Sustainable intensification of crop-livestock systems to improve food security
and farm income diversification in the Ethiopian highlands
ILRI-Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 30 Jan - 2 Feb2012
Carlo Azzarri, Melanie Bacou, Ali Bittinger, Zhe Guo,
Dave Hodson, Jawoo Koo, An Notenbaert,
Ria Tenorio, Pierre Sibiry Traore, Stanley Wood
M&E Guiding Principles
• FtF Compliance: Conform to the FtF (& GoE?) 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): Using a range of
biophysical, bio-economic , market and welfare models to undertake
ex ante analysis of output, outcome, and impact indicators.
(Keywords: extrapolation, aggregation, trade-offs, 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
FtF USAID “Required” Indicators
Results
Framework Title
Indicator
Prevalence of underweight
Sustainably
1
children (<5years)
Reduce Global
Poverty and
2 Prevalence of poverty
Hunger
Per capita expenditure
3
(income proxy)
Inclusive
Percentage change in
Agricutural Sector 4
agricultural GDP
Growth
Women's empowerment in
5
agricultural index
Prevalence of stunted
6
Improved
children (<5 yrs)
Nutritional Status,
Prevalence of wasted
(especially of
7
children (<5 yrs)
women and
Prevalence of underweight
children)
8
women
Level
Nat.,
PZoI
Nat.,
PZoI
Nat.,
PZoI
Freq.
Bienn.
DHS (5yrs)
Type
Disaggregation
IM
Sex: M, F
Bienn.
IM
FNM/MNF/M&F
Bienn.
OC
FNM/MNF/M&F
Nat.
Ann.
IM
-
PZoI
Bienn.
IM
TBD
Nat.,
PZoI
Nat.,
PZoI
Nat. ,
PZoI
Bienn.
DHS (5yrs)
Bienn.
DHS (5yrs)
Bienn.
DHS (5yrs)
IM
Sex: M, F
IM
Sex: M, F
IM
-
FtF USAID “Required if Applicable” Indicators
Results
Framework Title
Indicator
Increased
1 # jobs attributed to FTF
Employment in
support
Targeted Value
Chains
Improved
2 Gross margin per unit land,
Agricultural
kg., or animal (selected
Productivity
product varies by country)
(adequate for SI
productivity?)
Increased Public
3 Share of national budget
Sector Investment
invested in agriculture
Enhanced
Technology
Development,
Dissemination,
Management and
Innovation
Level
Freq. Type
Disaggregation
PZoI,
Ann. OC 1. Sex: Male, Female
Targeted
2. New vs. Continuing
beneficiaries
3. Urban vs. Rural
PZoI,
Ann.
Targeted
commodities,
Fisheries,
Livestock
National
Ann.
4 # hectares under improved PZoI,
technologies or man.
Targeted ha
practices
Ann.
OC 1. Targeted product
(crop/animal)
2. Rainfed vs. Irrigated
3. Gendered hh type:
FNM, MNF, M&F
OC OC 1. New vs. Continuing;
2. Technology Type:
(11 Categories)
FtF USAID “Required if Applicable” Indicators
Results
Framework
Title
Indicator
Level
Freq. Type
Disaggregation
5 # farmers and others
PZoI, Targeted Ann. OC 1. Sex: Male, Female
applying new technologies beneficiaries
2. Livelihood type (farmer,
or management practices
processor, extension, etc)
3. New vs. Continuing
6 # individuals receiving
PZoI, Targeted Ann. OP 1. Sex: Male, Female
short-term training in ag. beneficiaries
2. Livelihood type (farmer,
Enhanced
sector productivity or food
processor, extension, etc)
Capacity for
security training
3. New vs. Continuing
Increasing 7 # groups (private
PZoI, Targeted Ann. OP 1. Organization type (private,
Agricultural
enterprises, producer,
beneficiaries
producers, women)
Sector
water user, women‘s and
Productivity
trade associations and
2. New vs. Continuing
CBOs) receiving USG
assistance
8 # groups applying new
PZoI, Targeted Ann. OC 1. Organization type
technologies or
beneficiaries
(private, producers, women)
management practices as a
result of USG assistance
2. New vs. Continuing
FtF USAID “Required if Applicable” Indicators
Results
Framework
Title
Expanding
Markets and
Trade
Improved
Access to
Business
Development
& Financial
and Risk
Management
Services
Indicator
9 Value of incremental sales
(collected at farm-level)
attributed to FtF
implementation
10 Percent change in value of
intra-regional trade In
targeted agricultural
commodities
11 Value of Agricultural and
Rural Loans
Level
Freq. Type
Disaggregation
PZoI, targeted Ann. OC Commodity/
beneficiaries &
Product
commodities
National/
Regional level
Ann.
OC
1. Exporting Country
2. Commodity/
Product
Project-level,
targeted
beneficiaries
with USG
assistance
Ann.
OP
1. Type of loan
recipient: (producers,
traders, etc)
2. Sex of recipient
person or
organization
FtF USAID “Required if Applicable” Indicators
Results
Framework
Title
Indicator
Level
12 Value of new private sector PZoI
Increased
investment in the ag. sector
Investment in
or food chain leveraged
Agriculture and 13 # Firms or CSOs in agricultural PZoI,
Nutritionand food security
Targeted
related
manufacturing and services firms/CSOs
Activities
operating more profitably
Freq. Type
Ann. OC -
Enhanced
Technology
Development,
Dissemination,
Management
and Innovation
Bienn. OC
(req.)
Ann.
(rec.)
14 # Hectares of ag. land (fields, PZoI
rangeland. agro-forests)
showing improved
biophysical conditions
Ann.
OC
Disaggregation
Firms: by profitability
class
CSOs: by operational
and financial selfsufficiency
Management
practices: no/low till,
perm. soil cover,
integration of
perennials, water
harvesting etc.
SI Monitoring and Reporting Levels & Spillovers
Eastern & Southern Africa Maize-based Systems
Sudano-Sahelian Zone
Ethiopian Highlands
Fostering Spillover by Design
Action
Sites
SubSystems
+
+
+
Systems
+
++
1. Implementation sites to
local sub-systems
2. Implementation to nonimplementation subsystems
3. Sub-systems to (sub-)
systems
4. Systems to systems
5. Sites to sites
Targeting, Priorities, Hypotheses & Sites
Source: Dixon el al. 2001
Targeting, Priorities, Hypotheses & Sites
POVERTY (1000 people)
FS_NAME
Cereal-root crop mixed
Maize mixed
Root crop
Agro-pastoral millet/sorghum
Forest based
Highland perennial
Tree crop
E
2,764
28,065
14,219
384
20,365
23,278
1,569
S
11,811
16,277
2,451
1,868
87
W
30,570
9
27,644
24,729
3,535
541
17,199
Total
Cum %
45,145
15.5
44,352
30.7
44,314
45.9
26,981
55.1
23,988
63.3
23,278
71.3
19,308
77.9
MAIZE AREA (1000 ha)
FS_NAME
E
S
W
Total
Maize mixed
2,860
3,197
0
6,057
24.2
Cereal-root crop mixed
128
1,214
2,718
4,059
40.4
Large commercial_smalholder
3,440
3,440
54.1
Root crop
711
329
2,228
3,268
67.2
Tree crop
145
4
1,647
1,796
74.3
HIGH PHOSPHORUS FIXATION (SHARE OF GRID CELL AREA, %)
E
S
W
Total
TRAVEL TIME TO CLOSEST PORT (hours)
Highland
perennial
34.0
34.0
FS_NAME
E
S
W
Total
Forest
based
14.0
26.0
15.0
16.0
Coastal artisanal
fishing
15
22
15
15
Tree crop
13.0
37.0
9.0
12.0
Large commercial_smalholder
19
19
Highland temperate mixed
13.0
11.0
8.0
11.0
Tree crop
17
16
20
19
Maize
mixed
17.0
6.0
6.0
11.0
Highland temperate mixed
26
18
19
21
Rice-Tree crop
Source: Zhe Guo (HarvestChoice 2011)
26
26
Targeting, Priorities, Hypotheses & Sites
Source: Ethiopian Highlands SI Concept Note 2012
West Africa: Conceptual Framework for Site
Selection, Technology Screening and Deployment
Sub-system
Resource Potential
(Land, Rainfall)
NEXT
Spatial analysis to provide
geographic definition and
characterization of such
“representative” subsystems domains
+
Upper West Region
Bougouni
+
Upper East Region
Koutiala
Sub-system
Anthropization
(Market Access,
Population Density)
Site/HH Specific Attributes
(Topography, Endowment)
Household Typologies
te
f f,
m
ai
ze
m
so
ai
ze
rg
hu
,w
m
he
at
,p
ep
pe
r
te
ff,
m
ai
te
ze
ff
,s
or
gh
m
um
m
ai
ai
ze
ze
,p
,s
ep
or
pe
gh
r
um
,b
ea
m
ns
ai
m
z
ai
e,
ze
be
,s
an
or
s
gh
um
,p
ea
s
be
an
s
m
m
ai
ai
ze
ze
,s
or
gh
um
te
f f,
be
an
s
0
15,000
30,000
HH Crop Enterprise Diversification
# of households growing
rural Ethiopia
Note: to be included in each farming system, the minimum land size of each crop is .02 ha
Intensification of Wheat Production
(HH Scale Characterization)
Region
Zone
Pesticide Use
No
0.00 - 0.06 Hectares
0.14 - 0.27 Hectares
0.06 - 0.14 Hectares
0.27 - 1.3 Hectares
Yes
0.00 - 0.06 Hectares
0.14 - 0.27 Hectares
0.06 - 0.14 Hectares
0.27 - 1.3 Hectares
Grand Total
OROMIA
(All)
Seed Use
Local Seed Improved Seed Grand Total
63.79%
2.91%
66.70%
13.43%
0.38%
13.81%
16.58%
0.71%
17.29%
13.79%
0.50%
14.30%
19.99%
1.31%
21.30%
31.56%
1.74%
33.30%
1.72%
0.02%
1.74%
8.62%
0.50%
9.13%
4.79%
0.26%
5.05%
16.44%
0.95%
17.39%
95.36%
4.64%
100.00%
Intensification Metrics: SI index
• Normalized index with weights based on the first
principal component, the linear combination capturing
the greatest variation among the set of variables:
-input index* (imp. seed, org & inorg fert, pesticide, extension…)
-land size
-head’s education
-[crop] farm land
-[crop] production share
-[crop] farm land share
-[crop] yield
2. Yield responses to fertilizer
High : 8000
Variety: Digelu
4000
Ethiopia
No fert.
100%
Rec. Fert.
Low : 1
No
Fertilizer
Kenya
No fert.
100%
Rec. Fert.
Recommended
Yield
Fertilizer Rate
International wheat and
fertilizer prices
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Nominal world wheat price
Real world wheat price
Source: CIMMYT – HarvestChoice “Wheat Potential for Africa “ (2011)
4. Profitability analysis
Country
Transport cost:
Capital to
Farm-gate
Variety: Veery
Yield
Wheat farming
enterprise data
Wheat price (US$/ton)
RAINFED WHEAT
1. Agro-climatic suitability
3. Modeling of farm-gate prices
Transport cost:
Port to
Farm-gate
Mean Yield (kg/ha)
Net economic return (US $/Ha)
T0
T1
T2
Angola
-198.60
-85.75
-22.11
Burundi
753.11
1096.98
1362.42
Ethiopia
59.62
173.80
233.87
Kenya
741.03
976.46
Madagascar
161.46
Mozambique
Incremental net economic return
(%)
T0 to T1
T0 to T2
T1 to T2
56.82
88.87
74.22
45.66
80.91
24.20
191.51
292.27
34.56
1160.50
31.77
56.61
18.85
239.31
267.92
48.22
65.94
11.96
-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
164.65
30.82
Uganda
639.29
903.64
72.68
22.17
Zambia
67.72
310.20
563.73
44.90
Zimbabwe
-25.72
236.49
1655.83
69.21
Profitability
102.31
1103.94Sensitivity
41.35
449.48 Analysis
358.06
400.16 Tool (Excel)
1019.48
Net Economic Return and Potential Production
Some Key M&E Activities
• Stratification of farming systems: Relies on the fusion of spatially-explicit
agricultural production, environmental, and farm/household data, and
hypotheses on SI evolution and impact pathways (linked to site selection
& sampling design)
• Map planned interventions into indicators:
• Design & Conduct of Surveys: To provide periodic, robust estimates of
agreed indicators for target populations in PZoI (and satisfy other
analytical data needs)
• Maintaining a Technology/Intervention Inventory: A characterized
inventory of the farming system components whose integration,
adoption and impact is being evaluated. Includes characterization of
spillover potential.
• Establishing a Linked System of Models: To support M&E reporting cycle
(up/out-scaling and projections with and w/o SI interventions), of
output, outcome and impact indicators
• Attribution assessment: Beyond monitoring and modeling change in
indicators is the need (with additional information/assumptions) to
attribute changes to the extent required by donors (ex post studies?)
M&E Implementation Strategy (to date)
• Establish Core FtF Monitoring Obligations: Primarily with USAID
Washington (e.g., agree required core indicators and reporting timelines)
• Recruit M&E Coordinator: IFPRI to recruit SI M&E Coordinator (Senior
International Research position) with support staff in addition to DC-based
team.
• Establish M&E Implementation Community: To contribute to and finalize
project M&E design, as well as guide, participate in and review M&E work
plans and deliverables (composition, e.g., M&E specialist/liaison from
involved CG centers, donor and national and regional partners).
• M&E Open-Access, Web-Based Platform: To host and make accessible SI
M&E plans, documents, and annual reports, as well as background
publications, underlying datasets and analytical tools. Promote and apply
standards for farming system, technology and impact characterization.
• Annual M&E Technical Meeting: Likely aligned with proposed Project-wide
Annual meeting (Need for cross-site planning and review meetings?)
Year 1 Timeline
Site Selection/
Characterization
Component
Inventory
Component DB
Activity -> Indicator List
Survey Design
Baseline Survey
Potential Impact Evaluation: Scaling Out & Projection
✔
1-3
Months
3-9
Months
9-12
Months
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
• Making an appropriate split of M&E resources between the M &
the E? (e.g., strong interest in early assessments of outcomes and
impact over time)
• Process of selecting components? (responds to supply or demand?)
• Likely cost of meeting donor’s minimum indicator needs?
• Internal project management versus strategic M&E needs?
• Establishing shared roles in data and tool development and
application between implementation partners and M&E team
(involve scientists in M&E team)?
– e.g. obtaining appropriate cross-fertilization between M&E team and
other teams in site selection, field data collection, annual
reporting/analysis? Any feeling this should be “arms-length”?
• What interest in being part of the M&E community (especially from
national partners)?
• Any likely candidates for M&E Coordinator?