Incorporating Stakeholders’ Preferences into a Decision-Making Framework for Planning Large-Scale Agricultural Best Management Practices’ Implementation in East Africa

Abstract

Addressing the interconnected challenges of food security, climate change, and population growth requires innovative and adaptive approaches to sustainable agriculture. Agricultural best management practices (BMPs) provide a promising framework for enhancing resilience, improving resource efficiency, and promoting biodiversity. However, the effectiveness of BMPs’ implementation largely depends on their alignment with local environmental, social, and economic conditions. This study presents a novel methodology for selecting and implementing BMPs based on stakeholder preferences, ensuring solutions are contextually relevant and widely accepted. Developed within the European Commission-funded WATDEV project, this methodology integrates a bottom-up and top-down decision-making framework, incorporating the perspectives of farmers, policymakers, and experts. The approach has been tested in four East African countries: Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt, demonstrating its adaptability across diverse agroecological settings. Through a structured assessment involving stakeholder engagement, data-driven BMP selection, and participatory decision support tools, the study identifies and prioritizes BMPs that optimize water use, soil conservation, and climate resilience. Findings highlight that community-driven BMP selection enhances adoption rates and ensures solutions are technically feasible, economically viable, and environmentally sustainable. The methodology provides a scalable blueprint for integrating stakeholder preferences into agricultural planning, offering valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners working toward sustainable food systems in East Africa and beyond.

1. Introduction

Africa, as the rest of the world, is increasingly grappling with the multifaceted challenges of water scarcity, drought, and land degradation [1]. These environmental issues are not only interlinked but also exacerbate each other, creating a vicious cycle that threatens the livelihoods, food security, and health of millions of people in the region [2]. Water scarcity in Africa is driven by a combination of factors, including erratic rainfall patterns, prolonged droughts, and inadequate water management infrastructure. The situation is compounded by the rapid population growth and urbanization, which increases the demand for already limited water resources [3]. This scarcity of water has significant implications for agriculture, the mainstay of East Africa’s economy, leading to reduced crop yields and increased food insecurity [2]. Droughts, which have become more frequent and severe due to climate change, further strain the region’s water resources [4]. These prolonged dry periods not only diminish water supplies but also lead to the degradation of arable land. The lack of water for irrigation, combined with high temperatures, accelerates soil erosion and desertification, transforming once fertile lands into barren landscapes [5,6,7]. This land degradation diminishes land’s productivity, forcing many rural communities to migrate in search of better living conditions, thus contributing to socioeconomic instability. Unsustainable agricultural practices, deforestation, and overgrazing further exacerbate land degradation since they strip the land of its vegetation cover, reducing its ability to retain water and resist erosion. As a result, the land’s fertility declines, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and environmental degradation. Addressing the interconnected challenges of water scarcity, drought, and land degradation in East Africa requires a holistic and multifaceted approach. Sustainable water management practices, reforestation, and the adoption of climate-resilient agricultural techniques are essential [8]. Additionally, regional cooperation and the implementation of effective policies are crucial to mitigate these environmental issues and promote sustainable development in East Africa [2].

Sustainable practices intended to lessen or mitigate the negative effects of environmental changes will be required, since climate change is likely to make these issues worse. Data show that greenhouse gas emissions and temperatures will increase, rainfall patterns will be uncertain, and extreme climate events will be more frequent as well [9,10,11]. Recent studies have continued to highlight the urgency of integrating climate-smart and locally adapted solutions for sustainable agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa and beyond. These works emphasize the dynamic and evolving nature of agricultural risk and adaptation strategies, underscoring the need for methodologies that remain flexible and inclusive [12,13].

In this context, the concept of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) has emerged to describe measures that can be used for water scarcity, land degradation, and climate change adaptation and mitigation (e.g., [14]). The term BMP is often used as a broad category encompassing various concepts, such as nature-based solutions (NBS), low-impact developments (LIDs), ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), water-sensitive urban design (WSUD), sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS), blue-green infrastructure (BGI), green infrastructure (GI), and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR). These terms primarily refer to small-scale BMPs implemented in urban or local scales, whereas large-scale BMPs are typically applied in rural areas, river basins, or across regions [15]. Research has explored BMPs as a means to enhance agriculture practices and mitigate climate change impacts in East Africa [16,17]. However, selecting appropriate BMP measures is still a challenge due to specific local constraints and socioeconomic conditions [15]. There is no universal BMP that can address all challenges, and implementing BMPs in practice remains complex. The most effective solution depends on the local necessities and characteristics of a given location. To enhance the adoption and implementation of BMPs, decision support tools can facilitate the process by incorporating the perspectives of multiple stakeholders, evaluating trade-offs, and identifying viable solutions [18,19,20]. A versatile decision-making tool capable of accommodating multiple objectives is thus essential. The selection of appropriate BMPs should be based on an assessment of their technical feasibility, potential environmental benefits, and economic sustainability [21,22,23]. Additionally, BMPs should be cost-effective, easily adaptable, and aligned with farmers’ needs, while considering the factors that influence their adoption [24]. This aligns with global priorities outlined by the FAO and other international organizations, which stress the importance of inclusive, evidence-based approaches to sustainable land and water management, particularly in climate-vulnerable regions. In the frame of the WATDEV project (Climate Smart Water Management and Sustainable Development for Food and Agriculture in East Africa) funded by the DESIRA initiative of the European Union, specific guidelines for the selection of BMPs have been elaborated, presenting a new methodology to incorporate stakeholders’ preferences into the selection of agricultural best management practices, emphasizing the importance of community engagement and localized solutions. This approach recognizes that effective practices must be context-specific and inclusive, reflecting the diverse needs and perspectives of those directly affected by environmental changes.

The methodology has been tested and applied across various case studies in Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt, illustrating its adaptability and effectiveness in different socio-environmental contexts. By integrating stakeholder preferences, the proposed tool aims to facilitate the selection of best management practices (BMPs) that are ecologically viable, socially acceptable, and economically feasible.

Through these case studies, this paper demonstrates how BMPs can be tailored to address specific challenges in East Africa, providing a blueprint for sustainable risk management that aligns with the region’s unique environmental and socioeconomic conditions. The insights gained from these applications underscore the potential of BMPs to contribute to a resilient and sustainable future for East Africa, offering lessons that can be extended to other regions facing similar challenges. While the focus of this study is on East Africa, the methodological approach developed here is designed to be flexible and adaptable. By anchoring the decision-making process in stakeholder preferences and contextual realities, the framework has the potential for replication in other geographical regions with different biotic and abiotic conditions. Future research should explore such applications to validate its broader relevance.

2. Navigating Agricultural Challenges in the Selected Study Areas in East Africa: Drivers and Solutions

Agriculture in East Africa faces a complex array of environmental, economic, and social challenges, with each country’s agricultural landscape shaped by unique drivers. Within this context, the WATDEV project plays a pivotal role by conducting research, implementing agricultural water management practices, and organizing capacity-building activities across various communities and stakeholder levels. These efforts aim to address the diverse problems and concerns identified in the selected case study areas (Figure 1), ranging from water users and farmers to decision-makers. The study areas, Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Kenya, were strategically chosen based on several critical criteria:

• Their representativeness of the diverse challenges linked to sustainable water management in agriculture, including varied socioecological systems.
• Their vulnerability to climate change and significance to local communities, river basins, national economies, and the broader international community, including Europe.
• The availability of reliable data and the presence of prior studies or projects, which enhance the likelihood of successful research development and testing.
• Existing cooperation projects within these regions provide effective water management practices and innovative solutions, ready for scaling up and transferring to areas not yet covered by interventions.

By focusing on these carefully selected areas, the project aims to tackle the region’s specific agricultural challenges while addressing climate vulnerability, promoting sustainable water use, and fostering practices that can be adopted widely. This comprehensive approach ensures that solutions are both scientifically robust and contextually relevant to the communities they are designed to serve

In Egypt, agricultural production is dominated by high-yield crops, such as sugar beet, sugar cane, potatoes, tomatoes, and onions [25]. However, significant tracts of cultivated land are devoted to lower-yield staple crops, like wheat, maize, and rice, which generate significantly lower returns than cash crops. With approximately 95% of Egypt’s water supply originating from the Nile River and only 5% from rainfall and groundwater [26], the country’s heavy dependence on a single water source makes its agricultural sector highly vulnerable to climate change. Projections indicate that temperatures could rise by up to 2.5 °C by 2050, exacerbating the risks of sea level rise, soil salinization, erosion, and coastal land degradation [27]. These climate-related threats could lead to a 40% decline in agricultural production, while a projected population increase to 125 million would further strain resources and potentially drive increased rural-to-urban migration [13].

In Ethiopia, agricultural production is primarily rainfed and thus highly susceptible to climate variability [28]. The lack of adequate water management infrastructure exposes crops to both drought and flooding, with climate-related disruptions already contributing to a one-third decline in productivity [29,30]. While the country cultivates a diverse range of crops, including taro, sweet potatoes, and bananas, a substantial portion of agricultural land is still allocated to staple and cash crops. This, combined with traditional farming methods, has intensified soil erosion and nutrient depletion [31,32,33]. Although government initiatives like the Climate Resilient Green Economy plan aim to strengthen resilience, resource constraints continue to pose significant challenges [34].

Kenya’s agricultural sector is similarly dependent on rainfall patterns and government policies. Market liberalization has benefited some farmers but has also placed local producers at a disadvantage due to corporate dominance in the sector [35,36,37]. Despite ongoing efforts to promote climate-smart agricultural practices, structural challenges remain, including unequal subsidy distribution and insufficient stakeholder engagement [38,39,40].

In Sudan, agriculture is largely reliant on rainfall, making it highly susceptible to climate fluctuations. Additional barriers, such as internal conflicts, economic instability, and restricted land access, further hinder agricultural development. Even large-scale irrigation projects like the Gezira Scheme face maintenance difficulties due to financial constraints [41,42,43].

To address these multifaceted challenges, a holistic perspective is essential to provide farmers with tools to adapt to changing conditions while supporting biodiversity and soil health, while a participatory approach is vital to align BMPs with stakeholder preferences, ensuring practical and culturally relevant solutions. Collaborative initiatives like the European Commission’s DESIRA program apply BMP-focused methodologies to various Eastern African case studies, demonstrating that tailored, community-engaged solutions can foster sustainable agricultural productivity across diverse landscapes.

3. Methodology: A Collaborative Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approach

To address the diverse agricultural challenges faced by Eastern African communities, we adopted a comprehensive combination of a bottom-up and top-down methodology (Figure 2) that emphasizes collaboration, analysis, and local engagement. This approach ensured that solutions were tailored to the specific needs of each community, fostering ownership and enhancing the likelihood of successful implementation. It included the different phases described below.

3.1. Phase 1: Identification and Collection of Best Management Practices (BMPs)

The identification and evaluation of best management practices (BMPs) followed a systematic and collaborative approach. Initially, extensive collaboration with local stakeholders was undertaken to identify and collect BMPs that had demonstrated success in various contexts across the continent. This process was conducted through a series of workshops and interviews with local farmers, agricultural extension officers, and researchers, and a diverse range of practices were gathered. This grassroots data collection was vital for capturing the nuances of local agricultural systems, as well as the socioeconomic and environmental factors influencing them. Each BMP was then evaluated through a multifaceted process to ensure its relevance to the specific agricultural challenges faced by communities. Factors such as crop types, climate conditions, and local practices were assessed for relevance, while existing literature and case studies were analyzed to determine documented outcomes related to yield improvements, sustainability, and climate resilience. A feasibility study further examined practical considerations, including resource availability, local expertise, and potential barriers to implementation, ensuring the BMPs could be effectively integrated into local contexts.

To structure and standardize the assessment, a two-stage evaluation process was conducted. First, a preliminary screening was carried out using the Project Description Sheet, which captured essential project details, including location, available resources, data sources, objectives, and management structures. This descriptive phase was followed by a detailed assessment using the Practices Evaluation Sheet, a comprehensive tool designed to evaluate BMPs across multiple dimensions. The evaluation included 2 open-ended questions to capture detailed project information and 27 targeted multiple-choice questions assessing the impacts of BMPs on water, soil, atmosphere, and crop management, as well as socioeconomic factors (

Table 1. Questionnaire of Practices Evaluation Sheet.

No.	Question
1	Best Management Practice’s name
2	Best Management Practice’s short description
3	CLT01—Was the practice already/previously applied in the area?
4	CLT02—Is the practice accepted by the beneficiaries?
5	POL01—Is the practice supported by the national/local subsidies/incentives system?
6	POL02—Is the adopted practice in line with the national/local policy and legislation?
7	GOV01—Was the practice adopted by means of a participatory process involving relevant actors at the local level?
8	GOV02—Does the practice require an organizational framework?
9	ECO01—Does the net return per worker and/or landowner increase because of the implementation of the practice?
10	ECO02—Is access to microcredit for the implementation of the practice feasible by relevant users at the local level?
11	ECO03—Does the practice answer to the market demand (e.g., crop diversification/selection)?
12	SOL01—Does the practice ensure soil conservation from losses due to erosion and incidental or deliberate exposure to the elements (sun, wind, water, fire, animal/machinery traffic, others)?
13	SOL02—Has the organic matter in the soil increased?
14	SOL03—Does the practice avoid disruption of soil structure?
15	SOL04—Is the water-holding capacity of soil increased?
16	WAT01—Is the practice able to improve groundwater quality and/or quantity?
17	WAT02—Has the practice improved surface water quality and/or quantity?
18	WAT03—Has the practice reduced water logging and water salinization?
19	WAT04—Has the practice increased the resistance of crops and/or farming systems to salinity?
20	WAT05—Is the practice able to improve water use efficiency?
21	CRP01—Has the practice improved crop productivity and/or reduced yield variability?
22	CRP02—Is the practice able to contribute to food safety and/or security and a better livelihood for the beneficiaries?
23	CRP03—Does the practice foresee farmers are engaged—both individually and collectively—to assure the availability of high-quality and diverse planting materials and/or animal breeds?
24	CRP04—Does the practice focus on genotypes that can be multiplied on-farm and can be well integrated into the local agro-ecosystem?
25	CRP05—Is the practice able to increase the resistance of crops and/or farming systems to pests?
26	ATM01—Is the practice able to enhance soil carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?
27	ATM02—Is the practice able to prevent losses of methane and nitrous oxide?
28	ATM03—Is the practice able to reduce losses of water by evaporation/evapotranspiration?
29	ATM04—Is the practice able to increase the tolerance and/or resilience of crops and/or farming systems to climate variabilities?

). These thematic dimensions were selected to reflect the holistic nature of agricultural best management practices. The questions under CLT (community-level testing) evaluated the local acceptance and prior experience with the practice, essential for assessing social feasibility. POL (policy) and GOV (governance) dimensions examined institutional support and the organizational infrastructure required for implementation. ECO (economic) items assessed cost-effectiveness, credit access, and market relevance, crucial factors for farmer adoption. The SOL, WAT, CRP, and ATM categories addressed environmental impacts, focusing, respectively, on soil health, water resource efficiency, crop productivity and resilience, and contributions to climate mitigation. By covering these eight interconnected dimensions, the questionnaire ensured a comprehensive evaluation of each BMP’s sustainability, scalability, and suitability to local contexts.

The evaluation of best management practices (BMPs) included 27 multiple-choice questions, each targeting specific aspects of BMP implementation and impact. Among these, two questions assessed whether the BMP was applied and accepted by local communities (CLT), two addressed policies and legislation related to the BMP (POL), two examined the involvement of relevant actors and the organizational framework (GOV), and three evaluated the economic context of the applied BMP (ECO).

The outcome effects of the evaluated BMPs were analyzed through questions focusing on their impact on key sectors: soil (4 questions), water resources (5 questions), crop management (5 questions), and atmosphere (4 questions). Respondents could choose from four possible answers for each question: “yes”, “no”, “not applicable (n/a)”, and “don’t know”.

The questionnaire was distributed through a dedicated online form, accessible to all project partners. The survey for BMP collection was conducted between 18 April and 31 August 2022.

To analyze the collected data, a statistical assessment was performed using the Chi-square goodness of fit test, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. This approach ensured a rigorous evaluation of the data to draw meaningful conclusions about the implementation and impacts of BMPs.

3.2. Phase 2: Brokerage Meetings: Needs’ Evaluation and Community Readiness

Following the screening, four brokerage meetings were organized across the participating countries. These gatherings were attended by diverse stakeholders, including farmers, local government representatives, NGOs, and academic researchers, to engage in a Needs’ Evaluation.

These dimensions were chosen based on the understanding that successful implementation of agricultural BMPs depends on more than technical suitability—it also requires alignment with local socioeconomic realities, governance capacities, and environmental conditions. Evaluating the cultural context helps identify traditions, taboos, or community norms that could either support or hinder the adoption of certain practices. Analyzing policy ensures that suggested BMPs are supported by national or local regulatory frameworks and incentives. Governance assessment is essential to identify institutional bottlenecks or enablers that affect coordination and enforcement. The economic dimension is crucial for determining whether farmers have the resources or access to finances to implement practices. Finally, evaluating soil, water, crop, and atmospheric conditions ensures that the selected BMPs are technically viable and environmentally appropriate given the local agroecological setting. During this phase, we employed a multi-dimensional framework to cover several critical areas:

• ▪ Cultural: Understanding local traditions, beliefs, and practices that influence farming decisions.
• ▪ Policy: Analyzing existing agricultural policies and their alignment with community needs.
• ▪ Governance: Assessing the local governance structures that affect agricultural practices and resource management.
• ▪ Economic: Evaluating the economic conditions that impact farmers’ ability to adopt new practices.
• ▪ Soil, Water, Crop, and Atmospheric Factors: Examining environmental conditions and challenges specific to the region.

This comprehensive evaluation allowed us to gain insights into the unique challenges and opportunities within each community, ensuring that the solutions we proposed were contextually relevant and sustainable. The subsequent Group Evaluation assessed the community’s readiness to adopt the proposed BMPs. We focused on the following key aspects:

• ▪ Membership: Encouraging inclusive participation among community members to foster a sense of ownership.
• ▪ Mutuality: Building relationships based on trust and reciprocity, facilitating collaboration between stakeholders.
• ▪ Sense of Community: Creating a shared identity that motivates collective action and support.
• ▪ Knowledge Sharing and Exchange: Promoting the flow of information and experiences among community members to enhance learning.
• ▪ Reflection: Encouraging stakeholders to critically assess past practices and consider improvements.
• ▪ Action Orientation: Fostering a proactive mindset focused on implementing practical solutions.
• ▪ Construction of New Knowledge: Facilitating innovation and adaptation of practices based on local insights and experiences.
• ▪ Dissemination of Expertise: Sharing successful practices and lessons learned to empower other community members.

These elements were essential for creating an environment conducive to collaboration and knowledge sharing, ensuring that stakeholders were equipped and motivated to implement the proposed BMPs.

3.3. Phase 3: Matching BMPs to Communities’ Needs and Orientations

Building on the insights from the Needs and Group Evaluations, we created a tailored list of best management practices (BMPs) to address the specific challenges identified in each community. This process began with cross-referencing community needs against our repository of BMPs to ensure their suitability for the local context. The BMPs were then prioritized based on their potential to deliver the most significant impact, considering the community’s capacities, resources, and constraints. Finally, a feedback loop was established by engaging stakeholders to review and refine the proposed practices. This collaborative approach ensured that the selected BMPs aligned with community preferences, fostered a sense of ownership, and increased the likelihood of successful adoption and implementation.

Finally, the curated list of BMPs was presented to decision-makers in each country for evaluation and approval. This step ensured that local authorities and stakeholders endorsed the selected practices, facilitating smoother implementation and integration into existing agricultural frameworks. By involving decision-makers, we aimed to align our initiatives with national and regional agricultural strategies, thus promoting sustainability and long-term impact.

Among the 27 multiple-choice questions, 2 were related to defining if the considered BMP was applied and accepted by the local communities (CLT), 2 to policy and legislation on the BMP (POL), 2 to the possible presence of relevant actors and organizational frameworks (GOV), and 3 to the economic background of the applied BMP (ECO).

4. Results

4.1. Identification and Collection of Best Management Practices (BMPs)

The BMPs were collected using the last version of the monkey survey. These BMPs were used to generate a BMP repository, which is available in the project’s platform (https://www.watdev.eu (accessed on 16 June 2025 )). The repository was filtered by purging BMPs showing missing values, and subsequently the BMP duplicates were removed. The next step was the definition and the assignment of minimum and maximum values (scores −1, 0, and +1, depending on answers reported in the collected Practice Evaluation Sheets) to BMP data and the subsequent detection and removal of outliers. Considering the different levels incorporated in the diverse sectors (CLT, POL, GOV, ECO, SOL, WAT, CRP, and ATM), BMPs were evaluated for the putative presence of mislabeled ones. In the last step, valid data levels were defined for categorical data to provide a defined valid output. A total of 192 BMPs were evaluated, and the process of scoring provided 73 BMPs with +1 score for at least one of the Practice Evaluation Sheet sectors (CLT, POL, GOV, ECO, SOL, WAT, CRP, and ATM). BMPs showing at least a +1 score in the different socioeconomic sectors were as follows:

• 35 for the cultural sector (CLT)
• 26 for the policy sector (POL)
• 22 for the governmental sector (GOV)
• 31 for the economic sector (ECO)

From an environmental point of view, selected and scored BMPs were as follows:

• 30 for the soil sector (SOL)
• 34 for the water sector (WAT)
• 37 for the crop sector (CRP)
• 13 for the atmosphere sector (ATM)

To extract further insight from the Practice Evaluation Sheets, we analyzed specific patterns across governance, policy, and economic indicators. Results showed that 62.5% of BMPs were implemented through participatory processes involving relevant local actors, while 53.6% required an organizational framework. Approximately 52% of BMPs were supported by national or local policies, and 41.6% were aligned with existing legislation. From an economic perspective, 83.5% of BMPs were linked to increased income for farmers, although only 23.4% required access to microcredit.

A Chi-square test confirmed statistically significant differences in the distribution of BMPs across the four environmental sectors—soil, water, crop management, and atmosphere (χ² = 105.3, df = 3, p < 0.001). This prompted a country-level analysis to explore regional differences in practice emphasis. For instance, water-sector BMPs in Sudan and Kenya often targeted salinity tolerance, while soil conservation and organic matter management were more prominent in Ethiopia. Across all countries, crop-related BMPs, especially those improving productivity, were the most frequently prioritized, indicating strong stakeholder interest in yield outcomes. By contrast, fewer BMPs addressed atmospheric benefits, such as greenhouse gas mitigation, highlighting a potential area for improved awareness and policy integration.

These findings demonstrate that BMP implementation was influenced not only by environmental priorities but also by institutional capacity, policy alignment, and socioeconomic readiness. This multi-dimensional analysis reinforces the value of the evaluation framework in identifying both technical and systemic enablers and barriers to BMP adoption.

The BMPs were defined and evaluated from local community analysis through local brokerages. Local brokerages were performed to assess local communities’ needs and gaps in a socioeconomic and environmental frame. In each country involved in WATDEV, face-to-face or online meetings were organized with project partners and local SHs, representing agricultural, political, and economic local organizations. Each brokerage planned a meeting to define the requirements of the community, assess the group, and visit the specific case study locations. The Needs’ Evaluation was performed through the Needs’ Evaluation Sheet (Supplementary Material Table S1), with an open discussion on the perceived agroecological and socioeconomic issues of the community. The Group Evaluation was performed through the Group Evaluation Sheet by a team of experts, in order to define the group and social dynamics in terms of collaboration, knowledge exchanges, and attitude to cooperate with other groups. Both the Group Evaluation (Figure 3) and Needs’ Evaluation (Figure 4) maps were plotted considering the obtained answers from the SHs, with a scale from (−2) to (+ 2) (

Table 2. List of the top 20 suggested BMPs.

Top 20 Suggested BMPs out of 191	Score Given by the Local SHs	Rank
Manuring	1	1
Irrigation Water Resource Users Association	1	2
Agroforestry	1	3
Intercropping with trees	1	4
Improved seeds	1	5
Crop rotation	1	6
Recharge wells	1	7
Drought-resilient/tolerant crops	0	8
Bunds with grass-trips	0	9
Mulching	0	10
Biochar	0	11
Tied ridge	0	12
Sub-surface dams	0	13
Small earth dams	0	14
Sand dams	0	15
Irrigation canal rehabilitation	0	16
Fanya juu terraces	0	17
Tabia	−1	18
Microfertilization	−1	19
Jessour	−1	20

). These results were plotted through spider plots (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

4.2. Brokerage Outcomes: Identified Needs in the Partner Countries and Group

In Egypt, brokerage discussions revealed that local stakeholders (SHs) viewed improving the socioeconomic situation as a primary concern. A key issue identified was the lack of structured collaboration among SHs, with farmers describing the community as fragmented and self-interest-driven. Many expressed difficulties in establishing a cohesive framework that fosters cooperation and hierarchy. To address this, SHs highlighted the need for a centralized, government-led institution to facilitate effective collaboration and coordination. Improved communication among and within local communities was also emphasized, as SHs noted that enhanced dialogue, especially government-driven, could help bridge communication gaps and align efforts more effectively.

On the environmental front, Egyptian stakeholders identified the low organic matter content in soils as a critical issue, indicating a need for sustainable soil management practices to improve soil health and fertility. Additionally, SHs highlighted the need to enhance the efficiency of irrigation systems, water distribution, and overall water availability. To address these concerns, proposed BMPs focused on both socioeconomic and agroecological needs, aiming to foster collaboration while promoting sustainable agricultural practices.

Ethiopia presented a different set of priorities and challenges. Brokerage results, illustrated through spider plots, showed high scores across nearly all sectors, indicating a widespread need for optimization and improvement. This finding suggests potential issues with government-led initiatives, particularly in terms of communication and alignment with local community needs. While funding or subsidies were not seen as significant problems, the SHs’ responses indicated an overarching challenge in government–community relations, which affects the broader socioeconomic and environmental landscape.

Socially, Ethiopian SHs perceived themselves as part of a relatively insular community where knowledge exchange is limited, with few connections to other social groups. Environmental issues were also prominent, as SHs reported soil degradation issues, including silting and contamination, likely linked to excessive or improper fertilizer and water use. Furthermore, SHs acknowledged limited technical knowledge on pesticide use and its environmental impacts, coupled with a low understanding of market trends and seasonal distribution of agricultural products.

Ethiopian SHs also raised concerns about inconsistent water distribution, primarily attributed to upstream river withdrawals that limited downstream access. Consequently, there is a recognized need for policies that promote equitable water distribution. Stakeholders expressed an interest in implementing BMPs to address these environmental challenges, particularly practices that could help manage soil erosion, control soil acidity, and improve crop rotation systems. The community expressed a strong willingness to adopt new practices, with a shared understanding that climate change poses a substantial threat.

The Group Evaluation Sheet for Ethiopia depicted a community where farmers were already organized into cooperatives or associations, with diverse representation from women, researchers, private corporations, and financial actors. Despite this organization, SHs emphasized the need for improved communication channels to better align farmer interests and respond to market demands effectively.

In Kenya, discussions highlighted SHs’ priorities in strengthening socioeconomic aspects, particularly by improving information exchange, fostering collaboration, and expanding access to subsidies. Despite a demonstrated collaborative spirit within the local community, SHs noted that existing managerial structures could benefit from refinement to better support cooperative initiatives. While irrigation systems were already in place, stakeholders recognized that water management BMPs need to be modernized to better address current and future challenges.

Sudan presented a unique case, with brokerage results showing that the local community has a strong sociopolitical and cultural structure, and SHs expressed little need for changes in these aspects. The Group Evaluation Sheet indicated a high level of collaboration and organizational capacity among Sudanese SHs. The agricultural system in Sudan heavily relies on the Gezira Irrigation Scheme, which local SHs regarded as the primary BMP requiring improvement, rather than developing entirely new BMPs. While various BMPs were in use, SHs identified a general lack of scientific understanding of their effectiveness, limiting their application primarily to the farm level.

Although the community demonstrated the technical expertise needed to maintain the Gezira Scheme, SHs acknowledged the need to improve the sociopolitical and economic context to support its sustainability. Some SHs expressed a desire to modify the government-regulated crop scheme within the Gezira framework to better align with local demands, with certain farmers open to diversifying into novel cash crops. Additionally, SHs showed interest in adopting precision agriculture and adding value through secondary products from crop waste. Climate change was recognized as a pressing issue, yet SHs felt that addressing it effectively would require strong collaboration with government bodies. Overall, SHs in Sudan indicated a need for increased flexibility in organization and delegation, along with enhancements to the Gezira Scheme’s infrastructure, management, and overall organization.

Through this targeted approach, we aimed to create a BMP implementation roadmap that each community could follow with confidence, knowing that the recommended practices were carefully selected to meet their specific needs and enhance their existing group dynamics. By bridging the gap between community needs, group orientations, and suitable BMPs, this methodology facilitates a more adaptive, resilient, and community-centered approach to sustainable agriculture in Eastern Africa. The matching process not only maximizes the relevance of BMPs but also empowers communities by aligning external support with their self-identified priorities, promoting long-term engagement and sustainable outcomes.

4.3. Matching BMPs to Communities’ Needs and Orientations

This activity aimed to systematically match the unique needs and group orientations of local communities with an extensive repository of best management practices (BMPs). The goal was to ensure that BMPs were not only technically suitable but also contextually relevant to each community’s specific socioeconomic and environmental challenges (

Table 3. Needs and Group Evaluation scores, based on brokerage outputs.

Score	Interpretation
−2	No need (or change) is required (accepted)
−1	Limited need (or change) is felt (possible)
0	Equally accepted, but not considered as priority
1	Relatively important where changes are welcome
2	Priority where the need for change is felt critical

). By aligning BMPs with the expressed priorities and organizational capacities of local stakeholders, this approach seeks to facilitate the adoption of practices that are sustainable, socially accepted, and effective at addressing both immediate and long-term needs.

To achieve this, a detailed assessment process was undertaken across those communities in East Africa. Each community’s needs, as identified through brokerage discussions, were first mapped to key thematic areas, such as water management, soil health, crop diversity, and economic resilience. For each theme, stakeholders outlined pressing challenges. For instance, low soil organic matter in Egypt, water distribution issues in Ethiopia and Kenya, and infrastructure limitations in Sudan’s Gezira Scheme.

The collected BMPs in the repository were then reviewed and filtered based on their potential to address these community-specific challenges. Each BMP was assessed not only on its technical merit but also on its alignment with the community’s current organizational dynamics, resource availability, and willingness to engage in collective action. For example, BMPs that required high levels of coordination were recommended for communities with strong existing cooperative structures, such as Sudan. Conversely, communities with less cohesive structures, like Egypt, were matched with BMPs that could be implemented at the individual farm level or that required minimal coordination, while still addressing critical needs, such as soil fertility improvement and efficient water use.

The purpose of this matching process (

Table 4. Best management practices to be simulated in each case study, according to local partners.

Best Management Practice	Egypt	Ethiopia	Kenya	Sudan
Intercropping trees and crops/agroforestry	X	X	X
Improved crops (rotation/improved seeds)		X		X
Improved fertilization (manuring)	X
WUA priority: manage crop selection				X
WUA priority: manage water resource use	X
WUA priority: manage irrigation schedule		X	X

WUA: Water Users Association.

) was to foster BMP adoption that would be both practical and impactful, reducing the likelihood of failure due to misalignment with local capacities and priorities.

In Egypt, the main issues revealed were weak water management and administrative systems, insufficient investment in soil improvement, poor crop management practices, and weak governance marked by limited farmer collaboration. Additionally, knowledge dissemination remains narrow, and there is a lack of awareness about the harmful impacts of overusing pesticides and fertilizers, as well as the potential benefits of existing BMPs. The envisioned solutions in Egypt included improving water availability and use efficiency, conserving and enhancing soil fertility, and raising nutrient use efficiency for crops, and building capacity from top to bottom, focusing on leadership and governance, was also prioritized. Sustainable soil management and fostering community awareness about risks associated with agrochemical overuse are essential as well.

In Kenya, where SHs expressed a collaborative spirit but indicated challenges related to water management systems, soil erosion problems, water management issues, limited concern for soil management practices, and poor investments in land improvement due to a restrictive land tenancy system, BMPs focused on water management improvements and soil health were selected alongside tools for better record-keeping and communication strategies. Policy conflicts between county and national governments over irrigation land administration exacerbate these problems, and climate change remains a concern, although there is a lack of in-depth knowledge on the subject. Infrastructure issues related to irrigation design and maintenance are also pressing. Proposed solutions included conserving soil, enhancing fertility, and improving water use efficiency, along with efforts to ensure carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Analyzing and harmonizing policies to resolve conflicts and improve agricultural productivity is also a key priority.

In Sudan, challenges included weak water management, ineffective crop management practices leading to low yields, and a limited understanding of climate change, despite community concern. There is also a need for increased flexibility, allowing farmers greater autonomy in land management, and for upgrading the infrastructure of the Gezira Irrigation Scheme. Envisioned solutions involved improving water availability and use efficiency, optimizing nutrient use efficiency, and enhancing crop yields. Introducing new cash crops, such as soybeans, and focusing on carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reduction are additional goals that could contribute to a more resilient agricultural sector in Sudan.

In Ethiopia, where stakeholders identified soil fertility and erosion problems, a lack of knowledge about the pesticides used, governance issues, imbalanced water resource management, and a need for comprehensive system optimization, BMPs that included soil health improvement, erosion control practices, and sustainable pesticide application training were emphasized. There is a need to improve water management, reassess shared resource allocation, and implement crop rotation strategies aligned with market demands. The suggested BMPs for Ethiopia focused on establishing controlled crop rotation according to market needs, implementing the intercropping trees with crops, and optimizing the use of water resources.

Following the identification of these specific challenges and goals, the BMP repository was assessed to align practices with each community’s conditions and priorities. For instance, in Egypt, BMPs that promote soil fertility, efficient water use, and collaborative governance structures were prioritized. In Kenya, BMPs that integrate soil conservation, water efficiency, and policy alignment were recommended, while in Sudan, the focus was on upgrading irrigation systems, introducing resilient cash crops, and enhancing carbon management. In Ethiopia, BMPs tailored to optimize water distribution and address governance and crop rotation needs were emphasized.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The collaborative bottom-up and top-down approach used in this project allowed for a tailored, contextually relevant strategy to address agricultural challenges across Eastern African communities. By engaging local stakeholders, decision-makers, and experts through a series of phases, we identified best management practices (BMPs) that were responsive to the unique socioeconomic, environmental, and governance challenges in each region.

This approach aligns with recent literature emphasizing participatory frameworks for sustainable land management. Seminal works, such as FAO 2018 [44], Barreteau 2010 [45], Raymond 2017 [46], and Osumba 2021 [47], advocated for the integration of local knowledge and farmer engagement in agricultural policy design. Our findings reaffirmed these perspectives: participatory processes significantly enhanced the relevance, acceptance, and sustainability of BMPs. In particular, our results underscored how community involvement fosters innovation, improves policy effectiveness, and encourages the adoption of climate-resilient practices—conclusions echoed in the broader literature.

To support the transformation toward resilient and sustainable agricultural systems in Eastern Africa, several targeted recommendations emerged from the collaborative process. First, enhancing local capacity and fostering knowledge sharing are essential steps. Strengthening governance and communication, especially in Egypt and Kenya, where institutional fragmentation hinders coordination, is also critical. As recommended in the FAO 2022 [48] report on land governance and inclusive development, governments should promote leadership and capacity-building initiatives that empower communities, especially youth and women, to engage actively in local land use planning.

Promoting sustainable soil and water management practices is also vital. In Egypt, increasing soil organic matter through techniques like cover cropping and organic amendments can enhance soil health, while in Kenya, Sudan, and Ethiopia, optimizing irrigation infrastructure and equitable water distribution are crucial for addressing scarcity. In addition, aligning BMPs with local policy and market demands is necessary to ensure effective integration within regional contexts. For instance, Kenya would benefit from policy harmonization between county and national governments to resolve conflicting regulations impacting agricultural practices. Sudan could benefit from revising its crop scheme to include resilient cash crops that better respond to market needs, providing economic flexibility and adaptability.

Strengthening farmer organizations, especially in Ethiopia, could reinforce social learning and scale up BMP adoption. Broadly, integrating climate-smart techniques—such as crop rotation, erosion control, agroforestry, and minimal tillage—will help mitigate risks and enhance carbon sequestration. Finally, the establishment of a robust BMP monitoring and feedback system is essential for adaptive management and long-term effectiveness, as also recommended by the FAO (2018) [44]. Establishing a comprehensive BMP monitoring and evaluation framework can ensure that practices remain effective and adaptable to changing local conditions. A robust feedback loop would allow for adaptive management, providing communities the flexibility to adjust BMPs as climate variability and socioeconomic factors evolve. Together, these recommendations offer a pathway toward community-driven, sustainable agricultural systems that are resilient in the face of environmental challenges, promoting food security and economic stability across East Africa.