Sustainable intensification of maize-legume-livestock integrated farming systems in Eastern and Southern Africa

IITA-Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 6-9 Feb 2012

CAADP-CGIAR Program Alignment: Technical Framework

M&E Guiding Principles• FtF Compliance: Conform to the FtF core indicators• Multi-scale, Multi-site reporting: Meet broad stakeholder needs and

support multi-scale/multi-site M&E through;– Action-site, sub-system and system reporting– Country reports: Breakout of site reports to serve national stakeholder needs– Regional Site-reports: for each of the three regional SI program sites– SSA-reports: cross-system reporting and SI-wide “roll-up” of indicators across:

Sudano-Sahelian zone, Ethiopian Highlands, Eastern and Southern Africa• Monitoring & projection: Provide monitoring reports and short-term

projections (targets) of key M&E indicators for intervention sites in project “Zone of Influence”, updated annually

• Scaling indicators up and out (spatial & temporal): Use a range of biophysical, bio-economic , market and welfare models for ex ante analysis of output, outcome, and impact indicators. – Keywords: extrapolation, aggregation, tradeoffs, spillover potential,

sustainability, welfare and environmental goals• Open-access data and analysis platform: Maintain a transparent,

open-access M&E data management and analysis platform to serve the needs of SI stakeholders

Key Activities for M&E•Stocktaking: Inventory (and mapping) of partner sites and SI component innovations. Characterization of sites & innovations•Stratification and diagnosis of target systems/geographies: Highlight key differences in initial conditions, drivers of change, and SI-related constraints or opportunities•Identification of potential sites: That are representative of the identified stratification and cost-effective for implementation.•Map proposed activities and outcomes into M&E indicators.•Design & conduct baseline and periodic surveys: Using secondary data sources where possible (e.g. NSO/MoA, DHS, LSMS, CRP surveys)•Maintaining an Innovation Inventory: To enable discovery and delivery of innovation options project-wide.•Establish a Linked Model/Evaluation capacity: To support M&E reporting cycle of outcome and impact indicators (e.g., up/out-scaling and projections with and w/o SI interventions) •Impact/Attribution assessment: To the standards required (ex post studies)

OUTCOMESMore efficient,

productive, & resilient production systems

ASSUMPTIONSAvailable /Adaptable

Innovation Components

Willing, capable, relevant partners/users engaged

Significant SI gains from systems-focused

component integration

Quick wins/lessons are feasible, focus long-term

Innovative & tractable implementation models

can be applied

CAADP

I

II

III

IV

ALIGNED

Delivery mechanisms integral to project design

and implementation

Scaling up/out and maximising spillovers are

part of project design

More effective use of land, water,

biod’vrsty resources

Greater, more equitable returns to hh labour and assets

Improved household nutrition (esp W&C)

Better served and more efficient value

chains

Project Assumptions, Outcomes, Impacts, & FtF Indicators

Improved research methods,

partnership and delivery modelsM&E

WomenEmpowered

Prices

Poverty

IncomeHunger/Nutrition

Stable/Re-generating

environment

Increased value-added, jobs & trade

Increased food, feed,

fodder

Sector Growth

4

1

1

1

1

Aware, engaged, empowered, farmers & service providers

21

3

9

1

1

1. Foresighting activity. Stakeholder vision of 15-20 year outcomes for target systems and geographies

2. Geographic (problem/intervention domain) stratification. Identifying problem domains that reflect key differences in initial conditions (status and trends) and drivers of change.

Potential Stratification and Experimental Design Framework*

* Sustainable Intensification Hypothesis Group, Addis Meeting

Geographic Stratification of Target Systems/Areas

Source: Site Selection Group. Addis SI Workshop, Feb 2012

1. Foresighting activity. Stakeholder vision of 15-20 year outcomes for target systems and geographies

2. Geographic (problem/intervention domain) stratification. Identifying problem domains that reflect key differences in initial conditions (status and trends) and drivers of change.

3. Site-specific (farm/landscape) stratification. Sustainability and Intensification stratification within each geographic domain

4. Articulate & test potential SI trajectories within geographic and site-specific strata

Potential Stratification and Experimental Design Framework*

* Sustainable Intensification Hypothesis Group, Addis Meeting

Stratification & SI Trajectories

RainfedAg. Potential

Hi-Hi

Lo-HiLo-Lo

Hi-Lo

Market PotentialPop. density

* Sustainable Intensification Hypothesis Group, Addis Meeting

Geographic Stratification

Hi-Hi

Lo-HiLo-Lo

Hi-Lo

Sustainability Index

Intensification Index

Farm/Landscape Stratification

Prototype Intensification Index

Source: Based on Agricultural Sample Enumeration 2001-2

Farm-Scale Crop Enterprises (Tanzania)

01

.0e+

062

.0e+

06#

of h

ous

eho

lds

mille

t

maiz

e,pa

ddy

sorg

hum

,bea

ns

maiz

e,pa

ddy,g

roun

dnut

,bea

ns

maiz

e,m

illet

maiz

e,pe

as

maiz

e,so

rghu

m

padd

y,be

ans

maiz

e,so

rghu

m,b

eans

maiz

e,pa

ddy,b

eans

maiz

e,gr

ound

nut

maiz

e

rural Tanzania# of households growing

Source: Based on Tanzania Agricultural Census 2007-08 (based on minimum land area allocation or 0.02ha per crop)

ElevationSlope, aspect, drainageSettlements, ports, marketsRoad, rail, river, ICT networksMarket travel times & costs

Hunger, Poverty & Productivity Spatial Covariates/Proxies & Analytical Flow

Port travel times & costs

Terrain, Demography,Infrastructure, Admin Units

ProductionEnvironment &

Constraints

ProductionSystems &

Performance

Interventions/Responses

Agroecological ZonesCropland extent & intensityPests & Diseases (Maize Stem Borer)Drought Incidence & SeverityRunoffAdministrative Units Farming SystemsCrop Suitability: Rainfed WheatCrop Distribution & YieldsValue of Production per Rural Person

NA

010

2030

40

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

100 80 60 40 20 0

IrrigationThreshold

% of AvailableSoil Water

MaizeYield

Potentialt[DM]/ha

Fertilizer Application Ratekg[N]/ha

Yield Responses to Inputs, Management, CCProfitability of small scale irrigationQuantity of Nutrients RemovedFertilizer ProfitabilityDistribution of Welfare Benefits

Linkage toMacroModels

Aggregate to FPUs

Source: HarvestChoice/IFPRI 2010

RAIN

FED

WH

EAT

1. A

gro-

clim

atic

suita

bilit

y

RecommendedFertilizer Rate

No Fertilizer

2.Yi

eld

resp

onse

s to

ferti

lizer

High : 8000

Low : 1

Mean Yield (kg/ha)

4000

3.M

odel

ing

of fa

rm-g

ate

pric

es Transport cost: Port toFarm-gate

Transport cost: Capital to Farm-gate

Wheat farming enterprise data

050

100150200250300350400450

Whe

at p

rice

(US$

/ton

)

Nominal world wheat price Real world wheat price

International wheat and fertilizer prices

4.Pr

ofita

bilit

y an

alys

is

Profitability Sensitivity AnalysisTool (Excel)

Variety: Digelu Variety: Veery

Yield Yield

No fert.

100% Rec. Fert.

No fert.

100% Rec. Fert.

Net Economic Return and Potential Production

Country Net economic return (US $/ Ha) Incremental net economic return (% )

T0 T1 T2 T0 to T1 T0 to T2 T1 to T2

Angola -198.60 -85.75 -22.11 56.82 88.87 74.22

Burundi 753.11 1096.98 1362.42 45.66 80.91 24.20

Ethiopia 59.62 173.80 233.87 191.51 292.27 34.56

Kenya 741.03 976.46 1160.50 31.77 56.61 18.85

Madagascar 161.46 239.31 267.92 48.22 65.94 11.96

Mozambique -46.94 29.15 39.20 162.10 183.51 34.48

Rwanda 1131.30 1377.55 1566.96 21.77 38.51 13.75

Tanzania 379.00 554.67 658.47 46.35 73.74 18.71

DRC 171.67 347.30 454.33 102.31 164.65 30.82

Uganda 639.29 903.64 1103.94 41.35 72.68 22.17

Zambia 67.72 310.20 449.48 358.06 563.73 44.90

Zimbabwe -25.72 236.49 400.16 1019.48 1655.83 69.21

Source: CIMMYT – HarvestChoice/IFPRI “Wheat Potential for Africa “ (2011 draft)

Maize-Legume Analytical Tools

Source: HarvestChoice/IFPRI Prototype SIMLESA simulations (2010)

M&E Implementation to date

• Target area stratification and site selection• Establishing core FtF M&E obligations• Recruiting an M&E Coordinator• Building an M&E implementation community

(especially with national and local partners)• Designing an open-access, web-based M&E

data and analysis platform • Planning annual M&E technical meetings

3-9 Months

9-12 Months

West Africa: Year 1 M&E Timeline

✔1-3

Months

Target Area Characterization/Site selection

ComponentInventory

Map Activities-> M&E Indicators

Survey Design

Baseline Surveys

Component DB

Potential Impact Evaluation: Scaling Out & Projection

ProgramM&E Plan

Site/Station (& R&D) Inventory

• Station Location (if known, Lat:___ Long: ___)– Location Name: ________________________________– District: _____________ Region: __________________

• Site/Station Full Name: ______________________• Institution: ________________________________• Technologies/Practices tested/demonstrated

• Contact details

Issues/Questions• What is the appropriate split of M&E roles between the M & the E? (e.g.,

strong interest in early assessments of outcomes and spillover potential)• What is the likely cost of meeting donor’s minimum reporting needs?• How to ensure CAADP alignment (e.g. components selected on basis of

elicited demand or available supply?)• What are Site Implementation VS Program wide M&E needs/roles?

e.g., IITA-lead Tanzania “M&E” plans VS IFPRI-lead SSA M&Ee.g., How will “Tanzania efforts” efforts be coordinated? Who should program M&E be in dialog with?

• Establishing shared roles in data and tool development, access and application across program partners and stakeholders

e.g. obtaining appropriate cross-fertilization in site selection, field data collection, annual reporting/analysis?

• What interest in engaging actively in a program M&E community (especially from national partners)?

• Who are likely candidates for M&E Coordinator position?