scaling up icraf
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
The Science of Scaling Up: An Agroforestry Perspective
Tony Simons, Sileshi Weldesemayat, Zac Tchoundjeu, Jianchu Xu, Meinevan Noordwijk, Beria Leimona, Anne Degrande and Steve Franzel
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)October 2011
T1 T2S
Selection of putative cultivars of Uapacafor fresh fruit and product market ideotypes: Zimbabwe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fresh w eight (g)
TSS(% brix)
Pulp content %Seed w eight (g)
Shell w eight (g)
ICR02ShangwaZW1ICR02NgazimbiZW2ICR02BaynesHopeFarmZW3ICR02GrinokFarmZW4ICR02ChadengaZW6ICR02ChimaniZW8ICR02ChimaniZW9ICR02ChimaniZW10ICR02ChikwatiZW11ICR02MapangaZW12ICR02ChadengaZW7ICR02MugwisiZW18ICR02MugwisiZW20ICR02ChikumeZW23ICR02ChikumeZW25ICR02UrandaZW26ICR02UrandaZW28ICR02UrandaZW29ICR02UrandaZW30ICR02Uranda ZW31ICR03NyavaZW32ICR03NyavaZW35ICR03NyavaZW36ICR03NyavaZW37ICR03NyavaZW38ICR03NyavaZW39ICR03NyavaZW41ICR03MafaZW40ICR03MafaZW42ICR03MafaZW43ICR03MafaZW44ICR03MafaZW47ICR03MafaZW51ICR03MafaZW52ICR03BingaguruZW53ICR03BingaguruZW54ICR03BingaguruZW55ICR03BingaguruZW56ICR03BingaguruZW57ICR03BingaguruZW58ICR03BingaguruZW59ICR03BingaguruZW60ICR03BingaguruZW61ICR03BingaguruZW62ICR03BingaguruZW63ICR03BingaguruZW64ICR03BingaguruZW65ICR03BingaguruZW66
6
The Science of Scaling UpScience (noun) – to know, knowledge
Scaling up – to bring more benefits to more people, more quickly and more lastingly √ Multiplying and disseminating a new maize variety
?? Payment for environmental services
?? Agroecosystems improvement approach
?? Climate Smart Agriculture
Google Scholar
Extension - 3,810,000 urls
Dissemination - 992,000 urls
Technology transfer - 522,000 urls
Scaling up - 148,000 urls
Science of scaling up - 15 urls
Time (years)
Research(building of knowledge)
Impact Pathway Paradigm
Development(application of knowledge)
Time (years)
Research(building of knowledge)
Development(proof of application &
application of knowledge)
New Impact Pathway Paradigm
http://www.expandnet.net/PDFs/ExpandNet-WHO%20Nine%20Step%20Guide%20published.pdf
ExpandNet is a global network of public health professionals and scientists seeking to advance the practice and science of scaling up successful health service innovations tested in experimental, pilot and demonstration projects.
Scaling up defined
ExpandNet defines scaling up as "deliberate efforts to increase the impact of health innovations tested in pilot or experimental projects so as to benefit more people and to foster policy and program development on a lasting basis." This definition is more specific than when the term is used in a general sense to mean broadening the impact of existing or new practices.
Research DimensionWhy ??????What ?????Where ????When ???HOW X
Extension, Scaling Up
Best Bet, Good Practice, Guideline
Why not use Principles for Research in Scaling Up?
1. Problem based (utility, not pure curiousity)
2. Testing a hypothesis, construct, paradigm
3. Systematic/experimental approach
4. Observations (repeated)
5. Independent thinking, deductive reasoning
6. Documented and shared
7. Undergoes critical peer review (credible)
8. Validated, revalidated (robustness)
9. Unplanned serendipity
10.Progressive, building on base of knowledge, zero fraud
Low-protein feed a critical constraint for East Africa’s 2 million dairy farmers
• Milk demand is rising rapidly
• Smallholders rely on cut and carry dairy systems
• Commercial dairy meal is the main protein source
• Fodder shrubs meet a critical farmer need: a protein source that can be grown at home at low cost
Case Study on Fodder Trees
The Scaling Up Problem
• Early 2000s: Rapid adoption around research stations but little spread to new areas
• Why?– Fodder shrubs are “knowledge-intensive” practices, they
require new knowledge and skills – Lack of seed– Extension staff lacked training
• So we tested 5 key extension approaches to an experimental sample of 200,000 farmers (10% of total dairy popn)
Five key extension approaches1. Extension facilitators
•ICRAF and National Research Institutes recruited Extension Facilitators to backstop extension services promoting fodder shrubs•One facilitator, over a 3 year period, assisted •22 government, NGO and private sector partners,
• 180 farmer groups and• 3,200 farmers to establish • 250 nurseries.
Projects/NGOs Government
ICRAF
Small DairyFarmers
Projects/NGOs
Small DairyFarmers
Small Seed Producers
Seed Dealers/
Producers
WesternKenya
Central Kenya
2. Linking seed supply to demand: market chain for calliandra seed
Problems: 1. Seed producers notlinked to final demand
2. Little seed produc-tion in area of demand3. Free seed a disincentiveto market seed
Projects/NGOs KEFRIICRAF
Small DairyFarmers
Projects/NGOs
Small DairyFarmers
Small Seed Producers
Seed Dealers
WesternKenya
Central Kenya
Dairy firmsDairy societiesSeed stockists
Small Seed Producers/
Vendors
Market Chain for calliandra seed (present)
Sold 3.8 t seed in 2007,
sufficient for >100,000
farmers to plant
3. Partnerships
• After ICRAF-NARS research, over 224 organizations across 4 East African countries were promoting fodder shrubs
• 5 large NGOs helped about 60,000 farmers to plant fodder shrubs in East Africa – Strong extension staff– Usually worked with
farmer groups
4. Farmer-to-farmer dissemination
• Survey of 94 adopters 3 years after planting, • 53% of adopters gave seed, seedlings, or wildings to other
farmers• To how many farmers? On average 6.3• ‘Master disseminators’ dominate the process:• 5% of farmers accounted for 66% of dissemination
• Master disseminators are community members motivated by wish to
– Help others (90%)– Improve social status (33%)– Earn cash (13%)
Fig 1: Results of a survey of fodder shrub adopters to assess overlap between experts,
innovators, and disseminators (n=126)
Experts (48) Disseminators (44)
Innovators 46
14
17 5 15
12 6 9
Finding: 40% of expertsare not gooddisseminators
5. Volunteer farmer trainers: the example of the East Africa Dairy Development Program: Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda
•Over 1000 volunteer farmer trainers training farmers in improved feed systems for dairy cows, including fodder shrubs•Over 40% are women•Trainers receive training and host a demo plot•They are not paid and receive no material support, aside from a bag and a t-shirt
World Agroforestry Centre
Case Study 2: Irish Aid Funded AFSP in Malawi
Four million Euro (2007-2010), 200,000 farmers Facilitation of a consortium of partners (DAES, DARS, LRCD, DALH, FD, NASFAM, MZUNI, UNIMA & NGOs)ICRAF’s Role: Knowledge broker, planning & coordination, facilitate training, ensure quality germplasm, M&E, reporting. Outputs: capacity built, lessons (IPGs)Outcome: change in adoption, knowledge and skills,
Financial profitability of maize over a five-year
cycle in ZambiaProduction system Net
profit(US$/ha)
Benefit Cost ratio
Return to Labour ($/person day)
Unfertilized maize 130 2.01 1.10
Fertilized 349 1.77 2.53
Gliricidia intercropping)
269 2.91 2.51
Sesbania improved fallow
309 3.13 2.49
Tephrosia improved fallow
233 2.77 1.91
New Cultivar Development for Masuku (Uapaca kirkiana)
Earlier fruiting, bigger fruits, heavy fruit loads, smaller trees and uniform quality
A superior cultivar (fruited after 4 yrs.)
Variations
Fertilizer trees promoted based on suitability in the maize-mixed farming system
Tephrosia SesbaniaGliricidia Pigeon pea
The activities are implemented by a number of partners in Malawi
DAES
MZUNI
DARS FD
NASFAMCWW
DAHLD
UNIMA
ICRAF
LRCDSSLPP
Land ‘o’ Lakes
OSED
SHA
FAIR
COOPI
Irish Aid
MDFA, CREMPA SHMPA
Livingstoniasynod DP
CU
IDEAA
FUM
CRS
CADECOM
DCP
ICRISAT
1. Control + treatment farms, groups, villages, districts
2. Monitor covariance for location, farm traits, gender
3. Fodder, fertiliser, fruit, fuelwood trees as technologies
4. Test different partners
5. Test different group approaches of beneficiaries (nurseries)
Researching Scale Up in Malawi AF
Key innovations and use by beneficiaries
Tree type Innovation Species # Beneficiaries in Malawi
Target farming system
Fertilizer Under-sowing, rotational fallow
Cajanus, Tephrosia, Sesbania
166,156 Maize-mixed
Intercropping Gliricidia 14,314Dispersed plan Faidherbia 36,357
Fruit Dispersed or block planting
Mango, citrus, guava, indigenous sp
10,543 Non-specific
Fodder Contour, block Leucaena, Caliandra 22,111 Agro-pastoral
Woodlot Firewood Senna, Acacia 14,524 Non-specific
Timber Khaya 208
REDD = Reducing emissions from deforestation
Beneficiaries of AFSP (According to ICRAF report)
2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
# of farmers reached 42,419 65,522 91,022 37,656 184,463
Seed distributed (kg) 24,000 54,000 17,500 9,600 105,100
According to external evaluation by the Centre for Independent Evaluation (CIE), the AFSP has covered 92% of the targeted beneficiaries.
“From our sample, nearly 70% of the beneficiaries had received training” (CIE report)
The external evaluation team (CIE) concluded that the AFSP has
Improved household food security, nutrition and dietary diversity
Mzimba Dedza Thyolo Mulanje Salima0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
AFSP beneficiaryNon-beneficiary
Mai
ze y
ield
(t/h
a)
Maize yield Number of food secure months
All data and figures from household survey by CIE
The external evaluation team (CIE) concluded that the AFSP has
Improved household food security, nutrition and dietary diversityNutrition: Dietary diversity score
All data and figures from household survey by CIE
Food availability
Mzimba Dedza Thyolo Mulanje Salima0
20
40
60
80
100AFSP beneficiaryNon-beneficiary
Perc
ent r
espo
nden
ts w
ho p
erce
ive
food
av
aila
bilit
y ha
s in
crea
sed
Bac Kan
IFAD RUPES SITES IN ASIA
covering 12 sites in 8 countries
Soil conservation activities
Sediment pits: 300 per hectare, standard dimensions size: 100x150x40 cm evenly distributed
Ridging: 50 percent of plot Vegetation strips: surrounding pits and
ridging Maintaining all the land conservation
structure above for a year.
Payment schedule
50 percent at inception; 50 percent at one year contingent on performance
Duration and monitoring
One year with monitoring every three months; termination if 50% contracted activities not completed by midterm monitoring date
Cancellation or non-compliance results in: ineligibility for second payment installation friction and conflict among community members indication of corruption
Force majeur provision for contract terms in the event of natural disasters
Conservation Contract
Supply curve resulting from reverse auction
Jack, Leimona and Ferraro (2008)
Results
• Total participants from 2 villages: 82 farmers bidding on 70 hectares
• Participants received contracts for soil conservation: 34 farmers on 25 hectares
• Average price of contract: USD 171.70 per hectare yearly – labor requirements of contract based on
wages approximately USD 300 – Past investment for soil conservation
activities from survey USD 225
Auction Outcomes Site 1 Site 2 Pooled Pooled (without
outlier)Number of
participants48 34 82
Number of winners 19 15 34
Number of hectares contracted
10.75 14.25 25
Contract price per hectare (USD)
172 161 166
Median bid 215 161 176
Mean bid 301 260 284 255
Minimum bid 97 65 65 65
Maximum bid 2,688 753 2,688 1,075
Std deviation bid 405 195 334 199
Final auction outcomes from 2 pilot sites
Discussion• The rate of accomplishment at the final
monitoring was moderate. – lack of leadership and coordination among farmer
group members, – difficulty in finding grass seedlings to accomplish
the contract, and – coincidence with coffee harvesting time.
• In this specific case, private contract tends to be more successful compared to collective contract when leadership is lacking or “champion” among the community members does not exist.
– Institutional aspects and contract flexibility might influence the accomplishment of conservation efforts.
– Analysis showed that there were no significant differences in level of understanding, complexity, and competitiveness and conservation awareness between compliant and non‑compliant farmers.
What are factors induced a high accomplishment rate?
• A limitation of this study is that all units of the pilot site were treated as homogeneous, with respect to their contribution to erosion and downstream sedimentation.
• For a larger scale allocation auction, modifications such as using supply curve information resulting from this procurement auction would be more appropriate.
– a reasonable platform for designing a scaled up fixed payment scheme, including differential rates and eligibility rules necessary for targeting participants.
How to make it work?
The design of an experimental auction should fit the purpose of overall objectives of a conservation program.
In this case, the challenge was to design and administer a fair auction for farmers with low formal education, prone to social conflicts, and influenced by power structures within their community.
How to make it work?
Palopo Cocoa Centre, Sulawesi
Case Study: Cocoa Rehabilitation
Cocoa Yields are too low
Source: Etude sur les revenus et les investissements des producteurs de café et de cacao en Côte d’Ivoire, Agrisystems Consortium, 2008
010203040506070
0-10
0
100-
200
200-
300
300-
400
400-
500
500-
600
600-
700
700-
800
800-
900
900-
1000
1000
-110
0
1100
-120
0
1200
-130
0
1300
-140
0
1400
-150
0
1500
-160
0
1600
-170
0
1700
-180
0
1800
-190
0
1900
-200
0
Yield classification (kg/ha)
Num
ber o
f plo
ts s
urve
yed
0.5 MT/ha
40
Cacao Sector Value Chain Volume-Based OpportunitiesVo
lum
e (K
g) /
Hec
tare
450
135
585
351
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Current Knowledge /Pesticides
Germplasm Fertilizer
Potential Impact of Volume-Based Gains on Farm Productivity
(Gains in kg/ha)
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
New Productivity – 1521 Kg/Ha
>3X
Opportunities Exist To Increase the Yields of Cacao Farms Three-Fold Through Productivity Improvements
cir2520.0cir195.1cir2409.2
cir316.0Tce08920.9cir12923.4shrs21shrs623.8ca79799532.3cir268cir15237.4shrs1338.5
cir6048.5cir139cir16550.1shrs251.3cir16257.7
cir4870.5
cir23085.4cir22886.1WRKY-0388.0cir68cir26193.5cir73cir269100.5
2cir1840.0
cir161cir11811.6cf97423915.7
cir143cir15928.9
cir10239.4WRKY-1445.0cir2946.5cf97288551.0
cir24953.3shrs354.7cir24460.4shrs2361.1cir24662.7cir27365.8cir28668.4shrs3469.0
Tce57480.1
cir27587.7cir26489.9cir2293.5RGH11cir19497.0
1cir2420.0cir2341.5cir2413.8cir2335.1Tce1959.4cir11711.2cir3314.5cir23714.8cir9520.6shrs3323.3cir3226.2cir4332.0cir1234.2
cir213cir20648.6
Tce38059.4
cir11575.3
4cir120cir1500.0cir1532.1cir1983.8TIR25.4cir1469.6cir2110.7cir19210.9cir6211.6cir4012.3cir24713.9cir20417.0Tce380A19.5cir18021.6cir17531.4cir28039.6cir28940.6cir7842.0cir26345.4cir21948.0cir25463.6cir13563.9cir12864.1cir14066.4shrs770.1shrs5cir22670.4cir13170.8cir20271.4cir14472.1ca79801873.0cir8179.5ca79546991.6
3WRKY-100.0cir1110.3cir2321.3cir1192.1shrs375.2shrs127.4shrs117.6cir14813.5shrs2218.2cir1021.5Tce03026.1cir196cir12326.8cir4227.7cir16931.5cir149cir25639.8cir17040.7shrs1947.7cir24548.8cir69WRKY-1149.1TIR452.3TIR352.6shrs463.7cir8767.6cir8073.0
cir109cir10184.9cir27485.3
5
cir1030.0cir1343.0cir1895.4
Tce48713.5cir2616.8
cir20023.0
cir211shrs2033.3cir22535.2
cir28245.1
cir151.1
8ca9728460.0cir1861.7cir277cir1163.2cir1794.4cir1775.7cir1478.0cir5510.2cir5612.4cir46cir18116.6
RGH422.8RGH526.1cir1333.1RGH137.4cir19043.7cir14144.1
7
cir790.0cir853.4
cir64cir9824.0cir28324.8
cir21232.8RGH2cir5836.4
cir845.0cir17847.5
cir16055.2cir15758.0cir3560.5cf97290967.0
cir2468.5cir25173.3cir3074.1cir16679.5cir25083.2cir12686.0cir10888.1cir26688.6cir72cir28794.6cir24395.4
9
cir60.0cir1361.5
5.4cir5310.5
cir7132.2cir27634.3
34.7cir2537.4
cir20954.3cir957.9cir29159.9
6
cir370.0cir2234.7RGH711.2RGH813.4
cir6123.3
cir10440.6cir15541.3
cir22957.8
10
Pod Number
Trunk Circumference
Pod Number & Wet Bean Weight
Witches’ Broom Resistance
Pod Weight
Frosty Pod Resistance & Wet Bean Weight
Bean Length
Jorquette Height
Frosty Pod Resistance
Bean Length, Seed Weight,Ovule Number, & Trunk Circumference
Black Pod
Bean Weight, Bean Thickness, Pod Weight & Pod Length
~40 identified QTLsin cacao
Illustrative Impact Pathway – Tree Crop Development in Cocoa
Compatible cocoadiversificationoptions developed
Reliable method to multiply cocoa clonally
Best practices for cocoa system/tree management
Demonstrations established
Extension materials produced
Training and extension events held
Cocoa policiesreformed
Progressive cocoa certification operational
Formation ofbetter producerassociations
Research Outcomes Dev OutcomesDevelopment OutputsResearch Outputs
Improved planting available
Germplasm multiplication blocks established
Policy barriersinvestigated and optionsformulated
Farmer perspectives,effect on women, incentive measuresunderstood Increased donor, regulator,
national government and local authority
awareness, investment and support
Fair, transparent and profitable market chains
operating at national and international levels
Policy dialogues
Increased cultivation of superior
varieties under better practices, with increased yields
Healthier /more diversified cocoa farms and
adjacent landscapes
Identify higher yielding andpest resistant clones
Farmer A withside graft old
Farmer B withside graft oldseedling graftchupon graft old
Farmer C withside graft oldchupon graft old
Farmer D withchupon graft old
Farmer E withseedling graftchupon graft old
Farmer F withseedling graft
Most farmers with no demos
CDCcore
CDC and associated demos (non-contiguous)- Side graft onto old tree- Chupon graft on old tree
- seedling graft (new planting)
CDC Core on Community Land
- trials- hybrid seed orchard 1.5ha
- budwood garden 1.5ha
Nursery production
Satellite nursery model(banana leaves shade, etc)
Water storage
Covered Meeting
Area
Storage sheds
Storage sheds
Fermentation/drying demos
Pruning, fertiliser demos
Clonal trial
Nursery production
Satellite nursery model(banana leaves shade, etc)
Water storage
Covered Meeting
Area
Storage sheds
Storage sheds
Fermentation/drying demos
Pruning, fertiliser demos
Clonal trial
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
CDC on Community Land
1 CDC supports 15-20 VCCs
1 VCC serves 50-100 farmers
1 farmer having 200-1000 improved trees
1 CDC for each 750-2000 farmers (av. 1200)
1 CDC leads to 240,000 – 1,200,000 (av. 600,000)
VCC
TARGET AREA = 300,000 farmers in greater Soubre
Reach with info and germplasmSay 70% farmers
Say 85% of farners test or adopt
Say 40% are early adopters ortesters
On a single farm
Maximumfinal areato new cocoa
First testarea
Secondexpansionarea Third
expansion area
Solar energy
Grass
Milk Cheese
Hay
Summer
Winter
These processes are vulnerable to climate
change
Alpine meadow
Permanent settlement
Transitional camp
Spring
Meat
Alpine Ecosystem is very Sensitive to Climate Change: Tibetan Plateau of China
Dung
Rangeland Carbon Project:Qinghai Province, Zeku county
Zeku county
Favorable context• institutions (land tenure, administration, herders organizations) • science and knowledge (baseline information, technical packages, strength of national institutes)
ICRAF did field research!
Methodology for Sustainable Grassland Management (SGM)
CAAS took leading role in standardization at national level (increased ownership from Chinese government)
Potential Scale-up in Africa, Central Asia and Mongolia for Climate Smart Agriculture
Semi-arid region in Africa, Central Asia, Mongolia & China
Potential scaling-up at regional level
Degrande A, Bwama Meyi M, Caspa R, Dibwe D, Asaah E, Biloso A, Okwu C and Tchoundjeu Z
World Agroforestry Centre (Cameroon, DRC, Nigeria), IFA-Yangambi (DRC), IRAD (Cameroon), INERA (DRC)
Rural Resource Centres Transform Lives and Landscapes through Participatory Tree
Domestication in West and Central Africa
Conceptual framework for disseminating agroforestry
Policy Support for Dissemination of
Tree Domestication
Institutional Development & Linkages
Increased TD uptake
Increased income of
rural households;
improved health &
nutrition; etc.
Germplasm
Knowledge &
Information
Human Capacitie
s
Skills development in areas such as nursery practices, group dynamics and marketing
Information and demonstration of new technologies and innovations
Access to market information
Links with market actors particularly from the private sector
A forum for exchange of information among farmers and between farmers and other stakeholders
Seed, seedlings and other inputs
Key services that TDRC provide
Multiplier effect
RRC
RRC
Satellite nursery
Satellite nursery
Satellite nursery
Satellite nursery
Satellite nursery
Satellite nursery
Satellite nursery
Farmer groupFarmer group
Farmer group
Farmer groupFarmer group
Farmer group
Farmer groupFarmer group
Farmer groupFarmer group
Farmer group
Farmer groupFarmer group
Farmer group
Small-holder
Farmers
5-20
Spread20
09
2010
2009
2010
RC Smallholder nurseries
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Nigeria DRC Cameroon N
umbe
rs
Smallholder nurseries have become genuine enterprises
• 1/3 of adopters interviewed reported an increase in income, mainly from sales of plants (Tchoundjeu et al., 2010)
• In 2010, sample survey of 15 nurseries in Cameroon generated on average 2,200 USD (ICRAF-WCA, 2010)
• 10 out of 21 new tree nurseries in Nde division, West Cameroon generate at least 1000 USD per year
• Smallholder nurseries win contracts for seedling supply to national reforestation programmes
Adjudicated Land
Adjudicated under the Land Adjudication Act CAP 284 1968, intensive smallholder cultivation with clear freehold title
Unadjudicated Land
Unadjudicated land, no firm legal title
Tenure and Investment in Woody Vegetation
Economic, Environmental and Social Impacts
Unadjud Freehold Tenure Effect
Net returns to land ($ ha-1 y-1) $126 $288 2.28 Woody crops, woodlots etc (ha km-2) 5.4 25.6 4.7 Hedgerows (km km-2) 5.2 23.6 4.5 Social cost from embedding -$40 $30 $70 Social "tax" -32% +10%
International conference to take stock of current policies, thinking and practice, successes and failures of ongoing and past reforms in extension and advisory services and build a coalition moving forward to specifically address meeting the future needs of small-holder farmers, marginalized communities, women and youth in a sustainable and cost effective manner.
http://extensionconference2011.cta.int/
CTA, FARA, GFRAS, IFAD, FAO, AGRA, KARI, ICRAF and others
Caution:
avoid Research on Scaling Upbecoming a pseudo scienceas Ben Goldacre warns inmedical science
Three Pillars of Sustainability
Why not use Principles for Research in Scaling Up?
1. Problem based (utility, not pure curiousity)
2. Testing a hypothesis, construct, paradigm
3. Systematic/experimental approach
4. Observations (repeated)
5. Independent thinking, deductive reasoning
6. Documented and shared
7. Undergoes critical peer review (credible)
8. Validated, revalidated (robustness)
9. Unplanned serendipity
10.Progressive, building on base of knowledge, zero fraud