An Overview and Lessons Learned from the Implementation of Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Initiatives in West and Central Africa

Abstract

From adaptation to building effective resilience to climate change is critical for transforming West and Central Africa (WCA) agricultural system. Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) is an approach initiated by leading international organizations to ensure food security, increased adaptation to climate change and mitigation. Its application spans from innovative policies, practices, technologies, innovations and financing. However, CSA initiatives lack scientific-based assessment prior to implementation to ensure their effectiveness. To fill this gap, future interventions should not only be assessed using rigorous methodology but should also be built on lessons learned from previous initiatives. Although there are a lot of climate related agricultural initiatives in WCA, most of them have not been analyzed through a CSA lens and criteria to capitalize on their experiences to improve future interventions. In this study we mapped previous climate-related initiatives in WCA, highlighted their gaps and lessons learned to accelerate the implementation of CSA in the region. The study covered 20 countries in WCA: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Congo, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo. CSA initiatives were reviewed using a three-steps methodology: (i) national data collection, (ii) regional validation of the national database, (iii) data analysis including spatial mapping. Data was collected from the websites of international, regional and national organizations working in the field of agricultural development in the region. Each initiative was analyzed using a multicriteria analysis based on CSA principles. A total of 1629 CSA related initiatives were identified in WCA. Over 75% of them were in the form of projects/programs with more of a focus on the first CSA pillar (productivity and food security), followed by adaptation. The mitigation pillar is less covered by the initiatives. Animal production, fisheries, access to markets, and energy are poorly included. More than half of these initiatives have already been completed, calling for more new initiatives in the region. Women benefit very little from the implementation of the identified CSA initiatives, despite the substantial role they play in agriculture. CSA initiatives mainly received funding from technical and financial partners and development partners (45%), banks (22%), and international climate financing mechanisms (20%). Most of them were implemented by government institutions (48%) and development partners (23%). In total, more than 600 billion EUR have been disbursed to implement 83 of the 1629 initiatives identified. These initiatives contributed to reclaiming and/or rehabilitating almost 2 million ha of agricultural land in all countries between 2015 and 2025. Future initiatives should ensure the consideration of the three CSA pillars right from their formulation to the implementation. These initiatives should consider investing in mixed production systems like crop-animal-fisheries. Activities should be built around CSA innovation platforms to encourage networking among actors for more sustainability.

1. Introduction

Agriculture remains a central pillar of livelihoods and economic development in West and Central African countries, where it contributes substantially to national GDP, foreign exchange earnings, and rural employment. The sector is dominated by smallholder farming systems that are heavily dependent on rainfall and characterized by low-input, low-productivity conditions. For instance, beyond changes in total rainfall, increasing variability in the distribution of rainfall during the growing season, including delayed onset, early cessation, and prolonged dry spells, poses significant challenges to crop productivity and farm management. These structural features render the region’s food systems particularly vulnerable to climatic variability and long-term climate change. In recent decades, the combination of rising temperatures, erratic rainfall patterns, increased frequency of droughts and floods, and accelerated land degradation has intensified production risks, worsened food insecurity, and constrained progress toward national and regional development goals [1,2,3].

The agricultural sector is considered both as source of emissions and of sequestration/mitigation (sink) of greenhouse gases [4,5,6]; therefore, efforts to combat climate change entails two facets: (i) measures to adapt to these effects and (ii) measures to mitigate them and prevent the phenomenon from continuing. Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) has emerged as a strategic framework to address these interconnected challenges by simultaneously enhancing agricultural productivity, fostering adaptation and resilience, and where possible, contributing to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions [7,8,9]. As defined by the FAO, CSA is not a single technology or practice but an integrated approach that seeks to optimize ecological, technological, and institutional responses to climate change [10,11]. Therefore, the approach encompasses a wide range of practices across crop production, livestock, fisheries, forestry, and agroforestry systems, including integrated water management approaches that enhance resilience and ecosystem services. Moreover, strengthening ecological connectivity and restoring natural resources are increasingly recognized as essential components of CSA. Key strategies include protecting ecological corridors, conserving wetlands to enhance water retention, promoting biodiversity in agricultural, forestry, and agroforestry systems, and integrating landscape restoration planning into national development frameworks. CSA is particularly relevant in the context of African smallholder systems, where climate shocks interact with constraints such as limited access to inputs, financial services, climate information, and resilient agricultural technologies.

A broad spectrum of CSA options has been promoted across the West and Central Africa region, ranging from improved seeds and stress-tolerant crop varieties to water management innovations, forestry, agroforestry, climate information services, sustainable land management, digital advisory platforms, and climate risk insurance schemes [12,13,14]. Building on these, over the past decade, the region benefited from the rapid expansion of CSA-related initiatives driven by governments, regional organizations, development partners, and research institutions. These efforts are aligned with continental and regional policy frameworks, including the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), ECOWAP, National Adaptation Plans, and various climate resilience and food security strategies championed by entities such as ECOWAS, CORAF, CILSS, and ECCAS. Benefits from CSA initiatives as reported by farmers in West Africa include soil fertility, higher yield, improved household income, climate resilience (such as overcoming the effects of drought and extreme temperatures), and food security [15]. Despite substantial investments and the proliferation of CSA interventions, implementation experiences remain fragmented, and the evidence based on their effectiveness, scalability, and sustainability is uneven. In addition, there are many factors affecting the adoption of CSA in West and Central Africa among which are factors such as: the education level of farmers, age, gender, household size, membership of a social group, agricultural extension services, and access to credit/financial resources [15,16,17,18,19]. These factors should be considered in the scaling process of CSA practices and technologies. Ref. [20] showed that different strategies for scaling up climate smart interventions have different characteristics and consequently required trade-offs when choosing one strategy over another by considering the expected results, e.g., between reaching large numbers of farmers and addressing farmers’ specific contexts. Overall, questions persist regarding which CSA practices deliver the most tangible benefits under specific agroecological and socio-economic conditions, the factors that drive sustained adoption by farmers, the gender and youth dimensions of CSA uptake, and the institutional arrangements that enable or hinder success. Elements of response to these questions could be drawn from past CSA-related initiatives across the region.

There is therefore a critical need for a systematic synthesis of experiences and lessons learned from CSA implementation in West and Central Africa. Such a synthesis can help identify common success factors, recurring challenges, and context-specific insights that are essential for informing future program design, guiding policy decisions, and enhancing the strategic alignment of investments in climate-resilient agriculture. This study contributes to addressing this gap by providing an overview of CSA interventions across West and Central Africa and distilling key lessons learned from their implementation. By drawing on diverse evidence sources and regional experiences, outcomes from the study can help to support the development of more effective, equitable, and scalable CSA strategies capable of strengthening resilience and transforming agricultural systems under increasing climate pressure. Therefore, the objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of CSA-related initiatives implemented in West and Central Africa, assess their thematic focus, geographic distribution, and funding patterns, and identify systemic gaps and enabling factors affecting their effectiveness and scalability. By synthesizing regional evidence, the study aims to inform policymakers, development partners, and research institutions on strategic pathways for strengthening CSA implementation and impact.

2. Methodology

2.1. Scope of the Study

The study covered 20 countries in West and Central Africa. The selection of the countries was based on three main criteria: (i) their inclusion within the CAADP-XP 4 project under the CORAF space, within the ECOWAS and ECCAS regional frameworks where CSA has been actively promoted; (ii) the availability of documented CSA-related initiatives and national climate and agricultural policy instruments; and (iii) the presence of national focal points facilitating standardized data collection and validation. Together, these criteria ensured regional representativeness, data comparability, and analytical consistency

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

A four key steps methodology was used in this study (Figure 1). These include:

• Literature review and survey: systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature and gray literature screening was conducted using Scopus, Web of Science, and institutional repositories to identify CSA-related initiatives. In addition, an online survey (using the CAWI: Computer-Assisted Web Interview approach) powered using google-form comprising 30 questions (both closed- and open-ended) was administered to CSA stakeholders across 20 countries between September 2021 to February 2022, yielding an average of 30 valid responses per country. The CAADP-XP 4 project national focal points served as entry for national data collection using CAWI questionnaire provided, and for which they were trained before data collection. Data collected were related to CSA initiatives, their objectives, achievements and impacts supported by documented evidence. CSA-related initiatives here are referred to as projects or programs, policy/regulation initiatives, research/academy project, multi-stakeholder/innovation platform and network/set of practices or initiatives.
• CSA stakeholders’ consultative meetings: an online consultation meeting was organized per country (making a total of 20 national consultative meetings) to re-check the validity of the databases together with the focal points and coordination team. Afterwards, two online regional stakeholders’ engagement meetings were organized (one for West African region and the second for the Central Africa region).
• Secondary data collection: Secondary data on funding, sectoral focus, and geographic distribution were extracted from validated project documents collected during the survey and stakeholder focus group meeting, as well as donor reports covering the period 2015–2025.
• Data consolidation and analysis: All datasets were harmonized, cleaned, and triangulated to ensure consistency and reliability prior to analysis. National databases were bulked for the 20 countries and served as regional database for the analysis, mainly conducted using descriptive statistics. Spatial analysis and Maps were made using QGIS. Output per country was prepared based on the following:
  • An overview of the implementation of CSA-related initiatives in each country:

    ○

    Initiatives and thematic targeted according to agricultural sub-sectors (crop production, livestock production, fisheries production, forestry, value-added chain).

    ○

    Impacts of the initiatives on production, communities, natural resources, and climate change.

  • Lessons learned and gaps analysis in CSA initiatives identified for each country.
  • Possible CSA policy orientations for each country.

Thematic maps were produced using QGIS version 3.16 to visualize the spatial distribution of CSA initiative characteristics. CSA initiatives were analyzed in terms of their completion status, the type of lead institution, the initiatives’ level of contribution to the three CSA pillars, the impact on gender, and the area of land reclaimed by CSA. Lessons learned and gaps were also highlighted.

2.3. Limitations

The limitations of the information collected include the non-conformity of data on the budget of some of the initiatives on different websites (detailed budget data were available for only 83 initiatives), the lack of information mainly related to the impacts as observed by stakeholders on the grounds. Critical detailed information on gender (number of men, women, and young people) was also not available for some initiatives. The most important limitation of this study lies in the fact that some initiatives executed may not be available online due to the lack of documentation, while others would probably have started and/or closed after this study, but given the data collection period, they could not be considered in this study. Therefore, we carried out a synoptic spatial analysis of the data collected for each country to have the regional trends that were compared to regional CSA initiatives identified.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of CSA Initiatives in WCA Countries

3.1.1. Spatial Distribution of CSA Initiatives in WCA

A total of 1629 CSA initiatives were identified from the 20 WCA countries involved between 2015 and 2025. On average, about 80 CSA-related initiatives were conducted per country from 2015 to 2025. The consolidated spatial analysis reveals that there were more CSA initiatives in West African countries, notably Ghana (128), Niger (116), Benin (114), Côte d’Ivoire (112), than in Central African countries, notably Congo (110), Cameroon (26) and Central African Republic (11) (Figure 2).

3.1.2. Major Motivations Area of Investments of the CSA Initiatives

Cloud/tag analysis of the title, scientific and development objectives, components, were analyzed and revealed that the major words or groups of words common to the different initiatives identified were: (i) sustainable agriculture (as a whole), (ii) adaptation or adaptive capacity, (iii) climate resilience, (iv) climate change (v) sustainability, and (vi) food security (Figure 3). The analysis shows that the initiatives focus much more on productivity and adaptation and sustainability. Also, most initiatives are geared towards achieving food security in a context marked by the negative impacts of climate change (Figure 3).

3.1.3. Status of the CSA Initiatives

In most countries, more than half (58%) of the CSA initiatives are completed, while 38% are still in progress (Figure 4). However, the proportion of ongoing initiatives is higher than completed initiatives in Burkina Faso (60%), Niger (73%), Côte d’Ivoire (52%) and Senegal (54%). In the Central African Republic, all the initiatives listed are still in progress. The number of initiatives in the pipeline is higher in Côte d’Ivoire (16) and Nigeria (6) than in the other countries (Figure 4).

Around 5% of the initiatives started before 2015 and 73% were implemented or were being implemented between 2015 and 2025. An in-depth analysis revealed that among the latter, the number of initiatives started and completed between 2020 and 2022 has decreased compared to those implemented in previous years (Figure 5). This could be due to the emergence of the COVID-19 health crisis in December 2019, which would have slowed down the activities of the various CSA initiatives from 2020 onwards. However, this number tends to gradually increase from 2020 onwards (Figure 5). On the other hand, differences in the completion status of CSA initiatives across countries can be attributed to variations in institutional capacity, political stability, and continuity of funding. Countries affected by insecurity, governance transitions, or administrative bottlenecks experienced delays or interruptions in project implementation. In addition, external shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected countries with weaker implementation and monitoring systems, leading to lower completion rates.

3.1.4. Categorization of the CSA Initiatives

Most of the CSA initiatives were implemented in the form of projects or programs (78%), followed by policy/regulation initiatives (10.5%) and research/academy initiatives (6%). Multi-stakeholder/innovation platform and network/set of practices initiatives are in the minority in all countries, with average frequencies of 1.8% and 3%, respectively (Figure 6). Specifically, the highest number of project/program-type CSA initiatives was recorded in Benin (107), followed by Niger (103) and Ghana (101), while research/academy initiatives were most common in Mali (20), followed by Ghana (13) and Cameroon (11), Figure 6.

3.1.5. Implementing Institutions

The categorization of CSA initiatives by type of implementing institutions revealed that in most countries 48% of CSA initiatives were implemented by government institutions and 23% by development partners (Figure 7). Specifically in Togo and Mali, CSA initiatives are mostly implemented by NGOs/CSOs. CSA initiatives directly manage by research institutions and farmers organizations are in the minority (Figure 7).

3.1.6. Financial Resources

The average budget per CSA initiative between 2015 and 2025 stands around 285 million EUR (Figure 8A). The average minimum budget for CSA in WCA is 1 million EUR, and the maximum 3 billion EUR. The average budget per CSA initiative is less than 100 million EUR in Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Central African Republic, Ghana, Gabon, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone, and Togo. It ranges between 100 million and 300 million EUR in Guinea, Cameroon, Niger, and Nigeria, while it is two to three times greater in Gambia and Congo. The total CSA budget for all countries coming together was 298 billion EUR between 2015 and 2025. The average budget per CSA initiative and the total budget are all higher in Congo and the Gambia than in the other countries (Figure 8A,B).

The major donors or funding mechanisms for the identified initiatives were: (i) development partners/technical and financial partners, who funded an average of 45% of CSA initiatives. This group includes international organizations and various cooperation organizations and their technical organizations/funds (European Union, German cooperation: BMZ, GIZ, IKI, etc.; Belgian cooperation organizations (ENABEL); Swiss cooperation (SDC) and many others); (ii) Regional organizations and their partners: ECOWAS, UEMOA, CEAC, CEMAC, CORAF, AfricaRice, AECID, WAEMU, IITA, IFDC, etc. (iii) the United Nations organizations such as UNDP, UNOPS, UNEP, IFAD; AFD, FAO; (iv) Development banks for 22% of funding, the majority of which comes from the AfDB, the World Bank, the Islamic Development Bank, BOAD, BADEA, BDEAC, IBRD, KFW Bank, etc. Another 20% of funding comes from the various funding mechanisms of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), such as the GEF Trust Funds, Adaptation Funds, Least Developing Countries Funds and Multi Trust Funds. Governments provide around 10%. Other sources of funding are from donations and private institutions. This trends analysis cover CSA initiatives implemented between 2015 and 2025, with financial allocations aggregated over that same period and further disaggregated into early (2015–2020) and recent (2021–2025) phases to capture temporal trends.

3.2. Agricultural Sub-Sectors and Thematic Areas Targeted by the CSA Initiatives

The initiatives identified were also classified according to the different agriculture sub-sectors, namely:

(i)

Crop Production (CP);

(ii)

Animal Production (AP);

(iii)

Aquaculture and fishing (AF);

(iv)

Energy and Environment (EE);

(v)

Forestry and Biodiversity (FB) and;

(vi)

Value-added chains, Access to markets and financing (VAF).

It emerged that 32% of the CSA initiatives simultaneously involved three or more agricultural sub-sectors. Overall, 23% of the initiatives listed were in the crop production sub-sector, followed by the Forestry/Biodiversity sub-sector (13%), (Figure 9). The value chain and market access sub-sectors as well as energy and environment sub-sector are less represented, each being involved in 7% of initiatives. Same trends were also observed for animal production, aquaculture and fisheries sub-sectors, for which each account for just 4% of the initiatives identified (Figure 9).

The observed spatial distribution of CSA initiatives by agricultural sub-sector reflects agroecological suitability of the region, national development priorities, and donor investment strategies. Crop production and forestry dominate in Sahelian and sub-humid zones where food security and land restoration are urgent, while limited engagement in livestock, fisheries, and value chains reflects higher investment risks, weaker institutional support, and limited integration of these sub-sectors into CSA programming. A review by [15] showed that farmers used more knowledge-, water-, carbon-, and nitrogen-smart practices, compared to weather- and energy-smart practices in West Africa. These sub-sectors could benefit from more attention for future initiatives, with more emphasis on weather- and energy-smart practices.

3.3. Impacts of CSA Initiatives on Production, Natural Resources and Community Resilience

3.3.1. Climate Smartness and Relevance of the Initiatives

The analysis also highlighted the level of relevance or contribution of the initiatives listed to each of the three CSA pillars.

(i)

Productivity and food safety;

(ii)

Adapting to climate change and;

(iii)

Mitigating the effects of climate change.

The results showed that the level of relevance varies from one pillar to another. Overall, on productivity and food security pillar, around 63% of initiatives showed a very high level of relevance, 29% showed a high level of relevance and 7% of the total initiatives were not relevant to productivity. This shows that 92% of the initiatives that were identified, generally contributed to improving productivity and achieving food security in WCA (Figure 10A).

Analysis from the perspective of the second CSA pillar (adaptation) shows that, overall, 64% of initiatives are of very high relevance to adaptation. Around 33% are of medium relevance, while only 2% were found to be irrelevant to the adaptation pillar, considering all countries (Figure 10B). As in the case of the productivity pillar, this indicates that 98% of initiatives are relevant and contribute to adaptation to climate change. However, it should be noted that the average level of relevance (Relevant) for the adaptation pillar exceeds that of productivity.

Regarding the third pillar (mitigation), 32% of initiatives are very relevant, 36% show a medium level of relevance and 32% have no direct link with mitigation. Overall, it emerges from this analysis that the initiatives listed contribute much more to the first two CSA pillars (productivity and adaptation) (Figure 10A,B), while mitigation seems to be less considered in the design and implementation of CSA initiatives in WCA (Figure 10C).

3.3.2. Gender-Related Impacts

Figure 11 shows the impacts of these initiatives on gender. Out of the 1629 initiatives listed, 87% were able to provide information on their gender-related impacts. The analysis shows that, men (66%) are usually more involved in CSA initiatives than women (29%) and young people (6%) between 2015 and 2025. However, it is important to highlight that in some countries, such as Ghana and The Gambia, it is rather young people who are more involved into CSA initiatives than women and men. Moreover, in Gabon, women lead the way in the implementation of these initiatives (Figure 11). The higher participation of women in CSA initiatives observed in Gabon can be explained by the strong role women play in small-scale agriculture, forestry, and market activities, as well as the presence of gender-focused development programs that prioritize women’s empowerment. These structural and policy-specific factors contribute to greater female engagement compared to other WCA countries. Future initiatives should build on experience from Gabon, Ghana and The Gambia by involving more women and young people in the development and implementation of CSA initiatives.

3.3.3. Surface Area of Reclaimed Farmland Under CSA Initiatives

Information on the surface area of agricultural land reclaimed and/or rehabilitated using CSA practices was provided for 83 out of the 1629 initiatives. On average, 170,000 ha of land per country are reclaimed using CSA practices through these initiatives (Figure 12A,B). In total, almost 11 million ha of land has already been reclaimed through the implementation of the CSA initiatives in WCA. The largest area of land reclaimed by CSA was observed in Niger, with over 4.5 million ha (Figure 12A,B).

3.4. Lessons Learned and Gaps Analysis

3.4.1. Gaps Analysis

Despite the efforts deployed to implement CSA in WCA between 2015 and 2025, several gaps remain to be filled.

• CSA initiatives in the form of innovation platforms, networks and cooperations, as well as scientific research projects, are very poorly represented, even though they play a vital role in energizing and consolidating the achievements of projects/programs. While scientific research would effectively support the understanding of CSA mechanisms and achievements, the identification of sustainable options and practices in package form (combining practices into a technological package), the designing and testing of new CSA technologies, and the documentation and valorization of CSA actions. Refs. [21,22] have already highlighted the importance and role of research as the backbone for successful implementation of innovative CSA initiatives. Also rare are policy-oriented programs that would constitute the coordinating guideline for CSA actions and initiatives in WCA. The observed disconnection between research outputs and policy uptake reflects structural weaknesses in CSA national innovation systems, including limited science–policy interfaces, weak demand articulation by policymakers, and fragmented institutional mandates. Ref. [23] had already underscored the importance of interaction between science, development, and policy in CSA implementation process. On the other hand, CSA practices and technologies have high potential in overcoming humanitarian challenges that may result from political situations, terrorism, and climate change in West Africa [24].
• CSA initiatives are very rare in sub-sectors such as animal production, value chain improvement, access to markets and financing, and energy and environment. This same observation has already been made by [24,25], who identified more potential CSA practices in the crop production sub-sector than the others.
• Women benefit very little from the implementation of the CSA initiatives listed and hence are not much involved in the CSA initiatives. Meanwhile, the role of women and the need to take them into account in agriculture and particularly in CSA initiatives has been demonstrated by several scientific studies [26,27,28].
• Private organizations (NGOs/CSOs) are in the minority when it comes to implementing CAS initiatives. Similarly, they invest very little in CSA. As for the public sector, its contribution to funding remains low (around 10%) and could therefore be improved. Public–private partnerships could also make a significant contribution to the financing, design, and implementation of CSA initiatives.
• In general, over 90% of the initiatives are geared towards improving productivity and achieving food security, as well as climate change adaptation strategies, rather than mitigation, while CSA itself advocates a perfect symbiosis between its three pillars of productivity, adaptation, and mitigation.

3.4.2. Lessons Learned

In general, considerable efforts have been made for the implementation of CSA initiatives in WCA. This synoptic study demonstrated the following key lessons learned:

-

Little attention paid to the mitigation pillar.

The initiatives implemented are more focused on improving productivity and food security, as well as adapting production systems to the challenges of climate change, to the detriment of the third CSA pillar—mitigation These might be a result of the desire of most national and regional organizations to directly tackle the impacts of climate change as reflected in the communities. Marginal attention to mitigation within CSA initiatives is driven by institutional and financial incentives that prioritize short-term productivity and adaptation outcomes. Mitigation benefits, often long-term and diffuse, are rarely rewarded by existing funding mechanisms or carbon markets accessible to smallholder systems and therefore are not usually capitalized. As the agricultural sector is both a contributor to GHGs emission and carbon sequestration, efforts should also be tailored towards mitigation. Others include activities that help promote CSA practices with less GHGs emission potential and high capacity to absorb carbon into the coming CSA initiatives.

-

A larger budget for the environment and energy (EE) and crop production (CP) sub-sectors.

Initiatives involving several sub-sectors simultaneously receive a higher average and total budget (over 80 million euros) than those involving a single sub-sector. As for initiatives involving a single sub-sector, the crop production and forestry/biodiversity sub-sectors are the most represented, to the detriment of the energy and environment, value chain and animal production sub-sectors. Investments allocated for initiatives focusing solely on the value chain, forestry or animal production sub-sectors are less than 10 million EUR.

-

Few initiatives underway.

Very few CSA initiatives are still ongoing and will be closed towards end of 2025. This could prompt the need to initiate more initiatives to fill the gaps already identified, to sustain efforts in climate-smart agriculture. The shutdown of the USAID appeared as a direct consequence to the termination of the initiatives.

-

Very few CSA initiatives dedicated to research, innovation platforms or practice networks.

CSA initiatives dedicated to research, innovation platforms or practice networks are not only in the minority but also receive less funding. The average budget allocated to CSA projects/programs is generally two (02) times greater than that allocated to policies, and almost 20 times greater than that of practices, famers cooperations and networking, while it is almost 30 times greater than the budget allocated to research. This reflects the low priority given to research in the implementation of CSA. However, several national CSA strategies have already been drawn up; those that are currently underway, and those to come, could adequately take account of this funding gap. Furthermore, research/academic actors, farmers organizations and the private sector (NGOs/CSOs) are not yet sufficiently involved in the design, drafting, funding and implementation of CSA initiatives.

-

Little consideration for gender.

The CSA initiatives involved more men than women and young people in most of the countries, except for Ghana and The Gambia, where the number of young people seems to be higher. It should be noted that the total number of people adopting the CSA practices promoted is not a function of the budget allocated to CSA. This number seems to be higher for projects/programs than for other types of initiatives, probably due to the high number of this type of initiative collected.

3.5. Policy Orientations for Accelerating CSA Implementation in WCA

In the light of the lessons learned and in view of the shortcomings presented above, policy recommendation can be summarized as follows:

-

Short-term actions: strengthen extension services, improve technology awareness, support pilot financing mechanisms.

-

Medium-term actions: develop national CSA investment plans, harmonize standards, strengthen public–private partnerships.

-

Long-term actions: institutionalize CSA in national development strategies, integrate mitigation incentives, and establish regional monitoring frameworks.

These key recommendations can be broken-down into the following action points:

-

Development of a CSA country profile for certain WCA countries such as Burkina-Faso, Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Liberia, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, and Togo, as well as a national CSA strategy and action plan for the coming years in countries that have not yet established one.

-

Elaboration of a legal and regulatory framework to support the implementation of CSA initiatives, including legislation on the accessibility of agri-inputs, agricultural financing and credit, agricultural insurance, land tenure and public–private partnerships in the agricultural sector, could expedite the implementation of climate-smart agriculture in WCA.

-

Creation and management of a directory/repository of the best-bet CSA practices and technologies for the region.

-

Setting up an innovation platform on a regional scale to enable the agricultural actors involved in CSA to discuss, exchange, and find appropriate solutions to the difficulties encountered. These include farmers’ organizations, agricultural cooperatives or groups, the private sector, NGOs, civil society, and the government through research centers involved in agricultural production and technical agricultural services. This should enable the various networks/platforms to be strengthened by learning about, and participating effectively in, what is being done at the level of the climate-smart agriculture alliance (CSA).

-

Beyond ordinary farmers’ organizations and farmers cooperatives, the establishment of innovation platforms, networks and purely pro-CSA farmers’ cooperatives could promote effective scaling-up of CSA practices and technologies. State institutions in charge of climate change should facilitate the creation and management of these platforms. Better still, the design of CSA initiatives could be integrated from the outset into agricultural development projects/programs/plans at both national and regional level, to define future regional strategies to be adopted.

-

Encouraging scientific research to find sustainable solutions to current challenges in CSA, based on the socio-cultural realities of each region of the country. Research funding is therefore essential. In addition to the first two pillars, these research projects should focus much more on the third CSA pillar, mitigation, and/or combine the three CSA pillars.

-

Initiation and implementation of more CSA initiatives in all WCA countries. This recommendation seems to be more imminent in the next two years, to avoid a lack of initiatives towards the end of 2025.

-

These initiatives should be geared more towards the animal production, aquaculture and fisheries sub-sectors, energy, environment and value chains, and market access. However, initiatives in the crop production and forestry/biodiversity sub-sectors should be strengthened, especially for the mitigation. This would make it possible to reduce and/or halt greenhouse gas emissions and promote a climate-smart environment. The initiative should be orientated towards mitigation pillar. Sustainable forestry within CSA frameworks should be guided by multiple pillars, including increasing forest cover, enhancing water retention, protecting ecosystem health, improving forest productivity, strengthening monitoring systems, promoting non-productive forest functions, supporting forest-based livelihoods, and fostering intersectoral cooperation between agriculture, forestry, and timber industries.

-

Capacity building in the design, formulation, mobilization of financial resources and implementation of CSA projects for the benefit of public agricultural development institutions, research centers, farmers’ organizations, agricultural groups and technical agricultural extension services, in basic infrastructure, equipment and technical tools, environmentally friendly practices, appropriate agricultural technical itineraries and quality human resources. This should enable agricultural actors to benefit from a good awareness of environmentally friendly practices, available agri-inputs, regular technical monitoring of activities and to be well trained in the core principles of climate-smart agriculture. These capacity-building initiatives may be facilitated by adopting the content of the manual on “Formulation and implementation of climate-smart agriculture projects integrated, participatory, and village-based approaches: Training manual and orientation guide” by [29].

-

State institutions to strengthen and support private sector actors by setting up a national fund for CSA.

-

Development of strategies that encourage collaboration between private-sector actors and those involved in research would increase the share of private-sector investment in research, especially for issues relating to intellectual property on genetic innovations, and the global integration of markets for agricultural inputs and products [30].

-

Strategies need to be developed to further engage women and young people in CSA initiatives, not only as beneficiaries but also as co-constructors and actors in the implementation of these initiatives.

-

Train and strengthen NGOs agricultural advisory staff in the implementation of CSA initiatives.

-

In addition to external funding, strengthening internal trade, mobilizing domestic financial resources, and encouraging private-sector contributions to investment and operational costs are critical for reinforcing market mechanisms and ensuring the long-term sustainability of CSA initiatives.

-

Investing in education systems that foster creativity, problem-solving skills, and technical competencies is essential for strengthening human capital and enabling sustained adoption and adaptation of CSA innovations.

4. Conclusions

Nearly 1700 CSA initiatives have been implemented in WCA between 2015 and 2025, and more than half of these initiatives have already come to an end. They are mainly funded and implemented by international climate change funded mechanisms, governments, and development partners. The initiatives are more oriented towards the crop production and forestry/biodiversity sub-sectors than the other sectors. Women and young people are poorly represented in the implementation of these initiatives. Most initiatives are concentrated on the first two CSA pillars (productivity and adaptation), obscuring the mitigation pillar. Scientific research as a development tool is virtually absent from the implementation of these initiatives. Farmers’ platforms, networking, and cooperatives capable of sustaining CSA activities and initiatives are also rare. Private institutions, NGOs/CSOs and farmers organizations are generally less involved as lead institutions in the implementation of CSA initiatives. Appropriate policy options and project/program initiation are therefore desirable.