Managing vulnerability to drought and enhancing livelihood resilience in sub-Saharan Africa: Technological, institutional and policy options

This paper highlights the challenges of drought in sub-Saharan Africa and reviews the current drought risk management strategies, especially the promising technological and policy options for managing drought risks to protect livelihoods and reduce vulnerability.

Managing vulnerability to drought and enhancing livelihood resilience
in sub-Saharan Africa: Technological,institutional and policy options
Bekele Shiferawa,n
, Kindie Tesfayeb
, Menale Kassiec
, Tsedeke Abatec
,
B.M. Prasannac
, Abebe Menkird
a Partnership for Economic Policy (PEP),Nairobi,Kenya
b International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT),Addis Ababa,Ethiopia
c International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT),Nairobi,Kenya
d International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA),Ibadan,Nigeria
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 20 December 2013
Accepted 2 April 2014
Available online 21 May 2014
Keywords:
Climate variability
Drought
Drought risk management
Technology and policy options
Sub-Saharan Africa
a b s t r a c t
Agriculture and the economies of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are highly sensitive to climatic variability.
Drought, in particular, represents one of the most important natural factors contributing to malnutrition
and famine in many parts of the region. The overall impact of drought on a given country/region and its
ability to recover from the resulting social,economic and environmentalimpacts depends on several
factors.The economic,social and environmental impacts of drought are huge in SSA and the national
costs and losses incurred threaten to undermine the wider economic and development gains made in
the last few decades in the region.There is an urgent need to reduce the vulnerability of countries to
climate variability and to the threats posed by climate change.This paper attempts to highlight the
challenges of drought in SSA and reviews the current drought risk management strategies, especially the
promising technological and policy options for managing drought risks to protect livelihoods and reduce
vulnerability.The review suggests the possibilities of several ex ante and ex post drought management
strategies in SSA although their effectiveness depends on agro-climatic and socio-economic conditions.
Existing technological, policy and institutional risk management measures need to be strengthened and
integrated to manage droughtex ante and to minimize the ex post negative effects for vulnerable
households and regions.A proactive approach that combines promising technological,institutional and
policy solutions to manage the risks within vulnerable communities implemented by institutions
operating at different levels (community, sub-national, and national) is considered to be the way forward
for managing drought and climate variability.
& 2014 The Authors.Published by Elsevier B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
1. Introduction
Agriculture is the dominant form of land use globally involving
major economic,social, and cultural activities and providing a
wide range of ecosystem services.Because of its nature,however,
agriculture remains highly sensitive to climate variations. The vast
majority of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are
dependent on rainfed agriculture for their livelihoods,and they
are often afflicted by the vagaries of weather and climate
(Gautam,2006). Among the climatic factors,rainfall variability
has a large impact on the livelihoods of the poor as wellas the
economies of most of the African countries (Gautam, 2006;
Hellmuth et al., 2007). For millions of poor people in SSA,
variability and unpredictability ofclimate is a major challenge
and poses a risk that can critically restrict options and limit their
development (Hellmuth et al.,2009).
Droughts and floods alone account for 80% of the loss of life and
70% of the economic losses in SSA (Bhavnani et al., 2008). Frequent
drought conditions have reduced the GDP growth of many African
countries (Jury,2000; World Bank,2005a; Brown et al.,2011) and
threatened their development gains (Hellmuth et al., 2007).
Drought has both direct and indirect impacts.Drought directly
affects production,lives,health,livelihoods,assets and infrastruc-
ture that contribute to food insecurity and poverty.However,the
indirect effects of drought on environmental degradation and
reduced household welfare through its impact on crop and live-
stock prices could be larger than its direct effects (Zimmerman and
Carter, 2003; Holden and Shiferaw, 2004). In the past five decades,
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wace
Weather and Climate Extremes
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2014.04.004
2212-0947/& 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd
n Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [e-mail] (B.Shiferaw).
Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–79

drought has become a major problem of Africa and it has caused
depletion of assets,environmentaldegradation,impoverishment,
unemploymentand forced migrations (Hellmuth et al., 2007;
Bhavnani et al.,2008; Scheffran et al.,2012).
Although drought accounts for only 8% of natural disasters
globally,it poses the greatest natural hazard in Africa accounting
for 25% of all natural disasters on the continent occurring
between 1960 and 2006 (Gautam,2006).Over the four decades
since the 1960s,Africa stands first in drought frequency with a
total of 382 reported droughtevents that affected 326 million
people (Gautam, 2006). Regions of highly variable rainfall in
Africa include the Sahel,the Greater Horn and Southern Africa.
These regions experience frequent and sometimes prolonged
droughts that lead to famine associated with drought in combina-
tion with inadequate socioeconomic entitlements,exacerbating
vulnerabilities of households and national economies (Hansen et
al., 2004). Over the last five decades,the frequency of droughts
has increased steadily in East Africa but declined in West Africa
(Gautam,2006).
Eastern and southern Africa regions are characterized mainly
by semi-arid and sub-humid climates with a pronounced dry
season in part ofthe year.Therefore,in contrast to West Africa,
the variability of rainfall in these regions is concentrated on
relatively short time scales in a year and it has a direct connection
with global processes such as El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation
(ENSO) (Nicholson,2001).1 ENSO events have a strong influence
on the inter-tropicalconvergence zone (ITCZ),regionalmonsoon
wind circulation, and patterns of rainfall anomalies over many
parts of SSA (Dilley and Heyman, 1995; Jury,2000; Singh,2006).
The impacts,however,vary significantly from season to season
and across countries depending on geographic conditions.For
example,El Niño episodes are often associated with the above
normal rainfall conditions over the equatorial parts of eastern
Africa during October to December and below-normal rainfall over
much of the Horn of Africa during the June to September rainfall
season. On the other hand, La Niña events often give rise to below-
normal rainfall over much of the Greater Horn of Africa during
October to December and March to May and above-normal rainfall
during the June to September rainfall season (Janowiak,1988;
Singh,2006).
Drought has a covariate or widespread nature which can cross
national borders making informal risk management arrangements
ineffective (Gautam,2006; Vicente-Serrano et al.,2010).This has
led to an increase in the number of people affected, rising
economic costs and increasing humanitarian assistance for the
rising numbers of affected populations (Gautam, 2006). The
effects of naturalclimatic variability and drought conditions are
further accentuated by the looming threat of climate change that
is projected to increase extreme events and drought frequencies
in many parts of Africa. Alternative agricultural investment
options and policy and institutional innovations with varying
profitability and success exist for managing climatic risks
(Rosenzweig and Binswanger,1993; Shiferaw and Okello,2011).
The main purpose of this paper is to highlight the state of
vulnerability to drought and its impacts in SSA and present the
promising technological, institutional and policy options for
drought risk management to reduce vulnerabilities and livelihood
impacts in the region.
2. Drought vulnerability and impacts
2.1. Vulnerability
Understanding people's vulnerability to droughtis complex
because this depends on both biophysical and socioeconomic
drivers of drought impact that determine the capacity to cope
with drought (Naumann et al.,2013).Vulnerability is defined in
many ways and it has different meanings when used in different
disciplines and contexts (e.g.,Chambers,1989; Smit et al.,1999;
Brooks et al., 2005; Adger, 2006; Füssel, 2007). In this paper,
drought vulnerability is used to highlight the socioeconomic and
biophysical characteristics of the region that makes it susceptible
to the adverse effects of drought.
The vulnerability of a society to climate disasters such as
drought depends on several factors such as population,technology,
policy, social behavior,land use patterns, water use, economic
development,and diversity of economic base and cultural composi-
tion (Wilhite and Svoboda, 2000; Naumann et al., 2013). As Amartya
Sen argued,prevalence of drought and decline in food availability
should not necessarily lead to faminesand loss of livelihoods.
Whether food availability decline would lead to disaster will depend
on capability failure which in turn depends on market access and
people's social,economic and politicalentitlements (Sen,1999).In
SSA,rainfed agriculture provides about 90% of the region's food and
feed (Rosegrantet al., 2002) and it is the principal source of
livelihood for more than 70% ofthe population (Hellmuth etal.,
2007).Because of heavy dependence on rainfed agriculture,about
60% of Sub-Saharan Africa is vulnerable to frequentand severe
droughts (Esikuri,2005).
Although expanding irrigation is an important strategy to
reduce the vulnerability of agriculture to climate risks, water
resources are inextricably linked with climate and the prospect
of global climate change has serious implications for water
resources and regional development (Riebsame et al., 1995).
Although Africa has a huge water resource, there is large variation
in its spatial and temporaldistribution.Moreover,many African
countries are expected to face water stress,scarcity and vulner-
ability by 2025 (Fig. 1) indicating that water resources are highly
dependent on,and influenced by,climate.
Furthermore,unsustainable use ofland and other resources
increase the vulnerability of people in SSA. Millions of smallholder
farmers and pastoralists earn a living in degraded areas which
make them highly vulnerable to droughts and other climate
hazards.Land degradation often stems from the nexus between
poverty and lack of capacity to invest in more sustainable
agricultural practices and change extractive land-use systems
(Holden et al.,1998; Shiferaw and Okello,2011).Poverty makes
people vulnerable and limits their choices.Therefore,apart from
climate, human activity is one of the major factors responsible for
environmental degradation in SSA that slowly depletes productive
natural assets and increases vulnerability to drought and climatic
variability.
Another widely accepted reason for the aggravation of drought
vulnerability and impacts in Africa is the continuous increase in
population growth which has huge implications when comple-
mented with poverty and inadequate policies (Tadesse,1998).
High population growth increases pressure on limited and fragile
land resources and leads to unsustainable resource exploitation,
resulting in environmental damage. If crops fail, subsistence
farmers have few or no alternative means to provide food for
their families. When they run out of alternatives,the poor are
forced to exploit land resources, including fragile ones for survival,
and inevitably they become both the victims and willing agents of
environmentaldegradation and desertification.In general, high
level of chronic poverty contributes to low adaptive capacity to
1 El Niño and La Niña refer to the warming and cooling of sea-surface
temperatures (SST) in the equatorialPacific Ocean,respectively which influence
atmospheric circulation and consequently rainfall and temperature in specific areas
around the world. Since the changes in the Pacific Ocean (represented by “El Niño/
La Niña”) and the changes in the atmosphere (represented by “Southern Oscilla-
tion”) cannot be separated,the term ENSO is often used to describe the ocean-
atmosphere changes (Singh,2006).
B. Shiferaw et al./ Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–7968

drought and threatens the lives and livelihoods of the poor more
than other social groups (Hellmuth et al.,2007).
An increase in vulnerability to drought hazard may result
from an increased frequency and severity ofdrought,increased
societal vulnerability, or a combination of the two. Using a drought
vulnerability indicator (DVI) computed at country level,Naumann
et al. (2013) classified Somalia,Burundi,Niger,Ethiopia,Mali and
Chad as countries with higher relative vulnerability to drought.
The ability to cope with drought also varies from country to
country and from one region,community or population group to
another.
2.2. Drought vulnerability and climate change
Another factor that is increasing droughtvulnerability and
impact in Africa is climate change.Climate change threatens both
frequent and severe extreme events in Africa (Bang and Sitango,
2003; IPCC,2007) and in many parts of the world.For example,
analysis of long-term records of drought events compiled by
NMSA (1987) over severalcenturies in Ethiopia indicates short-
ening of the return periods of droughts at exponential rate (Fig. 2).
The increased frequency ofdrought observed in eastern Africa
over the last 20 years is likely to continue as long as global
temperatures continue to rise (Williams and Funk,2011).This
poses increased risk to more than 18 million people in the Greater
Horn of Africa alone who frequently face potential food shortages.
Moreover,climate change will greatly exacerbate weather risk-
poverty relations as poverty limits the capacity of people to
manage weather risks while the same risks contribute to locking
people under poverty (Hellmuth et al.,2009).
In recent years, individual countries are paying increasing
attention to drought-related issues due to ever increasing exploi-
tation of water resources and associated water scarcity coupled
with the growing concern that future climate change will exacer-
bate the frequency,severity,and duration of drought events and
associated impacts (Wilhite and Pulwarty, 2005). This has brought
drought risk management to the forefront in policy discussions
although the mix of options available and their effectiveness
remains poorly understood.
Fig. 1. Per capita water availability in 1990 and 2025 in Africa.
Source: Adapted from UNEP/GRID-Arendal,2002.
B. Shiferaw et al./ Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–79 69

2.3. Impacts of drought
The impacts of drought can be both ex post and ex ante. Ex post
impacts refer to the losses that follow a climate shock while
ex ante impacts refer to the opportunity costs associated with
conservative strategies that risk-averse decision makers employ in
advance to protect themselves against the possibility ofclimate
shocks (Hansen et al. 2004). The major conservative ex-ante
responsesof farmers to climate risks documented by Hansen
et al. (2004) include use of less risky but less profitable crops or
cultivars, avoidance of potentially risky improved production
technologies, under-use of fertilizers, and shifting household labor
away from farming to non-productive but more liquid assets as
precautionary savings.Because of high relative risk aversion,
poorer households are often impacted more by ex-ante responses
to climate variability than wealthier ones even in good years
(Zimmerman and Carter,2003).
The economic and environmentalimpacts ofdroughtmay be
direct or indirect,and can be expressed in different forms (Hansen
et al.2004; Hellmuth et al., 2007; Bhavnani et al.,2008).These may
include productivity loss in crops,rangelands and forests; increased
fire hazards; reduced water levels; increased livestock and wildlife
mortality rates;and damage to wildlife and fish habitats (loss of
biodiversity).These effects may finally manifest themselves in the
form of reduced income for farmers and agribusiness; increased food
prices; unemployment;reduced tax revenues;increased conflict,
outmigration and displacement;malnutrition and famine;disease
epidemicsand greater insect infestations;and spread of plant
diseases and increased wind erosion.
Between 1971 and 2001 alone, drought affected more people than
any other natural disasterin Africa (UNEP/GRID-Arendal,2005).
Many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa face risk of 10–40% probability of
failed seasonsduring the major cropping calendar(Fig. 3). The
African continentsuffered from the worst faminesin the mid-
1980s which affected 20 countries critically resulting in the migration
of 10 million people in search of food and water and endangered the
lives of 35 million people (Tadesse, 1998). In east Africa and the Sahel,
the 1984 long-term drought resulted in widespread starvation and
famine (Tadesse, 1998). Among sub-regions, East Africa accounted for
over 70% of the total affected people from 1964 to 2006; and within
East Africa,Ethiopia suffered the most (39% ofall affected).Zim-
babwe,Malawi,Mozambique,and Kenya all accounted for 9–12% of
the total affected people (Gautam,2006).In recent years,more than
10 million people across the Horn of Africa went hungry due to death
of livestock as a result of extended drought in 2011 (AMCEN,2011).
Severe livelihood and food security stresses due to climate
shocks may force households to liquidate productive assets such as
livestock or land in exchange for food,default on loans,withdraw
children from school,and/or engage in exploitive environmental
management practices to survive (Hansen et al.2004).One of the
characteristics of drought impact is that households that suffered a
previous shock emerge more vulnerable to the next shock until
lost assets can be restored.A study in Ethiopia showed that a
substantial portion of the immediate impact of the drought of the
early 1980s on farmer income and consumption persisted for more
than a decade (Dercon,2004).At the macro-level,climate varia-
bility affects food security through its broader influence on
investment,adoption of agriculturaltechnology,aggregate food
production,market prices and economic development which in
turn determine the ability of individuals, communities and nations
to produce and purchase food (Zimmerman and Carter,2003;
Hansen et al.2004).
3. Drought risk management
Risk management in general refers to strategies to avoid adverse
outcomeswhile pursuing positive goals (Hansen et al., 2004).
Drought risk management (DRM) is part of the general climate risk
manage (CRM) approach which refers to climate-sensitive decision
making (Hellmuth et al.,2007).Using as much information as they
can get,farmers make decisions that aim to minimize climate risks
and exploit climate opportunities. Climate risk management is being
practiced at various levels and with varying effectiveness across SSA
(Hellmuth et al., 2007). The major drought risk management
practices and efforts are presented below.
3.1. Ex-ante drought risk coping strategies (reducing risk exposure)
Drought coping strategies can be classified into ex ante and ex
post, according to whether they help reduce risk a priorior for
minimizing undesirable outcomesafter the shock has occurred
(Owens et al., 2003; Skoufias,2003). Farmersliving in drought
affected areas modify their production practices to provide ‘self-
insurance’so that the likely impact of adverse consequencesis
reduced to an acceptable level(Hansen et al.,2004; World Bank,
2005b; Pandey and Bhandari,2009).Although they can be costly in
terms of forgone opportunities forincome gains because ofthe
choice of safer but low-return activities by farmers,ex-ante strate-
gies help reduce income fluctuations and they are considered as
Fig. 2. Trends in drought return periods in Ethiopia.
Source: Adapted from Tesfaye and Assefa (2010) and NMSA (1987).
B. Shiferaw et al./ Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–7970

consumption-smoothing strategies(Pandey and Bhandari,2009).
ex ante strategies can be achieved in two ways: by reducing risk
through diversification and by applying flexible decision-making.
Diversification involves reduction of income shortfalls by engaging in
livelihood strategiesthat have negatively or weakly correlated
returns which may involve diversification ofcrops and livestock,
spatial diversification of farms, and diversification from farm to non-
farm activities.Maintaining flexibility in decision making is also an
adaptive strategy that allows farmers to switch between activities as
the situation demands.Examples include plant population adjust-
ments, splitting fertilizer doses and temporally adjusting other input
uses based on climatic conditions (Pandey and Bhandari,2009).The
most common ex-ante coping strategies of farmers in Africa include
careful choice of crop varieties(e.g. drought tolerant and short
maturing varieties),temporal adjustments of cropping patterns and
adjusting planting dates and crop establishment methods; changing
weeding and fertilization practices;and use of soil and water
conservation practices.In drought-prone areas farmers use these
strategies in differentcombinations and some ofthese strategies
have become an integral part of the farming system and may not be
easily identified as coping mechanisms (Pandey and Bhandari, 2009).
3.2. Ex-post risk coping strategies (adaptation
and minimizing impacts)
Ex post strategies are designed to preventshortfall in con-
sumption when income drops below the required level as a result
of climatic shocks.Depending on the severity of the shock,farm
households employ a wide range of ex post drought coping
strategies which range from reduction in selling of food,reduced
consumption,and increased borrowing to higher rates of seasonal
out-migration, default on loans, withdrawal of children from
school,distress sale and liquidation of productive assets such as
livestock,land, trees and other assets.Households often initially
respond in terms of forced reduction of expenditures on certain
‘non-essential’items such as clothing,social functions,food and
medical treatment,adjustments in food balance and move pro-
gressively to reliance on public relief and safety-net programs and
exploitive environmentalmanagement practices (Skoufias,2003;
Hansen et al.,2004; Pandey and Bhandari,2009). Despite these
adjustments,farmers may not be able to maintain their normal-
year level of consumption under severe drought years (e.g.
Sahelian droughts in the 1980s) in Africa.As a result,households
may be forced to reduce the number ofmeals per day and the
quantity consumed per mealwith women and children bearing
the burden of drought disproportionately (e.g.Tesfaye and Assefa,
2010; AMCEN,2011).Exposure to frequent distress from climatic
shocks progressively leads to depletion of assets and weakens the
ex post adaptation options, making households unable to adapt to
and manage even smaller perturbations in production conditions.
3.3. Integrated technologies and institutional innovations
In many parts of Africa,drought needs to be viewed as a long-
term development challenge that requires a multi-sectorialand
multi-dimensional response (Esikuri,2005; Gautam,2006).Thus,
strategiesfor managing drought and enhancing resilience of
farmers and agribusiness to weather shocks require integrating
technological,institutional and policy options (Fig.4). The inte-
grated strategieswill have direct positive effects on reducing
sources of risk (production and market) and vulnerability and
thereby increasing livelihood resilience.The integrated technolo-
gical,institutionaland policy interventions offer the best option
for strengthening livelihoods through improved agriculturalpro-
ductivity and building the capability ofhouseholds to diversify
incomes to manage drought-induced shocks in consumption.
Access to risk-reducing and productivity-enhancing technologies,
diversification of livelihoods,better access to markets and market
information,and improved infrastructure are crucial strategies for
reducing vulnerability and effectively managing climate variability
and extremes (Hellmuth et al.,2007).Improving farmer decisions
using climate information, improving farmer access to credit using
Fig. 3. Probability of years in which growing season is likely to fail due to drought in sub-Saharan Africa.
Source: Adapted from Thornton et al.(2006).
B. Shiferaw et al./ Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–79 71

index insurance,use of early warning systems and monitoring
information to forewarn and encourage optimal ex ante strategies
and organize safety-net and social protection programs will create
resilient communities in the face of drought. Some of the key
technological,institutional and policy options and strategies for
drought mitigation and adaptation are presented below.
3.3.1. Drought stress tolerant improved varieties
Use of drought tolerant crop varieties has been one of the
major strategies for managing water limitation in agriculture (e.g.,
Xoconostle-Cazares et al.,2010),and long years of plant breeding
activities have led to yield increase in drought affected environ-
ments for many crop plants (Cattivelli et al., 2008). Drought
tolerance in crops such as maize,pearl millet,cowpea,groundnut
and sorghum played important role in fighting the worst droughts
in the last half of the 19th century in the Sahel (e.g.,Hall, 2007).
By exploiting drought-tolerance genes,several national and
international research institutions have scored important gains in
improving the drought tolerance ofmajor grain crops in Africa.
Some examples are presented below.
3.3.1.1.Millet and sorghum.Millet and sorghum are key cereal
grain crops in the drylands providing food, feed, fuel, and
construction material.The International Crops Research Institute for
the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and nationalpartner organizations
have made important gains in improving the drought tolerance of
millet and sorghum in many regions.For example,about 34% of the
millet area and 23% the sorghum area in southern Africa have been
planted with improved varieties (CGIAR,2006).
3.3.1.2.Multipurpose grain legumes.Legume crops are vital sources
of low-cost protein for smallholder farmers and generate farm
income,serve as quality livestock feed and restore soilfertility.
Cowpea followed by groundnut is the most widely grown grain
legume in the dry areas of Africa, and several countries have
released improved cowpea varieties with support from the
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) (CGIAR,
2006). Drought tolerant varieties of common bean and chickpea
are also grown in highly variable rainfall areas of Africa (e.g.,
Tesfaye and Walker,2004).
3.3.1.3.Maize. Most farmers in Africa rely on rainfall to grow
maize; so dry conditions often have disastrous consequences.
Continuousdevelopmentand evaluations of maize germplasm
from the InternationalMaize and Wheat ImprovementCenter
(CIMMYT) and IITA at different sites located in different regions in
Africa resulted in the development of several drought tolerant (DT)
maize hybrids and open-pollinated varieties (OPVs) which have been
deployed by partners in various countries.The DroughtTolerant
Maize for Africa (DTMA) project, led by CIMMYT, and being
implemented in collaboration with IITA and national agricult-
ural research systems(NARS) in 13 African countries (Angola,
Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique,
Nigeria,Tanzania,Uganda,Ethiopia,Zambia,and Zimbabwe),uses
conventional breeding to develop and disseminate varieties that can
provide a decent harvest under reduced rainfalland insurance
againstthe risks of maize farming (Table 1).DT maize occupied
close to 1.5 million ha in Africa in 2010 (Table 1), maintaining at least
1 t ha1 more yield than the localvarieties under droughtstress
conditions.Moreover,the performance ofthe DT maize varieties
under normalor optimal conditions is comparable with the best
checks being grown in African countries. The DT varieties have also at
least 30–40% yield advantage overcommercialmaterialsunder
severe stress,and similar performance underoptimal conditions
(Fig.5). On-farm trials as wellas modeling drought tolerant maize
varieties indicate thatnew DT varieties can perform better than
standard checks (e.g. SC513) and provide a yield advantage of 5–25%
in many maize growing areas of Africa (Fig.6). The modeling study
also suggests wide adaptability of the newly developed DT varieties
over diverse environments.
A study conducted on the potential impact of DT varieties for the
period 2007–2016 indicated that DT maize could generate US$ 0.53
and US$ 0.88 billion from increased maize grain harvestsand
reduced risk over 10 years,assuming conservative and optimistic
yield improvements,respectively (La Rovere et al.,2010).The same
study furtherindicated a benefitfor 4 million people to escape
poverty and many millions more to improve their livelihoods if all
the existing varieties were replaced with improved drought tolerant
varieties.
The released DT varieties have a combination of traits,includ-
ing shorter anthesis-silking interval(ASI), reduced bareness (or
increased number of ears per plant),reduced evapo-transpiration,
functionalstay green during grain filling,etc.that allow them to
thrive under drought stress conditions (Bruce et al., 2002;
Edmeades, 2008). Early maturity is also an important trait in areas
where the season is short and terminal drought is common
(Barnabás et al.,2008; Lopes et al.,2011).DT varieties developed
by CIMMYT and IITA represent all maturity groups, including
extra-early,early,intermediate and full season.
Technological
options
Policy
options
Resilience of
farmers and
agribusiness to
weather shocks
(e.g. drought)
Institutional
options
Fig. 4. Strategies for managing drought and enhancing resilience.
Table 1
Number of drought tolerant maize varieties released,quantity of seed produced,
estimated area covered,households and beneficiaries of drought tolerant maize in
13 African countries.
source: adapted from Abate (2013).
Country Varieties
releaseda
Seed
(ton)
1000
(ha)b
1000
Householdsc
1000
Beneficiariesc
Angola 7 511 204 51 358
Benin 6 132 53 13 92
Ethiopia 10 1544 618 154 1081
Ghana 12 79 32 8 55
Kenya 2 5050 2020 505 3535
Malawi 17 4416 1766 442 3091
Mali 7 98 39 10 69
Mozambique 9 855 342 86 599
Nigeria 21 3245 1298 325 2272
Tanzania 14 2376 950 238 1663
Uganda 7 1572 629 157 1100
Zambia 18 3422 1369 342 2395
Zimbabwe 13 7468 2987 747 5228
Total 143 30,768 12,307 3077 21,538
a Varieties were released between 2007 and September 2013.
b 1 t enough for 40 ha.
c Assumes that an average farmer plants 10 kg seed; average family size
7 people.
B. Shiferaw et al./ Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–7972

The potential benefits of DT varieties depend on level of
adoption of the released varietiesby farmers and availability,
and timely supply of seeds at affordable prices.The amount of
seed produced for DT maize varieties in Eastern,Western,South-
ern and Central Africa was 10,000 t in 2011, 30,000 t in 2012
(including 17,000 t of new DT maize varieties) and is targeted to
reach 70,000 t by 2016 (Badu-Apraku et al., 2012). The adoption of
DT varieties is believed to be the major determinant ofbenefits
from the varieties and the return on investment (La Rovere et al.,
2010). In general, adoption of improved seed has continued to rise
gradually in sub-Saharan Africa,currently representing an esti-
mated 44% of maize area in eastern and southern Africa (outside
South Africa),and about 60% of maize area in West and Central
Africa (Smale et al., 2011). Partnership with nearly 110 seed
companies in SSA under DTMA has been criticalfor the success
of seed scale-up and improved adoption of DT maize varieties.
Climate projections suggest that elevated temperatures,espe-
cially in the drought-prone areas of sub-Saharan Africa and rainfed
regions in South Asia, are highly likely to result in significant yield
losses in tropical/subtropicalmaize (Cairns et al.,2013a).Recent
studies indicated thatcurrent tropical/subtropicalmaize germ-
plasm developed for drought tolerance in SSA may not perform
well under drought stress and at elevated temperatures,and
tolerance to either drought or heat stress may not lead to tolerance
to a combination of these two stresses. Nevertheless, a few inbred
lines combining tolerance to drought and heat stress, most notably
La Posta Sequia C7-F64-2-6-2-2 and DTPYC9-F46-1-2-1-2,were
identified and are presently being utilized in developing new
germplasm with combined tolerance to the two stresses in sub-
Saharan Africa and Asia (Cairns et al.,2013b).
The finding that tolerance to combined drought and heat stress
in maize was genetically differentfrom tolerance to individual
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Grain yield unde full irrigation (t/ha)
Grain yield under drought (t/ha)
2007-2WC-Hybrids 2011-3WC-Hybrids
Commercial-Hybrids
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Grain yield in 20 locations with >3.0 t/ha
Grain yield in 11 locations with <3.0 t/ha
2007-2WC-Hybrids 2011-3WC-Hybrids
Commercial-Hybrids
Fig. 5. Performance of there-way cross hybrids in West Africa under induced drought stress in 2012 and in 11 stressful and 20 favorable testing sites in 2011 as compa
two-way cross and commercial hybrids.
Fig. 6. Performance of newly released drought tolerant variety (CZH0616) over standard check variety (SC513) across maize growing areas of sub-Saharan Africa.
B. Shiferaw et al./ Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–79 73

stresses has major implications in breeding heat stress resilient
maize cultivars.SeveralDT parents developed by CIMMYT and
widely used in hybrid maize breeding in eastern and southern
Africa were found to be highly susceptible to drought stress under
elevated temperatures; a notable example is CML442 CML444 that
is extensively used asthe female parentin several commercial
hybrids (Cairns et al.,2013b).Intensive efforts should thus be made
to ensure that the most widely used drought tolerant inbred lines
and hybrids also possess tolerance to heat stresses,especially for
deploymentin drought-prone areas where temperatures are pre-
dicted to increase.
New plant breeding strategies that utilize high-density geno-
typing based on next-generation DNA sequencing technology,
coupled with high throughput field-based precision phenotyping,
genomic selection (GS)and doubled haploid (DH) technology,
could significantly increase genetic gains, and accelerate the
development of improved stress resilient varieties.The develop-
ment and availability of tropicalized haploid inducers (Prasanna et
al., 2012),coupled with the recent establishment of a centralized
maize DH facility in Kiboko (Kenya) by CIMMYT for the benefit of
both public and private sector institutions engaged in maize
research and developmentin SSA, are important for improving
maize breeding efficiency in Africa.
3.3.2. Improved soil fertility and water management
Soil nutrient depletion has become one of the major constraints
to food security in sub-Saharan Africa because of low crop
productivity that causes declining per-capita food production
(Stoorvogel and Smaling, 1990; Sanchez, 2002). One of the reasons
for under-investment in soil fertility inputs in rainfed production
systems in Africa is climate variability (e.g., Vlek et al., 1997; Snapp
et al., 2003) mainly because nutrients are notused efficiently
when water availability is inadequate which results in consider-
able variability in profitability of fertilizer use and optimal appli-
cation rates from year to year and season to season (Piha,1993;
Dimes et al., 2003). One of the options for addressing this problem
lies in seasonal climate forecasting which presents opportunity for
increasing the efficiency of both water and nutrients through
adaptive fertilizer management (Hansen et al.,2004).
Retaining and using variable rainfall efficiently is a key strategy
in order to improve food security in regions that are dependent on
rainfed agriculture.If combined with both historic and predictive
climate information,a range of field-,farm- and community-scale
water harvesting and water conservation management strategies
can stabilize yield and provide benefits under variable climate
(Hillel, 2004; Hansen et al., 2004). Adaptive crop management that
matches crop characteristics, production activities and input use to
rainfall variations is one way to enhance efficiency of water use.
Water storage capacity and irrigated area in Africa are the
lowest of any region in the world.However,in recent years,there
is an increasing focus on well-designed,less costly and participa-
tory large-scale irrigation projects that play a role in reducing the
rainfed dependency of agriculture in many countries in SSA
(Gautam,2006).
3.3.3. Sustainable intensification
Use of fertilizer and restorative crop managementpractices
remains relatively low and inefficient in many developing coun-
tries,particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (Smale et al.,2011).Many
farmers in this region lack the capital to purchase adequate
amounts of fertilizers and agrochemicalinputs.This implies that
the chance ofimproving crop productivity and reducing risk on
smallholder farmers'fields with their current production system
and practice seems to be very limited.There is a need to more
formally and deliberately support and promote the inclusion of
agronomic and natural resources management practices as critical
elements of a balanced agricultural intensification package.
In recognition of this problem, alternative innovationsthat
increase productivity using locally available inputs and practices
are being explored.For example,CIMMYT and its partners are
engaged in increasing yield and market access for African farmers
through a project called Sustainable Intensification ofMaize–
Legume Cropping Systems for Food Security in Eastern and South-
ern Africa (SIMLESA).The project aims to increase food security
and incomes through improved productivity from more resilient
and sustainable maize-based farming systems.Sustainable inten-
sification practices (SIPs) have tremendous potential for enhancing
the productivity and resilience of agricultural production systems
while conserving the naturalresource base (Godfray et al.,2010;
Pretty et al., 2011).The SIPs can include minimum tillage,crop
diversification (intercropping and rotations, growing different
cultivars/varietiesat different farm plots that have different
environmentalresponse),use of manure,complementary use of
organic fertilizers,and investment in soil and water conservation
(Lee,2005; Pretty et al.,2011).
Empirical evidence in Ethiopia,Kenya,and Malawi has shown
that adoption of individual or combination of SIPs significantly
increase crop income and water use efficiency and reduce applica-
tion of external inputs and downside risk exposure and cost of risk
(Teklewold et al.,2013; Kassie and Teklewolde,2013).In Ethiopia,
the adoption of SIPs options increased net maize income by about
9–35% compared with non-adoption of these options (Fig. 7a). This
increases further to 47–67% when SIPs options were combined
with complementary inputs (e.g., improved maize varieties).
Similar results were found in Malawi where certain combinations
of SIPs options provided higher benefit than adopting them
individually (Fig.7b). These options also reduced the downside
risk or risk of crop failures (Kassie and Teklewolde,2013).
Conservation agriculture (CA) has recently been presented as a
mechanism for sustainable intensification of smallholder agricul-
ture. It involves three principles based on minimum mechanical
soil disturbance,permanent soilcover with organic mulch,and
crop rotations that need to be adapted to localconditions (FAO,
2008).CA offers potential benefits to farmers by stabilizing yields,
avoiding the need for tillage and allowing early planting with the
first rains and reduced soil erosion (Giller et al.,2011).In general,
increased growth and productivity of crops,more efficient use of
water and soil nutrients and savings in the cost of fuel and labor
are expected through reductions in tillage, enhanced surface
retention of adequate crop residues and appropriate crop rotation
practices(Hobbs and Govaerts,2010; Thierfelder et al., 2013).
Although CA systems are increasingly promoted in Africa as an
alternative for enhancing resilience and increase food production
on the basis of more sustainable farming practices,its adoption
has generally been limited.Unlike other components ofCA, the
adoption of minimum/zero tillage and residue retention particu-
larly remain very low in eastern and southern African countries
(Table 2). The reasons for low adoption are complex butoften
related to inadequate awareness of the practice by smallholders,
tradeoffs in use of crop residues for other uses including feeding
livestock,lack of suitable and low-costzero-till equipmentand
chemicals for weed control, and the long gestation period involved
for CA systems to enhance productivity and generate benefits to
smallholders (Corbeels et al., 2014). Thierfelder et al. (2013) report
results from rare long term field experiments across locations in
central and southern Malawi.The results summarized across four
locations indicate that yield benefits of CA over conventional
tillage systems were greater especially from the 5th season
although,in some instances,greater yields on CA were recorded
almost immediately (Thierfelder et al., 2013) (Fig. 8). These
results provide some evidence for adapting CA systems to the
B. Shiferaw et al./ Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–7974

local agro-ecological and socioeconomic conditions of the farmers
and the need to carefully target communities for a stepwise and
incremental adoption of the different components.
3.4. Institutional and policy options for drought management
3.4.1. Weather index insurance
In developed countries risk transfer approaches such as insur-
ance have played a role in mitigating climate risk but they have
generally not been available in developing countries where insur-
ance markets are limited and are not oriented towards the poor
(Hellmuth et al., 2009). Recent advances in climate science help in
the development of a new type of insurance called weather index
insurance (index insurance)that offers new opportunities for
managing climate risk in areas where such services were difficult
to deliver due to high transaction costs related to poor infrastruc-
ture and the classicaladverse selection and moralhazard pro-
blems in providing financial services. Access to risk transfer
services will help protect resource-poor farmers against climate
variability while promoting the uptake of productivity-enhancing
technologies.Index insurance is type of insurance that is linked to
an index, such as rainfall,temperature,humidity or crop yields,
rather than actual loss which is difficult to observe (Alderman and
Haque, 2006; Hellmuth et al., 2009). The advantages ofindex
insurance include lowers transaction costs,financialviability for
private-sectorinsurers and affordability to small farmers, less
adverse selection and moralhazard than traditional insurance,
and applicability in rural areas where existing weather stations
will allow observing changes in rainfall levels (World Bank, 2005b;
Gautam, 2006; Alderman and Haque, 2006; Hellmuth et al., 2009).
The index is often linked to changes in agriculturalproductivity
using some regression estimates to trigger payout of indemnities
when the weather parametergoes below a certain level. The
ability to organize systems that take advantage of global insurance
markets to transfer the correlated risks associated with low-
probability, high-consequenceevents makes index insurance
potentially useful for managing drought risk (World Bank, 2005b).
Index insurance has been piloted with small farmers in several
countries, including Nicaragua, Mexico, India, and Ukraine outside
of Africa, and in Malawi and Ethiopia in Africa (Gautam,2006;
Hellmuth et al.,2007) showing mixed but promising results for
scale-up.However,application of index insurance in many places
is hindered by high basis risk associated with the lack of good site-
specific rainfall data for precise actuarial modeling (to make
5579
4507
2959 2823
2350
1892
498
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Rotation
+minimum
tillage +
improved
maize
seeds
Rotation +
improved
maize
seeds
Improved
maize
seeds
+minimum
tillage
Improved
maize
seeds only
Minimum
tillage only
Rotation
only
Rotation +
minimum
tillage
Net maize income (ETB
/ha)
5250
3450
1430
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Intercropping +
rotation
Rotation Intercropping
Net maize income(Mwk)
Fig. 7. (a) Impact of CA options and complementary input on maize net income in Ethiopia (Teklewold et al., 2013). (b) Impact of CA options on net crop income in Mala
(Kassie and Teklewolde,2013).
Table 2
Adoption of crop intensification and diversification practices in eastern and Sothern
Africa region (% farmers).
Source: SIMLESA Project Survey,2011
Technology Malawi Ethiopia Tanzania Kenya Mozambique
Maize–legume
intercropping
27.5 19.3 66.2 71.9 68.8
Maize–legume rotations 40.6 32.7 32 83.2 7.8
Reduced/zero-tillage 2.6 14.9 14.5 1 23.7
Crop residue retention 91.9 28.5 67.9 72.4 91.2
Fertilizer adoption 95.1 81.7 5.1 87.9 37.1
Manure adoption 36.7 58.2 32.5 65.3 6.1
B. Shiferaw et al./ Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–79 75

insurance payouts closely correlated with actuallosses),better
understanding of micro-climates and weather cycles, and the need
for better weather forecasts.Poor client awareness,failure to
create a proposition of real value to the insured and weaknesses
in offering timely and compensating payouts have undermined
trust and overall demand for index insurance.
Therefore,significant improvements in calculating the index,
presenting the product to clients and investment in weather data
collection,processing and dissemination are required to facilitate
scaling and wider use of index insurance in SSA.
3.4.1.1.Input/output market development.Adoption of agricultural
technologies,farm intensification and the production of marketable
surpluses often depend on the profitability ofmarketproduction.
Market failures in input–output markets and climate-induced
variationsof aggregateproduction lead to large fluctuations–
triggering cycles of high and low food prices with variable effects on
net-buyers (poor consumers) and net-sellers (Hansen et al.,2004).
Input market reforms and investment inroads,seed production and
marketing for drought tolerant varieties and fertilizer production and
distribution will increase availability and affordability of key inputs to
increase agriculturalproduction and reduce soilmining and land
degradation. Secure rights to land and access to rural finance markets
(credit, insurance, savings) can also play an important role in buffering
against risk,providing incentives for conservation investments and
sustainable intensification (Shiferaw et al.,2008).In general,efficient
input/outputmarkets will play major role againstclimate risk by
stabilizing prices and smoothing consumption during drought years.
3.4.1.2.Climate information and early warning system.Improved
drought managementand preparednessdepends on access to
climate information and early warning systems.The value of
climate information lies in its ability to provide evidence of risk of
a major climate shock in advance which help in anticipating the costs
and the scale of measures that may be needed at the national and
regional level (World Bank,2003).Climate information systems can
contribute to strengthening institutional capacity and coordination to
support generation, communication and application of early warning
systems.
As a component of disaster risk reduction, early warning
systemsin Africa have provided the information necessary to
allow for early action that can reduce or mitigate potential disaster
risks. Climate information is also important to governments and
private traders to better manage imports,exports and strategic
grain storage in a manner that stabilizes prices in the market and
at the farm gate (Hansen et al.,2004).in situations where credit
risk is not functional,seasonal forecasts could also offer opportu-
nities to improve availability and terms ofcredit to farmers by
identifying the years when production conditions are good and
risk of default to the lender is reduced.Combining forecast-based
credit with insurance markets to spread the risk associated with
rainfall variability and forecast uncertainty is a promising inter-
vention (Fafchamps, 2003). Although short- and long-term climate
forecasting has shown promising application in climate risk
managementin SSA, it still needs considerable institutional
strengthening,technical capacity building, and investment in data
and equipment (World Bank,2003).
3.4.1.3.Safety nets.Safety nets are meantto protect vulnerable
populations from persistent impacts of shocks by providing
livelihood support and contributing to immediate food security,
often through community-driven public works schemes and
transfers to vulnerable households (World Bank,2005b; Gautam,
2006). While safety nets protectvulnerable populations during
periods of adverse weather conditions, another form of safety nets
called ‘cargo nets’ (Barrett, 2004) assist the poor to increase
investment to take advantageof favorable conditions which
could help them to invest the returns in productive assets for
the future (Hansen et al., 2004). In many countries including
Ethiopia, Kenya,Mali, Nigeria, Burkina Faso,and others, safety
nets have provided crucial ‘insurance’when the primary source of
income of a large number of households suffers a severe shock
during times of drought (Gautam, 2006). The productive safety net
project in Ethiopia serves a productive function in addition to
social protection in the event ofdrought shocks (Alderman and
Haque,2006).Safety nets could also be enhanced to serve large
population using index insurance to automatically trigger
payments to affected districts (World Bank,2005b).
3.4.1.4.Extension and communication.Extension for sustainable
intensification and drought management has largely been
missing in many SSA countries.Many households do not have
relevant climate and technologicalinformation or access to key
inputs that reduce exposure to drought risk.In order to properly
respond to climate variability, smallholder farmers in Africa
require timely access to information that is customized to their
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Traditional CA with maize CA with ML rotation
Longterm maize yields (kg/ha) under CA and traditional systems in Malwi
Fig. 8. Average response of maize yields to conservation agriculture and traditional land management practices across four locations in Malawi (based on Thierfelder et a
(2013) and their results in four locations).CA¼conservation agriculture; ML¼maize-legume.
B. Shiferaw et al./ Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–7976

needs and scale of decision-making.ex ante education and services
provided by agricultural extension help familiarize farmers with the
consequences of climate risks and assist them to adopt appropriate
innovations to deal with it (World Bank,2005b).Equitable access is
usually a major concern when targeting the poor and food-insecure.
Therefore, climate interventions targeting drought-prone and
vulnerable areas need to be integrated into agriculturalextension
systems and rural communication.This will require communication
of climate information through coordinated efforts ofseveralkey
institutions, including meteorological services, agricultural extension
services,environmental agencies,NGOs,producer organizations and
the media (Hansen et al.,2004).Such coordination and collaborated
delivery of coherent information to farmers and resources users is
currently weak in many countries in SSA.
3.5. Livelihood diversification
Farmers in Africa have traditionally adapted to climate risk by
diversifying acrosscrops and risk managementoptions (Dercon,
1996; Ellis, 2000). Farmers generally diversify theirproduction
systems by employing activities that are less sensitive to drought
and/or temperature stresses and activities that take full advantage of
beneficial climate conditions.For example,farmers time their plant-
ing and inputs based on their best estimates of the cropping season;
and they reduce risk exposure by diversifying theirlivelihoods.
Farmers diversify their cropping practices using a mix of crop species
both in space and time (e.g., intercropping of different crops species,
strip cropping, double cropping),growing different cultivars at
different sowing dates and farm plots;combining less productive
drought-resistantcultivars with high-yielding butwater-sensitive
crops. Nevertheless,managing droughtseffectively in vulnerable
areas requires diversifying livelihood strategies and income generat-
ing options within and outside agriculture especially into income
generating options through non-farm enterprises and employment
opportunities. This will require greater investments in infrastructure,
road networks, electricity, communication and market development.
4. Conclusion
Drought remains to be the most important threat to food
production and food and nutritional security in SSA. Drought
represents one of the most important natural factors contributing
to malnutrition and famine that affects the most vulnerable
communities,especially women,children the elderly.Its effects
are inter-temporal and long-lasting. Risk of drought prevents
farmers from adopting profitable technologies and practices that
are perceived risky, hence creating a nexus that increases the cycle
of vulnerability and depletes the capability to overcome hunger
and poverty. This is mainly because small-scale farmers often
prepare for the possibility of climatic shocks by engaging in
conservative risk managementstrategies ex ante atthe cost of
low productivity and profitability gains.This inability to accept
and manage risk and accumulate and retain wealth locks vulner-
able populations in poverty.
Traditionally,farm households have used a mix of strategies to
shield themselves from drought-induced shocks.One common
strategy that they employ to mitigate drought is to avoid or
prevent it as much as they can. These traditionalmethods are
often insufficient and fail to protect livelihoods in drought-prone
regions and have attimes made the situation worse by under-
mining investments in new technologies and practices.At the
economy-wide level,covariate risk ofdrought often causes food
shortagesand inflationary trends that spark high food prices,
creating dependence on food aid and/or costly food imports that
aggravate food insecurity.New strategies and policy options are
needed to break the nexus between poverty and vulnerability to
climatic risk and to build the capability to manage drought-
induced shocks at the household and national levels.
Based on an extensive review of the recent practice and experi-
ences in Africa, we conclude that promising technological, policy and
institutional options exist for effective drought management in SSA.
Integrated strategiesthat combine agriculturaltechnologiesfor
drought management including drought-tolerant crops and varieties,
improved crop management practices and water conservation meth-
ods,climate forecasting and early warning systems,weather infor-
mation communication,weather-index insurance systems,output/
input market development and price information that will enhance
drought risk management.Moreover,there is a need to shift from
crisis management to ex-ante drought risk management by counter-
ing environmental degradation,restoring degraded ecosystems,and
investments in irrigation infrastructure to better manage extended
droughts.Price stabilization,strategicfood reserves and social
protection policies that enhance access to life-saving and productive
safety-nets willprevent disinvestment and depletion of assets and
enhance post-drought recovery,adaptation and resilience of liveli-
hoods in affected areas.
Acknowledgment
We acknowledge a financial support from the Drought Tolerant
Maize for Africa (DTMA) project funded by the Billand Melinda
Gates Foundation, United States and thank the anonymous
reviewers and the editor for their constructive comments.
References
Abate,T., 2013.DTMA III Highlights for 2012/13: An Overview.Presented at the
Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DMA) AnnualMeeting,23–27 September
2013,Nairobi,Kenya.
AMCEN, 2011.Drought in the Horn of Africa: Challenges,Opportunities and
Responses.African Ministerial Conferenceon the Environment (AMCEN),
Fourth Special Session Meeting of the Expert Group, Bamako,13 and 14
September 2011,Mali.
Adger,W.N., 2006.Vulnerability.Glob.Environ.Change 16,268–281.
Alderman,H., Haque,T., 2006. Insurance againstCovariate Shocks:The Role of
Index-Based Insurance in Social Protection in Low-Income Countries of Africa.
The World Bank,Washington DC.
Badu-Apraku, B., Peter, S.P., Kassie, G., Erenstein, O., MacRobert, J., 2012. Production
and Promotion of High-Yielding Drought-Tolerant Maize Varieties for African
Farmers.Presentation at the DTMAIIIInception Meeting,1–3 February 2012,
Nairobi,Kenya.
Bang, S.K., Sitango, K., 2003. Indigenous Drought Coping Strategiesand Risk
Management against EL Nino in Papua New Guinea. The CGPRT Center Working
Paper series No.74,CGPRT,Bogor.
Barnabás,B., Jäger,K., Fehér,A., 2008. The effect ofdrought and heat stress on
reproductive processes in cereals.Plant Cell Environ.31,11–38.
Barrett, C.B., 2004. Rural poverty dynamics: development policy implications. Agric.
Econ.32, 45–60.
Bhavnani,R., Vordzorgbe,S.,Owor,M., Bousquet,F.,2008.Report on the Status of
Disaster Risk Reduction in the Sub-Saharan Africa Region.Commission of the
African Union, United Nations and the World Bank.Available from:〈http://
www.unisdr.org/files/2229DRRinSubSaharanAfricaRegion.pdf〉 (accessed
28.10.13.).
Brooks,N., Adger,W.N., Kelly, P.M., 2005. The determinants ofvulnerability and
adaptive capacity atthe national level and the implications for adaptation.
Glob.Environ.Change 15,151–163.
Brown, C., Meeks, R., Hunu, K., Yu, W., 2011. Hydroclimate risk to economic growth
in sub-Saharan Africa.Clim. Change 106,621–647.
Bruce, W.B., Edmeades,G.O., Barker, T.C., 2002. Molecular and physiological
approaches to maize improvement for drought tolerance. J. Exp. Bot. 53, 13–25.
Cairns,J.E., Hellin, J., Sonder,K., Araus,J.L., MacRobert,J., Prasanna,B.M., 2013a.
Adapting maize to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Secur. 5,
345–360.
Cairns,J.E.,Crossa,J., Zaidi,P.H.,Grudloyma,P.,Sanchez,C., Araus,J.L.,Thaitad,S.,
Makumbi,D., Magorokosho,C.,Bänziger,M., Menkir, A., Hearne,S.,Atlin, G.A.,
2013b. Identification of drought, heat, and combined drought and heat tolerant
donors in maize.Crop Sci.53, 1–12.
Cattivelli,L.,Rizza,F.,Badeck,F.-W.,Mazzucotelli,E.,Mastrangelo,A.M., Francia,E.,
Mare‘,C., Tondelli,A., Stanca,A.M., 2008.Drought tolerance improvement in
B. Shiferaw et al./ Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–79 77

crop plants: an integrated view from breeding to genomics. Field Crop Res. 105,
1–14.
CGIAR,2006. Drought-Tolerant Crops for Drylands.Available from: 〈http://www.
cgiar.org/web-archives/www-cgiar-org-impact-global-des_fact2-html/#top〉
(accessed 02.04.14.).
Chambers, R., 1989. Vulnerability: how the poor cope. IDS Bulletin 20 (2) (Sussex: IDS).
Corbeels,M., de Graaff,J., Hycenth Ndah,T., Penota,E., Baudron,F., et al., 2014.
Understanding the impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa: a
multi-scale analysis.Agric. Ecosyst.Environ. 187, 155–170,http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.011.
Dercon, S., 1996. Risk, crop choice, and savings: evidence from Tanzania. Econ. Dev.
Cult.Change 44,485–513.
Dercon,S.,2004.Growth and shock: evidence from rural Ethiopia.J. Dev.Econ.74,
309–329.
Dilley, M., Heyman,B.N.,1995.ENSO and disaster: droughts,floods and ElNiño/
Southern oscillation warm events.Disasters 19,181–193.
Dimes,J., Twomlow,S.,Rusike,J., Gerard,B.,Tabo,R.,Freeman,A., Keatinge,J.D.H.,
2003. Increasing Research Impacts Through Low-CostSoil Fertility Manage-
ment Options for Africa's Drought Prone Areas.Paper Presented at: Interna-
tional Symposium for SustainableDry land Agriculture Systems, ICRISAT
Sahelian Center,Niamey,2–5 December 2003.
Edmeades,G.O.,2008.Drought tolerance in maize: an emerging reality.In: James,
C. (Ed.), Global Status ofCommercialized Biotech/GM Crops.ISAAA Brief 39:
ISAAA,pp. 197–217.
Ellis, F., 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries.Oxford
University Press,Oxford.
Esikuri, E.E., 2005. Mitigating Drought-Long Term Planning to Reduce Vulnerability.
Environment Strategy Notes.No. 13.The World Bank,Washington DC.
Fafchamps,M., 2003.Rural Poverty,Risk and Development.Edward Elgar Publish-
ing, Glos,UK.
FAO, 2008. Investing in Sustainable Agricultural Intensification.The Role of
Conservation Agriculture.A Framework for Action. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations,Rome.
Füssel,H.M., 2007.Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for
climate change research.Glob.Environ.Change 17,155–167.
Gautam,M., 2006. Managing Drought in Sub-Saharan Africa: policy perspectives.
Invited Paper Prepared for a Panel Session on Drought: Economic Conse-
quences and Policies for Mitigation, at the IAAE Conference, Gold Coast,
Queensland,Australia,August 12–18,2006.
Giller, K.E., Corbeels,M., Nyamangara,J., Triomphe,B., Affholder,F., Schopel,E.,
Tittonel, P., 2011. A research agenda to explore the role of conservation
agriculture in African smallholder farming systems.Field Crop Res.124,468–472.
Godfray, C., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J.,
Robinson,S., Thomas,S.M., Toulmin,C., 2010.Food security: the challenge of
feeding 9 billion people.Science 327,812–818.
Hall, A.E.,2007.Sahelian Droughts: A Partial Agronomic Solution.Available from:
〈www.plantstress.com〉 (accessed 20.10.13.).
Hillel, D., 2004. Introduction to EnvironmentalSoil Physics.Elsevier Academic
Press,San Diego,CA.
IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Geneva.
Janowiak,J.E., 1988.An investigation ofinterannualrainfall variability in Africa.
J. Climate 1,240–255.
Jury, M.R., 2000. Economic impacts of climate variability in South Africa and
development of resource prediction models.J. Appl. Meteorol.41,46–55.
Hansen,J.W., Dilley, M., Goddard,L., Ebrahimian,E., Ericksen,P., 2004. Climate
Variability and the Millennium Development Goal Hunger Target. IRI Technical
Report No.04-04.
Hellmuth, M.E., Moorhead, A., Thomson, M.C., Williams, J. (Eds.), 2007. Climate Risk
Management in Africa: Learning from Practice. International Research Institute
for Climate and Society (IRI),Columbia University,New York,USA.
Hellmuth, M.E., Osgood,D.E., Hess,U., Moorhead,A., Bhojwani, H. (Eds.),2009.
Climate and Society,No. 2. IRI, Columbia University,New York,USA.
Hobbs,P.R.,Govaerts,B., 2010.How Conservation Agriculture Can Contribute to
Buffering Climate Change.In: Reynolds,M.P. (Ed.),Climate Change and Crop
Production,CABI Series in Climate Change,pp. 151–176.
Holden,S.T.,Shiferaw,B.,Wik, M., 1998.Poverty,credit constraints,and time prefer-
ences: of relevance for environmental policy? Environ.Dev.Econ.3, 105–130.
Holden,S.T.,Shiferaw,B.,2004.Land degradation,drought and food security in a
less-favoured area in the Ethiopian highlands:a bio-economic model with
market imperfections.Agric.Econ.30, 31–49.
Kassie,M., Teklewolde,H., 2013.Disentangling the Impacts ofCropping System
Diversification Options on Crop Income and Agrochemical Use in Malawi. Paper
Submitted to Environmental and Development Economics.
La Rovere, R., Kostandini,G., Abdoulaye, T., Dixon,J., Mwangi, W., Guo, Z., Banziger,
M., 2010.Potential Impact of Investments in Drought Tolerant Maize in Africa.
CIMMYT, Nairobi,Kenya.
Lee, D.R., 2005. Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption:issues and
policies for developing countries.Am. J. Agric.Econ.87, 1325–1334.
Lopes,M.S., Araus,J.L., van Heerden,P.D.R.,Foyer,C.H.,2011.Enhancing drought
tolerance in C4 crops.J. Exp. Bot.62, 3135–3153.
Naumann,G., Barbosa,P.,Garrote,L., Iglesias,A., Vogt,J., 2013.Exploring drought
vulnerability in Africa: an indicator based analysis to inform early warning
systems.Hydrol. Earth Syst.Sci.Discuss.10,12217–12254.
Nicholson,S.E.,2001.Climatic and environmental change in Africa during the last
two centuries.Clim. Res.17,123–144.
NMSA, 1987. The impact of ElNiño on Ethiopian weather. Report of National
Metrological Service Agency of Ethiopia,Addis Ababa.
Owens, T., Hoddinott, J., Kinsey, B., 2003. Ex-ante actions and ex-post public
responses to drought shocks: evidence and simulations from Zimbabwe. World
Dev.3197,1239–1255.
Pandey,S.,Bhandari,H., 2009.Drought,Coping Mechanisms and Poverty: Insights
from Rainfed Rice Farming in Asia.Seventh Discussion Papers,Asia and the
Pacific Division,IFAD.
Piha, M.I., 1993.Optimizing fertilizer use and practical rainfall capture in a semi-
arid environment with variable rainfall.Exp.Agric.29, 405–415.
Prasanna,B.M., Chaikam,V., Mahuku, G., 2012.Doubled Haploid Technology in
Maize Breeding: Theory and Practice.Mexico D.F.: CIMMYT,50 pp.
Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., Williams, S., 2011.Sustainable intensification in African
agriculture.Int. J. Agric.Sustain.9, 5–24.
Riebsame,W.E., et al., 1995.Complex river basins.In: Strzepek,K.M., Smith, J.B.
(Eds.),As Climate Changes: International Impacts and Implications.Cambridge
University Press,Cambridge,UK, pp. 57–91.
Rosegrant,M.W., Cai,X., Cline,S.A.,2002.World Water and Food to 2025: Dealing
with Scarcity.International Food Policy Research Institute,Washington.
Rosenzweig,M.R., Binswanger,H.P.,1993.Wealth,weather risk and the composi-
tion and profitability of agricultural investments.Econ.J. 103,56–78.
Sanchez,P.,2002.Soil fertility and hunger in Africa.Science 295,2019–2020.
Scheffran, J., Marmer, E., Sow, P., 2012. Migration as a contribution to resilience and
innovation in climate adaptation: social networks and co-developmentin
Northwest Africa.Appl. Geogr.33, 119–127.
Sen, A., 1999.Poverty and Famines:An Essay on Entitlementand Deprivation.
Oxford University Press,New York p.257.
Shiferaw,B., Okello, J., 2011.Stimulating smallholder investments in sustainable
land management: overcoming market,policy and institutional challenges.In:
Bluffstone,R., Kohlin, G. (Eds.),Determinants ofInvestments in Sustainable
Agriculture in East Africa.Resources for the Future Press.
Shiferaw, B., Okello, J., Reddy, V.R., 2008. Adoption and adaptation of natural
resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture:reflections on
key lessons and best practices.Environ.Dev.Sustain.11,601–619.
SIMLESA, 2011. Sustainable intensification of maize-legume systems in Eastern and
Southern Africa (SIMLESA). /http://simlesa.cimmyt.org/S.Sourced May 23
2014,Nairobi,Kenya.
Singh, M., 2006. Identifying and Assessing DroughtHazard and Risk in Africa.
RegionalConference on Insurance and Reinsurance for NaturalCatastrophe
Risk in Africa,Casablanca,Morocco,November 12–14,2006.
Skoufias,E., 2003. Economic crises and naturaldisasters:coping strategies and
policy implications.World Dev.7, 1087–1102.
Smale,M., Derek Byerlee,D., Jayne, T., 2011.Maize Revolutions in Sub-Saharan
Africa.Policy Research Working Paper 5659: World Bank.
Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R.J., Street, R., 1999. The science of adaptation: a
framework for assessment.Mitig. Adapt.Strat.Glob.Change 4,199–213.
Snapp,S.S.,Blanke,M.J., Donovan,C., 2003.Realigning research and extension to
focus on farmers'constraints and opportunities.Food Policy 28,349–363.
Stoorvogel, J.J., Smaling, E.M.A., 1990. Assessment of Soil Nutrient Depletion in Sub-
Saharan Africa,1983–2000.Report 28,Winand Staring Center for Integrated
Land,Soil and Water Research (SCDLO),Wageningen,Netherlands, 125 pp.
Tadesse,T., 1998.Improving Drought Management and Planning through Better
Monitoring in Africa.Drought Network News (1994–2001),Paper 81.Available
from: /http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/droughtnetnews/81S (accessed 28.10.13).
Tesfaye,K., Assefa,M., 2010.Climate change,climate variability and adaptation in
Ethiopia.J. Agric.Dev.1, 43–70.
Tesfaye,K., Walker,S.,2004.Matching of crop and environment for optimal water
use: The case of Ethiopia.Phys.Chem.Earth (A&B) 29,1061–1067.
Teklewold,H., Kassie,M., Shiferaw,B., Kohlin, G., 2013.Cropping system diversi-
fication, conservation tillage and modern seed adoption in Ethiopia: impacts on
household income,agricultural chemical use and demand for labor. Ecol.Econ.
93, 85–93.
Thornton, P.K., et al., 2006. Mapping climate vulnerability and poverty in Africa. Report
to Department for International Development,ILRI,Nairobi,Kenya, 171 pp.
Thierfelder,C., Chisui, J.C., Gama,M., Cheesman,S., Jere, Z.D.,Bunderson,W.T.,
Eash,N.E.,Rusinamhodzi,L.,2013.Maize-based conservation agriculture systems
in Malawi: long-term trends in productivity.Field Crop Res.142,47–57.
Vlek, P.L.G., Kühne, R.F., Denich, M., 1997. Nutrient resources for crop production in
the tropics.Philos.Trans.R. Soc.Lond.B Biol.Sci.352,975–985.
UNEP/GRID-Arendal,2002.Water Availability in Africa.Available from: 〈http://www.
grida.no/graphicslib/detail/water-availability-in-africa_3368〉 (accessed 14.09.13).
UNEP/GRID-Arendal,2005.People Affected by Natural Disasters during the Period
1971–2001.Available from: 〈http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/people-af
fected-by-natural-disasters-during-the-period-1971-to-2001_cea3〉(accessed
14.09.13).
Vicente-Serrano,S.M.,Beguería,S.,Gimeno,L.,Eklundh,L.,Giuliani,G.,Weston,D.,
El Kenawy, A., López-Moreno, J., Nieto, R., Ayenew, T., Konte, D.,
Ardö, J., Pegram,G.G.,2010.Challenges for drought mitigation in Africa: the
potential use of geospatial data and drought information systems.Appl. Geogr.
34, 471–486.
Wilhite, D.A.,Pulwarty,R.S.,2005.Drought and water crises: lessons learned and
the road ahead.In: Wilhite, D.A. (Ed.), Drought and Water Crises: Science,
Technology,and Management Issues.CRC Press,Boca Raton,Florida.
Wilhite, D.A., Svoboda, M.D., 2000. Drought early warning systems in the context of
drought preparedness and mitigation.In: Proceedings of an Expert Group
Meeting on Early Warning Systems,September 5–7,2000,Lisbon,Portugal.
B. Shiferaw et al./ Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–7978

Williams, A.P.,Funk, C., 2011.A westward extension of the warm poolleads to a
westward extension of the Walker circulation, drying eastern Africa. Clim. Dyn.
37,2417–2435.
World Bank,2003.Malawi and Southern Africa: Climatic Variability and Economic
Performance.Working Paper series No.7,The World Bank,Washington DC.
World Bank, 2005a. Managing Water Resources to Maximize Sustainable Growth: A
Country Water Resources Assistance Strategy for Ethiopia.The World Bank,
Washington DC.
World Bank,2005b.Managing Agricultural Production Risk: Innovations in Devel-
oping Countries.The World Bank,Washington DC.
Xoconostle-Cazares,B., Ramirez-Ortega,F.A.,Flores-Elenes,L., Ruiz-Medrano,R.,
2010.Drought tolerance in crop plants.Am. J. Plant Physiol.5, 1–6.
Zimmerman, F.J., Carter, M.R., 2003. Asset smoothing, consumption smoothing and
the reproduction of inequality under risk and subsistence constraints.J. Dev.
Econ.71,233–260.
B. Shiferaw et al./ Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 67–79 79