**7. Conclusions**

Modernizing technologies literally bring scientific breakthroughs to life in ways that reduce risks and better manage cause-to-effect relationships. Technology transfer determines how this modernization occurs as a process involving a wide assortment of stakeholders from government, the private sector, financial institutions, and research, civil, and educational institutions [41]. This process intends to work on behalf of both the holders of technologies and those who stand to benefit from them most. In the case of climate action through the deployment of agricultural technologies, these users are primarily land managers directed toward larger global needs through practical self-interest, mainly acquisition of more secure harvests and greater protection of farm resources. Policies may set the stage for change, but ultimately environmental gains are achieved through combinations of purchased inputs and improved management practice, with each category representing a different type of technology holder. Input delivery is largely the concern of the private sector in terms of commercial distribution; and management practices are influenced by agricultural service providers, including public extension. Change is quickest when the two work in conjunction, and this forms both a challenge and opportunity to the design of rural development projects.

Two large regional programs of the African Development Bank are well positioned to benefit from the technologies and deployment approaches described in this chapter, The Programme for Integrated Development and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Niger Basin (PIDACC [6]) and The Horn of Africa Project. PIDACC is funded through the Niger River Authority and TAAT is one of its funded partners. It covers nine countries in the Niger River Basin: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Cote D'Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger, and Nigeria. Its activities include climate-smart technologies related to rice, maize, wheat, as well as soil and water management applied at the field, household, and landscape levels. It operates under the premise that farmers who adopt and exchange improved crop varieties, proactively manage pest outbreaks, better utilize water resources, and maintain soil fertility are in a much stronger position to secure food and income for their families and protect their agricultural resource base.

Horn of Africa is an AfDB regional project at an advanced stage of preparation. Its partner countries will deploy proven, climate-smart agriculture technologies across Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan from 2022 to 2028. The objective of the project is to build resilient food and nutrition insecurity and climate change response, engage women and youth, and reinforce peace and security across the Horn of Africa. Specifically, it aims to (1) improve agro-sylvo-pastoral

productivity, (2) increase incomes from that production, and (3) enhance the adaptive capacity of the populations to better prepare for and manage climate risks. Clearly, the right technologies, including those featured in this chapter, are required to achieve these goals. AfDB is also leveraging co-financing from major climate funds in ways that can impact upon UNFCCC Nationally Determined Commitments.

There is a strong relationship between dryland soil and water management technologies available to small-scale farmers and the need for climate action in the Sahel and elsewhere [19]. Within the context of risk reduction, many of the technologies appearing in this chapter are intended to adapt to climate extremes, particularly higher temperatures, moderate drought, and erratic and intense rainfall. These adaptive technologies are particularly important at the field and household level. Farmers that better capture rainfall or protect their cropland soils from wind and water erosion are better able to feed their families. The same is true for communities that adopt and exchange improved seed of open pollinated cereals such as millet and sorghum. In this way, adaptation to climate extremes offers a "drawdown" of greenhouse gasses that are accumulating in the atmosphere.

The most direct mitigative effects are to increase standing biomass and to manage that biomass in ways that become sequestered into soil organic matter and woody biomass. This is readily feasible using improved soil and water management practices across large areas of land over sufficient times to realize these gains. In general, about 50% of increased productivity is carbon and a small proportion of that enters the soil as residues for longer-term retention. One means to greatly increase standing biomass is to move from rainfed to irrigated agriculture, and another is to rehabilitate lands that are degraded and overgrazed. It is possible to combine adaptive and mitigative technologies as when bunds intended to capture water and reduce erosion are planted with perennial vegetation. Also, the same contour structures used to protect croplands may be constructed in adjacent rangeland to assist in the re-establishment of native vegetation. At the same time, carbon gains in rangelands must be weighed against the increased livestock carrying capacity and the methane they release through digestion.

Substantial opportunity for carbon gains across landscapes exists through the steady transition from open-field cultivation to managed parklands, often through the introduction of economically useful trees. The agroforestry techniques to achieve this transition are well described. Re-vegetation has a transnational dimension through the ambitious Great Green Wall for the Sahel and Sahara Initiative to act as a barrier to further desertification [42]. Another proactive mitigation response occurs through bio-digestion in terms of fossil fuel replacement. One huge advantage of mitigation over adaptation is that quantified carbon gains may then be offered for sale and traded with polluters as a condition of their continued emissions. Another is that they can be applied to the Nationally Determined Contributions of countries within climate agreements [43]. Ultimately, rural development projects and climate actions must be viewed as one and the same.

### **Acknowledgements**

Information on these technologies described in this paper was provided by TAAT Compact and Enabler Leaders: Dougbedji Fatondji from ICRISAT for millet and sorghum, Zewdie Bishaw from ICARDA for wheat, Jonga Munyaradzi from AATF for maize, Sander Zwart from IWMI for water management, and Jean Ekwe Dossa

*Blending Climate Action and Rural Development in Africa's Sahel DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.103817*

from IFDC. Olanrewaju Eniola Olamide graciously provided assistance in formatting this document. The TAAT Clearinghouse is supported through a project of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the accompanying TAAT Program is funded by the African Development Fund of the African Development Bank. The "Investment Landscape" database of the University of Washington described in Section 6 is also a funded development of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
