill its mandate and become an effective conduit and facilitator of agricultural development, the institution itself must define goals and strategy to guide its operations and continuously improves performance and service delivery. The DoA Strategic Plan therefore responds to the institutional requirements of the Sectoral ADS over the 2013-2016. Its primary role is to develop, direct, support and coordinate the process for implementing the ADS. This suggests a Mission for the DoA, as:  guiding and coordinating the agricultural development process through stakeholder consultations, smart partnerships, innovative management and efficient use of limited resources The DoA recognises that it operates within an internal and external environment that imposes limits on its scope of influence and action, but also offers opportunities for creating new institutional frameworks to enhance organisational success. The external factors link back to the Opportunities analysis in Part I. In this context, a traditional SWOT for the DoA as an institution will provide guidelines in terms of pin-pointing areas where institutional strengths can be built, weaknesses can be resolved, opportunities can be exploited and threats averted or avoided. For the DoA, the individual elements of SWOT should cover all aspects related to internal factors, which may be grouped under:  Institutional structure, organisational framework and operational procedures;  Leadership, technical competence and human resource capacities;  Operations, service delivery and client/stakeholder interface  Budget and investment, related to adequacy and continuous provision of financing and capital funds to implement development interventions; The latter is of particular significance to the institutional realities of St. Kitts and Nevis. The current and projected macro-economic situation and curtailing fiscal realities facing the government of will have significant impact on its own ability to finance the implementation of ADS 2013-2016 programs. This is also important given the shift in approach from sub-sectoral planning to one built on integrated planning around common development goals. Part IV – The Institutional Development Plan ADS 2013-2016 50 Therefore the issue of building the internal capacity within the Ministry to observe, pin point, interface with, and prepare proposals to secure overseas development assistance and cooperation is an essential requirement for successful implementation. This provides sufficient justification for defining a complementary Institutional Strategy. The 2006-2011 ADS recognised that ‘the modernization and transformation of the agricultural sector require an institutional framework that provides effective leadership, vision and direction for the implementation of the government’s policies and strategy. The present institutional framework suffers from several weaknesses that limit the effectiveness of strategies and direction for the sector’s development.’ The proposed institutional changes, among them being the restructuring of the current Department of Agriculture (DOA) into the Department of Agricultural Development (DAD), did not materialise over the course of implementing the last ADS. This 2013-2016 ADS acknowledges that while these proposed areas for institutional change remain relevant, the capacity to undertake such changes falls within public sector reform which poses a significant limitation to effective institutional transformation over the duration of the new ADS. In this regard, the following institutional goal and priority areas, are proposed to guide the institutional realignment and operations for implementing the 2013-2016 ADS. Program 5: Institutional Realignment Unlike the 4 Core Programs, which were largely sectoral in nature, Program 5 is pivotal to the creation of the enabling environment for agricultural development. Its main issues revolve around the principles of good governance and institutional development. It is at the centre of the creation of the enabling environment for agricultural transformation and sustainable development. Program 5-Institutional Modernisation and Organisational Strengthening- is directed at the vehicle charged with the responsibility for managing the agricultural development process and implementing the 2013-2016 ADS, i.e., the Department of Agriculture. Notes ► ► ► ► ► ► ► Part IV – The Institutional Development Plan ADS 2013-2016 51 Box 6: Agricultural Development Goals (ADGs) and their Objectives Institutional Goal Efficient and cohesive agricultural policy and institutional framework General Objective (GO) To provide effective and efficient visioning, leadership and management for ADS implementation Desired Outcome (DO) The DoA is an effective and efficient leader and facilitator of agriculture development, operating within an enabling policy environment and effective and public-private sector engagements Priority Areas (PA) Program 5 Critical Intervention Points Strengthen the legislative and regulatory base for ADS implementation; Strengthen the policy, planning and resource mobilization capacities of the DoA; Develop results and performance based management system Institutional Realignment, Modernisation and Capacity Building Strengthen the legislative and regulatory base for ADS implementation; Strengthen the policy, planning and resource mobilization capacities of the DoA; Undertake human resource re-alignment and Program Team building; Develop results and performance based management system Constituting Program Teams The ADS programs will be implemented through the re-allocation and constituting of Program Teams from the current human resources available in and to the DoA as opposed to suggesting the establishment of Units, which will have more demanding and formal institutional restructuring requirements. The Team approach offers more operational flexibility to redeploy existing staff, pull in non-DoA individuals as required, from other public sector agencies, the private sector, civil society organisations and networks, etc. In terms of implementing this suggested format, using the Extension Division as an example, this will not require a dismantling of the Extension Division. Rather, it will allow for a more direct matching of skills and professional interest/capacity of the existing Extension officers to the respective 4 core Programs and/or Common Services. Once redeployed into the respective Program Teams, institutional arrangements with respect to developing Annual Individual Work Plans, reporting arrangements and monitoring systems currently in place, will be adjusted, as necessary. This will facilitate the transition from the traditional Extension, towards a more specialized service where Extension officers will also be offered an opportunity, as part of matter specific Teams, to upgrade their knowledge, skills and technical capacities and widen their professional network. Part IV – The Institutional Development Plan ADS 2013-2016 52 Program Teams will thus be responsible for guiding the development of the Program Profile, its implementation plan and leading actual implementation of activities. Constituting Common Support Services Programs will be supported by two critical Common Services:  Training, Information and Promotions which will focus on, inter alia, identifying training needs across all programs (consulting with Extension and other subject matter specialist in and out of DoA), developing training modules & training delivery tools/approaches (with the Program leader/team), accessing/designing training materials, developing information products for and post training sessions and for public awareness etc, conducting evaluation of training, following up on outcomes/impacts of training, managing the off-country training - consolidating/linking STAI and Farmer Exchange programs (eg. liaising with IICA Office to identify and build profiles of Caribbean countries re areas of interest in the ADS)  Projects and Partnerships Services responsible for, among others, identifying sources of funding and engaging partners preparing project concepts, ideas and proposals mobilising project resources (technical, financial, private sector, other, etc.) supporting program leaders in engaging partners, and evaluating and communicating results of projects to partners and building linkages The role of these pooled services will be critical to implementation of all programs, especially in terms of ensuring integration among programs and maximising benefits to stakeholders with respect to the design and delivery of training and engagement activities. These details will be developed in the DoA Institutional Plan, once the technical aspects of the ADS are confirmed and endorsed, i.e., the goal, objectives, programs and budgets. Notes ► ► ► ► ► Part IV – The Institutional Development Plan ADS 2013-2016 53 4.2 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS The requirements for success defined in the 2006-2011 ADS remain valid for the implementation of the 2013-2016 ADS and have been enhanced for emphasis. These success factors are:  Vision, Leadership and Ownership  Policy Stability, Government Commitment and Support  Integration of ADGs into the wider macro-economic development agenda  Public Service Technical and Administrative Results Based Management  Institutional Coordination and Linkages  Application of Public Goods and Private Goods Concepts  Public-Private Sector Engagement and Smart Partnerships  Adequate and stable financing and development cooperation The principal strategies that need to be employed to focus and enhance implementation may be categorised as follows, but not limited to:  Stakeholder Participatory Methods  Differentiated Stakeholder Engagement Strategies  Organisational development  Human Capacity & Skills Development (Training)  ICT Upgrades and Literacy  Information and Knowledge Management  Project Preparation & Resource Mobilisation  Sustainable Development Principles  Infrastructural Works  Strategic Partnerships  Legislation, Regulation & Enforcement  Farm to Market Linkages  Strategic and Evidence-Based Planning Notes ► ► ► ► ► Part IV – The Institutional Development Plan ADS 2013-2016 54 4.3 FINANCING THE PROGRAMS Options for carrying out the action can be defined according to (a) Initial capital required to start and fully finance the activities in Year 1; and (b) Operational funds to continue the program, based on evaluation of results and outcome. This should consider: 4.3.1 existing government allocations (especially for areas that neither private sector or external donors are willing to finance, such as salaries, overheads). To this end, the DoA should undertake a Year 1 Activity Mapping Exercise (AME) which will specify all activities for implementation and match those that are already or can be covered under Government Budgetary allocations and those which will require external financing. 4.3.2 external resources (to support public education campaigns, competitions, training programs, school farms’ infrastructure, school farms’ markets, summer farm camps, etc.). To this, the DoA should use the AME to identify activities that can be linked to current externally funded regional programs. Of interest in this regard should include: i. the IICA-European Union (EU) ‘Caribbean Action under the Program Entitled Agriculture Policy Program with focus on the Caribbean and Pacific’ which emphasises and provides support for (a) R1.0- Strengthening implementation of regional agriculture development strategy, that includes support to the development of national policies and strategies for small producers, (b) R 2.0 Improving the transfer and adoption of applied agricultural production and processing research results and technologies and where appropriate, generate new technologies for target commodities, and (c) R3.0- Strengthening market linkages to contribute to agricultural enterprise development . ii. the IICA-EU ‘SPS Measures and SPS Measures for Fisheries Access’, which one component of the 10th EDF Program “Support of the Forum of Caribbean States in the implementation of the commitments undertaken under the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA)”. This SPS program seeks to increase production and trade in agriculture and fisheries which meet international standards while protecting plant, animal and human health and the environment and will be implemented along three components: (a) Legislation, protocols, standards, measures and guidelines in the area of AHFS and fisheries for national and regional SPS regimes; (b) National and regional coordination mechanisms in the support of the SPS regime, and (c): National and regional regulatory and industry capacity to meet the SPS requirements of international trade. iii. the March 2012 Financing agreement between the EU and CARIFORUM for the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) program also under the 10th EDF. This program, being executed by Caribbean Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality (CROSQ), provides support for (a) Standardisation, (b) Metrology, (c) Accreditation, (d) Conformity Assessment, (e) Awareness, Public Education and Communication and (f) Institutional Strengthening. Part IV – The Institutional Development Plan ADS 2013-2016 55 4.3.3 local private sector (to also support promotional efforts, competition prizes, medial messages, etc.,) Technical and financial resource mobilisation decisions can be guided by the following matrix that seeks to identify key sources of support and the best utilisation Potential Source of Resources Preferred Financing Options/Best Use of Resources 1. Government Budget (recurrent and capital)  financing staff positions  financing office space  providing ‘public goods’ – infrastructure, extension, research, etc. 1. Financing Donor Agencies:  Target-specific, issue-specific project financing 2. Technical Cooperation Agencies/Organisations  Stakeholder training/workshops  Training of government technicians  Preparation of training manuals,  Analysis and studies,  Sharing of information  Project financing/technical support 3. NGOs  Community mobilisation/building  Mobilisation of donor/grant funds/support  Provision of volunteer support Notes ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► Way Forward ADS 2013-2016 56 WAY FORWARD WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED?  full engagement of DoA professionals in the process towards development of the 2013 ADS;  clarification on the situation and development challenges with respect to agriculture;  consensus on a Vision, development goals and priority areas for the 2013-2016 period;  confirmation for the ADS to be based on a programmatic approach for the strategy;  general indicative plan with respect to scope and focus for the 4 Programs;  agreement on a two-track implementation strategy for year one based on High Impact actions and maintenance of routine support under the Core Programs;  general acceptance and support from stakeholders with respect to the scope and activities of the 2013 ADS;  definition of the details of Year 1 Operational Plans for the 4 Core Programs for both high impact and maintenance activities;  indicative expressions of support from private sector with respect to kick-starting the STAI initiative;  indicative identification of potential external support for ADS implementation;  initial work programming details and individual responsibility work plans. KEY ELEMENTS TO COMPLETE THE PLANNING PROCESS! ► development of the 4-year indicative summary budget; ► development of the details of the Year 1 major specific activities (i.e., the AME) and financing plan (to distinguish between Government budgets and activities requiring external support); ► identification of activities requiring external financing and preparation of project idea portfolio to facilitate resource mobilisation for implementation of ADS; ► articulation and implementation of the Institutional Development strategy and realignment/acquisition of human resources to respective Program Teams,; ► development/realignment of planning and reporting processes, including monitoring and evaluation systems; ► the design of a continuous stakeholder engagement and communication strategy to support effective participation for efficient implementation. making ScientificExecutableNeededSustainableEconomic Promoting standards & good practices for high yields & safe products Involving stake holders in the design and implementation of activities & projects Responding to the need for food self reliance & youth involvement in agriculture Managing scare water & land resources & mitigating risks to farming Strengthening capacities for production, marketing and profitable business Check List! ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ►