Program document
Program
Sustainable intensification of maizelegume cropping systems for food
security in eastern and southern Africa
(SIMLESA)
program
number
CSE/2009/024
proposal
phase
Full
prepared by
CIMMYT and partners
research
program
manager
John Dixon, Cropping Systems and Economics Program
Privacy statement
ACIAR, as a Commonwealth government agency, is required to comply with the eleven
Information Privacy Principles as set out in Section 14 of the Privacy Act 1988
(www.privacy.gov.au/publications/ipps.html). These are based on the 1980 OECD
guidelines governing the protection of privacy and trans-border flows of personal data.
The personal information provided in this project proposal, including CVs, is stored in hard
copy and electronic format in ACIAR. The information is reproduced internally for the
purpose of meetings to consider project proposals. It is reproduced for restricted external
purposes as part of the contractual documentation exchanged with the commissioned
organization, collaborating institution(s) and partner-country government(s).
Personal information (individuals’ contact details) is also stored in ACIAR’s project
information system. ACIAR endeavors to keep this information as up to date as possible,
with the assistance of the individuals whose details are recorded.
The names and contact details of Project Leaders may be listed with project details on the
ACIAR web site, provided to other databases and media in the context of briefings and
publicity on the ACIAR project portfolio, and used for mail outs of ACIAR corporate
publications.
ACIAR does not divulge any other personal information to third parties for any other
purpose.
Page ii
Contents
1
Program outline ........................................................................................ 1
1.1
(a) Funding request from CIMMYT ......................................................................................1
1.2
Key contacts.........................................................................................................................2
1.3
Program summary................................................................................................................6
2
Justification............................................................................................... 7
2.1
Partner country and Australian research and development issues and priorities .............14
2.2
Research and/or development strategy and relationship to other ACIAR investments
and other donor activities ...................................................................................................20
3
Objectives ............................................................................................... 25
4
Planned impacts and adoption pathways............................................. 34
4.1
Scientific impacts ...............................................................................................................36
4.2
Capacity impacts ................................................................................................................36
4.3
Community impacts ...........................................................................................................38
4.4
Communication and dissemination activities .....................................................................42
5
Operations ............................................................................................... 44
5.1
Methodology.......................................................................................................................44
5.2
Outputs, activities and milestones .....................................................................................58
5.3
Program personnel ............................................................................................................92
5.4
Intellectual property and other regulatory compliance .......................................................99
5.5
Travel table ......................................................................................................................101
6
Appendix A: Intellectual property register ......................................... 111
6.1
Administrative details .......................................................................................................111
6.2
Categories of intellectual property and brief description ..................................................111
6.3
Foreground, background and third party Intellectual Property ........................................112
7
Appendix B: Supporting documentation ............................................ 116
7.1
Current experiences with implementing conservation agriculture practices in Africa ......116
7.2
Economic impact of technologies ....................................................................................118
7.3
References .......................................................................................................................122
7.4
Acronyms .........................................................................................................................125
Page iii
1 Program outline
Program number
Program title
ACIAR program area
Proposal stage
Commissioned organization
Program type
Geographic region(s)
Country(s)
Program duration
Proposed start date
Proposed finish date
Time to impact
CSE/2009/024
Sustainable intensification of maize-legume cropping
systems for food security in eastern and southern Africa
(SIMLESA)
Cropping Systems and Economics
Full
CIMMYT
Multilateral; large
Eastern and Southern Africa
Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Republic
of South Africa, Uganda, Australia
4 years
1 January 2010
31 December 2013
Category I (5 years to impact)
1.1 (a) Funding request from CIMMYT
Amounts (A$)
Totals (A$)
Pay 1
2,421,419
2,411,419
Pay 2
2,221,102
Pay 3
2,621, 737
Pay 4
2,464, 959
Pay 5
4,177,879
Pay 6
2,302,401
Pay 7
3,240,437
5,542,838
19,449,935
19,449,935
Year 1 (F/Y)
Year 2 (F/Y)
Year 3 (F/Y)
Year 4 (F/Y)
Total
(b) Support to External Coordination managed by ACIAR
Total program
4,842,839
6,642,280
550,065
20,000,000
Page 1
1.2 Key contacts
Project leader: Commissioned IARC
Title and name
Position
Organization
Phone
Fax
Email
Postal address
Street address
(if different to postal)
Dr. Mulugetta Mekuria
Program Coordinator (and Senior Scientist, Agricultural Economist)
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
+263 4 301945,263 4369122
+263 11 604006(Mobile)
+263-4 301327
m.mekuria@cgiar.org
P.O. Box MP 163
Mt. Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe (relocation anticipated for main
implementation of program)
12.5Km Peg Mazowe Road
Administrative Contact: Commissioned IARC
Title and name
Position
Organization
Phone
Fax
Email
Postal address
Street address
(if different to postal)
Dr. Maria Luz George
Head, Project Management Unit
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
+52(595) 9521900
+52(595) 9521983
m.george@cgiar.org
Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600 México, D.F., México
Km. 45, Carretera México-Veracruz, El Batan, Texcoco, Edo. de México,
CP 56130 México
Principal contact in QDEEDI: Australian collaborating organization
Title and name
Position
Organization
Phone
Fax
Email
Postal address
Street address
(if different to postal)
Dr. Daniel Rodriguez
Focus Team Leader Agricultural Systems Modeling
Queensland Dept of Employment, Econ Dev and Innovation (QDEEDI)
07 4688 1437
07 4688 1193
daniel.rodriguez@deedi.qld.gov.au
P.O. Box 102, Toowoomba, Qld. 4350, Australia
Principal contact in Murdoch University: Australian collaborating organization
Title and name
Position
Organization
Phone
Fax
Email
Postal address
Prof. John Howieson
Director
Institute for Crop and Plant Sciences (Faculty of Sustainability,
Environmental & life Sciences), Murdoch University
61 893602231
61 883107084
J.Howieson@murdoch.edu.au
School of Biology, Murdoch University, South St, Murdoch, WA 6150
Page 2
Street address
(if different to postal)
Western Australia
Prof. John Howieson
Principal contact in Ethiopia: Collaborating NARS
Title and name
Position
Organization
Phone
Fax
Email
Postal address
Street address
(if different to postal)
Dr. Solomon Assefa
Director General
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR)
+251 11 6462270
+251 11 6454435,
+ 251 911 255669 (cell)
+251 11 6461251
dg@eiar.gov.et
ssolomoet@yahoo.com
PO Box 2003, Addis Abeba, ETHIOPIA
Principal contact in Kenya: Collaborating NARS
Title and name
Position
Organization
Phone
Fax
Email
Postal address
Street address
(if different to postal)
Dr. Ephraim A. Mukisira
Director
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI)
+254-020-4183720
+254-020-4183344
EAMukisira@kari.org
P.O. Box 57811, City Square, Nairobi, 00200, Kenya
Kaptagat Rd, Loresho Nairobi, Kenya
Page 3
Principal contact in Malawi: Collaborating NARS
Title and name
Position
Organization
Phone
Fax
Email
Postal address
Street address
(if different to postal)
Dr. Alfred Mutukuso
Director, Agricultural Research Services (DARS)
Agricultural Research and Technical Services (DARTS), Ministry of
Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi
(265) 788697
(265) 788801
apmtukuso@yahoo.com
P.O. Box 30779, Lilongwe, Malawi
Principal contact in Mozambique: Collaborating NARS
Title and name
Position
Organization
Phone
Fax
Email
Postal address
Street address
(if different to postal)
Dr. Calisto Bias
Director General
Instituto de Investigacao Agraria de Mozambique (IIAM), Mozambique
+258 21 462240
+258 21 461581
calisto.bias@gmail.com
Av. das FPLM No 269, Maputo, Mozambique, C. P. 3658
Principal contact in Tanzania: Collaborating NARS
Title and name
Position
Organization
Phone
Fax
Email
Postal address
Street address
(if different to postal)
Mr. Timothy Kirway
Acting Director, Department of Research and Development (DRD)
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (ARS), Tanzania
+255-222865320(office)
+255-754-865475(mobile)
tkirway@yahoo.com
Kilimo House II, P.O. Box 2066, Dar Es Salam, Tanzania
Principal contact in South Africa: Collaborating NARS
Title and name
Position
Organization
Phone
Fax
Email
Postal address
Street address
(if different to postal)
Dr. Muhammed Jeenah
Executive Director, Research and Development
Agricultural Research Council (ARC), Republic of South Africa
+27 (0) 12 427 9881+27 827666592(Mobile)
+ 27 (0) 12 430 5814
mailto:JeenahM@arc.agric.za
Ramanoko@arc.agric.za
PO Box 8783, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
1134 Park Street, Hatfield, Pretoria 0083, South Africa
Page 4
Principal contact in ASARECA: Collaborating Regional Organization
Title and name
Position
Organization
Phone
Fax
Email
Postal address
Street address
(if different to postal)
Dr. Seyfu Ketema
Executive Director
Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and
Central Africa (ASARECA)
+256-41-4320438
+256-41-4322593
s.ketema@asareca.org
P.O. Box 765, Entebbe, Uganda
Plot 5 Mpigi Road, Entebbe, Uganda
Principal contact in ICRISAT: Collaborating IARC
Title and name of contact
Position
Organization
Phone
Fax
Email
Postal address
Street address
(if different to postal)
Dr. Said N Silim
Crop Physiologist/Breeder and Director ESA
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
+254-20-7224554/555 +254-721839143 (mobile)
+254-20-7224001
s.silim@cgiar.org
World Agroforestry Complex, Gigiri, Nairobi Box 39063-00623, Kenya
United nations Avenue
Page 5
1.3 Program summary
Food security is a major concern in the east and southern Africa region. While the food
crisis has receded somewhat at the international level, within the region urban food
prices remain relatively high. Among the food crops, maize is the main staple and
legumes an important dietary protein source for the rural poor. Legumes are widely used
as an intercrop in maize systems, and are also significant source of income for women.
The demand for maize is projected to increase by at least 40% over the next ten years;
and the demand for legumes by 50%. Seasonal variability causes wide swings in food
crop yields, including maize and legumes. Rainfed maize-legume cropping systems
show considerable promise in boosting productivity and helping reverse the decline in
soil fertility that is a fundamental cause of low smallholder productivity in the region.
This program, developed by African and Australian stakeholders, fits regional and
national agricultural development priorities. It aims at increasing farm-level food security
and productivity, in the context of climate risk and change. It will result in resilient,
profitable and sustainable farming systems that overcome food insecurity for significant
numbers of farm families. The program objectives are: to characterize maize-legume
production and input and output value chain systems and impact pathways, and identify
broad systemic constraints and options for field testing; to test and develop productive,
resilient and sustainable smallholder maize-legume cropping systems and innovation
systems for local scaling out; to increase the range of maize and legume varieties
available for smallholders through accelerated breeding, regional testing and release,
and availability of performance data; to support the development of regional and local
innovations systems; and capacity building to increase the efficiency of agricultural
research today and in the future
The focal countries of program research are Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique,
Tanzania and Australia. To sustainably intensify maize-legume cropping systems while
reducing yield variability requires an integrated approach to the complex production and
marketing system for these crops. Through participatory research and development with
farmers, extension agencies, non-governmental organizations, Universities and
agribusiness along the value chains, the program aims to improve maize and legume
productivity by 30% and to reduce the expected downside yield risk by 30% on
approximately 500,000 farms within ten years. Through sub-regional research
organizations and existing networks, the program will foster spillovers of improved crop
systems management practices, knowledge and germplasm to other countries in the
region. Benefits to Queensland will arise from improved maize germplasm and better
rainfed maize-legume systems options for summer cropping.
ACIAR will support the program which will be managed by the International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center (as Commissioned Organization) in collaboration with the
NARS of Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania, the Association for
Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa, the International Center
for Research for the Semi-Arid Tropics, the Agricultural Research Council of South
Africa, the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation
Queensland, and Murdoch University in Western Australia. The program will be guided
by a Steering Committee of high level representatives from partner organizations. Strong
collaboration with a wide range of private, NGO, University and public sector
organizations will support rapid dissemination of program outputs. Strategic capacity
building involves short-term training and postgraduate fellowships at Universities in
Australia, South Africa, and target countries.
Page 6
2 Justification
Close to 400 million people live in the eastern and southern Africa (ESA) region, with
more than half living in extreme poverty and 75% residing in rural areas characterized by
poor infrastructure, poor market access, environmental degradation, and vulnerability to
climatic variability and change. The achievement of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) and growth and poverty reduction targets in this region are especially
challenging. As agriculture constitutes the basis of livelihoods and income for more than
70% of the people, targeting this sector will have substantial positive impacts on food
security, poverty and environmental degradation.
Threatened food security: While it may appear that the food crisis has receded
somewhat at international level, within the eastern and southern Africa (ESA) region
urban food crop prices have remained stubbornly high. High urban prices have not,
however, translated into higher producer prices due to underdeveloped value chains and
high marketing costs, resulting in weak incentives for farmers to increase production of
food crops. More efficient production systems which allow for increased producer
incomes at lower commodity prices are an essential component of a food security
strategy in this region.
The east and southern African region is barely self-sufficient in food grains, with a net
import 10% if South Africa is excluded (FAOSTAT, 2009). Approximately 20-25% of the
import is emergency food aid. Maize is the main staple and legumes an important dietary
protein source for the rural poor. With growth of population and incomes, the demand for
maize is projected to increase approximately 3–4% annually over the next ten years,
leading to a requirement of at least 40% more maize grain; similar increases in demand
for legumes are projected, ranging from 2.3% for groundnut to 3.7% for pigeon pea and
4.2% for chickpea and other pulses, indicating the need to increase total supply by more
than 50% (relative to 2000) by 2020. Much of past growth in agricultural production has
been through expansion of area cultivated, which has led to severe ecological
consequences. In these circumstances, increasing the efficiency of agricultural growth
and food crop productivity is an essential component of improving food security.
Challenges to agriculture: Despite the possibilities of technological solutions, biotic
and abiotic constraints continue to limit the productivity of agriculture in general and
maize and legumes in particular. Institutional and socioeconomic constraints make it
difficult for smallholder farmers to access seeds, inputs and output markets in order to
respond to market price signals. Together with the continuous insidious soil and land
degradation and significant climatic risk (most agricultural production is rainfed), these
constraints undermine incentives for farmers to invest scarce resources and adopt new
technologies. Addressing these overlapping constraints requires integrated innovations
and capacity building to provide promising and resilient options for improving productivity
and reducing the impact of inherent risks.
Maize and legumes for food and income: Maize and grain legumes are important food
crops in the region and are mostly grown by resource-poor farmers in risky farming
systems alongside other cash crops and livestock. With increasing poverty, farming
systems lose their complexity and trend towards a focus on cereals, in order to provide
the energy requirements of the household. This has the effect of depressing
sustainability (through compromising soil health) in the interests of short term food
availability.
Page 7
Maize is the main and preferred food staple with per capita food consumption, averaging
42 kg capita-1 year-1 and exceeding 100 kg capita-1 year-1 in several countries. In years of
surplus, maize is also an important source of income to many farmers. Legumes are an
important source of protein and often attract good prices on the market. Many legumes
are a valuable women’s crop, both for household consumption and for the market.
Legume species vary across the region, although the most common species are beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris), cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata), pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan),
groundnuts (Arachis hypogea), chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and soybeans (Glycine max).
Intercrops with beans, cowpeas and pigeonpeas are more common where land-holdings
are small, whereas sole legume crops such as groundnuts and soybeans in rotation with
maize are more common where there is less pressure on the land.
Constraints to increasing maize-legume systems productivity: Drought and low soil
fertility are among the major constraints limiting the productivity of current cropping
systems and the relative importance of these two stresses often alternates at the same
site within the same season1: lack of improved crop varieties and weak value chains
generally limit the adoption of management solutions to these major problems. Even
where total rainfall is sufficient, rainfall distribution in the season is erratic and over many
smallholder cropping areas, the crop absorbs less than 25 per cent of total rainfall2.
Approximately 65% of the agricultural land in Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from
degradation3,4 which results in generally low yields of the staple grains of approximately
1 t ha-1 5. Not only do these factors reduce crop yields and discourage adoption of
improved practices by farmers, but they also increase the risks associated with farming
and underline the importance of improved soil and nutrient and water management for
smallholder farming systems. Fertilizer use is especially risky in terms of economic
losses due to the low and erratic rainfall and land degradation. Thus average fertilizer
use in Sub-Saharan Africa remains less than 10 kg ha-1 6 despite the generally infertile
soils. Typically, the trend in smallholder farming systems is for maize increasingly to
dominate (leading to eventual continuous cropping of maize) to ensure household food
security. Linkages between legumes and maize, the main staple food, are very
important: while maize provides the backbone to food security, income and fodder for
animals, legumes variously provide a second valuable high-protein food or cash crop, as
well as additional soil nitrogen through rhizobial fixation of atmospheric nitrogen, and
useful crop residues for livestock fodder or a source of ‘green manure’. The role of
legumes as a crop that is grown by women is also of importance in empowering women,
who are often the major source of farm labour.
Alternative production practices that may improve system profitability, productivity and
resilience are intrinsically linked to input and marketing opportunities, and to farmer
incentives and preferences. This program will link farmer, market and researcher
experience and data in way which allows exploration and evaluation of new
opportunities. Even though improved maize-legume combinations, more efficient
fertilizer applications, and improved rhizobia strains may contribute to improving the soil
nutrient balance, a broader approach is needed to restore and increase the productivity
of the land in smallholder systems in eastern and southern Africa. In many farming
systems, due to continuous cropping soil organic matter levels have diminished to
1Rockstrom
et al., 2009
Rockstrom et al., 2001
3UNEP/ISRIC, 1991
4GEF, 2003
5Rockstrom and Falkenmark, 2000
6Sachs et al., 2004
2
Page 8
unsustainably low levels and are an important cause of low water and nutrient use
efficiency and systems productivity.
Therefore, improved maize-legume varieties and better market access need to be
underpinned by conservation agriculture oriented (CA-oriented) technologies in order to
boost yields and input use efficiency. CA systems are characterized by three key
principles: minimum disturbance of soil (ideally zero-till); year-round soil surface cover,
often through the retention of crop residues; and sustainable crop rotations. CA is
practiced widely by medium-to-large-scale farmers in North America, Latin America and
Australia, and to some extent in Africa. The experience of CA in Australia under
moisture-limited conditions provides a useful example for Africa: the area dedicated to
CA grew slowly from initial adoption in the early 1970’s until the turn of the century but
then accelerated once technological issues had been resolved and by 2008 there were
12 million hectares of CA-based agriculture in Australia7. Experience in many regions
shows that smallholders rarely adopt complete packages of improved technologies;
more commonly they adopt, test and adapt improved practices in a step-wise fashion.
However, the interactions between doing away with soil tillage, keeping crop residues on
the soil surface, applying sufficient nutrients and managing weeds are often more
important than the effects of all of these technologies alone, underlying the large
investments in famer understanding and knowledge development that need to be
undertaken to facilitate the spread of sustainable production systems.
CIMMYT has worked since 2004 with the NARS, NGOs, farmers and other partners in
southern Africa (including Malawi and Mozambique) to develop and adapt CA-oriented
systems to the conditions faced by smallholder farmers managing maize-legume
systems in over 20 target communities. These communities represent a wide range of
biophysical and socioeconomic conditions, including market access – and have actively
experimented with the technologies which have been tested. Wider efforts on
implementing CA-oriented practices in Africa are summarized in Annex 7.2. Although
this work has shown the feasibility of CA-oriented systems under smallholder farm
conditions 8 , it has also shown the benefit of establishing local innovation systems
through which groups of farmers exchange experience and share knowledge among
themselves and with extension, traders and agro-input suppliers and consciously test
adaptations around CA and sustainable systems – a recent external program review of
CA in CIMMYT strongly endorsed the innovation systems orientation of the CIMMYT
approach to CA development in southern Africa. In this context, an agricultural
innovation system is simply a network of farmers, extension, research, input suppliers,
traders and local government who support agricultural experimentation and the
exchange of agricultural knowledge. Nevertheless, there is a need to understand better
which types of local innovation systems are effective for CA development in different
African farming systems, including the incentives for farmer experimentation with maizelegume CA and the associated knowledge sharing processes. In addition, it is necessary
to go beyond subjective farmer assessments of CA and to elucidate the scientific
processes underpinning the CA systems, including more instances of direct
comparisons. Documenting the unbiased results of valid system comparisons will hence
be crucial to provide a sound basis for developing more sustainable, CA-oriented,
farming systems.
Field research can be supplemented and complemented by simulation modeling which
has proved beneficial in commercial farming in Australia when applied within a
7
Derpsch and Friedrich, 2009.
et al., 2008
8Wall
Page 9
participatory action research approach. In Africa, modeling-assisted discussions with
scientists have provided a useful framework for designing field research for highly
variable production environments; and with farmers have provided an opportunity for
learning about new technologies, practices or management options 9 , or exploring
options for the intensification of production in smallholder farms10;11. The APSIM model
has been extensively calibrated and validated across a number of African environments,
in particular Zimbabwe, Malawi and Kenya; and will be used in this program with focus
on one particular component, APSFarm. Outputs from APSFarm include, but are not
limited to, production measures e.g. yields and crop areas; economic measures i.e.
production costs, crop gross margins, economic risk, and farm annual profit / food
production; efficiency measures i.e. crop and whole farm water use efficiency; and
environmental measures i.e. deep drainage, runoff, and erosion, etc. Options that seem
to improve food and income security and system sustainability will form the basis for
farmer experimenting with those improved options and be used to improve model
calibrations and outputs in an iterative manner. Thus the model will be an integral
support tool of a focused experimental and participatory process.
Non-functional input and output value chains: Scaling out technological innovations
requires a functioning supply of necessary inputs (including seed, fertilizers, and
pesticides), effective knowledge dissemination, and produce marketing – that is, a full
input to output value chain approach. Although the business environment for small and
medium size enterprises is improving in eastern and southern Africa, there are still
significant constraints to effective value chain operation. These include private sector
access to public technologies and know-how, including germplasm; limited availability of
experienced and qualified staff; lack of awareness/demand among farmers; and lack of
access to credit. Weak rural institutions for delivery of services and inadequate farmer
organization contribute to poor capacity for remedying market imperfections in the
supply of key inputs and marketing surplus produce. This affects seed companies, input
suppliers and equipment distributors alike. Input and output markets depend on a
relatively stable demand for inputs and supplies, and the reliable supply of marketable
produce. Transaction costs rise sharply when demand for inputs is erratic and marketed
output highly variable. Through participatory mapping and diagnoses of value chains and
farm household livelihoods, this program will invest in understanding the performance of
input-output markets and factors that undermine farmer participation in markets. The
program will also devise solutions for feasible and risk averse value chain modifications
that encourage farmers to implement improved maize-legume systems. Strategies will
be designed to improve access to appropriate maize and legume seed, improved
technologies and knowledge, and to determine when and how new or more legumes can
be incorporated into the system, given marketing opportunities and farmer incentives.
The microeconomic and risk-related parameters of more productive and sustainable
management approaches will be assessed and incorporated into bioeconomic models
(e.g. APSIM). The program will also address imperfections in input supply and output
marketing systems. The lack of market infrastructure and weak local institutions lead to
high marketing costs for smallholder farmers which reduce the profitability of new
technologies and undermine incentives to invest in sustainable intensification of
production. The program will hence work with agro-dealers, producer marketing groups,
and farmer cooperatives to enhance economies of scale, reduce transaction costs and
9Carberry
et al., 2004
et al., 2005
11Tittonell et al., 2009
10Tittonell
Page 10
develop quality-based and value-adding trading systems that benefit smallholders. The
program will also assess the business development service12 needs of different value
chain actors (including farmers) and the private and public providers best placed to
provide these services. Policy options to diversify and expand demand will be explored.
Like the other research components, this research will be designed and conducted in the
context of farm household livelihood systems. Close cooperation with both female and
male farmers, local input suppliers and marketing agents, and business development
service providers will be sought in order to produce technologies that are relevant and
will be adopted.
Poor availability to farmers of improved maize and legume varieties: In
collaboration with national programs, CIMMYT has developed and released stresstolerant maize varieties, some with enhanced nutritional characteristics, which have the
potential to increase farmers’ yields by 20% to 50% under stress conditions or in drought
years. These include hybrids and open-pollinated varieties (seed of the latter may be
saved by farmers from one year to the next for future crops) that are tolerant to drought
and pre- and post-harvest pests. All five program countries are party to this effort and
have established active maize working groups that develop, test and support the release
and promotion of new stress tolerant maize varieties. As part of the current program,
those varieties that meet the requirement of the agroecologies of the targeted farming
systems and farmer preferences should be fast-tracked for release and scale up of seed
production, and subsequently integrated and promoted as part of more productive,
sustainable and risk-averting livelihood systems.
Adapted tropical legume varieties which have potential for improving grain yield and
maintaining soil fertility, especially with improved rhizobia, will be sourced from the
Tropical Legumes II (TLII) project managed by ICRISAT and implemented jointly with
IITA, CIAT and African NARS. It focuses on breeding and participatory variety
development and seed delivery systems to accelerate the adoption and impact of six
legume crops (chickpea, pigeonpea, groundnut, common bean, cowpea, and soybean)
in nine countries of Africa and South Asia. The national research programs in all five
program countries in ESA are actively involved in implementation of the program and
have active working groups. Various countries have identified priority legumes and are
currently evaluating them in farmer participatory and formal variety release trials. As a
result, a wider range of farmer-preferred, higher yielding legumes varieties are expected
to become available by Year 2 of the proposed program while released varieties found to
be preferred by farmers and widely adaptable to the target farming systems are being
promoted through various seed multiplication and diffusion models. The proposed
program will collaborate with TLII, with a view to evaluate and promote legume
technologies within the larger CA oriented maize farming systems in the region, and in
combination with improved rhizobia strains sourced from Murdoch University in
Australia.
The proposed program will also complement the TLII project through better
understanding of legume value chains and crop management practices that improve
productivity and reduce the risk of crop failures. Although some emerging (private) seed
companies have appeared over the past ten years which offer the potential to get seed
markets established in outlying communities, the pathways for commercial provision of
improved seeds need massive improvement, especially for legumes. However, AGRA
and other agencies are actively supporting the development of rural businesses to
12
Miehlbradt, and McVay, 2005
Page 11
provide agricultural inputs to smallholders. The program will collaborate actively with
these initiatives so as to ensure that the needed new varieties are available
commercially to target smallholders,
Limited agricultural research capacity: More than a decade of underinvestment in
tertiary education and agricultural research has left wide-spread gaps in Africa. A
significant proportion of the national researchers in the region are close to retirement
and there is need for renewed investment in training, and for young scientists to be
involved in interdisciplinary impact oriented research that results in productivity and
sustainability increases and poverty reduction. Very few scientists in eastern and
southern Africa have been exposed to crop or farm-level simulation approaches, and
effective use of data sets or web based resources is limited. At all levels of extension,
research, and private sector input supply, years of under-investment have left a gap in
farming systems approaches that include up-to-date knowledge of new technologies and
interdisciplinary and value chain based analysis approaches. The program will hence
include both non-degree practical training and post-graduate degree training for national
and regional partners. Practical training will include enhancing skills in technology
targeting, risk analysis, value chain diagnosis, cropping systems management and
conservation agriculture, integrated maize-legume modeling, and methods for
participatory breeding and local quality seed production. This will be organized at
national and regional levels to allow participation of as many program personnel as
possible and will be supported by CIMMYT, ICRISAT and Australian partners. There is
potential for collaboration with the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) of the Republic
of South Africa, in particular in relation to commercialization of R&D, agricultural
mechanization etc.
Need for integration and participation in the innovations systems approach:
Overcoming the problems of food insecurity, low productivity, climatic risks and infertile
soils requires an integrated approach combining changes in multiple components of the
production, livelihood and input-output market system. New technologies that increase
productivity in risky environments - such as more drought tolerant and productive crop
varieties and more sustainable production practices - need to be matched with reliable
market opportunities to ensure improved food security, increased incomes and greater
system sustainability. Although some programs have made significant progress in
increasing household and national food security and incomes, such as through the
distribution of seed-fertilizer mini-kits (e.g. Malawi) and fertilizer subsidies, the underlying
problem of declining soil fertility often remains – rendering the long term impacts of these
interventions alone as questionable. Additional approaches are needed to make
smallholder farmer production improvements ecologically and financially sustainable,
attractive to sensibly risk averse farmers, and then to create mechanisms for continuous
innovation and experimentation by farmers in the process of widespread scaling out of
the improvements. The role of resilience and vulnerability needs to be better understood
in both agro-ecological and institutional senses, and solutions need to be devised for
farmers who produce maize and legumes under risky drought-affected conditions with
weak markets and volatile prices. In all cases, the systems need to be complemented by
sustainable management approaches that conserve soil fertility and moisture - such as
conservation agriculture.
Another necessary aspect is to consider interactions along input chains, the farmhousehold integrated production-consumption system, and the produce market chains,
Page 12
i.e., the whole “U-pathway”13. Hence research should be oriented to and evaluated in
whole systems context, and needs to be undertaken in a participatory and consultative
fashion, i.e., with the full collaboration and ownership of the women and men farmers
and local input supply and marketing organizations. In fact, there is a strong argument
for agribusiness to lead in the identification of research areas and themes subject to
adequate alignment with community priorities and agroecological conditions. In this
manner, technologies can be produced that are relevant to the social context of
households and communities, including women farmers, and for which inputs and
markets will be available for rapid scaling out. Despite the growing awareness of the
need to change research approaches in order to generate substantive impacts, many
national research and extension efforts in the region still support a linear model of
knowledge flow where research-developed technologies are transferred to farmers
through extension agents14, with limited farmer participation in technology development.
Typically this approach is biased towards simple technologies that emphasize crop yield
and discount important farmer variables such as risk and profitability (including
consumer preferences) and the development, adoption and adaptation of more complex
options, such as conservation agriculture15. Moreover, the approach fails to address the
linkages between farmer resource allocation, the use of improved technologies and
value chain opportunities. Given the failure of non-participatory research that does not
address key constraints along the value chain to generate substantive impact, there is
an increasing number of champions of multi-agent innovation systems16 (as described
above) focused on developing profitable, productive and sustainable systems under the
real life circumstances of farmers, rural communities and agribusiness. Knowledge flow
in these innovation systems involves all stakeholders and takes advantage of the
particular knowledge and comparative advantage of all the players, most importantly the
farmers themselves.
The proposal is unique in building explicitly on significant research progress that has
been achieved through more upstream, disciplinary or commodity focused investments
by other donors (in particular the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) and national
governments and universities. These investments have led to the development of new
maize and legume varieties that perform better under the types of stresses faced by
smallholder farmers in Africa, as well as identifying research methods that are
successful in adapting conservation agricultural17 technologies to smallholder systems.
As a result, this program fills a critical gap between research and delivery (uptake) and
will demonstrate models for the scale out of state-of-the-art technologies by prioritizing
and adapting them in the context of whole farms and value chains.
Need to link national and regional approaches: The current program will endeavour
to catalyze functional innovations systems in representative and distinct target
environments and communities of five countries in eastern and southern Africa (Ethiopia,
Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania), incorporating all of the necessary players to
13
Dixon et al., 2007.
2002
15 Wall et al., 2002
16 Wall, 2007
14Ekboir,
17
In this proposal, conservation agriculture technologies includes a broad range of potential cereal/legume
rotations and crop combinations that provide steps oriented towards the conservation agriculture ideal of
minimal soil movement, year-round coverage of the soil surface with residues and crop and sustainable
rotations – with the outcomes of soil and moisture conservation, economic returns and provision of
ecosystem services.
Page 13
facilitate the development of more productive, sustainable maize-legume systems and
thereby increase food and income security among a significant sized population group.
Essential program components will build up on and include new stress tolerant, more
productive varieties, the adaptation of improved and more sustainable management
practices and input-output market linkages, and tested advice to optimizing farmer
resource allocations, enhanced technology delivery systems and supporting policies.
These will be applied and examined within the same environments and the same
communities. Accelerated and targeted dissemination of germplasm, technologies and
knowledge will be then achieved by scaling out insights across similar agroecologies and
farming systems of partner countries and the sub-region. During the program formulation
workshop, senior scientists from the National Agricultural Research System summed up
the need as follows: to increase farm level productivity in full consideration of climate risk
and change, make farm level production profitable and sustainable, and take significant
numbers of farm families out of poverty.
2.1 Partner country and Australian research and development
issues and priorities
Regional priorities within agriculture. The majority of the poor in sub-Saharan Africa
and in the east and southern Africa region are small holders and, notwithstanding a
significant off-farm employment, agriculture underpins their food security and livelihood
strategies. Agricultural development is identified by all the target countries as the key
investment priority for poverty reduction and food security.
Region-wide priorities have been formulated through the NEPAD Comprehensive Africa
Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) strategy. Four pillars have been identified to
achieve higher economic growth in African countries through agriculture-led
development: 1. Extending the area under sustainable land management; 2. Improving
rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities for market access; 3. Increasing food
supply and reducing hunger; 4. Agricultural research, technology dissemination and
adoption. The present proposal aligns with the four CAADP pillars and the objectives in
each pillar: CAADP Pillar 1 highlights the need to engage in conservation agriculture as
an important component to achieving sustainable land management, Pillar 2 highlights
the need to strengthen capacities among the agribusiness community, Pillar 3 highlights
the need to improve domestic production and marketing and build household productivity
and assets, Pillar 4 highlights the need to improve agricultural research and research
systems. Further to the priorities set by CAADP, the Association for Strengthening
Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) plays a key role in
prioritizing agricultural research in eastern and central Africa. ASARECA places a high
priority on food crops in general and maize-related and legume-related R&D
interventions in particular due to their high pay-off and potential widespread impact on
poverty reduction. ASARECA spearheaded an independent analysis by IFPRI18 which
identified staple crop research and development-related investments as high-payoff
agricultural research investments.
Contributions to Millennium Development Goals. Improved maize-legume system
productivity will contribute to several of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in
the target countries. Improvement and diversification of income sources for the poor will
18IFPRI,
2008
Page 14
reduce poverty and hunger and therefore directly contribute to MDG1. The program will
contribute to MDG 7 and 8 through improvements in soil fertility hence sustainable
agriculture and development of regional and global partnerships for promoting
sustainable development, respectively. In addition, the program will indirectly contribute
to MDGs 2 to 5 as increased income often allows the poor to spend on education and
health care with indirect impacts on reducing child and maternal mortality. Decreased
labor requirements through the implementation of conservation agriculture practices will
provide benefits to labor-challenged households, including those affected by HIV/AIDS
and grandparent and child-headed households. Because maize and legumes are mostly
grown by poor rural women, increased incomes and betterment of living conditions for
women will contribute to reduction of gender inequality (MDG3).
National priorities in east and southern Africa.
In relation to individual countries, Ethiopia is proposed because of its large population
(85 million) and extensive poverty and recurrent famines aggravated by small farm sizes,
frequent droughts and extensive land degradation. The potential for improving
productivity and incomes for farmers who depend on maize and legume systems,
however, remains high. It has 1.7 million hectares of maize yielding approximately 2.0
t/ha19, but with very high variability which increases the risk of seasonal food insecurity.
The legume area is expanding in response to growing export demand for legumes, e.g.,
haricot beans to East Africa and Sudan. Less than 25% of maize or legume area is
under improved varieties and underdeveloped seed systems are a major constraint.
Other major constraints limiting agricultural production and productivity in Ethiopia,
include low level of technology adoption, poor market access for small-scale farmers,
and limited technological options for the very diverse agro-ecologies and farmers’
circumstance. Resource constraints including scarcity of land in the high potential
areas, seasonal labor shortage, inadequate draught power, insufficient supply of input
and credit are identified as major problems. Population pressure is also another
constraint contributing to land fragmentation and declining land holding per household.
Farmers in drought-affected areas have an average farm size of 5 ha and average family
size of eight people per household. On the other hand, average farm size in sub-humid
maize-legume based farming system is 2.5 ha with average family size of seven per
household.
In the sub-humid high potential maize and legume growing farming systems, low soil
fertility, especially low nitrogen, is the most important production constraint. The fertility
of the soils has also been reduced over the years because of the continuous cropping
without sufficient nutrient replenishment and by soil erosion. Use of traditional soil fertility
management practices such as the use of crop residues, manure, fallow, cereals/legume
intercropping, crop rotation etc. has declined with declining farm size, coupled with
alternative uses for manure as fuel and crop residues as feed, fuel and construction
materials. Fallowing and crop rotation practices appear to be practiced by few farmers
because of scarcity of land. Low genetic potential of local farmers’ cultivars has also
been found to contribute to low productivity of the systems. Even though Ethiopia is
known as a centre of diversity for some of the widely grown crops, the potential yield of
the landraces is low. In addition, some crops have a narrow genetic base for
economically important traits.
19
FAOSTAT, 2007
Page 15
In Kenya, it is estimated that 46% of the Kenyan population live below the poverty line
and there are regional disparities. About 59% of the population in the western highlands
falls below the poverty line as compared to 31% in the central highlands. Kenya has 1.6
million hectares of maize with an average yield of 1.8 t/ha (2007 figures), and a great
need for recently developed stress tolerant varieties because of the heterogeneity of
maize and legume production environments, including large areas of low rainfall semiarid crop land. Soil degradation and erosion are also widespread. Agricultural research
in Kenya started during the early years of the last century. The first hybrid maize variety
was released in Kenya in 1964. Since then, several maize and legume varieties and
their accompanying agronomic practices have been generated by the agricultural
research system in the country.
In the western Kenya highlands, a large proportion of the land (66%) is allocated to food
crops. Maize is the main food crop and beans are the most important legume crop grown
by most farmers. Approximately 50% of the households own cattle, although most of the
cattle are the local breeds. Use of fertilizers is not widespread in the region and even
where fertilizer is used, amounts applied are below recommendations. In the central
Kenya highlands, farmers have multiple crops, with maize and beans being the most
important food crops. In the lower areas of the region, drought tolerant legumes, mainly
pigeonpeas are grown. Most households own some cattle, generally 1-2 head of
improved dairy cows. As compared to western Kenya, more farmers in the central
highlands apply fertilizers/manures and at slightly higher rates. The main constraint to
agricultural productivity in the two areas is the low adoption of improved agricultural
technologies as demonstrated by the wide yield gap of both maize and legumes
between farm yields and those obtained on research stations. Farmer access to markets
for key inputs (seed and fertilizer) and high transaction costs in marketing surplus
produce also undermine incentives for technology adoption and sustainable
intensification.
Adoption studies conducted through the Kenya maize database project20 showed that
the adoption of hybrid maize varieties ranged from 16% in the lowland tropics to 86% in
the highland tropics, with an average adoption rate of 68% however often including
varieties released a relatively long time ago. The adoption rates in the mid-altitude zones
(dry mid altitude-moist mid altitude) where this program will be implemented ranged from
38-41%. There is therefore a great opportunity of improving the productivity of maize and
beans in the two regions, and hence food security and incomes through better market
linkages and adoption of available agricultural knowledge, information and technologies,
while generating better ones.
Tanzania has the largest area (3.0 million hectares) of maize in the sub-region. Maize is
an important food and cash crop in the country. Over 80% of the population depends on
maize with per capita consumption of around 100 kg per year. The crop occupies more
than 40% of the total cultivated area and accounts for up to 61% of the total calories in
the diets as well as 50% of utilizable protein for the majority of the Tanzanian rural
population. The national average yield is about 1.2 tons/ha compared to an average
potential yield of 4.5 tons/ha. Research capacity and seed systems in Tanzania are
weaker than in Ethiopia and Kenya. The potential for spill-over of program results to
neighboring countries from maize, legume or crop management results is relatively high.
The main constraint of the Tanzanian maize sub-sector are low productivity caused by
diseases, insects, low soil fertility, moisture stress and weeds especially Striga.
20Hassan,
1998
Page 16
Socioeconomic constraints including unreliable input and output markets, lack of credit
facilities and poor infrastructure. Maize cropping systems in Tanzania are characterized
by maize mono-cropping (about 30%) and intercropping of maize and legumes (about
70%). The maize/pigeon pea system is common in the Northern and Eastern zones
while maize/cowpea/bean system is dominant in Lake and Western zones.
Maize/mucuna cover crop system is also practiced in the Northern zone.
During the past 20 years, several maize varieties (both OPV and hybrids) have been
released and recommended to be grown by farmers country-wide. These varieties are
characterized by higher yields compared to local landraces, early to late maturing
depending on the agro-ecology. The gaps in maize-legume cropping system include lack
of agronomic package available to improve systems productivity; underdeveloped seed
supply systems for improved seeds; high marketing costs; inadequate knowledge on
legume processing; and the fact that the national seed system has been unable to
produce hybrid seeds. Inadequate trained manpower is also another critical problem.
Maize yields in these areas are very low - 1.2 and 0.5 t/ha - mainly because many
farmers do not use improved technologies (inputs such as improved maize and legume
varieties, fertilizers etc.) and have poor access (high transport costs) to output markets.
Other challenges include management of field and storage pests and post-harvest
processing and utilization. In some of the production areas there is no organized market
for buyers and often processors do not get enough volumes of the crops they require.
Communication between buyers, transporters and farmers is poor especially in the new
areas of production.
Malawi is heavily dependent on some 1.2 m ha of maize with average yields (2.6 t/ha)
that have been boosted recently by strong Government-led support programs. Seasonal
variability is high depending on rainfall and fertilizer availability. Maize is the main staple
food in Malawi. Over 90% of the total cultivated area is planted to maize, mostly by
resource poor smallholder farmers. Malawi consumes about 170 kg maize per
capita/year which constitutes more than two thirds of the caloric consumption, the
highest proportion in the world. The continuous cropping of maize has led to mining of
soil nutrients and declining soil fertility. Together with small farm size, soil degradation
and erosion continue to be important threats to future productivity.
The Government of Malawi has been adopting a series of policy instruments to support
smallholder agricultural development. Recently, the country has had a maize surplus,
some of which has been exported. Malawi is the only sub-Saharan African country
providing direct support to farmers to access seed and fertilizers at low cost, and this
has started showing significant impacts in production and productivity. The first initiative
of Starter Packs in late 1990s was followed by the Targeted Input Program. It is reported
that the recent fertilizer and seed subsidy programs have had impressive effects on
national yields. In the 2005/06 season, the national average maize yield jumped to 1.6
t/ha and in the 2006/07 season to over 2.5 t/ha21. Although statistics are not available for
the most recent seasons, productivity has been high and the program financed by the
government has contributed to Malawi’s increased production, making it self-sufficient in
maize22. Capitalizing on the strong policy support, the integrated technology and value
chain interventions of the program are expected to enhance productivity and food
21
Denning et al., 2009
22
And the long term budgetary implications compromise the sustainability of this initiative unless significant
improvements in fertiliser use efficiency can be achieved
Page 17
security which may also provide useful lessons for other countries in the region.
However, being landlocked with high population density and facing intense depletion of
soil nutrients, the cost of fertilizer inputs are particularly high and therefore the role of
legumes in maintaining soil fertility and increasing maize and legume yields is important.
Also, fertilizer alone will not overcome the widespread problems of soil erosion and
degradation which demand more integrated soil fertility management practices. Earlier,
ACIAR supported research developed and successfully tested soil management
technologies that reduce production risk in some districts, however, these technologies
need wider testing and adaptation to CA systems. CIMMYT currently manages several
foci of CA research and extension in the country.
Grain legumes form an important component of Malawi's maize-based farming systems.
Beans and pigeonpea, for example, are mostly intercropped with maize and other cereal
crops. Maize and pigeon pea intercropping is a common practice especially in southern
Malawi where average land-holdings are small. Both maize and pigeon pea are grown
on ridges which are generally spaced 90 cm apart, with 75-90 cm between plants on the
ridge. However, the current recommendation of planting maize and pigeon pea in
association is for long duration pigeon pea types which flower and produce pods after
maize harvest providing little competition to the companion maize crop. New shorter
season pigeon pea varieties may need different planting patters. A pure stand is
currently recommended for groundnut production in a maize-groundnut rotation.
However, alternatives for groundnut-maize systems need to be identified because of
increasing population pressure and reductions in farm size. The same applies to
soybeans which are currently produced in maize-soybean rotations.
Mozambique also has a substantial area of maize (1.4 million hectares), producing only
1.2 million tons because of low average yields (0.85 t/ha in 2007) with high variability.
Despite ample land, soil fertility is low, research and extension capacity and
infrastructure are weak, and household food security and poverty are rampant.
Mozambique is one of the world’s poorest countries despite its great potential.
Agriculture is characterized by low soil fertility, frequent droughts and floods, use of
unimproved varieties, poor access to inputs (including quality seed of improved varieties
and fertilizers), dysfunctional agricultural markets and weak research and extension
services. The southern part of the country has extremely poor sandy soils and severely
moisture limited conditions away from the coastal belt. Most maize production and
maize-legume systems occur in the central and northern provinces of Manica, Sofala,
Tete, Zambezia and Nampula.
To a far greater degree than the other four countries, capacity building will be of crucial
importance. Training of breeders; technicians, extension and focal farms; seed
companies for hybrids seed production; agronomist (soil, water conservation, soil
management) and economists to undertake maize- legume value chain analysis and
higher level training at M.Sc. and Ph.D. levels are urgently needed in Mozambique.
Why Australia? ACIAR support for this innovative program will provide significant
opportunities to test and identify options and mechanisms for improving market linkages
and scaling-up and scaling-out innovations and technology delivery systems that
significantly contribute to national, regional and global priorities for poverty reduction and
rural development. The initiative is designed to create synergies with other on-going
programs in the region and between Africa and Australia.
Given the emerging problem of climate change (for example, an IIED model suggests
that Tanzania GDP will decline by 1% annually by 2030), existing capacity in Australia
Page 18
will be invaluable to helping this region with the needed adaptations. The Queensland
Government and the Grains R&D Corporation in Australia have launched a major
program (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/) to increase the production of maize in
southern Queensland for use in livestock feed. In doing so, Australian agricultural
researchers are seeking to develop maize lines that are also drought and disease
resistant, as well as farming systems that reduce the risk of maize production under dry
conditions and in dry years. Australia could benefit from the drought tolerant and disease
resistant maize germplasm developed by CIMMYT for Africa. Africa could, in turn,
benefit from advanced GxE analysis techniques applied by Australian breeders and
which could also show the way to more systematic germplasm exchange between
CIMMYT and Australia. Further benefits could come from the exchange of legumes and
Rhizobium strains.
Queensland researchers from the Agricultural Production Systems Research Unit
(APSRU) and APSIM UJV between DEEDI, CSIRO and UQ, are the world leaders in
“agricultural systems modeling” and have extensive experience in applying these
technologies in both commercial Australian farms and smallholder African situations. In
the capacity-building part of the program, leading Australian researchers will offer
training and act as co-supervisors for promising African agriculturalists who will
undertake postgraduate programs in the core areas of the program.
The strategic niche of the program. The strength of the current proposal is that it
applies agricultural research (CAADP Pillar 4) in actual farming systems in a
multidisciplinary manner, while tackling issues within the CAADP Pillars 1-3. The
proposal actively supports the development of effective innovation systems at the
national and regional level focused on the major staple food - maize - which is highly
critical for food security. The improvement in productivity of smallholder maize-based
systems is not only a priority for agricultural development in most eastern and southern
African countries but is also one where high return to investments has been
documented. The integration of legumes is central to the proposal and the data show
this element will not only increase maize productivity, but also enhance farm-level cash
income, increase the diversity and resilience of farm systems, and add to better
household nutrition amongst the poor. It provides a real world example of
implementation of the bold intentions of the four CAADP Pillars. This program will serve
as an actual example linked to necessary capacity building opportunities for future scaleout investments at the country level. Although individual countries and programs invest
in scaling up new technologies and strengthening research-extension linkages (e.g. in
Ethiopia as part of the multi-donor funded Agricultural Growth Program (AGP); and
practical new agricultural options promoted through FARA-led programs under the
CAADP strategy), there are few to no research programs that prioritize state-of-the-art
interventions based on farm- and value chain-based opportunities while keeping food
security concerns of farmers in mind. Typical deployment projects (such as those
spearheaded by extension or NGOs) often no longer include adaptive research and
where research-extension projects have focused on improving income opportunities for
farmers in distinct farming systems, they often have disregarded food security incentives
and vulnerability of farmers. The present program addresses location/farming system
specific challenges to test diversified smallholder cropping systems integrated with
input/produce value chains to suit particular farming and rural economy conditions.
The outputs and capacity building efforts of this program are hence highly relevant as
National Roundtables identify long-term commitments that finance agricultural
investment programs aligned with CAADP principles and targets. The key interventions
Page 19
and research needs for this program are hence defined around the priorities of the
region, and are consistent with the countries’ poverty reduction goals, the priorities of
sub-regional organizations and the four pillars identified in NEPAD’s Comprehensive
Africa Agriculture Development Program. Furthermore, the program’s overall orientation
represents a unique approach: use of state-of-the-art disciplinary research outputs and
approaches; prioritization of outputs and approaches in the context of farm-level
livelihood approaches and value chains within representative and distinct maize-based
farming systems; adaptive research and implementation on actual farms with a
commitment to increase their food security and income, sustainability and resilience; and
adaptive research and implementation in collaboration with actual market participants
with a commitment to increased productivity and value, lower transaction costs, and
opportunities that benefit smallholder farmers and women in the selected farming
communities.
2.2 Research and/or development strategy and relationship to
other ACIAR investments and other donor activities
Overall strategy. The strategy for the research-for-development process will emphasize
leveraging science and technology using evidence from existing state-of-the-art projects.
This is intended to enhance the process of evaluation, adaptation and delivery of valueadding profitable production options to smallholders that are linked to market
opportunities. This will provide reliable solutions to problems of food security, rural
development, system sustainability and resilience in the five partner countries and
beyond through partnerships that involve Australian institutions, IARCs, NARS,
ASARECA, farmer organizations, and the private sector. The primary focus of the
program will be on developing technological and institutional innovations that make
measurable differences in the lives of smallholder farmers, by improving food security,
making farm level production profitable and sustainable, and take significant numbers of
farm families out of poverty. The program will utilize farmer participatory technology
evaluation (FPTEs) as a key strategy for identifying suitable options (maize and legume
varieties, management practices, farmer resource allocation) that match improved value
chain approaches. The program will capitalize on existing institutional and organizational
structures to strengthen the regional and national research systems in Africa, in
particular existing in-country inter-institutional workgroups for maize and legumes, and
monitoring and evaluation approaches implemented by ASARECA. By working with
similar germplasm, technologies and approaches applied to different farming systems in
different partner countries, the program will facilitate sharing of knowledge and
technologies across countries to ensure wider utilization of promising options for maizelegume systems.
Collaboration with other programs. The program will build on existing linkages and
experience from ASARECA, SADC, individual partner countries, NGOs, the CGIAR and
other collaborating organizations. In particular the program will collaborate with: Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation supported initiatives on Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (led
by CIMMYT), tropical legumes breeding and seed systems development (led by
ICRISAT) and on legume systems improvement, in particular enhanced rhizobia
production and distribution (CIAT and Murdoch University); CIMMYT’s IFAD-supported
CA project in southern Africa and the Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program project on
CA in the Zimbabwe-Malawi-Mozambique Pilot Learning Site. Both the Drought Tolerant
Page 20
Maize for Africa and the Tropical Legumes II project are long-term commodity-specific
initiatives aiming to develop suitable maize and legume germplasm respectively, but this
program will create opportunities for testing, integration and wider diffusion in
combination with improved production technologies, farmer resource allocation and
value chains.
At the regional level, the proposed program will also link COMESA/ATNESA activities in
relation to harmonizing seed trade, the Participatory Research and Gender Analysis in
relation to gender mainstreaming in ASARECA; and various initiatives of the Alliance for
the Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), namely Program for Africa’s Seed Systems
(PASS), and emerging efforts under the Program for improving market access, agrodealer development and policies to improve soil health. This will include exchange of
knowledge and information, available technologies, exploiting established partnerships
and networks and joint capacity building. At the national level, collaborators will aim to
harness complementarities and synergies with other government, NGO and private
sector-led programs to maximize efficiency and effectiveness of disseminating program
outputs. The Ministry of Agriculture is the most important focus for programs that scaleup new technologies and insights, and linkages to those programs is a main task of the
existing in-country workgroups for maize and legumes. Projects may include those of
SG2000, Plan International, CARE, World Vision, and Oxfam. Even though regionally
operating, these programs typically implement nationally focused agendas which may
vary substantially between countries.
Strategies for the program countries. The rationale for the selection of the five
primary partner countries includes: the countries either have seasonal food insecurity or
have the potential to contribute to regional food security more substantially; maize is a
major staple food crop in these countries; use of recent improved maize and legume
varieties is below 25% of potential; there is lack of farmer-tested maize-legume systems
cropping practices that provide reliable (low risk) positive economic returns and
household food security; low public and private sector investment in input and output
value chains, including seed systems; low purchasing power of farmers; marked soil
degradation, poor soil fertility, low efficiency of water use for food production and
uneconomic returns to fertilizer application.
The proposed partner countries each have more than 75% of population dependent on
agriculture, with extensive poverty and food insecurity, and GNI per capita in agriculture
of US $ 65-144. Maize is the main staple in the five proposed primary partner countries,
with per capita consumption of 42-130 kg per year. The eastern and southern African
sub-regions have a stronger dependence on rainfed maize as a staple crop and there is
greater variability in yield than in other parts of Africa. Maize yields of 1-2 t/ha are less
than half of small farm yield potential of 3-4 t/ha. The current level of use of recently
developed improved (e.g. drought-resistant or otherwise higher yielding) varieties is low.
A variety of legumes are already grown in some of these maize-based farming systems,
including groundnut, pigeon pea and various beans, but they are by no means optimally
used by farmers nor do they fully alleviate protein deficiency in the region. In all
countries, farmers’ legume yields are less than half of yield potential, yet they offer an
important avenue for improved soil fertility and human nutrition for poor farmers. All
countries are below (Tanzania, Mozambique; less than 50 g per capita per day) or at the
brink (Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi; 50-60 g per capita per day) of adequate protein intake
which implies that significant disadvantaged population groups, including weaning and
Page 21
young children, women and HIV-affected people, are weakened by protein
malnutrition23.
Maize and grain legumes co-exist in all maize agro-ecologies of Ethiopia. Most maizegrowing areas in the country can be regarded as maize-legume based farming systems;
the difference lies in the maize varieties and legume-species grown. Grain legumes are
planted in intercrops, alleys and rotations with maize in mid-altitude sub-humid (common
beans and soybean), highlands (faba bean and chickpea), dry land (common bean,
pigeonpea, cowpea and groundnut) and low-altitude sub-humid (cowpea) ecologies.
The program activities will be undertaken in two maize-legume based farming systems
classified as mid-altitude dryland zone in the Rift Valley and the mid-attitude sub-humid
zone in western Ethiopia. In the dryland zone, moisture stress (drought) is the main
limiting factor for crops and livestock production because rainfall is erratic and
insufficient, a situation aggravated by high evapotranspiration rates. Irrigation and water
harvesting techniques and technologies for the efficient use of the limited rainfall are
poorly developed.
A large proportion of the activities (about 80%) will be conducted in the drought affected
areas of the Rift Valley region of Ethiopia by scientists from Melkassa and Awassa
Agricultural Research Centers while the remaining share of activities will be conducted in
the sub-humid, high potential maize growing areas of the country by staff from the Bako
Agricultural Research Centre. In the drought stressed maize-legume areas, seven
administrative zones (provinces) (East Shewa, Arsi, West Arsi, Guraghe, Silte, Hadya
and Sidama) are targeted, whilst only two administrative zones (West Shewa and East
Wellega) will be targeted in the sub-humid maize-legume based farming system. The
farming systems in both target areas consist of mixed crop-livestock systems where the
major crops are maize, tef, wheat, sorghum, haricot bean, barley, oil crops, other pulses,
fruit and vegetables. A total of ten communities within the two zones will be targeted in
the program.
In Kenya, the program will target four communities in each of two major farming
systems: the western Kenya highlands, which will be coordinated from KARI-Kakamega,
and the central Kenya highlands, which will be coordinated from KARI-Embu. The target
sites are considered to have good potential for agriculture, with elevation of 1,100-1,600
m above sea level, deep, well-drained soils and relatively high rainfall (1,200-1,800 mm
per year). Both areas have a bimodal rainfall pattern and two crop seasons. Both sites
have high population densities (approximately 886 persons km-2). The mean family size
is about seven persons per household. The majority of farmers in these areas are
smallholders with mean farm sizes of approximately 1 ha, although this is declining in
the densely populated areas of Western Kenya. The land holdings are fully registered.
Tanzania has been classified into three major agro-ecological zones: the Highland zone
(over 1500 m with a growing period of 6-8 months), Intermediate zone (900- 1500m with
growing period of 3-5 months) and lowland zone (0-900m with 3-4 months) growing
period. Maize is grown in seven agro-ecological zones. The program will target two
maize-legume based farming systems in the eastern and northern zones of the country.
In both zones the program will deal with maize-pigeon pea intercropping systems. In the
eastern zone it will target two communities in each of two districts, namely Kilosa and
Mvomero. While in the northern zone the program will initially focus in Mbulu and
23
FAOSTAT, 2010
Page 22
Hanang districts, and two communities will be targeted in each of these districts. All four
districts represent the major potential maize-legume farming system in Tanzania.
In Malawi, the program will focus on two systems – the lowland and lakeshore regions
including the Ntcheu, Balaka and Salima Districts, and the “highland” systems from
Dedza to Kasungu. Three communities will be targeted in each of these two agroecological zones.
In Mozambique, as in the other countries, legumes play important roles. Cowpea is an
important source of protein for those living in the southern part of Mozambique. Soybean
is emerging as an important food as well as raw material for producing high-quality
protein products. There is a growing demand for feed particularly for the poultry industry;
Pigeon pea is mainly grown in the central provinces of Manica, Tete and Zambézia. The
priority maize-legume system zone for the proposed program would be Central
Mozambique (Manica, Tete, Zambézia and Sofala) and a total of six communities will be
targeted in this region. On-farm research has demonstrated the potential for improved
maize, legumes and conservation agriculture in selected parts which needs to be
adapted to fit into farmers’ systems and also adapted for expansion to other zones.
Spillovers between countries. The potential for spillover to non-program countries in
the region, e.g., Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda, Zambia and
Zimbabwe from the five program countries is substantial as they share some of the
same agro-ecosystems and encounter similar agroecological and institutional
constraints. Through spillovers to other countries in the region, the ultimate impact of the
program will be greater and more widely spread in the region.
ACIAR facilitated a number of earlier (1995-2005) partnerships on which the program
will build –with both International Agricultural Research Centers and individual countries
in eastern and southern African, e.g., ‘Risk management in southern African maize
systems’ project (LWR2/1997/038), and an associated project in Malawi on maize
legume systems (SMCN/2001/028). The focus of these projects related to balancing risk
reduction in maize/legume systems and better soil/water management practices for dry
areas. The projects used practical simulation modeling to examine where new rotations
and systems would be sufficiently low risk to recommend them to farmers. The Risk
Management project also undertook work in Zimbabwe and addressed the need for
flexibility in the choice of legumes. A second cluster of ACIAR projects (LWR2/1996/049)
focused more directly on soil constraints and modeling of soil fertility effects on risk
management in maize systems. This was augmented by a project on integrated nutrient
management (SMCN/1999/003) which examined the use of green manures and
fertilizers in maize-based systems. The African partnership was with Kenya, Zimbabwe
and Niger, and included training in crop modeling techniques. One of the main scientific
achievements of these projects was the adaptation of the APSIM crop/soil simulation
model to local systems and rotations, and the proposed project can build on this work in
a wider range of countries and at a more specific level to resolve where different
legumes can best be utilized and under what seasonal conditions.
Other donor activities will also provide useful inputs to the program. The BMGFsupported Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) managed by CIMMYT developed
and released stress-tolerant maize varieties, some with enhanced nutritional
characteristics, which have the potential to increase farmers’ yields by 20% to 50%
under stress conditions or in drought years. This program will have access to these new
materials, which include hybrids and open-pollinated varieties that are tolerant to drought
and pre- and post-harvest pests. All five program countries are party to this effort and
Page 23
have established active research groups that develop, test and support the release and
promotion of new stress tolerant maize varieties. As part of the current program, those
varieties that meet the requirement of the agroecologies of the targeted farming systems
and farmer preferences should be fast-tracked for release and scale up of seed
production, and subsequently integrated as part of more productive, sustainable and
risk-averting livelihood systems. The Tropical Legumes II (TLII) project, managed by
ICRISAT and implemented jointly with IITA, CIAT and African NARS, focuses on
breeding and participatory variety development and seed delivery systems to accelerate
the adoption and impact of six legume crops (chickpea, pigeon pea, groundnut, common
bean, cowpea, and soybean) in nine countries of Africa and South Asia. The proposed
program will collaborate with TLII, with a view to evaluate and promote legume
technologies within the larger CA oriented maize farming systems in the region, and in
combination with improved rhizobia strains sourced from Murdoch University in
Australia. The proposed program will also complement the TLII project through better
understanding of legume value chains and crop management practices that improve
productivity and reduce the risk of crop failures. Although some emerging (private) seed
companies have appeared over the past ten years which offer the potential to get seed
markets established in outlying communities, the pathways for commercial provision of
improved seeds need massive improvement, especially for legumes. Working links are
planned with the BMGF-supported N2Africa program, led by Wageningen University with
the engagement of CIAT and other Centers, which has just been approved to supports
legume development and integration in selected countries in Africa. The Alliance for a
Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and other agencies are actively supporting the
development of rural businesses to provide agricultural inputs to smallholders. The
program will collaborate actively with these initiatives so as to ensure that the needed
new varieties are available commercially to target smallholders,
Page 24
3 Objectives
Aim
Increase food security and incomes at household and regional levels and economic
development in eastern and southern Africa through improved productivity from more
resilient and sustainable maize-based farming systems.
Overall objective
Sustainably increase the productivity of selected maize-legume systems in eastern and
southern Africa by 30% from the 2009 average for each target country by the year
2020.and at the same time reduce seasonal down-side risks by 30%.
Specific objectives and outputs
As outlined before, achieving the overall objective will require a coordinated and
integrated interdisciplinary approach. In the following sections, specific objectives and
activities to help achieve the overall objective have been divided largely along
disciplinary and organizational lines. Details are provided in Section 5. In all cases, a
comprehensive analysis of existing data sets and past research will be undertaken, and
collaboration with ongoing relevant programs will be established so as to lay the basis
for broad-based and comprehensive innovation systems at farming systems and region
levels.
Objective 1: To characterize maize-legume production and input and output value
chain systems and impact pathways, and identify broad systemic constraints and
options for field testing.
There is little reliable information as to the reasons for the poor maize-legume
integration, the decline of legumes as an integral component of smallholder farming
systems, or on which legumes are best suited to particular maize-legume farming
systems. Infertile soils, moisture stress, poor crop management, lack of improved
varieties, poor market access and weak value chains in input and output markets have
all been identified as contributing to limiting the productivity of current cropping systems.
In order to guide efficient interventions to improve the productivity and reduce the risk of
smallholder maize-legume systems, a systematic evaluation of the major constraints to
adoption and system improvement will be undertaken and production and marketing
options identified for field testing in 38 target communities in 10 target agro-ecologies in
the maize-legume farming systems in 5 participating countries.
Page 25
Outputs

Initial characterization of ten maize-legume farming systems and selection of
thirty research sites/communities. The first approximation of the socioeconomic
and agro-ecological profile of the farming system (two per country, and including
consideration of livestock and off-farm activities in order to focus the maize-legume
cropping systems research) will be developed through secondary data and
participatory methods. Rapid appraisals and consultations with private enterprises
and public sector agencies will be undertaken to identify market areas, potential
agribusiness opportunities for maize and legumes, and research sites/communities.
GIS maps and socioeconomic and biophysical area profiles will be developed for
selected farming systems and agroecological analogues between Australia and ESA
will be identified. Farm budget data from various sources will be reviewed and
collated to utilize existing information for refining the impact target areas and
diagnosis of the system. Broad program sites will be selected for execution of
program activities of all objectives in conjunction with biophysical scientists. The
characterization will be undertaken jointly and shared with other program scientists
and local partners to inform activities under all other objectives, especially
Objectives 2 and 3.

Understanding farmers’ maize and legume production constraints and
opportunities, crop and livestock interactions, resource use, technology
preferences and market access in the ten farming systems. Survey data will be
collected using innovative counterfactuals within the larger target areas of the
program focusing on specific questions related to the maize-legume interfaces and
technology and institutional issues that limit farmer incentives for adoption and
increasing the productivity, profitability and sustainability of the farming systems.
Instruments, tools and protocols for survey data collection will be standardized for all
participating countries. Villages and household types identified through household
surveys and participating farmers and collaborators will be engaged. Research
reports for five countries will be prepared, completed and shared with partners and
scientists involved in Objectives 2 to 5. These reports will document constraints and
opportunities, and provide reference material on existing farmers’ resource use
patterns, production practices, technology choices and preferences, constraints to
market participation and maize-legume systems improvements, socioeconomic
profiles, input output levels, access to services and markets for maize and legumes
in the target farming systems of each of the selected countries.

Understanding maize and legume input and output markets and value chains
including chain constraints and opportunities, costs and pricing patterns
associated with the ten farming systems. Standardized seed and fertilizer market
survey tools will be developed, and input market chain data and maps for seeds,
fertilizer and information will be gathered for selected markets/countries.
Standardized output market survey tools will be developed, and output market chain
data and maps (maize, legumes, crop residues - including market shares, costs,
price variability, and role of grain quality) will be developed for selected
markets/countries. The results, notably the constraints and underutilized market
opportunities, will be identified and shared with the research team and partners to
inform targeted interventions.
Page 26

Major farm-household typologies and system options that reduce risks and
enhance profitability identified for each of the ten farming systems for testing
in the research sites/communities. Farm household typologies will be developed
and case studies identified based on the above household survey data and
available data from other research sources. Existing farmer resource allocation
decisions and their consequences on risk-productivity-environment will be
quantified. Opportunities for improvement will be identified and discussed with
program scientists (especially Objectives 2 and 3), collaborating farmers,
stakeholders (including other national and regional development teams –
researchers, extensionists, NGOs, and others), and partners to facilitate program
focus on key research questions, best-bet practices and innovations.

Effective adoption and impact pathways assessed for ten maize-legume
systems. Evaluation criteria, indicators and monitoring processes with particular
reference to productivity and stability will be selected by the program team including
the M&E group. The evaluation criteria and feedback processes on changes in
productivity, risk, income, at multiple scales (field, household, community/district,
zone, and country) will be implemented. Adoption and impact assessments will be
conducted through farm household surveys in selected farming systems to identify
impact pathways and facilitate learning, change and priority setting processes. New
opportunities will be identified from linkages with other programs and local, regional
activities (e.g. new products, new systems, generation of inter- regional and intercountry spillovers).
Objective 2: To test and develop productive, resilient and sustainable smallholder
maize-legume cropping systems and innovation systems for local scaling out
Alternative maize-legume cropping systems that can improve system profitability,
productivity and resilience will be explored and evaluated with particular reference both
to input and marketing opportunities, and to farmer incentives and preferences. Farmer,
business and research experience need to be combined, using an innovation system
framework to test production technologies and market interventions. The innovation
system will initially focus discussions around 190 or more single replication exploratory
trials in the initial 38 communities, supported in succeeding years by other OFR and
demonstration activities: by year 4 there will be approximately 550 OFR/component
technologies trials, 740 monitored farmer trials/demonstrations of CA-oriented
technologies
and
approximately
2550
monitored
plots
with
farmer
experimentation/adaptation of the test technologies. In addition, approximately 30 value
chain interventions in at least 10 chains will have been tested by the end of the program.
The production and value chain research will be associated with farmer learning groups
which are an integral part of the innovation systems. Innovation system processes will
be evaluated in ten innovation systems (one per target agroecology) engaging a total of
50,000 farmers in the 5 countries, with a view to effective scaling out of technologies and
varieties, and to initiate substantial adoption and impact on more than 16,000 farmers at
the end of the program.
Page 27
Outputs

Identified options for systems intensification and diversification that reduce
risk in the ten farming systems using systems modeling. Potential technologies
for the target farming systems/agroecologies, as well as potential systems, practices
and risk management strategies to increase maize productivity, legume options for
system diversification and sustainability will be identified in each of the program
countries, including their opportunities for balanced gender impact. This ex-ante
analysis will include both conventional and CA systems, and a restricted range of
potential legume species, both in common system arrangements in the area (e.g.
intercropped, relay cropped, rotated) and in alternate arrangements. Legume green
manure cover crops may be considered where farmers are not land-constrained.

Functioning local innovation systems which engage 5,000 farmers each in at
least ten maize-legume systems for local scaling out. The on-farm research and
demonstration plots provide the basic skeleton for intensive farmer-agribusinessextension-scientist interaction focused on the effective incorporation of new
technologies and practices in the local maize-legume cropping systems. Organized
discussions between local stakeholders and experimenting farmers promote wider
informal community discussions and feedback, which together provide the
foundation for effective technology adaptation and local adoption. Therefore, from
year 1 key local groups and stakeholders will be encouraged to participate in
innovation system field days, discussion groups and farmer visits. After observing
technologies in the on-farm trials, demonstrations and field days, farmers will be
systematically encouraged to adopt, experiment with, and adapt the CA-oriented
technologies, varieties and ways to improve market access. The effectiveness of
local processes for adapting and spreading the program technologies will be
systematically assessed using participatory and M&E systems; naturally there will
be a gradient of adoption, adaptation and learning as one moves away from the
original locus of exploratory trials/OFR of year 1. The most effective processes will
be replicated in order to foster growth of the local innovation system from
approximately 500 farmers per innovation system in year 1 to a target of 5,000
participating farmers per system in at least ten active local innovation systems by
year 4 – these will expand in line with the growth in numbers of trials and
demonstrations. The local innovation system provides a focus for the practical
integration of the crop management system tests and the value chain intervention
tests corresponding to two other Outputs under Objective2. Gender mainstreaming
(Output 4.2) also supports the local innovation systems, as does Output 4.3
Functioning M&E.
Page 28

Evaluated exploratory trials of current best options for maize/legume
smallholder systems for different farm types in with 5-6 cooperating farmers
in each of thirty research sites/communities. Conservation agriculture-oriented
management systems and other production technologies will be adapted to the
biophysical and socio-economic conditions of innovative farmers in each of the
targeted communities. The first step in this adaptation will be the establishment of a
series of exploratory trials, one in each target community. “Best bet” CA related
options based on local and regional past results will be tested on 5-6 farms in each
community and compared with the farmers current management practices, but with
the same variety and fertilizer level as the CA option(s) to reduce the confounding
effects of using different varieties and crop nutrient levels. Trials may include more
than one option of both CA and conventional systems based on the results of the
ex-ante analysis. On each farm, one replication of the trial will be installed with plots
large enough for effective farmer evaluation. These trials will be combined, as
needed, with other outreach and experimental methods (such as mother-baby trials)
to gain the fullest participation of target groups, especially women)24. Thus, in each
community there will be one trial with 5-6 replications on different fields to sample
the variability in biophysical conditions. Basic soil, topography and cropping history
data will be obtained for each of the demonstration/validation plots which will be
established by farmers with program orientation and support. Trials and treatments
will be established on the same site for the duration of the program, allowing for the
short-term cumulative benefits of the treatments to be evaluated. Observations of
problems on these trials will provide inputs into the on-farm research program and
into the management of the same trials in succeeding years. Data will be made
available on qualitative and quantitative evaluations of demonstration plots by
farmers and other members of the innovation platforms.

Adjustments to the smallholder systems tested in the exploratory trials and
farmer experiments developed with farm communities in the thirty research
sites/communities and soil quality, system productivity and disease, pest and
weed dynamics quantified. This will be achieved through on-farm research and a
limited number of researcher-managed trials in each country that will generate data
to enable the adequate parameterization of the APSIM model available from onfarm research sites. Trials will be established on representative sites and data on
crop productivity and water dynamics for crop/soil simulation model validation, on
the effects and potential effects of the principal technological interventions
addressed by the program on soil quality, biological nitrogen fixation (BNF), and
disease, pest and weed dynamics, and on the effects of technological options on
system productivity and sustainability. Results will be evaluated and analyzed at
Annual Evaluation and Planning (E&P) Meetings in each country. These meetings
will, ideally be in integral part of ongoing internal review by the NARS, but, under
this initiative, additional opportunities will be created for participation by a wider
group of stakeholders carefully selected to ensure broad feedback, including from
women. Opportunities for further research or scaling out incorporated into plans for
the following season to ensure that the research program remains dynamic and
efficient.
See, for example, Ward A., Minja E., Blackie M., and Edwards-Jones G., (2007), “Beyond participation –
building farmer confidence: experience from Sub-Saharan Africa?”, Outlook on Agriculture, 36:4. 259-266,
and Snapp S., and Pound B., eds., Agricultural Systems: agroecology and rural innovation for development,
Amsterdam: Elsevier
24
Page 29

Appropriate interventions for improving seed and fertilizer delivery and farmer
access to technologies and markets field tested in at least thirty research
sites/communities. A synthesis of national reports identifying best practices and
models for improving farmer access to seeds and technology adoption and the
business development services supporting this adoption; a second report identifying
best practices, marketing instruments and models for improving farmer access to
output markets, and a third report identifying best practices for provision of
insurance services to smallholders to manage risks, will be prepared. A synthesis of
national reports identifying best practices for improving food quality, safety and
household processing will be developed. Policy options to enhance markets for
maize and legumes will be identified and summarized in policy briefs and
communicated to policy makers.

Lessons from active farmer experimentation with CA-oriented systems
incorporated into on-farm research and/or demonstration plots in each of the
thirty research sites/communities. This will be achieved by identifying farmers
who plan to install maize/legume CA-oriented experiments on their own fields,
monitoring these plots to record farmer activities and innovations, as well as crop
productivity. The results of these farmer experiments will also be discussed at the
Annual E&P meetings and problems observed as well as farmer innovations
discussed to assess the need to incorporate them into the on-farm research
process; and fed back into the systems modeling.

Farmer learning through annual facilitated visits of farmers and their local
extension agents between the targeted communities in each of the five
countries. Communities with similar conditions to the target communities will be
identified and farmer-to-farmer networking will be fostered for scaling out of
knowledge and technological innovations. Data on new farmer experiments will be
made available, permitting an evaluation of the effectiveness of the farmer-to-farmer
visits.
Objective 3: To increase the range of maize and legume varieties available for
smallholders through accelerated breeding, regional testing and release, and
availability of performance data
Improved maize and legume varieties are needed for the intensification of maize-legume
cropping systems. Those varieties that meet the requirement of the agroecologies of the
targeted farming systems and farmer preferences will be fast-tracked for release and
scale up of seed production from 10-15 maize varieties and 10 legume varieties and
demonstrated in 730 mother-baby trials for maize and 500 for legumes (co-located with
the CA trials mentioned above). Although adapted tropical legume varieties, with
potential for improving grain yield and maintaining soil fertility have been developed,
their availability is poor. The program will collaborate with ICRISAT and partner NARS in
participatory variety development and seed delivery systems, as well as establishing a
backbone of regional nurseries and GxE analysis.
Page 30
Outputs

Ten to 15 stress tolerant maize varieties and 10 higher yielding legume
varieties available to farmers in the selected farming systems through farmerand seed company-participatory variety evaluation and release. Pre-release
and newly released maize hybrids and OPVs and legume species/varieties with
potential suitability for the targeted farming system will be selected based on past
regional and national trial data. Best-bet varieties with adequate amounts of seed
will be utilized for experimentation in Objective 2 whereas a wider range of varieties
will be assessed for performance, farmer preference and marketability in
collaboration with farmers in the selected communities. Ease of production will
assessed with seed companies supplying those communities. Per country, a
minimum of three producible maize hybrids and OPVs and at least two legume
species/varieties suitable for the targeted farming system will be identified and
variety release supported. Based on GxE analyses and socio-economic
characterizations, recommendation domains for varieties and hybrids will be
developed both within each country and across the region to support rapid scaleout. Released varieties will be licensed to seed companies and one ton of breeder
seed per variety produced in support of rapid scale-up. Associated training to be
executed in Objective 5 will include a regional course targeted at new breeders and
seed company personnel and five in-country courses targeted at farmerparticipatory variety evaluation.

Regional nursery for further improved (2nd generation) maize and legume
varieties and hybrids. Characteristics of new maize and legume varieties and
hybrids will be identified in response to household surveys and value chain studies
conducted in Objective 1. Using regional nurseries, elite inbreds, testcrosses,
hybrids and maize and legume varieties will be characterized for performance,
marketability and farmer acceptance in target countries, and in various systems
including legume-intercrop and conservation agriculture conditions, and the data
entered into an appropriate database. Web-based access to regional germplasm
characterization databases and information will be developed and seed companies
assisted for identifying varieties that meet their marketing needs. Opportunities for
incorporating national germplasm into regional nursery will be assessed.

Environmental characterization: Four tropical maize hybrids and OPVs and 16
strategic maize testing sites in Africa and Australia will be parameterized for use in
APSIM models across the program, to assist germplasm exchange and scale-out of
best varieties. The analytical approach will be extended to legumes after analytical
capacity has been established using maize.
Objective 4:
systems
To support the development of regional and local innovations
Organized scaling out of program outputs between the primary five participating
countries and to five other countries in the region will lead to wider program impacts.
Studies will be undertaken to understand factors that enhance regional spillover of
technologies to other countries in the region. Gender sensitivity and effective monitoring
and evaluation overlay the entire program, and will be strengthened in the local
innovation systems. The respective methodologies used in the program and capacity
building of program partners to undertake successful gender sensitive research for
Page 31
development and to efficiently monitor and evaluate program progress will be covered in
Objective 4 and led by ASRECA and with broad engagement of relevant stakeholders.
Outputs

Mainstreaming of gender sensitivity in research activities in the five
primary program countries. The conduct of program activities will be assessed
by the Gender Specialist to evaluate how program activities may be better
managed for gender balance. The program will encourage the participation of
experienced female agriculturalists from the region and will involve women’s
groups and other outreach opportunities to facilitate the active contribution of
women to program development in the local innovation systems in each country.
The Gender Specialist will train eastern and southern African NARS scientists in
gender issues based on ASARECA, PRGA and best practice experiences using
examples taken specifically from program activities. Issues of gender bias and
positive and negative gender outcomes will be reported, analyzed and discussed
with program partners in the Annual Evaluation and Planning Meetings for
iteratively enhancing positive gender impacts across the entire program.

Functioning program M&E system incorporated into the program providing
information system assessments to national and regional program
managers. This will be accomplished by fine-tuning existing participatory lowcost M&E systems which are already implemented by ASARECA as part of
World Bank supported bilateral projects in eastern Africa. The M&E specialist will
participate in national inception workshops to brief national teams and M&E staff.
The specialist (or the respective SADC counter-part) will train eastern and
southern African NARS scientists in implementing the common M&E system
which will also include gender disaggregated data. Project advances at the
agroecosystem and national levels will be analyzed, presented to national
coordinators and program management and discussed and analyzed with
program partners at the annual regional and/or national Evaluation and Planning
Meetings and at the meetings of the program Steering Committee. The M&E
system and the required data collection and monitoring processes would be
linked to analysis of the adoption and impact pathways in Objective 1.

Knowledge of relevant program innovations and germplasm available in
five additional countries in the region. Effective knowledge transfer or
“spillover” will be underpinned by analyzing past experiences and bottlenecks for
maize-legume system knowledge and product spillovers among ASARECA
member countries and SADC countries. Low cost approaches to stimulating
knowledge and technology spillovers will be tested, that link with other projects
and programs of governments, NGOs (including AGRA), or the private sector for
scale-out. Cross-participation in annual research workshops between program
members and other projects in the region and West Africa will be fostered and
the interchange of maize and legume germplasm within the sub-Saharan Africa
region will be facilitated with enhanced knowledge on germplasm adaptation.
Objective 5: Capacity building to increase the efficiency of agricultural research
today and in the future
At all levels of research, extension, and private sector input supply, years of underinvestment in training have resulted in significant skills gaps. The program will hence
include both non-degree practical training and post-graduate degree training (ten MSc
Page 32
and four PhD) for national and regional partners. Practical training will include enhancing
skills in technology targeting, risk analysis, value chain diagnosis, impact pathway
analysis, cropping systems management and conservation agriculture, integrated maizelegume modeling, and methods for participatory breeding and local quality seed
production (approximately 350 professional scientists, extension leaders and agents and
SME staff). A further 50 field extension agents will receive practical training and
orientation during structured field visits.
Outputs

Training on technology targeting and value chain analysis will be provided to
build and enhance capacity of national and regional programs. Practical nondegree training on methods for risk analysis and technology targeting in maizelegume systems; market opportunity identification; and value chain analysis. In
addition, the project will provide regional M.Sc. training for three candidates
(technology adoption and commercialization in maize-legume systems), and PhD
training (two candidates) on bio-economic modeling of household decision behavior
under risk. In case of both PhD and M.Sc. students, research will take place in
collaboration between program partners, Australian, South African and target
country universities.

Training course on simulation model utilization and participatory
evaluation includes training on the participatory evaluation (costs, benefits and
risks) of opportunities for the application of crop/soil simulation models for the ex
ante analysis of technology options for maize-legume systems. Technology
options include conservation agriculture technologies, nitrogen management
strategies, crop sequencing, grain-legume mixed systems, rainfall harvesting,
and residue management strategies.

Training on cropping systems management research including the
principles and practice of conservation agriculture. Short training courses
held in each of the program countries for national program partners on: i) the
principles and practice of CA-based maize/legume systems; ii) principles and
tools for improving risk management strategies; and iii) options for increasing
household livelihoods and food security. Through the training the capacity of
researchers and extension agents to manage efficient participatory on-farm
research and demonstration programs will be enhanced. Training will be short
national or regional courses, each divided into 3-4 periods or “calls” of
approximately 2 weeks each during the crop cycle: i.e. a “call-system” course.

Training on crop improvement for new breeders. Technician training in farmerparticipatory maize variety evaluation; short training course on GxExM analysis,
its use in breeding programs and how to fast-track variety identification and
release.

Training and APSIM model parameters Practical training in environmental
characterization; PhD training in crop simulation model based analysis of
GxExM; Post Graduate training in breeding
Page 33
4 Planned impacts and adoption pathways
The program will implement a coordinated series of research activities that address
different challenges along the early stages of the adoption and impact pathways. From a
bottom up perspective, the current understanding, admittedly imperfect, of farmers’ goals
and problems is reflected in the choice of breeding, agronomy and value chain foci and
options. Given this state of knowledge, the challenge is to coordinate the four steps in
adoption pathways, viz breeding, seed systems and marketing, agronomy and
community (local) learning platforms to accelerate the development, testing and local
scaling out of technology and knowledge; and, later, the dissemination between
countries with similar farming systems to reap the benefits of spillovers.
Figure 1: Program conceptual framework and impact pathway.
Page 34
The program will have local impact within the initial lifespan of the program itself (4
years) and is expected to have significant community impact in a 10-year time frame.
The integrated approach of the program is crucial for developing viable solutions that
address key constraints that continue to undermine the adoption process in maizelegume systems in Africa. The program conceptual framework and impact pathway
(Figure 1) shows the relationships and feedback mechanisms between the different
objectives and how activities from the different objectives contribute to generating
various outputs that form an integral part of the technology adoption process by
smallholder farmers. The discovery, development and adaptation of a given innovation
through value chain, crop management and participatory breeding and variety selection
leads to the generation of key ingredients that enable the adoption and uptake pathway
at the farm level. These essential components for adoption include better tools and
methods for targeting and market opportunities (Objective 1), improved practices and
inputs for crop, soil fertility and water management, and farmer resource allocation
(Objective 2), and improved and locally adapted maize and legume germplasm
(Objective 3). These outputs will play a key role in kick-starting the farmer innovation
process to enable the technology selection and uptake process, which will be
complemented by greater capacity building to strengthen local institutions in seed
production, enhancing knowledge and delivery of information, and market opportunities
to farmers (Objective 5). The program will also facilitate essential synergies with other
value chain actors by working together with governments (e.g. input subsidy programs in
Malawi), NGOs, farmer organizations and the private sector in each country to improve
access to finance, seeds, fertilizer and tools for improved CA practices. Knowledge
management and spillover systems developed under Object 4 will generate region-wide
benefits through the more rapid implementation of innovations beyond the initial target
sites.
Increased adoption of maize-legume technologies will enhance productivity and increase
food production – which would progressively generate benefits both for producers
(improved food and nutritional security and higher incomes), consumers (through low
and stable prices), and the country at large (food security, reduced poverty, agroecosystem health). It would be difficult to quantify all the direct and indirect benefits at
different levels (e.g. social empowerment for women and equity). In addition, some of
the benefits are likely to spill out across borders and farming systems to further
strengthen the process of local innovation, adoption and adaptation of technologies. The
impact pathway however shows how the different elements of the program work and
come together in generating the desired outcomes and impacts.
The social benefits would increase two- to three-fold if one considers other less tangible
benefits (not estimated yet due to lack of data) - the increased farm-household welfare
from reduced risks (or increased yield stability) and vulnerability to drought and other
shocks; labor savings and increased labor productivity, especially important in
households headed by the elderly or by children and in HIV/AIDS affected households;
enhanced food and nutritional security for children, nursing mothers and the elderly;
social empowerment of women and reduced drudgery; and increased resilience of the
resource base and sustainable intensification resulting from integration of legumes and
capacity development for farmers and local partners. These benefits are descried briefly
and qualitatively in the following sections.
In Australia the program is expected to generate important economic and science
benefits from the targeted introduction of drought tolerant, disease resistant and more
Page 35
productive maize inbred lines, and identifying feasible pathways for the intensification of
cropping systems for the increasingly summer rainfall dominated environments of
Queensland and northern New South Wales.
4.1 Scientific impacts
The program will generate the following scientific impacts.
In relation to social sciences, three impacts will be noteworthy: participatory value chain
analyses which integrate input (especially seed, fertilizer, equipment and pesticides) and
output systems which has not been done in the region (and scarcely elsewhere);
estimation of the trade-offs between farm house goals of food security, profit, risk and
sustainability in particular; and identification of the determinants of local learning and
scaling out processes.
In relation to Australian and African farming systems, this program will provide, (i) an
improved eco-physiological understanding for the opportunities to increase the
adaptation of maize germplasm to the targeted environments; (ii) an improved
understanding of how to maximize the use of limiting resources i.e. water, solar radiation
and nutrients through the temporal and spatial intensification of cropping in maizelegume systems i.e. double cropping, relay cropping, intercropping and the use of CA
practices; (iii) the development of CA based crop and soil management systems for
intensification and stabilization of rainfed maize-legume systems in medium- and lowpotential areas and its impact on soil quality, soil biological activity, BNF and weed
dynamics; and (iv) an improved understanding of best fit practices for maize-legume
systems across highly contrasting farming systems, i.e. presently low productivity
systems from Africa; and medium to high production systems in Australia where a
reduction in productivity increases requires the development of more innovative and
multidisciplinary science solutions involving improved genetics, new farming systems
practices and tactic, and innovative farming systems designs. The application of APSIM
models to farming systems and farm types will also assess the resilience and
adaptability of farming systems in relation to climate change, and inform decision makers
about adaptive strategies.
With respect to germplasm, the program will develop for the first time APSIM parameters
relevant for tropical maize germplasm adapted to Sub-Saharan Africa and use the
results for modeling GxE in regional and national maize variety trials, including between
Australia and Africa, and for developing recommendation domains for new varieties in
current and future climates. These results will contribute to accelerated identification and
use of best germplasm in African and Australian breeding programs, and faster
deployment to farmers. They will also contribute to the assessment of the “adaptation
dividend” of maize traits in a climate change context – the changes in southern Africa
are projected to be amongst the most severe in the developing world (along with central
America).
4.2 Capacity impacts
Increased capacity to national research systems to discover, develop and deliver
information on strategies for sustainable intensification of maize-legume cropping
systems
Page 36

The overall program approach will build the ability of NARSs to use interdisciplinary
approaches to increase productivity and sustainability and decrease poverty for a
significant numbers of farm families, through the unique combination of household
and value chain analysis, simulation approaches, and farmer-participatory
experimentation with new varieties and conservation agriculture practices all
targeted at the same maize–legume systems.

Enhanced capacity of NARES to foster agricultural innovations systems and of
farmers and agro-enterprises to utilize maize-legume innovations through enhanced
arrangements for networking, exchange of knowledge, training and partnerships.

Enhanced capacity (with an emphasis on female participation) of agro-enterprises
(farmer organizations, agro-dealers, seed companies) and private/public sector
business development service providers in input and output marketing

In order to improve agribusiness and marketing skills for rural agro-enterprises, the
program will develop training modules for farmer organizations, agro-businesses
and business development service providers implementing improved approaches
within the targeted farming systems. The focus will be on improving competitiveness
through enhanced skills in market opportunity identification, efficient business
practices, risk-sensitive contracting models, seed production and marketing.
Increased capacity for policy makers and government agencies to enable informed
policy decisions related to technology targeting and promotion.

The program will strengthen the capacity of decision makers and researchers to use
improved decision-support tools to assess and gain insights about the profitability
and risk trade-offs of selected technologies and complementary management
practices under their local socio-economic and biophysical conditions.
Increased capabilities to deliver solutions to important problems in highly complex
commercial and smallholder farming systems in Africa and Australia.

This program provides a unique opportunity to develop the required critical mass,
i.e. across countries and agencies (CIMMYT, NARS, QDEEDI, ICRISAT, and
CSIRO), of multidisciplinary skills to provide solutions to the complex problem (i.e.
biophysical – economic – social) of increasing food security and reducing poverty in
Africa.
Under Objective 5 there will be targeted capacity building at all levels from district level
learning platforms to national and regional level capacity building, making use principally
of practical, “hands-on” short course training, M.Sc. and Ph.D. studies. A recent
assessment of research capacity of NARS in the ASARECA region (Howard Elliot,
ASARECA) identified biometrics and social sciences as the weakest disciplines among
the ten ASARECA NARS; and a similar situation prevails in southern Africa. However,
other evaluations of capacity suggest that the biggest limitation is in the capacity for
applied research, and the management of efficient breeding and agronomic programs.
These aspects are not covered in university curricula, neither at the graduate nor at the
post-graduate levels.
Capacity building for social science will hence be focused on participatory value chain
analysis (Objective 1); participatory farm-household system technology evaluation and
local innovation systems (learning platforms) for scaling out research results obtained in
Objective 1-3, and incorporation of gender aspects (Objective 4). Exposure and
capacity building in the use of crop/soil simulation models will build NARS capacity to
Page 37
interpret the outputs from crop/soil simulation models and be able to discuss these
results with farmers, especially with respect to risk, while a series of courses of
increasing intensity will address the principles of conservation agriculture and sound
crop and soil management research. Related to biometrics, NARS researchers in the
five countries will be taught the ICIS data base management to store and manage
breeding line and variety genotypic and performance data, and their GxE analysis and
extension to assess trait performance under future climates (Objective 3). Special
attention will also be given to building the capacity for regional M&E and cross-country
spillover management through SROs notably ASARECA – both in terms of staff and
functional mechanisms to markedly increase (three or more times) the capacity to
mobilize and manage cross-country technology and knowledge spillovers (indicator:
number of technologies generated by the program which are tested within 5 years of
end-of-program in non-program countries in the region).
4.3 Community impacts
The primary beneficiaries will be smallholder farmers, especially women who do much of
the farm work and poor households in the target areas. Benefits will include improved
food security, higher productivity, more stable production, greater incomes from
marketed surplus and better prices, as well as diversification of income sources that
contribute to more resilient livelihoods. Smallholder farmers will also benefit from better
nutrition, higher labor productivity, improved land quality, and better water management
practices that reduce vulnerability and enhance sustainability. The local private sector
will benefit from increased trade volumes and more opportunities. On a higher level,
greater aggregate production will improve national food security, reduce import needs,
and foster the evolution of the agribusiness sector, which will be in support of economic
growth and poverty alleviation.
The program has a strong development impact as it brings together actors along the
supply chain (from research, production, and marketing to consumption) and helps to
establish sustainable alliances and innovation systems that maintain interventions, and
as smallholder farmers and rural communities benefit from opportunities that
simultaneously facilitate technological change, productivity increases and market access
and help them to move from subsistence production into the market economy. In the
long term, institutional innovations along the input-output value chain will facilitate
provision of essential services, including extension and rural finance.
In Australia the primary beneficiaries of the program will be farming communities i.e.
farmers and agribusinesses, from the increasingly summer rainfall dominated
environments of Queensland and northern New South Wales. In these regions levels of
productivity are not increasing as existing farming systems are unable to cope with
environmental stresses ((http://www.climatechange.gov.au/) and the increasing
concentration of resources (i.e. rainfall) during the summer months. Solutions to this
complex problem will require the development of more innovative and multidisciplinary
science solutions.
4.3.1
Economic impacts
Direct economic benefits will be registered principally within the targeted agroecologies
and farming systems where average land and/or labor productivity in maize-based
systems is targeted to increase by 30% and the downside risk reduced by 30% (i.e. the
number of years when crop or economic losses occur will be reduced by 30%). Similar
Page 38
yield increases and stabilization are expected with pulses. It is estimated that close to
500,000 farm families over the five participating NARS will be impacted directly, as
outlined in Annex 7.3.
A simple ex-ante analysis of the expected benefits of the program indicates that
proposed investment will generate sizeable economic gains for the smallholder farmers
and the target countries. In ten years, the program is expected to reach over 7500
communities and benefit more than 500,000 farm households who will benefit from
adoption of new innovations (new varieties and best-bet crop and resource management
practices) on about 680,000 ha of maize-legume cropland. With support from the
governments of the target countries and other agencies (NGOs, etc), this is expected to
be scaled up widely to reach about 5 million farmers and about 630 million ha of maize
and legume farmland in 20 years in the target countries.
Under plausible assumptions, the program is expected to generate significant social,
economic, and sustainability benefits for target countries. The economic net gain from
crop productivity growth alone is expected to reach from US$ 1 billion to US $2.5 billion
in discounted present values assuming that governments, NGOs and other agencies will
have complementary investments, estimated at 30-50% of the projected investment up
to year 10, and make modest investments thereafter to scale up successful innovations
and spread the technologies to more farmers. Even though a very conservative
estimate, this represents a sizeable gain for the target communities and countries and
shows that for every dollar invested, the net benefit for the poor would be more than two
dollars. The estimated aggregate internal rate of return (IRR) for the program is about
45% - a high rate of return given the low level of interest for savings or cost of capital in
today’s capital markets. The benefit-cost ratios for the specific technologies in the
different countries range vary depending on the available farm sizes for maize and
legumes, expected productivity gains, incremental cost of seed and other production
inputs and input and output prices.
There will be additional indirect benefits from (a) local multipliers and spill-over between
and beyond program countries which is estimated to double the local farm household
effects and (b) the stabilization in yield will likely give a greater payoff in the drier years,
therefore resulting in improved household food security and reduced sale of assets.
Benefits will be shared by urban poor through lowered food prices, and will also result in
a saving of foreign exchange though reduced imports of food grains. In detail, economic
impacts will include

Higher yields, more marketed surplus and income for smallholder farmers

Reduced drudgery and demand for labor, increased labor productivity and
increased opportunities for alternative enterprises (including schooling) that take
advantage of the reduced labor demand for crop production

Reduced vulnerability to shocks (pests, diseases, and drought) and associated
sale of assets, resulting from income diversification and stress-tolerant
technologies (varieties and crop management practices)

Good quality, market preferred and value-added maize-legume products for
domestic and regional markets that facilitate commercialization of production and
economic integration.

Greater production and hence more reliable and diversified markets for maize
and legumes that reduce price fluctuations that undermine farmer investment in
new technologies
Page 39

Higher economic growth resulting from better forward and backward linkages that
generate employment and multiplier effects along the value chain.

Higher livestock productivity and cash income through increased use of maizelegume by-products as animal feed and intensification of the farm livestock
enterprise
In Australia, maize is mostly grown in Queensland (198,000 tons in 2007/08) and New
South Wales (176,000 tons in 2007/08), with a national average yield of 5.47 t/ha. Even
though maize production has decreased during recent years, Queensland still produces
51% of the total national production, at an average yield of 4.1 t/ha and on 39,000 ha
(average 2001-2007). New South Wales produces 45% of the total national production
at an average yield of 7.9 t/ha and on 23,000ha (average 2001-2007). For the Darling
Downs and the Burdekin in Queensland, irrigated and rainfed maize yields of 15t/ha and
11t/ha, respectively, are also common. More than 80% of the maize is grown for human
and animal feed consumption in the domestic market, although a small amount - usually
specialized varieties such as waxy or white types - is grown for export. In the domestic
market 70% is used for animal feed and mostly used in cattle feedlots.
The total feed grain demand for Queensland and New South Wales, during 2006/07 was
2.8 million tons and 0.8 million tons, respectively (based on national feed grain usage
weighted by number of animals on feed in each State). This combined demand for feed
grain in north eastern Australia of 3.6 million tons/year is only reached in approximately
50% of years. The prospect of an increasing frequency of El Nino events, as expected
from climate change (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/), will have important economic
impacts on both Queensland’s and New South Wales’s grain feed industry, and more
transformational adaptations in the sector will be required, including the expansion and
intensification of summer cropping. Increasing the production of sorghum in north
eastern Australia by 10% (i.e. assuming an expansion of sorghum cropping into more
marginal areas in Queensland and New South Wales) has been estimated to add a total
value of AU$ 48 million (Report on “Growing the Sorghum Industry: The feed grain and
biofuel imperative – DPI&F New Horizons Project).
The need and potential for the expansion and intensification of summer cropping,
particularly in the increasingly summer dominated environments of Queensland and New
South Wales, is real. Supporting evidence includes already observed shifts in rainfall
seasonality (Rodriguez et al., 2007), and projected changes in rainfall (2050-2080)
derived from likely emission scenarios and global circulation models (Taminiau and
Haarsma, 2007; Aust. Met. Mag. 56 167-175). This program will explore the potential for
the expansion and intensification of summer cropping in Queensland and New South
Wales through:

An increased diversification of the farming systems for reduced vulnerability to
climate and market fluctuations through an improved understanding of the viability
of intensified rainfed maize-legume systems for Queensland and northern New
South Wales;

Accelerated breeding programs from an improved understanding of environment
types, frequency of stress for maize, and their distribution in Australia;

Increased productivity from an improved understanding of the eco-physiology of
double cropping, relay cropping and intercropping practices and their role in
Australian farming systems.
Page 40
4.3.2
Social impacts
The program will have five significant and measurable social impacts. First, increased
household food security (and reduced poverty) will lower the poverty rate and improve
health and education outcomes (indicators: community assessments and district
administrative records of changes in number of poor; school attendance). Second,
improved farm income and job creation in associated rural activities is expected to
reduce unemployment and slow the departure of youth from the local areas (indicator:
community assessments). Third, the technologies developed under the program are
expected to benefit women and youth for a proportion of the technologies relatively more
than for men. Fourth, through more resilient farming systems the risk of declining
livelihoods will be reduced, and finally, decreased labor demand will facilitate the
attainment of food security in labor-constrained households, including those affected by
HIV/AIDS.
4.3.3
Environmental impacts
The principal direct impacts will be on soil quality and reduced erosion, through
biological nitrogen fixation, adapted fertilization practices, stubble retention and zero
tillage. The principal components of soil quality that will be affected (and monitored) will
be soil nitrogen and organic carbon (soil organic matter), aggregate stability, soil
biological activity and increased diversity of soil organisms, soil porosity and pore
continuity. An indirect benefit of the expected increases in soil organic carbon will be
increased reduction in the emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases
(GHGs). Positive environmental impacts will be achieved as follows

Improved soil fertility through atmospheric nitrogen fixation, adapted fertilization
practices, improved quality of composts, and increased nitrogen and phosphorus
use efficiencies through improved agronomic practice and weed control in maizelegume cropping systems.

Enhanced sustainability of maize-based production systems in the region through
diversification using grain legumes

Reduced soil degradation through conservation agriculture and integration of
pigeon pea and other vegetative legumes that reduce soil erosion

Enhanced availability of biomass for fodder and fuel-wood that would reduce
pressure on forests and grazing lands and contribute to agro-ecosystem health.
However, there are also possibilities of negative environmental impacts that will need to
be monitored.

Increased plant nutrient applications (whether as organic or inorganic
amendments) will increase the possibility of nutrients contaminating streams and
ground water. Crop nutrient balances will need to be monitored to reduce
leachable excesses. However, at the same time the reduced soil erosion
expected with the application of CA-oriented technologies will reduce stream
contamination with sediment and associated nutrients.

The use of herbicides will be a researchable component of the adaptation of
functional CA systems. The main herbicide that will be used will be glyphosate
which has a very low mammalian and faunal toxicity, is tightly bound to clay
particles (and therefore does not leach in any but the very sandiest soils) and is
broken down by naturally occurring soil microbes within the space of
Page 41
approximately three months. As soil erosion will also be markedly reduced by
the CA technologies there is a very low risk of environmental contamination by
glyphosate. However, in some instances other more problematic residual
herbicides may be tested and used in CA systems. Data from Zimbabwe and
Malawi (CIMMYT, unpublished) suggests that weed populations under CA
systems decline markedly within about three years and even if residual
herbicides are used, their use can soon be discontinued.
4.4 Communication and dissemination activities
Communication is critical at three levels and will be fostered using multiple and
innovative techniques.
In the local learning platforms, farmer-to-farmer sharing and learning will be supported
and facilitated by NGOs, public extension, seed companies, agrodealers and business
development service providers, based on the promotion of core messages on
conservation agriculture and farming system improvement through varieties, crop and
soil management, and local institutions for input supply and marketing.
At the national level, a dialogue with policy makers on the outcomes of the value chain
and farm-level technology assessments will foster policy adjustments which favor seed
enterprises and farmer adoption.
At the regional level, the knowledge and technology as well as research methods need
to be shared across countries through SROs and the equivalent, and through the
program’s webpage. It is expected that pan-African organizations such as NEPAD and
FARA might also facilitate the spread of results outside the region after the conclusion of
the program, as it addresses the four pillars of CAADP.
The bold goals of this program will require continued efforts by the NARS well after the
end of the proposed program. Plans will be put in place during the program to ensure the
sustainability of the activities and approaches through integrating program activities into
national agricultural strategies and development plans.
Communication will also be achieved through regular meetings of the members of the
innovation platform in the target communities. The participation of innovation platform
members will be formalized through planned participation in discussion sessions in the
community at least three times in each season. During these sessions, limitations will be
discussed and analyzed and solutions to overcome them defined, as well as those
responsible for doing this and the timelines delineated.
Annual national multidisciplinary study tours including program partners and other
important players in the innovation platforms such as equipment developers and
livestock researchers will be conducted in the middle of the crop season to observe,
evaluate and discuss advances, problems and opportunities. The results of these
discussions, as well as the innovation platform discussions outlined immediately above,
will feed into the evaluations and discussions at the national Annual Evaluation and
Planning Meetings.
At the national Annual Planning and Evaluation Meetings, national partners will share
and analyze their results, as well as the results of the innovation platform discussion
groups and study tour evaluations, with those from other disciplines and from other
target communities in the country. Problems affecting the efficiency of the technological
options, as well as logistical and management problems affecting the efficiency of the
Page 42
program will be analyzed and solutions or potential solutions defined. These will feed
into the planning for the subsequent season to ensure that the program remains
dynamic and efficient.
Synthesis of results at both the national level and across the region will be used to
prepare program bulletins and reports. These results will also orient efforts to foster
spillovers into neighboring countries. Program results will also lead to peer-reviewed
publications in respected scientific journals. Syntheses of results will also nurture
discussion at the Annual Project Steering Committee Meetings and this will allow mutual
learning, understanding and spillover of results within the five program countries.
Page 43
5 Operations
5.1 Methodology
General approach
The research program will be implemented during 2010-2014 in five countries of eastern
and southern Africa (i.e., Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania) in which
maize and legumes are major sources of food security. The farming systems of these
countries show potential for rapid and sustainable intensification and diversification
through appropriate germplasm and improved cropping system management
technologies.
The program will build on socio-economic and biophysical diagnoses of production
systems and value chains (both input and output) under Objective 1. Field testing of
agronomy and value chain interventions within the framework of local innovation
systems is concentrated under Objective 2. Activities related to maize and legume
germplasm improvement and varietal release supported by GxE analyses are grouped
under Objective 3. Support for the development of innovation systems, both local and
transnational, including M&E, gender mainstreaming and spillovers to non-program
countries are clustered under Objective 4. Capacity building activities at all levels are
grouped under Objective 5.
The general approach will be as follows: In each country NARS have chosen two
relevant agro-ecologies where program insights can be scaled up to a minimum of
100,000 farm families each (on average). Farming systems in several of these agroecologies reach across countries and allow scale-out of results beyond the country of
actual research. By different countries working on different farming systems and agroecologies and interchange of results among partner countries, the program aims at
achieving much more wide-spread impact than if the research were repeated in the
same agro-ecology or farming system in each country. In each agro-ecology, three
communities will be chosen for data collection, characterization and experimentation, for
a total of 10 agro-ecology/farming system combinations and 38 communities across the
program. In interaction with farmers of the communities (making use of existing farmer
groups, faith associations, school agricultural clubs, and other community-based groups
with an active interest in agriculture), program partners will identify options, experiment
with those options and select those that contribute to significant food security and
income increases and improve the sustainability and resilience of farming systems.
Options will include improved farmer resource allocation, maize-legume systems which
are based on the principles of conservation agriculture, more productive, stress tolerant
and farmer-preferred maize and legume varieties or Rhizobium strains, and
opportunities for improved input and out marketing, rural financing and processing.
Systems modeling will play a support role with contributions to several Objectives, to
simulate and assess a wider range of options than would be possible through field
experimentation for germplasm, agronomic options, farmer resource allocation and
systems mix. In the first place, systems modeling will facilitate co-learning (i.e.
researchers, extension officers, farmers and policy) about “best fit” technologies and the
way they could be best combined at farm level to maximize productivity and reduce
risks, in farming systems having high seasonal and spatial variability. This includes the
Page 44
identification of potential impact of new technology packages (e.g. conservation
agriculture), improved allocations of limited resources (e.g. nutrients, water, labor,
finances, land, and best-fit genotypes for particular management options and
environments). It will also help quantify complex interactions and provide ex-ante and
ex-post analyses that identify best bet options for likely future scenarios (e.g. expected
impacts and adaptation options in the face of increased climate variability and climate
change.
The program will foster the implementation of state-of-the-art methods through joint
planning, training and operational manuals. Several principles govern these methods:
increased household food security and income with reduced risk; consultation with
regional and national stakeholders, farmers’ organizations and communities;
participatory research methods to complement quantitative formal methods;
consideration and inclusion of gender aspects; systems approach to the design and
evaluation of technology; development of more sustainable and resilient systems.
By the end of the program, farmer-selected options will have been tested and adapted in
more than 190 exploratory trials, in more than 2,000 OFR and mother baby trials, farmer
adaptations monitored on more than 2,500 farms, and scale-out and farmer adaptation
initiated through more than 10 local innovations systems supported by licensing of
released varieties to seed companies, NGO/extension and farmer promotion of improved
maize-legume systems approaches, and recommendations to policy makers,
agribusiness, public development programs, and farming communities. ASARECA and a
potential SADC sub-regional organization (or the program coordination unit) will foster
the availability of program knowledge and germplasm outputs in at least five “spill-over”
countries i.e. countries other than the country where the research is concentrated.
Table 1 summarizes the most important program outputs and relates them to an impact
pathway of 1. System and community selection and characterization; 2. Experimentation
with alternative options; 3. Improved options identified; 4. Scale-out of best options; 5.
Capacity-building and training. The program implements the ASARECA monitoring and
evaluation framework, uses ASRECA expertise to incorporate a strong gender
component, and strengthens the capacity of NARS through training, strong involvement
in the execution of the program agenda, and capital.
Program management
Formal program partners include the International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center (CIMMYT), the Ethiopia Institute for Agricultural Research (EIAR) the Kenya
Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), the Department of Agricultural Research and
Technical Services (DARS) in Malawi, the Instituto de Investigação Agrária de
Moçambique (IIAM), the Agricultural Research Services (ARS) of the Ministry of
Agriculture in Tanzania, the Queensland Department of Employment, Economic
Development and Innovation (QDEEDI), Murdoch University, the Association for
Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA), and the
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). The
program will subcontract other institutions for execution of the program agenda, with
coordination from an appropriate collaborating organization, based on annual workplans
agreed at planning meeting.
Page 45
Table 1. Summary of most important outputs by objective and year
1. Socio-economics
Year Obj Output
2010 1.1 Target areas selected
1.1 Socio-economic profile of regions
developed
1.1 Market opportunities identified
1.2 Standardized socio-economic survey
tools developed
1.2 Villages identified
1.5 Monitoring HH parameters &
opportunities
2011 1.1 GIS Maps
1.3 Input and output market surveys
completed
1.5 Input market opportunities identified
2. Maize-legume systems
Obj Output
2.1 Options for technology changes
identified & selected
2.2 Innovation systems established
2.3 Farmer groups established
2.2 Recommendation domains established
3.1 Selection of sites for farmerparticipatory trials
3.3 NARS capital improvement
2.2 Analysis of ML systems in Australia
3.3 MoU for germplams exchange
2.3 Environmental data & APSIM input
variables collected
2.2 Innovation system continues
3.1 Farmer participatory variety trials
2.3 Exploratory trials continue
1.4 Household typology
2.4 OFR trial program established
1.4 Farmer resource allocation assessed
2.3 Farmer experimenters identified
1.5 Monitoring HH parameters &
opportunities
2012 1.3 Synthesis of output market
opportunities identified
1.4 Improved resource allocation and risk
managment strategies identified
1.5 Monitoring HH parameters &
opportunities
2013 1.4 Options to intensify and diversify
explored
1.5 Monitoring HH parameters &
opportunities
Germplasm
Obj Output
3.1 Identification of best-bet maize &
legume varieties
3.1 Seed increase of best-bets
2.2 Maize traits for systems improvement
identified
2.2 OFR trials defined
3.1 Seed production characteristics
determined
3.3 Seed increase for regional nursery
Output
M&E system established and gender
aspects integrated
NARS staff trained in M&E system
including gender aspects
Agro-ecological analogs mapped for
Africa - Australia
Project Management and Training
Obj Output
5.2 Training in systems analysis & modeling
5.3 Training in principles of conservation
agriculture
5.4 Training in breeding approaches
5.5 Training in environmental
characterization
Annual national and regional review
and planning
4.2 M&E system implemented (semi5.1 Training in risk analysis and technology
annual)
targeting
4.1/ M&E data analyzed including for gender 5.4 Training in participatory variety
4.2 outcomes
selection
4.3 Low cost approaches for spillovers
5.4 Training in GxE analysis
between countries determined
4.3 Germplasm exchange
Annual national and regional review
and planning
4.3 Info exchange
2.2 Quantiative analysis of demos
4.1 M&E system implemented (semi5.1 Training in market and value chain
annual)
analysis
4.1/ M&E data analyzed including for gender 5.4 Training in FP research, demonstration
4.2 outcomes
and scale-out
4.3 Grants for implementing spill-overs
Annual national and regional review
and planning
4.3 Germplasm exchange
2.2 Farmer-to-farmer visits for scale-out
4.3 Info exchange
2.2 First farmer experiment data
3.1 Variety use opportunities in other
countries
3.3 Characterization of regional nursery
M&E, gender and spill-overs
Obj
4.1/
4.2
4.1/
4.2
4.3
3.3 Web-based access to germplasm data
2.2 Practices relevant for systems
improvement identified
2.3 Improved CA systems adpted to local
systems
2.5 Synthesis of best practices for access to
seed and technologies
2.2 Documentation of effective innovation
system processes
3.1 Maize variety release
3.1 Legume variety release
3.1 Fast-track variety release in other
countries
3.1 Varieties licensed and breeder seed
produced
3.4 Characterization of germplasm and trial
sites completed
4.1 M&E system implemented (semi5.1 MSc training in technology adoption and
annual)
commercialization
4.1/ M&E data analyzed including for gender 5.4 MSc in Agronomy
4.2 outcomes
4.3 Grants for implementing spill-overs
5.4 Training in seed production
4.3 Germplasm exchange
Annual national and regional review
and planning
4.3 Info exchange
Such sub-contractors will likely be

In-country: local universities (e.g. University of Alemaya, University of Nairobi,
Moi University, Egerton University, Bunda College, Sokoine University, University
.of Eduardo Mondlane, RUFORUM 25 , and South Africa based universities),
extension, seed companies, NGOs

Africa-regional: Other International Agricultural Research Centers involved in
legume research and the “Tropical Legume 2” program, in particular CIAT and
IITA, and potentially livestock research (ILRI; in Kenya and Ethiopia)
CIMMYT will coordinate and manage the implementation, drawing upon the scientific
and coordination capabilities of existing sub-regional and national agricultural and
international research organizations and universities in east and southern African
countries. Resources will be transferred to collaborating organizations on the basis of
annual workplans and the delivery of outputs specified in the previous workplan (except
for the first payment). Within each budget allocated to NARI’s, ICRISAT or DEEDI,
research output will be delivered by the stakeholder with comparative advantage in the
R&D activity (with appropriate resources and an efficient administrative arrangement), to
be determined at annual planning meetings. In this regard, in-country research outputs
in the Africa partner countries may be delivered by Universities, NGOs, extension or
SMEs under the coordination of the NARI and as agreed at annual in-country planning
25
The Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Development in Agriculture – based at Makerere University
Page 46
meetings; TL-2 related outputs will be delivered by TL-2 members under the
coordination of the TL-2 Leader at ICRISAT; and Queensland outputs may be delivered
by University or CSIRO under the coordination of DEEDI
The program will utilize a responsive (adaptive) management approach that takes
consideration of diverse systems and needs, strength of NARS, changing opportunities,
and feed-back from the M&E system on program performance with the full involvement
of ACIAR. As a result and after making an umbrella agreement with each program
partner, the program will be implemented based on annual workplans (“who does what
by when”) by all program partners framed within the partner four year plan. Countryspecific annual workplans are developed by in-country workgroups at annual national
planning/review meetings under the leadership of the in-country partner institution and
with participation and input from other in-country stakeholders, the regional (ASARECA
and RUFORUM) and international partners (IARCs, QDEEDI, Murdoch University) -- and
the success in implementation of each annual workplans will be taken into account when
framing future annual workplans. The overall (i.e. not country-specific) program
planning/progress review will be done at annual program meetings. Within the overall
framework of budgets for partners and countries, actual support will be deployed based
on annual workplans and transfers make directly to the implementing party who are
responsible to report on a semi-annual basis to the Commissioned Organization
(CIMMYT). Continued financial support will be pending successful implementation of
workplans and submission of semi-annual technical and annual financial reports.
It is recognized that the program faces a diverse range of implementation risks at
several levels, including exchange rate changes, seasonal conditions notably drought,
political instability and research leadership. These risks will be actively monitored and
managed with a view to delivering the agreed program outputs and, ultimately, achieving
the intended impact. A program risk assessment report will be appended to the annual
program report, indicating the impact of changes in the implementation environment on
program delivery. For example, in the case of exchange rate risks, given that all
budgets are based in Australian Dollars, the Commissioned organization will monitor
exchange rate fluctuations (both positive and negative) for each partner receiving ACIAR
funding and implications thereof and reported as part of the above risk assessment.
Changes in the implementation environment and their financial and program
delivery implications will be a matter for joint consideration by the Commissioned
Organization and ACIAR, in the spirit of adaptive management, and may form the basis
of a formal business case for a program variation at the mid-term review, at the end of a
program, or at any point if severe changes occur on a case-by-case basis. Any variation
would be subject to approval by ACIAR.
Figure 2 shows the membership of the Program Steering Committee. The Committee
composed of one representative each for ACIAR, CIMMYT, EIAR, KARI, DARTS in
Malawi, IIAM, ARS in Tanzania, ASARECA, ICRISAT, QDEEDI (for Australian partners)
and two independent co-chairs (recognized agricultural scientists or policy makers, one
each from Africa and Australia) will provide oversight and strategic guidance to the
program, monitor general progress, milestones and partnerships, and report and
recommend through CIMMYT to ACIAR any adjustments in program implementation
modalities or budget that are in the interest of achieving program objectives and impact.
The Steering Committee will meet at least annually at the regional planning/review
meeting, receive semi-annual reports and program impact indicators which will serve to
focus, adjust or reschedule and refocus activities (and budget disbursements) as
deemed necessary by the Steering Committee.
Page 47
Within CIMMYT, a Program Management Committee, consisting of the three Program
Directors involved in the program (Conservation Agriculture, Socio-economics, Maize),
will provide programmatic leadership to scientists and support to the Coordinator. The
Program Management Office will consist of the Program Coordinator and a Program
Administrator. The main role of the Program Coordinator is to provide active leadership
to the implementation of the Program as a whole, ensure coherence across objectives,
maintain effective relationships with partners, make program agreements; and, with the
assistance of the Program Administrator, receive, summarize and monitor annual
workplans, semi-annual reports and summary M&E information, transfers funds based
on annual workplans and reports received, verifies financial reports, interacts with the
donor agency, heads of institutions, Steering Committee members, program members
and subcontractors, organizes annual meetings, analyses program progress and
provides recommendations to the Steering Committee on necessary actions and
decisions to be taken. Monitoring will provide key inputs to program management in
relation to key stages of the adoption and impact pathway, including milestones, outputs
and outcomes; as well as effective partnerships. The M&E system is a core tool which
will focus on the core elements of the program including the performance of the local
innovation systems. This may be supplemented by additional thematic participatory
monitoring as required. ACIAR will call for external mid-term and final reviews which will
be indicative for continuation and future direction of SIMLESA beyond the current time
frame.
National annual review/planning program meetings which will be coordinated with the
national research planning process are the basis for in-country planning and the
development of annual workplans. They will start with the inception meeting and
continue on an annual basis thereafter. They will include all relevant stakeholders to
execute the program agenda (NARS, extension, NGO, company) and be organized
between the NARS principal investigator and the program management office.
Stakeholders involved in related research and potential scale-out will be invited to these
meetings. The national Steering Committee member will play a key role as leader,
ambassador and champion during and between annual national meetings, and will foster
appropriate institutional linkages and additional government, private sector and donor
support for the Program.
Regional annual review/planning meetings will be held on an annual basis and include
leading program partners represented by the National/Collaborating Organization
Coordinators. They will serve to implement consistent methods and approaches through
training and peer-review, critically analyze program progress (based on reports and the
M&E framework) and make adjustments to the program agenda and budget as deemed
necessary and endorsed by the Steering Committee. They will be important for
identifying opportunities for scaling-out insights and outputs from one country and
partner organization to the other
Continued exchange with other major programs working on related topics, including
DTMA, TL-II and N2Africa will be fostered through individual partner institutions (e.g.
CIMMYT is involved in DTMA and SIMLESA; ICRISAT is involved in TLII and SIMLESA
etc) and through invitation of major partner organizations (AGRA, AUSAID, NGOs such
as WVI or CRS, Ministry of Agriculture) to annual national or regional
meetings/conferences. Opportunities for shared training with DTMA, TL-II and other
programs are planned. ACIAR will support working links with selected elements of the
Australian Food Security Initiative for Africa.
Page 48
Figure 2. Program Steering Committee membership, including two independent cochairs from Africa and Australia.
Specific Objectives
The following section highlights a number of the core methods associated with each
objective:
Objective 1: To characterize maize-legume production and input and output value
chain systems and impact pathways, and identify broad systemic constraints and
options for field testing.
The research methods will combine qualitative and quantitative analysis of existing and
new data as well as information gathered from wider consultations with stakeholders.
The market analysis will employ standard and established methods for value chain
analysis and estimation of transaction costs. Global and regional market information will
be collected from trade statistics, market institutions, and from internet sources. The
scientific literature, involving a comprehensive screening of literature from regional
scientists, will be comprehensively reviewed and analyzed. Existing farm budget data
from various sources will be collated and analyzed for broad characterization of the
farming systems and to identify major constraints, identify household types and major
limiting factors agricultural productivity growth in the selected countries. Complementary
baseline surveys will be carried out in selected communities to fill the gaps in
knowledge and to understand existing conditions on varieties, yield levels, farmer
preferences, incentives for diversification, seed supply systems (especially for legumes),
Page 49
sources of market and agronomic information, etc. Traders and local stockists will be
identified, trained and supported on how to run a rural seed business and how to support
innovative farmers in their requirements for inputs, equipment and knowledge 26 .
Financial institutions will be encouraged to provide credit to entrepreneurs and adopting
farmers. Impact assessment methods that integrate economic as well as environmental
benefits will be employed to estimate the social impacts and returns from this
investment. Collaboration will be sought from innovation platforms developing in the
region, such as the Tanzania Agricultural Partnership (http://www.taip.or.tz/).In selected
representative locations baselines data will be collected using primary community,
household and market surveys. This will be complemented by collection and synthesis of
secondary data. Market studies will include standard market survey methods to identify
marketing channels, major actors along the supply chain and the associated volumes,
grain quality, prices, seasonality and marketing costs. At the community level, data on
population, social diversity (including gender roles), economic profile of household
groups, key assets, key livelihood strategies, role of maize and legumes, current levels
of productivity, and market participation will be collected. Standard household specific
resource use, livelihood assets, production, utilization, marketed surplus, market
participation and expenditure data will be collected at household level from
representative districts in each country through stratified random sampling methods. The
household surveys will be conducted in program intervention villages (treatment group)
and relatively similar control villages (comparator groups).
Data will be analyzed using standard scientific methods to test the research-fordevelopment hypothesized outcomes. Qualitative methods (including in-depth case
study methods) will be used to compare the various strategies used to link smallholder
farmers to markets in selected countries and examine their effects on access to produce
and seed markets.
The program will carry out a participatory bio-economic modeling of resource options for
representative African household types. The objective of the work is to identify low-risk
and productivity enhancing maize-legume farming systems designs (i.e. tactics and
strategies) that improve food security and systems resilience. The work will include three
main tasks: (1) the identification and description of typologies of households across the
target environments, following the work by Dorward27, and more recently Tittonell28; (2)
the development and validation of a set of farm-household models describing the
responses of these different farm/households to key drivers of change; and (3) applying
the models for evaluating the tradeoffs and effects of technological and institutional
innovations on farm household resource use, agro-ecosystem sustainability and welfare
in ways that capture interactions between household decision behavior and local drivers
of change (labor availability, market prices, etc).
Objective 2: To test and develop productive, resilient and sustainable smallholder
maize-legume cropping systems and innovation systems for local scaling out
Given the focus of Objective 2 on an adaptive process of identification and testing of
improved CA-based systems agronomy and value chain practices/technologies, an
innovation systems approach will be used.
Some 3-5 target communities per
26
This component will be carefully coordinated with AGRA and other initiatives that are implementing
complementary programs.
27Dorward,
28Tittonell
2002
et al., 2009
Page 50
agroecology form a nucleus test platform with exploratory trials and component trials
(alongside the mother-baby trials for maize and legume evaluation) conforming a
coordinated an efficient on-farm research program. Farmer groups will be established
around the OFR trials, many of which will also serve for demonstration purposes. In
some ten value chains (one per agroecology), interventions will also be evaluated. The
expansion to another 184 communities will involve 44,000 farmers over 4 years, in which
monitored demonstrations and-or maize and legume variety trials will be established.
Through the innovation system discussions and knowledge exchange, farmers will be
encouraged to experiment with the CA-oriented technologies and approximately 2,550
farms will be monitored using PM&E methods. Active exchange of experience between
farmers, input suppliers, traders, extension and researchers will be systematically
arranged.
Smallholder African farmers manage risks, including climate-related risks, intuitively in
their day-to-day activities. Doing so these farmers minimize risks and identify
opportunities; though in face of uncertainty they are highly risk averse, primarily
allocating resources to be food secure. Innovation systems facilitate the context within
which technological changes could be enhanced. This requires involvement of relevant
actors as deemed necessary rather than requiring involvement of all actors at once. The
project will initiate and facilitate innovation systems based on proven methodologies29:
The first stage of farmer adoption of CA systems through an innovation systems
approach is understanding the micro and macro environments of intended area of
operation around the 38 target communities, building on Objective 1 diagnoses, followed
by a participatory stakeholders analysis and organizing awareness creation workshops
to engage with potential partners, including existing farmer and community groups,
businesses, extension, research and local government through focus group methods. At
the start, an alliance or platform of core organizations initiate the network but would later
be encouraged to recruit other relevant organizations who could also contribute. The
second step is the identification of starter problems or the entry point, building on the
Objective 1 diagnoses, and previous research in the agroecosystem and/or country in
continuing consultation with the network. The starter problems will lead to the design of
the single exploratory trials (farmer practice and two dynamic best bet treatments), some
5-6 per community. In year 2 the OFR/component trials are begun. As the innovation
system expands to incorporate additional communities (e.g., 68 in year 2, as shown in
Appendix 7.3), some farmers begin to test or experiment with CA systems on their own
fields outside the initial target area. These farmer experiments provide insights to
agronomic researchers on possible system modifications that can feed back into the
demonstration or research programs and to social scientists to explore further farmer
perceptions of CA and the impacts of the system on household resource use and food
security. The in depth diagnosis of the identified innovation system includes: actors
(organizations) and their domain of operations; habits and practices of organizations;
patterns of interaction among organizations and institutional and policy environments
that influences functions of the actors. The most effective knowledge exchange and
learning systems within each innovation system will be identified in consultation with
stakeholders. Periodic reflection on learning outcomes based on monitoring and
learning system will be conducted. Main actors and actions will be adjusted as required,
including interactions with policy-makers through various means. The lessons from each
29
Hall et al., 2007
Page 51
system will be consolidated to apply in other domains or scale out within the same
domain.
The methodology for the participatory development and validation of maize-legume
systems based on the principles of CA is focused on the establishment of a single
replication of farmer-managed dynamic CA exploratory trials on each of several (5-6)
fields in each of the target communities, as well as the use of a range of other relevant
participatory methodologies. Typically, these trials will incorporate at least two CA
options compared to the farmers’ current production practices (but with the same
varieties and fertilizer levels as the CA plots) and will provide an opportunity for both
farmers and professional agronomists to observe problems and opportunities for system
improvement and intensification. These observations feed into both the on-farm and onstation research programs where solutions and possible improved system components
are identified. The exploratory trials will remain on the same site for the duration of the
program to observe the cumulative effects of CA, but the CA technologies will be refined
and modified over time to incorporate farmer observations and the results of the applied
research program.
These trials will lead to the identification of best bet CA technologies which reflect the
circumstances of the farmers in the target communities. For example, manual seeding
methods will be used where farmers generally rely on manual labor for land preparation
and seeding (such as in most of Malawi and parts of central Mozambique). Animal
traction options will be explored in those areas and communities where animal draft
power is available to most smallholders (including women). Other innovations, such as
2-wheel tractors, may be explored where there is potential and interest. This will involve
linking with other programs that are testing this equipment, and also access CA
equipment for 2-wheel tractors being developed, often in collaboration with CIMMYT
programs, in other parts of the world.
Climate risk management can be greatly improved across most African regions. In many
cases climate relevant information, already available to decision makers, fails to reach
farmers in a usable form30. Across eastern SSA, year to year variability across eastern is
highly influenced by ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation), and sea surface temperatures
in the Indian Ocean. Predictability in eastern Africa is stronger for the October-December
short rains than for the long rains during March-May. Predictions at longer time intervals,
those of climate change (30-50 years), show a worrying alignment between recent
observations and expected increases in temperatures. However there is no consensus
on how climate change will affect regional rainfall. At intermediate time scales
associated with decadal changes in climate (10-30 years), of relevance to the strategic
planning of households, there are increasingly optimistic results of tremendous
application potential for many developing regions in the world31. In addition to climate
variability, climate change is expected to further impact on the livelihoods of these
farmers. Though by helping farmers now how to better manage climate variability i.e.
from season to season and from year to year, will increase they resilience and capacity
to adapt to future climatic changes.
In this program we will develop climate resilient farming systems by:
 Improving our understanding of the system and its management;
 Improving our understanding the impact of climate variability;
30Hellmuth
31Meehl,
et al., 2007
et al., 2009
Page 52



Determining opportunities for tactical and strategic responses to existing and new
climate information;
Use system modeling to evaluate the worth of change options and any potential
trade-offs;
Participatory implementation and evaluation.
In a first step we will analyze historical climate data to identify trends and quantitatively
describe present climate systems; and explore the role of probabilistic seasonal climate
forecasts, and longer term predictions for planning practices, tactics and strategies.
Systems modeling tools will be used to translate climate odds into expected yields, and
cash returns. The participatory use of systems modeling will allow the program to
generate relevant and actionable information that will be discussed in the local
innovation systems in each of the target communities, to generate new “virtual”
experiential knowledge and easy to apply rules of thumb.
Examples of modeled results will include the benefits and trade-offs from changing
practices e.g. selecting crops, fine tuning the use of fertilizers, selection of cultivars and
their planting dates; benefits from the adoption of new technologies e.g. conservation
agriculture; and ex-ante identifying more productive and resilient smallholder farm
designs by quantifying alternative allocations of limited resources on the household
livelihoods.
Crop simulation models will be calibrated using data from targeted areas to assess the
production, profitability and riskiness of certain identified production strategies (GxExM).
This will be complemented by cost-benefit and risk analyses methods to determine the
profitability and risk trade-offs associated with alternative maize-legume production
strategies. Data for calibration of the simulation model (APSIM) will be obtained from
existing national climatic databases. This will be supported by soil information and
varietal performance and agronomic trial data from the program target areas. The
simulation results will be discussed with farmers to verify the likely effects of changing
crop mixes, varieties and agronomic practices. The analytical results will be mapped to
provide insights on the potential trade-offs, strategies for reducing risks and impact
target areas for maize- legume technologies. This will facilitate future decision making,
technology targeting and up-scaling to exploit technology spill-ins and spillovers within
and across countries.
While local adaptation of the principles of conservation agriculture is the key to
successful CA systems, some components of the system may have large and
overlapping recommendation domains, just as the adapted varieties – one component of
the CA systems – may have very wide adaptability. However, the combination of
components technologies is likely to be quite different across the agroecologies and
program countries. Even though it is impossible to define at this stage what the problems
to successful CA implementation will be in the different agroecologies addressed by the
program, it is likely that certain problems, limitations and issues will be of primary
importance. The following are likely to be some of the principal issues that will need to
be addressed to adapt the principles of CA to local conditions:
Weed control strategy – combining manual and judicious weed control will give
opportunities for saving labor, but with increased cost. The balance of these two weed
control strategies is likely to change depending on the agroecology, but also will depend
on the resource availability (including cash, land and labor) of the particular farm family.
One of the principal reasons for tillage is to control weeds, and so when tillage is
stopped or markedly reduced, weed control becomes a major issue. It is likely that the
Page 53
program will need to invest considerable effort in deciphering optimum weed control
strategies for different situations and farmer circumstances.
Equipment – effective CA depends on being able to seed the crop into untilled soil,
preferably into soil covered with crop residues. While some equipment is available
worldwide, locally manufactured equipment is often of poor quality. Availability of CA
equipment on the local market in the five countries is negligible, and this, together with
local manufacture of high quality, adapted equipment will need to be addressed to
overcome this barrier to CA adoption.
Residue amounts – most small farmers in the countries (except Malawi) manage mixed
crop-livestock systems where the livestock component is often just as important as the
crop enterprise. Maize crop residues are often used as animal fodder, especially over
the dry winter period. These residues provide very low quality feed which results in
animals being weak and emaciated at the start of the rains, and thus inefficient for land
preparation. Although the draft requirements in CA are considerably (+80%) lower in CA,
the animals could still be far more productive and crop production and system
sustainability enhanced by leaving crop residues on the soil surface. Achieving this will
require alternative sources of fodder, and legume fodder, or mixed cereal/legume fodder
can provide a considerably more nutritious animal diet. Although numerous research
results show that 30% of ground cover with crop residues reduces soil erosion by
approximately 80%, residue levels for other conditions, for instance where evaporation
or temporary waterlogging are limiting factors, are not understood.
Residue maintenance – even if farmers leave residues on the field, other factors
conspire to remove the residues prior to the following crop season. Communal grazing
rights apply in most smallholder areas of the five program countries – after harvest
animals are free to roam and graze, thus making it extremely difficult for a farmer to
retain crop residues. This is a social issue that will require considerable knowledge
development and discussion to overcome, but there are examples in southern and
eastern Africa where farmers have surmounted the problem. Another hazard for residue
retention is termite populations. Termites can consume even fairly heavy residue loads
within a few months, leaving the soil almost bare. Although termites may still leave some
land protection with a thin layer of residues over their tunnels and galleries, and also
benefit infiltration though macropores, maintaining residues in areas with heavy termite
loads will require innovative approaches.
Fertilization strategy – in conventionally tilled systems, farmers – and especially
smallholder farmers – generally fertilize for the current season. However, in CA systems,
because of the marked benefits that result from surface residue cover, fertilization
strategies may be very different to enable sufficient residue production and therefore to
capitalize on the benefits from the residues in subsequent seasons. In all five countries,
fertilization strategies have been researched for conventionally tilled systems and it may
well be necessary and efficient to research new fertilization strategies for CA systems,
especially where legumes are incorporated into the system. CA is not a “low-input”
system and functions best when residue cover is adequate. Common farmer production
methods with little nutrient applications have, as reported earlier, very low grain
production levels which are allied with low stover production levels. Increasing the
productivity and sustainability of these systems does, and will, require the incorporation
of adequate nutrient levels into the system, whether by biological nitrogen fixation,
organic nutrient amendments, including manure where available, and inorganic
fertilizers. In general the program will aim to use moderate and relatively accessible
nutrient application levels, guided by ex ante analysis of economic benefits.
Page 54
Legume species and variety – in untilled situations the benefits to the following crop after
different species may be completely different to the benefits observed in conventionally
tilled systems. Pigeonpeas for instance may be important not only for their grain and for
the nitrogen balance of the soil, but also because of the macropores through compacted
layers that their strong taproots are able to produce. In conventionally tilled situations
these pores are likely blocked by tillage, and certainly do not remain continuous,
whereas in CA systems, these pores remain open and continuous, aiding water
infiltration and root growth.
Maize varieties – to date there is no conclusive evidence of GxE (or M – management)
interactions between maize varieties and CA systems. It is likely, however, that
resistance to necrotrophic diseases will enable a variety to be better adapted to CA
conditions. Researchers must remain alert to the possibility of interactions, and crop
breeders must remain alert to the potential benefits of selecting germplasm under CA
situations.
The first stage of farmer adoption of CA systems is when some farmers begin to test or
experiment with CA systems on their own fields outside the area of the demonstration
plots. These farmer experiments provide insights to agronomic researchers on possible
system modifications that can feed back into the demonstration or research programs
and to and to social scientists to explore further farmer perceptions of CA and the
impacts of the system on household resource use and food security.
Conservation agriculture provides an opportunity for improving the natural resource base
dedicated to agriculture. The impacts of the CA interventions on soil quality will be
monitored in multiple-season researcher managed trials as well as in the on-farm
demonstration plots. Combining this data with the outputs of the crop/soil simulation
models and GIS-based site-similarity analysis will allow the targeting of scaling-out
activities and feed into the policy debate on solutions to problems of agricultural
productivity and sustainability.
Objective 3: To increase the range of maize and legume varieties available for
smallholders through accelerated breeding, regional testing and release, and
availability of performance data
A shortlist of new experimental maize and legume varieties with potential adaptation to
the conditions and farmer’s needs will be identified by NARS for each country and
targeted maize-legume system. The varieties will mostly originate from ongoing breeding
programs such as the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa Project or the Tropical Legume
2 project. Simultaneously for them passing through variety release, the varieties will be
evaluated in farmer-participatory trials in the target communities, using for example the
Mother-Baby Trial methodology, and seed production characteristics will be determined
for joint identification of desirable varieties with farmers and seed companies.
Involvement of seed companies will ensure rapid uptake of varieties as they become
aware about farmer demand and production characteristics of new varieties.
In addition, regional nurseries will be composed of best-bet maize lines and legume
varieties. For maize, inbred lines will be characterized per se and in testcrosses for
priority traits (drought, N stress, pests, diseases) using trial sites established with
CIMMYT and NARS partners. A subset of the testing sites and a minimum of four
tropical maize hybrids will be parameterized for use with the APSIM model using
standard characterization protocols by QDEEDI. GxE analysis and application of the
APSIM model will then assist in scaling out best varieties faster into similar growing
Page 55
environments within and across countries, identifying best varieties more appropriately
(by removing predictable GxE effects), give indication for meaningful germplasm flow
from CIMMYT to Africa and Australia-based national program partners and among
national program partners, and explore recommendations for new varieties in current
and future climates. For the different legume species, germplasm exchange will be much
more targeted based on farmer preferences for particular species and income
opportunities defined in Objective 1. Best legume varieties identified in one country will
hence be directly exchanged with countries, agro-ecologies and farming communities
that have interest in that particular specie and included in farmer-participatory trials in
that particular target community.
NARS licensing approaches will be used to deploy best program germplasm through
seed companies. Breeder and foundation seed will be produced by IARCs and NARS for
further multiplication by commercial farmers or seed companies.
Objective 4: To support the development of regional and local innovations
systems
The national research activities will contribute to the knowledge pool (a virtual centre of
excellence) on sustainable maize-legume based system intensification. Spillovers are an
important source of benefits. Beyond the immediate exchange among partner countries,
spillovers within the east-central region will be coordinated by ASARECA while
established collaborative networks in southern Africa (such as NSIMA, SOFECSA) will
assume a similar role in the southern sub-region. In addition, spillovers with Australia
and with West Africa could be significant. Spillovers will include the adoption of program
insights across countries. Given site and farming systems similarities, executing the
program in different farming systems in different countries will facilitate use of spillovers
across program countries and in non-target countries. This is fostered by that partner
institutions execute research only in selected systems but are confronted with needs
from a wider range of systems. Data on biophysical site similarities and socio-economic
studies will be the foundation for scaling up insights beyond the country of origin and the
APSIM model will be applied to assess recommendation domains of improved options
across countries. In addition, maize and legume germplasm tested and released in one
country can be scaled up more rapidly because site similarities and GxE analysis will
allow identifying potential recommendation domains in other countries. NARS and seed
companies can accelerate the inclusion in variety release in other countries by skipping
the length pre-evaluation process that usually leads up to National Maize Variety Trials.
Seed companies that license these varieties, produce and disseminate the seed can be
made aware of recommendation domains and use the information for marketing
purposes. Finally, the use, adaptation and validation of Australian crop and system
models to a wider array of conditions, thereby increasing their utility.
Research activities will be monitored using an adapted ASARECA M&E framework
including indicators of adoptability, gender equity and transferability across farming
systems and countries.
Gender and M&E specialists within the NARS will participate in program activities in a
sample of program target communities, and collect data on socioeconomic indicators
and technological and socioeconomic advances from all communities and from the
germplasm development activities conducted under the program. These data will be
analyzed and incorporated into a georeferenced knowledge database. Project advances
against stated milestones will be analyzed at the agroecology and national level and
reported, analyzed and discussed at national annual meetings to ensure that all program
Page 56
partners are aware of the bottlenecks and opportunities to achieve the program goals. At
the same time evidence of gender bias in the program activities will be assessed and
opportunities to overcome these and increase the gender balance in all aspects of the
program analyzed and discussed.
Examples of successful spillover between African countries will be analyzed to evaluate
the factors that increase effective spillover, and factors that limit interchange of
information, knowledge, technologies and methodologies. An action plan to increase
effective international transfer of program outputs will be developed and installed in the
program. This will include a competitive grant program for grantees outside of the
program countries to enable them to more rapidly extend program outputs through other
programs and programs. This transfer will be oriented by site-similarity analysis and by
the outputs from crop/soil and bioeconomic models to enhance the probabilities of
effective spillover.
Objective 5: Capacity building to increase the efficiency of agricultural research
today and in the future.
The program will use short courses, workshop, field days and exchange visits in support
of the program agenda and support selected M.Sc. and Ph.D. research programs
executed in collaboration with local, South African and Australian universities. Capacity
building will be targeted at program scientists and technical staff in partner
organizations, and include researchers, extension agents, the private sector and
farmers. Linkages to regional capacity building efforts, such as ASARECA and
RUFORUM, will be used to expose a wide group of young scientists to the methods and
focus of this program and to scale out the methodologies. In addition policy papers will
seek to build the capacity of policy makers. The use of relatively simple modeling
techniques, such as spreadsheet analysis, will be explored to provide accessible and
accurate policy analyses, based on the best scientific data available, to decision makers.
Page 57
5.2 Outputs, activities and milestones
Objective 1: To characterize maize-legume production and input and output value chain systems and impact pathways, and
identify broad systemic constraints and options for field testing.
No.
Outputs / Activities
Output
1.1
Initial characterization of ten
maize-legume farming
systems and selection of
thirty research
sites/communities
Activity
Exploratory visits to the target
areas, selection of sites and
community surveys within
target countries
1.1.1
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Program communities and sites
selected and adjoining control or
counterfactual villages identified
Target sites
and villages
selected by
June 2010
NARS
economists and
scientists from 5
countries
(leaders),
CIMMYT,
ICRISAT and
Australian
partners
Logistical conditions on
the ground will permit
reconnaissance visits to
the target areas
Improved knowledge about the existing
situations and variability of target areas to
help the program teams in selection of sit
and control villages
Lead: NARS
economists and
scientists from 5
countries:
Traders, farmer
organizations and
processors will provide
essential data
First approximation of
socioeconomic profile of the
communities within each target zone
developed to identify and target hot
spots
Activity
1.1.2
Consultation and rapid
appraisals for identifying
agribusiness and market
opportunities in maize-legume
systems
Indicative opportunities for
agribusiness and market
development in maize-legume
systems identified
Agribusiness
opportunities
identified in
selected
markets by
August 2010
Partners:
CIMMYT,
ICRISAT
and Australian
partners, market
orientated NGOs
and relevant
private sector
Page 58
Country teams will
operate interactively for
systematic selection of
sites and villages
Better understanding of limiting factors an
entry points in the value chain and
participation of the private sector in defini
program interventions
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Relevant data on
production conditions,
constraints and
socioeconomic factors
(population, roads,
markets, poverty
profiles, etc) is
accessible from
secondary sources
Contextual framework to be used for
interpretations of site specific data and
information - inform policy analysis.
Proactive participation of
program partners in
developing a tool for
collecting relevant
information
Efficient and effective data collection
protocols, data collection tools and data
analysis methods, at a number of scales
field, household, village and region
associations
Activity
1.1.3
Collection and analysis of
secondary data (including any
existing farm budget data) and
mapping and characterization
of the target farming systems
in each country
GIS maps and socioeconomic and
biophysical area profiles developed
for selected farming systems
About Dec
2010 for data
collection
May 2011 for
mapping of
the results
NARS
economists and
scientists from 5
countries
(leaders) for data
collection
CIMMYT (leader)
for data analysis
with support from
Australian
partners, NARS
and ICRISAT
QDEEDI (leader)
for spatial
characterization
and GIS
mapping
Output
1.2
Understanding farmers’
maize and legume
production constraints and
opportunities, crop and
livestock interactions,
resource use, technology
preferences and market
access in the ten farming
systems
Activity
Developing standardized
instruments and survey tools
through consultation with
program teams
1.2.1
Instruments, tools and protocols for
survey data collection standardized
for all participating countries
Aug 2010
Page 59
CIMMYT(leader),
NARS and
Australia, and
ICRISAT
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Activity
Identification and training of
enumerators, and
implementation of farm
household surveys
Villages and household types
identified through household surveys
and participating farmers &
collaborators engaged
Surveys
completed in
3 countries by
Feb 2011
NARS (leaders)
for supervision
and
implementing
surveys,
CIMMYT,
Australia, and
ICRISAT
Political and security
conditions will allow
collection of household
surveys in all countries.
Descriptors for household and farm types
within communities and case studies to
inform technology and household targetin
by the program teams
Lead: QDEEDI;
Political and security
conditions will allow
collection of household
surveys in all countries
1.2.2
Household data coded and entered
into SPSS software for analysis
Activity
1.2.3
Activity
1.2.4
Villages and household types
identified through household
surveys and participating
farmers engaged (in
collaboration with 1.2.2)
Participatory diagnosis of
rainfed maize and maizelegume systems options in
Queensland, Australia
Farm case studies identified and
current farmer’s decision on
resource allocation and their
consequences quantified in terms of
productivity – risk – environmental
consequences
Improved understanding of the
viability of rainfed maize-legume
systems in Queensland
Surveys
completed in
2 countries by
August 2011
June 2010
Participate:
ICRISAT;
National
Program staff32;
CIMMYT; farmer
and women’s
groups in the
target
communities
December
2010
Lead: QDEEDI;
Participate:
participating
farmers; NARES
Link: CIMMYT
32
In all cases, national programme staff include members of universities and graduate students
Page 60
Participating farmers will
cooperate in providing
the necessary
information through inperson surveys.
In-depth knowledge of household and far
types, resource condition, access to inpu
and markets, feasible technological option
and feasible pathways for intensifying ma
legume production systems identified and
reported
Participating farmers will
cooperate in providing
the necessary
information through inperson surveys and
participatory discussions
Risk: Farmers interested
to develop a
participatory action
research activity on
intercropped maizelegume systems
identified and engaged
Participatory identification of feasible
pathways for systems intensification
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Activity
Analysis of data on existing
farmers’ resource use patterns,
production practices, technology
choices and preferences,
constraints to market
participation and maize-legume
systems improvements,
socioeconomic profiles, input
output levels, access to services
and markets for maize, legumes
and other farm outputs in the
target farming systems of each
of the selected countries to
appraise technology options
Research report for 3 countries
completed and shared with partners
Dec 2011
CIMMYT (leader,
data analysis)
with support from
ICRISAT,
Australia, NARS
partners
Availability of good data
will allow quick analysis
of major socioeconomic
conditions, constraints
and opportunities in the
target farming systems
In-depth knowledge of household and far
types, poverty profiles, access to inputs a
markets, technology choices to inform
targeting by the program teams
CIMMYT (leader,
survey tools)
with support from
Australia
ICRISAT and
NARS
Value chain actors will
be willing to provide
information for seed,
fertilizer, and other
inputs
Input suppliers, farmers and public sector
agencies and researchers will use the
information to identify weak links and
impediments in the input supply chain
1.2.5
Output
1.3
Understanding maize and
legume input and output
markets and value chains
including chain constraints
and opportunities, costs
and pricing patterns
associated with the ten
farming systems
Activity
Understanding the structure
and performance of seed
value chains for legumes and
seed and fertilizer value
chains for maize
1.3.1
Research report for 2 countries
completed and shared with partners
Standardized seed and fertilizer
market survey tools developed
Input market chain data and maps
for seeds, fertilizer, equipment,
pesticides and information gathered
for selected markets/counties
March 2012
June 2011
Dec 2011
NARS partners
(leaders,
implementing
surveys), input
supply
associations and
NGOs
Page 61
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Activity
Participatory market chain
survey and mapping for maize
and legume output value
chains
Standardized output market survey
tools developed
Oct 2011
CIMMYT and
Australia
(leaders, survey
tools), NARS
partners and
ICRISAT
(leaders,
implementing
surveys)
Value chain actors will
be willing to provide
information for maize
and legumes
Farmers, private and public sector agenc
and researchers will use the information t
identify weak links and impediments in th
output market chain
CIMMYT,
Australia and
ICRISAT
(leaders,
analysis), NARS
partners
(leaders, report
writing)
Good quality data will
allow analysis and better
understanding of market
imperfections and
opportunities for
improvement
Integrated legume and maize input and
output market study reports that will be
handy for indentifying intervention options
the program team and policy makers
CIMMYT and
Australia,
ICRISAT
(leaders,
analysis)
Data will allow synthesis
and comparisons across
countries in the region
Synthesis report that will inform national a
regional bodies to take action for improvin
greater participation in regional markets
1.3.2
Output market chain data and maps
(maize, legumes, crop residues including market shares, costs, price
variability, role of grain quality)
developed for selected
markets/countries
Activity
1.3.3
Analysis of the structure and
performance of input and
output markets and their
integration in the selected
countries
Country Reports developed on
market imperfections (quality,
volume, price variability,
timing/season) and value chain
opportunities (links, information and
value addition) in seed and fertilizer
supply systems
Country Reports developed on
market imperfections (quality,
volume, price variability,
timing/season) and value chain
opportunities (links, information and
value addition) in grain markets and
value chains (maize and legumes)
Activity
1.3.4
Synthesis and analysis of
opportunities and constraints
for value chain and market
development
Integration of data into household
models, spatial analysis completed
March 2012
May 2012
Sept 2012
Dec 2012
Report developed on information,
volume, quality, policy and other
constraints for value chain
development in maize and legumes
NARS partners
(leaders, report
writing)
Page 62
No.
Outputs / Activities
Output
1.4
Several farm-household
system options identified
which are risk reducing and
productivity enhancing for
each of the ten farming
systems for testing in the
research sites/communities
Activity
Developing farm household
typologies for selected farming
systems to establish
representative case studies
1.4.1
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
 Farm household typology
developed and case studies
identified based on household
survey data (link to 1,2)
May 2012
Lead: QDEEDI
(analysis and
typology of
farming systems)
Representative
households and case
studies can be
established in the target
countries using
household data
In-depth knowledge of household and far
types, resource condition, access to input
and markets, feasible technological option
and feasible pathways for intensifying ma
legume production systems identified and
reported
Participating farmers will
cooperate in providing
the necessary
information to design
and test promising
options and strategies
Better understanding (by the researchers
possible pathways for diversifying liveliho
strategies,, improving food security and
increasing productivity through improved
allocation of limited resources, application
more sustainable agronomic practices, an
better alignment of farm activities within lo
and regional value chains.
 Existing farmer resource allocation
decisions and their consequences
on risk-productivity-environment
quantified
CIMMYT
(analysis and
typology of
households);
 Opportunities for improvement and
research questions, identified and
discussed with the participating
farmers and value chain research
team
Activity
1.4.2
Participatory design and bioeconomic modeling and
evaluation to identify improved
farm enterprise options for
increasing productivity and
reducing risks
Improved farm-household resource
allocation and risk management
strategies for each household type
identified, and consequences of their
implementation i.e. productivity –
risk – environmental impacts
quantified and discussed with the
participating farmers and value
chain research team.
Partners:
ICRISAT;
National
Program staff;
Farmer groups in
the target
communities
May 2013
Lead: QDEEDI
(APSIM model)
and CIMMYT
(bioeconomic
farm household
model) ;
Partners:
CIMMYT,
ICRISAT;
National
Page 63
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Program staff;;
Farmers in the
target
communities
Activity
1.4.3
Participatory implementation
and socioeconomic evaluation
of alternative farm enterprise
options for increasing
productivity and reducing food
in-security concerns
Output
1.5
Effective adoption and
impact pathways assessed
for ten maize-legume
systems
Activity
Adoption and impact
assessments will be conducted
through farm household surveys
in selected farming systems to
identify impact pathways and
facilitate learning, change and
priority setting processes.
1.5.1
Options to intensify and diversify
production systems that are
attractive to farmers and value chain
businesses and that increase
productivity and reduce seasonal
variations identified, discussed and
implemented through action
research.
December
2013
Evaluation criteria, indicators and
monitoring processes selected by
the team
Year 1-4
(2010-2013)
Evaluation criteria and feedback
processes implemented on changes
in productivity, risk, income, at
multiple scales (field, household,
community/district, region, and
country
New opportunities identified from
linkages with other programs and
local, regional activities (e.g. new
products, generation of interregional and inter- country
spillovers)
Page 64
Lead: QDEEDI;
Partners:
CIMMYT,
ICRISAT;
National
Program staff;
Farmers in the
target
communities
CIMMYT (leader,
development of
indicators/survey
tools) with
support from
ASARECA and
all partners,
NARS in each
country
(monitoring and
documenting
change)
Participating farmers will
cooperate and
participate in
discussions and action
research to implement
improved options
Political and security
conditions will remain
stable in all target
countries to allow
continuous monitoring of
changes attributable to
the interventions.
Improved knowledge (by farmers and NA
on the socioeconomic feasibility of alterna
pathways for diversification of livelihoods
sustainable intensification of maize-legum
systems aligned within local and regional
value chains.
Reliable data that will build from the base
household data to better understand
adoption patterns and outcomes and refin
interventions through incremental learning
and change by the program team
Objective 2: To test and develop productive, resilient and sustainable smallholder maize-legume cropping systems and
innovation systems for local scaling out
No.
Output
2.1
Activity
2.1.1
Activity
2.1.2
Activity
Outputs/
Milestones
Due date of
output/
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Applications of outputs
A list of potential, sustainable,
reduced risk yet more
productive technology options
that are compatible with
present and/or future value
chain arrangements in each of
the target environments of the
five program countries
prepared based on ex ante
analysis. In alignment with
Objectives 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and
1.5.1 (value chains)
Lists of potential technologies
prepared for the target farming
systems / agro-ecosystems in each
of the program countries.
February
2010 – Kenya
and Tanzania;
April 2010 –
Ethiopia;
September
2010 – Malawi
and
Mozambique
Lead: National
program
coordinators
The program is approved and
financed early enough to permit
intense activities in Jan/Feb 2010.
If not milestones for Kenya,
Tanzania and Ethiopia may be
delayed by one year.
Lists of possible technological
options for the target
communities developed
based on the evaluation of
available data for the target
ecologies and agreed upon
by researchers, and
extension officers.
Discussions held with
participating farming
communities, national
technical staff (research and
extension), and other
members of the incipient
innovation platforms, to
evaluate technology and
livelihood options (including
those developed in 2.1.2) and
determine the technologies to
be tested on farm in each of
the targeted communities.
Potential systems, practices and risk
management strategies identified for
the sustainable increase of maize
system productivity and legume
options for system diversification.
Identified options for
systems intensification and
diversification, that reduce
risk in the ten farming
systems using systems
modeling
NARS
biophysical
and social
scientists
Participate
CIMMYT
Link: QDEEDI
Feb/Mar 2010
– Kenya and
Tanzania;
April 2010 –
Ethiopia;
Sep/Oct 2010
– Malawi and
Mozambique
Page 65
Lead: National
program
coordinators
Participate:
CIMMYT
Link: QDEEDI
The APSIM model is capable of
calculating the system productivity
in the target environments.
Information available from
Activities 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.5.1
(value chains)
The program is approved and
financed early enough to permit
intense activities in Jan/Feb 2010.
If not milestones for Kenya,
Tanzania and Ethiopia may be
delayed by one year.
Technological interventions to
be addressed in the program
agreed upon by technical
staff and participating farming
communities.
Farmers and staff obtain
experience in evaluating
potential technologies based
on likely productivity, risk and
sustainability scenarios; in
alignment initial findings from
the value chain analysis as
per 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.2.1.
No.
Activity
Output
2.2
Functioning local innovation
systems developed in each
of ten maize-legume farming
systems to help overcome
system limitations and
enhance scaling out of
technologies.
Activity
2.2.1
Based on observations of
problems in field plots and in
maize, legume and CA value
chains, multiple agents whose
expertise and networks may
be useful to overcome these
problems invited to participate
in local innovation systems
(linked to Activity 2.3.5) and
membership expanded as
necessary
Diverse set of potential innovation
system members invited to
participate in field visits and efforts
to increase the productivity of
maize-legume systems in each of
the 10 agro-ecologies.
Regular discussions and field
visits conducted with program
partners and members of the
innovation system in each
agro-ecological zone to
observe and discuss problems
and bottle-necks with farmers
Activity
2.2.2.
Outputs/
Milestones
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Applications of outputs
April 2010 –
Kenya and
Tanzania;
June 2010 –
Ethiopia;
January 2011
– Malawi and
Mozambique
Lead: National
program
biophysical
and social
scientists and
extension
agents;
Agents with expertise and interest
to overcome biophysical problems
and value chain bottle-necks in the
target maize-legume systems can
be identified
Innovation system will be
instrumental in overcoming
limitations to system
productivity
Initial innovation systems formed in
each agroecology
Idem.
Participate:
Agents from
multiple
institutions.
At least one field visit with the
innovation system members
conducted during the crop season in
each target maize-legume system
and visiting at least half of the target
communities.
Mid crop
season in
each country
starting in
Kenya
approximately
May 2010.
Lead: National
program
biophysical
and social
scientists and
extension
agents;
Members of the innovation system
are willing to spend time visiting
target communities and field sites
Potential solutions postulated
and discussed are included
into the program planning in
each country.
Approximately
one month
after harvest
in each
country
Participate:
Agents from
multiple
institutions.
Post-harvest visit of the innovation
system members to each target
maize-legume system to discuss
results, problems and limitations
and measures to overcome them.
Due date of
output/
milestone
Page 66
No.
Activity
Outputs/
Milestones
Activity
2.2.3
Information flow between all
members of the innovation
system (including farmers)
encouraged and facilitated
Telephone and/or e-mail network
established between members of
each local innovation system.
Due date of
output/
milestone
Dec 2010
Electronic newsletter initiated and
circulated to all members of both of
the local innovation systems in each
country at least twice per year
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Applications of outputs
Lead: National
program
biophysical
and social
scientists and
extension
agents;
All members of the innovation
systems are connected
electronically
Interest and input of all
members of the innovation
systems is maintained.
Members have the interest and
capacity to develop innovations to
overcome system problems and
limitations.
Bottle-necks in system
productivity removed.
Program staff along with members
of innovation system are able to
identify why some approaches
work well and others less so.
Lessons will be learnt from
what worked and what did not
work
Participate:
Agents from
multiple
institutions.
Activity
2.2.4
Efforts of members of the
innovation system to
overcome one or more of the
system limitations
encouraged, facilitated, and,
where possible, supported
Innovation system members
working on solutions to observed
problems and limitations in the local
maize-legume systems.
Dec 2011
Innovation
system
members.
National
coordinators;
Program
coordinator
Activity
2.2.5
Effectiveness of local processes
for adapting and spreading the
program technologies
systematically assessed using
participatory and M&E systems;
Documentation of most effective
innovation processes and reasons
for their success
2011, 2012 &
2013
Innovation
system
members.
National
coordinators;
Program
coordinator
Page 67
No.
Activity
Output
2.3
Evaluated exploratory trials
of current best options for
maize/legume smallholder
systems for different farm
types in with 5-6
cooperating farmers in each
of thirty research
sites/communities
Activity
Community awareness
meetings conducted in the
target communities in each of
the target ecologies in each
country to discuss farmer
defined production system
problems, and options to
overcome these. Linked to
1.1.1 and 1.1.2.
2.3.1
Activity
2.3.2
Farmer groups and 5-6 host
households and fields for
multi-year exploratory trials
defined by farmers within each
target community.
Outputs/
Milestones
Due date of
output/
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Applications of outputs
Community awareness meeting held
in each target community informed
by the results from Activity 1.2.
Staggered
due to
differences in
planting
dates. All
awareness
meetings held
by October
2010, and
recurrent
during the life
of the
program.
Lead: National
program
biophysical
and social
scientists and
extension
agents;
Staff and communities can be
identified in time to be able to
complete the awareness meetings
before planting rains. In each
community. (If this cannot be
achieved, the CAM will be
conducted anyway but during the
crop season.
Farmers gain insight into
technology options to
address the principal
problems in their production
systems and households.
November
2010
Lead: National
program
biophysical
and social
scientists and
extension
agents;
There is sufficient time between
program start-up and the planting
rains in each target ecology, to
complete these activities. Where
this is not possible the activity and
subsequent activities will be
delayed by one year.
Field sites defined by
community members, helping
ensure community access to
exploratory trials and trust
between farmer hosts of the
trials and other farmers.
Farmer groups, and 5-6 field sites
established in each community
Participate:
CIMMYT;
Link: QDEEDI
Participate:
CIMMYT; and
QDEEDI
Page 68
Researchers, extension
agents and other members of
the local innovation platforms
gain insights into farmerperceived problems in the
production systems.
No.
Activity
Outputs/
Milestones
Due date of
output/
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Applications of outputs
Activity
Minimum data set for field
characterization defined and
sites characterized
Basic soil, climate, land use,
topography and cropping history
data available for each of the
exploratory trial sites.
December
2011 after soil
analyses
conducted
Lead: National
program
scientists;
National or
regional soil
laboratories;
Adequate soil analysis capacity
exists in each of the program
countries. (Reserve samples will
be maintained so that more
uniform analyses can be
conducted if necessary)
All of the exploratory trials
characterized aiding the
interpretation of the results;
and data sets available for
simulation models in the
APSIM format as in Soil
Matters
Lead: National
program
scientists/exte
nsion
personnel;
local farmers
and farmer
groups.
Farmers are willing to loan part of
their land for on-farm research for
at least 4 seasons.
The exploratory trials form
the core of the technology
development and
dissemination strategy.
Lead: National
program
scientists;
Farmers and innovation platform
members are willing to dedicate
time to routine participatory
evaluations.
2.3.3
Participate:
CIMMYT, and
DEEDI
Activity
2.3.4
Activity
2.3.5
Exploratory trials with at least
two CA options compared to
one conventionally tilled check
established on each of 5-6
farms in each target
community
Participatory evaluation of
exploratory trials by farmer
groups and members of the
innovation platforms
conducted and documented at
the beginning, middle, end
and after harvest each season
(linked to Activity 2.2.1)
Exploratory trials established by
farmers with program orientation
and support.
January 2011
Conservation agriculture-based
management systems adapted to
the biophysical and socio-economic
conditions of innovative farmers
available in each of the targeted
communities, contributing to the
household livelihoods, increasing
maize productivity and reducing
climate risks.
June 2013
Data available on qualitative and
quantitative evaluations of
exploratory trials by farmers and
other members of the local
innovation platforms
Seasonal.
First complete
results by
August 2011,
and annually
after that.
Page 69
Participate:
CIMMYT
Farmers and farm
communities observe the
effects of alternative system
management options on
productivity, labor use and
resilience.
Documented data of farmer
and partner evaluations of all
trials forms an input into the
analysis of the technologies
and the planning of future
program activities.
No.
Activity
Output
2.4
Adjustments to the maizelegume systems tested in
the exploratory trials and
farmer experiments
developed with farm and
soil quality, system
productivity and disease,
pest and weed dynamics
quantified
Activity
2.4.1
Activity
2.4.2
Outputs/
Milestones
Due date of
output/
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Applications of outputs
Identify solutions to problems
observed on farmer plots (see
2.2.7) and options for system
diversification and
intensification or productivity
increases (previously
subjected to ex ante analysis)
through an efficient on-farm
research program in each
country.
On-farm research program defined
in each country after the first season
of trial plots, ex ante technology
analysis and analysis of household
data.
October 2011
Lead: National
Program
scientists;
Technical or socioeconomic
solutions exist for the observed
problems which are attractive with
a high probability of adoption by
farmers.
Efficient and dynamic on-farm
research programs defined
Sites representative of the
conditions of farmers in the
target communities selected
and characterized to enable
the establishment of an
efficient on-farm research
program in each country.
Data to enable the adequate
parameterization of the APSIM and
APSFarm models available from onfarm research and case study sites.
October 2011
Farmers with the required
socioeconomic circumstances and
whose farms have the required
biophysical characteristics are
willing to participate in the on-farm
research program and commit
themselves to hosting trials for at
least 3-4 years.
Application of the APSIM and
APSFarm models to sites and
farm households
representative of the target
communities in the five
countries.
Participate:
CIMMYT;
QDEEDI;
ICRISAT
Lead: National
Program
scientists;
Participate:
CIMMYT;
QDEEDI
Page 70
No.
Activity
Outputs/
Milestones
Activity
Component technology trials
established on sites
representative of the target
communities and agroecologies to explore possible
solutions to observed
problems and explore options
to sustainably increase the
productivity of maize-legume
farming systems
At least four trials established on
representative sites in each
agroecology. Although in some
countries this may be worthwhile in
the first program season, they will
only be definitely established in the
second season
2.4.3
Activity
2.4.4
Activity
2.4.5
Researcher-managed trials
established under conditions
representative of the agroecologies addressed in the
program to monitor the
medium to long-term effects of
the principal program
interventions on soil quality
and disease, pest and weed
dynamics.
The effects of technological
options on soil quality, BNF
and system productivity
monitored in the on-farm
research and researchermanaged trails.
Due date of
output/
milestone
January 2012
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Applications of outputs
Lead: National
Program
scientists;
Farmers (and possibly research
stations) agree to allow the use of
land for medium-term applied
research trials.
Solutions to observed
problems and options for
increasing system
productivity available for
evaluation by innovation
system partners.
Participate:
CIMMYT;
Link: QDEEDI
One researcher managed trial
established in each agroecology.
December
2010
Precise data on crop productivity
and water dynamics available for
crop/soil simulation model
validation.
July 2011 and
annually after
that.
Data available on the effects and
potential effects of the principal
technological interventions
addressed by the program on soil
quality, BNF, and disease, pest and
weed dynamics.
July 2012 and
annually after
that
Data available on the effects of
technological options on soil quality,
BNF and system productivity and
sustainability.
December
2013
Page 71
CIMMYT;
Farmers are willing to experiment
with new techniques and
technologies on their farm, and to
discuss their farm activities and
livelihoods with the researchers.
Secure and uniform conditions
representative of each of the target
agroecologies can be identified
and accessed.
Effects of the technologies on
soil quality, BNF, disease,
pest and weed dynamics, and
system productivity used to
demonstrate potential effects;
validate crop/soil simulation
models and provide
information for publications
and policy briefs.
Lead:
CIMMYT
Facilities are available in each
country for soil quality evaluation.
Participate:;;
Murdoch Univ;
National
Program
scientists
Sufficient national staff are
involved to be able to monitor soil
quality effects
Opportunities for improving
soil quality, and BNF
described.
NARS
Scientists;
QDEEDI;
Murdoch Uni.
Practical options for
improving BNF in legumes
described and included in
exploratory and validation
trials.
No.
Activity
Activity
Eco-physiological analysis of
intercropped maize-legume
production systems
2.4.6
Outputs/
Milestones
Due date of
output/
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Applications of outputs
Improved understanding of ecophysiological traits to improve maize
adaptation to different environments
and management practices
December
2011
Lead:
QDEEDI,
Risk: Seasonal climate conditions
allow experiments to be completed
satisfactorily and the data is of
good quality
Improved understanding of
how to minimize the
competition for resources i.e.
water and solar radiation by
crops growing in intercropped
/ relay systems.
Participate:
NARES,
participating
farmers
Link: CIMMYT
Improved understanding of
options for increasing water
productivity in maize / legume
systems with applications to
both Queensland and Africa
environments.
Activity
2.4.7
Best management practices
for maize-legume systems
identified
Improved understanding of best
management practices for maizelegume systems
December
2012
Lead:
QDEEDI,
Participate:
NARES and
participating
farmers
Risk: feasible practices and
machinery are available to
implement alternative maizelegume systems
Improved understandings of
the agronomy of maizelegume systems, e.g.
combination of species,
planting windows, genetic
materials. With applications
to both Queensland and
Africa environments.
Results from research trials and
household case studies are
sufficiently clear and consistent to
allow researchers the security of
incorporating these results into the
OFR program.
Results from each community
and the ongoing on-farm
research (OFR) programs are
discussed each year,
documented and used to plan
future activities, thereby
maintaining the program
focused and dynamic.
Link: CIMMYT
Activity
2.4.8
Problems and opportunities
observed in research trials
and household case studies
analyzed at Annual Evaluation
and Planning Meetings
(AE&P) in each country and
incorporated plans for the
following season.
Annual E&P Meetings held in each
country each year during the period
between crop cycles to evaluate
results and incorporate them into
plans for the following season.
All completed
by Sep 2011,
and annually
thereafter
Lead: National
program
scientists and
innovation
platform
partners;
CIMMYT,
ICRISAT,
QDEEDI
Data on the functioning of
system options under farmer
(household) conditions in the
target communities.
Page 72
No.
Activity
Output
2.5
Appropriate interventions
for improving seed and
fertilizer delivery and farmer
access to technologies and
markets field tested in at
least thirty research
sites/communities
Activity
2.5.1
Activity
2.5.2
Activity
2.5.3
Outputs/
Milestones
Due date of
output/
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Applications of outputs
Testing and evaluation of
options for improving farmer
access to inputs (seeds,
fertilizer, knowledge, finance)
for technology adoption (these
interventions will be refined
after analysis of household
and market survey data)
Synthesis of country reports
identifying best practices and
models for improving farmer access
to seeds and technology adoption
March 2013
CIMMYT
(leader),
NARS,
Australia,
ICRISAT,
ASARECA
Alternative options that help
overcome or remedy imperfections
in seed production, marketing and
diffusion are possible
Tools, methods and market
instruments to stimulate
participation of private
(including farmer groups) and
public sector to revitalize
input value chains
Testing and evaluation of
options for improving farmer
access and participation in
output markets (e.g. collective
marketing, grades and
standards, market information
systems, warehouse receipt
systems, metal silos, value
adding enterprises, etc) for
maize and legumes
Synthesis of country reports
identifying best practices, marketing
instruments and models for
improving farmer access to output
markets developed
June 2013
CIMMYT
(leader),
NARS,
Australia,
ICRISAT,
ASARECA
Institutional innovations and upscalable strategies that help
overcome or remedy imperfections
in grain markets can be identified
Institutional innovations to
reduce subsistence
orientation and enhance
farmer access and
participation in grain markets
that inform decisions by
farmer organizations,
government and value chain
actors
Identifying effective strategies
to improve rural finance and
insurance e.g. index climate
insurance, farmer loans
Regional Report identifying best
practices for provision of insurance
services to smallholders to manage
risks to maize and legume
production
Oct 2013
CIMMYT
(leader),
NARS,
Australia,
ICRISAT,
ASARECA
Alternative options for improving
farmer access to rural finance and
insurance in target countries of
Africa can be identified
Market instruments and
models to increase ex-ante
risk management using
insurance mechanisms by
insurance providers and
farmer organizations
Page 73
No.
Activity
Outputs/
Milestones
Due date of
output/
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Applications of outputs
Activity
Identifying best practices to
improve household
processing, utilization, food
safety (mycotoxins in
groundnut and maize) and
reduce burden on women and
children
Synthesis of country reports
identifying best practices for
improving food quality, safety and
household processing developed
Nov 2013
CIMMYT
(leader),
NARS,
Australia,
ICRISAT,
ASARECA
Best practices and low cost
processing equipment for
enhancing legume and maize
utilization can be identified and
promoted
Processing equipment and
knowledge to improve
utilization and reduce
drudgery on women in
household food processing
and cooking
Identifying microeconomic
policy options and strategies
for improving local, regional
and national policies and
institutions, and information
systems for market integration
and sustainable production in
maize-legume systems
Microeconomic policy options based
on review of experiences in the
SADC region to enhance trade and
value chains in maize and legumes
synthesized
Dec 2013
CIMMYT
(leader),
NARS,
Australia,
ICRISAT,
ASARECA
The ongoing process of policy
harmonization and market
liberalization in
ASARECA/COMESA will continue
in future to implement additional
recommendation in target
countries
Policy instruments to promote
sustainable intensification in
maize-legume systems and
markets to be implemented
by national governments and
sub-regional bodies
Farmers installing or who plan to
install maize/legume CA-based
experiments on their own fields
identified.
Dec 2011 and
annually
thereafter
Lead:
National
program
biophysical
and social
scientists
Results of the research trials are
positive and evoke farmer interest.
Farmer adoption and
adaptation of the CA-based
maize/legume system
technologies
Participate:
CIMMYT;
Farmers in the
target
communities
Farmers are interested to try new
sustainable systems on part of
their farms
2.5.4
Activity
2.5.5
Out
Activity
2.6.1
Lessons from active farmer
p experimentation with CAu oriented systems
t incorporated into on-farm
research trials in each of the
2 thirty research
. sites/communities.
6
Farmer discussion groups
facilitated to encourage and
provide support to plans for
farmer experiments
(application of new CA-based
maize/legume systems on
farmers’ own fields by the
farmers themselves).
Page 74
Climate conditions do not
confound results of on-farm
research trials.
No.
Activity
Outputs/
Milestones
Due date of
output/
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Applications of outputs
Activity
Farmer experiments on CAbased technologies
georeferenced, described,
monitored and evaluated
Data available on the position and
results from at least 1000 farmer
experiments in the region.
Aug 2012
Lead: National
Program staff;
Participate:
CIMMYT;
Farmers in the
target
communities
National staff have the capacity
(time and mobility) to monitor
farmer experiments adequately
Data on farmer experiments
and adaptations evaluated for
possible incorporation into
the ongoing research and
demonstration programs.
2.6.2
Output
2.7
Farmer learning through
annual facilitated visits of
farmers and their local
extension agents between
the targeted communities in
each of the five countries.
Activity
Communities with similar
biophysical and socioeconomic conditions to the
target communities identified
through site-similarity analysis
based on the outputs from 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.7
Communities with similar conditions
to the target communities identified.
At least one community in each
agroecology.
December
2010 and
annually
thereafter
Lead:
CIMMYT;
Participate:
QDEEDI;
ICRISAT;
National
Program
scientists
Sufficient data is available in GIS
to enable meaningful site-similarity
analysis
Informed decisions on
communities that will benefit
from farmer-to-farmer
exchange visits
Study visits of farmers and
extension agents from
communities with similar
conditions to meet and
discuss experiences with CAbased technologies with
farmers and farmer groups in
the target communities
organized and facilitated
Farmer-to-farmer networking for
scaling out of knowledge and
technological innovations. At least
one farmer study visit will take place
in each country in or before the
2011/2012 season and one
community in each agroecology in
the subsequent season.
Mar 2012 and
Mar 2013
Lead: National
program
biophysical
and social
scientists
Exploratory trial and farmer
experiment results are sufficiently
positive to make farmer-to-farmer
visits worthwhile
Information and knowledge
flow from farmer to farmer to
initiate new foci of farmer
experimentation with CAbased technologies.
2.7.1
Activity
2.7.2
Participate:
Farmers in the
target
communities;
members of
the innovation
platforms,
Page 75
Climate conditions do not
confound results of on-farm
research.
Farmers in the host communities
are willing to invest their time to
inform visiting farmers
No.
Activity
Outputs/
Milestones
Due date of
output/
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Applications of outputs
Activity
Farmers in the “new
communities” monitored in
seasons subsequent to the
farmer-to-farmer visits to
quantify farmer experiments
with new technologies
Data on new farmer experiments
permitting an evaluation of the
effectiveness of the farmer-to-farmer
visits
May 2013
Lead: National
Program
scientists;
Participate:
CIMMYT
National staff have the capacity
(time and mobility) to monitor
farmer experiments adequately
Evidence of farmer
experimentation and potential
adoption of CA-based
technologies
2.7.3
Page 76
Objective 3: To increase the range of maize and legume varieties available for smallholders through accelerated breeding,
regional testing and release, and availability of performance data.
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Output
3.1
Ten to 15 stress tolerant
maize varieties and 10 higher
yielding legume varieties
available to farmers in the
selected farming systems
through farmer- and seed
company-participatory variety
evaluation and release
15 maize hybrids and 10 legume
varieties adapted to farming
systems released
Activity
Data analysis workshop linked
to first in-country planning
meeting
3.1.1
Activity
3.1.2
Activity
3.1.3
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Per farming system, identification of
4 pre-release (within NVMTs) or
newly released hybrids and OPVs
with potential suitability for the
targeted farming system for use by
Obj 2 and use in farmerparticipatory evaluation (Obj 3)
Dec 2010
CIMMYT,
NARS and
seed
company
breeders
Drawing on OPVs and hybrids from
germplasm development in various
programs and programs - AMS,
DTMA, Highland Initiative, IRMA,
NARS, NSIMA, AGRA/PASS and
QPM-D -supported activities
Use in farmer-participatory
variety evaluation in
targeted farming system
Potential legume species and
varieties for the target
environment in the program
countries analyzed with TL II
partners.
Per farming system, 1-2 potential
legume species and 2 varieties
each for the target communities
identified.
Dec 2010
ICRISAT in
consultation
with TL II
partners,
NARS
TL II itself does not deal with all the
legumes that are likely to be
important in the target communities,
but the TL II partners have
expertise and manage germplasm
outside the TL II program
Use in farmer-participatory
variety evaluation in
targeted farming system
Seed increase of pre-release
and newly released maize
hybrids and OPVs and
legume species and varieties
with potential suitability for the
targeted farming system
Seed for farmer-participatory maize
and legume variety evaluation
Dec 2010
NARS
breeders,
backstopped
by CIMMYT
Drawing largely on parental
germplasm from germplasm
development in various programs
and programs - AMS, DTMA,
Highland Initiative, IRMA, NARS,
NSIMA, AGRA/PASS and QPM-D supported activities, and from TL II
partners stocks
Use in farmer-participatory
variety evaluation in
targeted farming system
Page 77
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Activity
Farmer-participatory
evaluation of pre-release and
newly released maize hybrids
and OPVs and legume
species and varieties under
farmer-representative and
legume-intercrop/CA
conditions
Maize hybrids and OPVs and
legume varieties of different species
suitable for the targeted farming
system identified
Dec 2011
National
breeders
Adequate weather conditions and
absence of social unrest
Farmers influence which
maize hybrids and OPVs
and legume species and
varieties should be moved
towards variety release and
into seed production
In parallel to farmerparticipatory trials. seed
production characteristics of
elite maize hybrids and OPVs
and legume varieties
established
Per country, 3 producible maize
hybrids and OPVs and 2 legume
varieties suitable for the targeted
farming system identified
Dec 2011
NARS
breeders,
backstopped
by CIMMYT
and TL II
partners
Adequate weather conditions and
interest by seed companies
Seed companies influence
which hybrids , OPVs and
legume varieties should be
moved towards variety
release and into seed
production
3.1.6
Improved GxExM analysis
approaches applied to
Regional Maize and Legume
Variety Trials
Recommendation domains for
OPVs and hybrids and legume
species and varieties evaluated
based on regional trials (which are
executed by other program such as
DTMA or TL-II)
Dec 2012
CIMMYT and
ICRISAT
breeder and
agronomists
Adequate historical data base to
allow for GxExM analysis
NARS breeders are more
effective in identifying OPVs
‘ , hybrids and legume
varieties suitable for various
farming systems
Activity
Improved GxExM analysis
approaches applied to Farmer
participatory maize variety
trials and NMVTs
Fast-tracked variety release in at
least two member countries
Dec 2013
National
breeders
NARS use GxExM analysis to
enter best varieties from other
countries directly into NMVT
Variety release committees
are more effective in
identifying OPVs and
hybrids for release
DUS and NMVT/VCU testing
of selected maize OPVs and
hybrids
Per country, 3 producible hybrids
and OPVs released
Dec 2013
Variety
release
authorities
Adequate weather conditions,
absence of social unrest and timely
business operation of seed services
and the variety release authorities
OPVs and hybrids are
permitted to be
commercialized in partner
countries
Requirements for legume
variety release completed for
adapted varieties in each
At least one adapted legume variety
released in each of the program
countries.
Dec 2013
Variety
release
authorities
Adequate weather conditions,
absence of social unrest and timely
business operation of seed services
Adapted legume varieties
released
3.1.4
Activity
3.1.5
3.1.7
Activity
3.1.8
Activity
3.1.9
Page 78
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
program country
Activity
3.1.10
Activity
3.1.11
Application of activities
and the variety release authorities
Licensing of released hybrids
and OPVs and if possible,
legume varieties, to seed
companies
Per country, 3 producible hybrids
and OPVs and at least one legume
variety licensed to seed companies
Dec 2013
NARS legal
advisors
Varieties are released and
companies have shown interest to
produce them
Seed companies are able to
rapidly scale up seed
production
Breeder seed production for
seed companies and
demonstrations
Per country, 1 ton of breeder seed
for each of 3 producible hybrids and
OPVs produced, and at least 500kg
of legume variety breeder seed.
Dec 2013
National
breeders
Varieties are released and
companies have shown interest to
produce them
Seed companies are able to
rapidly scale up seed
production
Regional nursery (maize) or bidirectional exchange (legume)
Apr 2010
(Eastern
Africa)
CIMMYT and
TL II
breeders
Adequate weather conditions and
timely germplasm exchange
between countries
Seed available for joint
characterization
CIMMYT and
QDEEDI
breeder
Adequate weather conditions
Seed available for joint
characterization
NARS,
CIMMYT, TL
II partners
and QDEEDII
breeders
(QDEEDII for
Adequate weather conditions and
timely germplasm exchange
between countries
National breeders use
selected inbreds in variety
and/or germplasm
development for diverse
farming systems
Output
3.2
Regional nursery for further
improved (2nd generation)
maize and legume varieties
and hybrids
Activity
Seed increase of elite inbred
lines and legume varieties
generated in various programs
3.2.1
Risks / assumptions
Dec 2010
(Southern
Africa)
Activity
Testcrossing of maize inbreds
Testcross progeny
3.2.2
Feb 2011
(Eastern
Africa)
Dec 2010
(Southern
Africa)
Activity
3.2.3
Joint characterization of elite
inbreds and legume varieties
Elite inbred and legume variety
characterization for priority stresses
in target countries
Oct 2012
(Eastern
Africa) May
2011
(Southern
Africa)
Page 79
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
maize)
Activity
Joint characterization of elite
testcrosses in relevant farming
systems, including with
legume intercropping
Testcross characterization in
various legume systems
Oct 2011
(Eastern
Africa) May
2011
(Southern
Africa)
NARS &
CIMMYT
breeders,
QDEEDII
Adequate weather conditions and
timely germplasm exchange
between countries
National breeders use
selected inbreds in variety
development for diverse
farming systems
3.2.5
Development of web platform
including database for
combination and effective
exchange of germplasm
information
Web-based access to regional
germplasm characterization data
and information
Dec 2012
CIMMYT
Timely feed-back of trial
information
National breeders use
selected inbreds in variety
development for diverse
farming systems
Activity
Development and selection of
new 2nd generation hybrids,
OPVs and legume varieties
based on joint germplasm
characterization and predicted
performance of hybrids/OPVs
Maize and legume varieties and
hybrids with further improved
adaptation to target farming
systems, consideration of insights
from household and value chain
studies
Dec 2013
NARS,
CIMMYT and
TL II
breeders
Adequate information returned by
participating breeder
QDEEDI may use lines for
further germplasm
development instead of
producing finished hybrids
Target farming system-related
improvement of infrastructure
for program execution
Irrigation for nurseries, contribution
to cold room maintenance
Dec 2010
National
breeders
Adequate resources and clear
country priorities
Strengthened NARS
capacity to execute on-farm
trials, maintain and produce
breeder seed, and deploy it
to seed companies in a
timely manner
MoU for germplasm exchange
established
Dec 2010
3.2.8
Assess opportunities for
incorporating national
germplasm into regional
nursery
CIMMYT
breeder and
TL II
Coordinator
Institutional policies enable
germplasm exchange for research
purposes
Wider range of germplasm
available to program
participants
Output
3.3
Environmental
characterization
Activity
Environmental
Environmental characterization of
Dec 2013
CIMMYT and
Adequate environmental data
Use of data from main
3.2.4
3.2.6
Activity
3.2.7
Activity
Page 80
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
3.3.1
characterization of main
CIMMYT, NARS and
Queensland testing sites
16 strategic maize testing sites in
Africa and Australia
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
QDEEDI
available or able to be collected at
low cost
testing sites for GxExM
analysis
Objective 4: To support the development of regional and local innovations systems
No.
Outputs / Activities
Output
4.1
Mainstreaming of gender
sensitivity in research
activities in the five primary
program countries.
Activity
Incorporation of gender-aspects
in common M&E system
4.1.1
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
M&E system incorporates gender
aspect
May 2010
ASARECA or
consultant
contracted by
ASARECA
For eastern Africa, ASARECA
provides both expertise and
authority in implementing gender
aspects for the program M&E.
M&E system allows gender
analysis
Given absence of a similar
authority in southern Africa, the
same M&E system is adopted as
one effective approach to M&E for
the program in southern African
countries.
In case SADC assigns a regional
authority to execute M&E for
agricultural research in southern
Africa, ASARECA would liase with
that office for alignment and
implementation of the M&E
system in this program.
Page 81
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Activity
Gender specialist works with
and observes program activities
in a sample of local innovation
systems to assess program
gender sensitivity
Documented evidence on gender
balance and research effectiveness
in program activities in a sample of
target communities in a sample of
innovation systems
Dec 2011
ASARECA
Some degree of homogeneity of
gender issues across farming
systems and communities
Gender issues observed and
documented to use as
examples for increasing the
gender sensitivity of program
activities.
Gender specialist trains eastern
and southern African NARS
scientists in gender issues
based on ASARECA, PRGA
and best practice experiences
NARS scientists in Ethiopia, Kenya,
Tanzania trained in implementing
gender issues into research design,
monitoring and evaluation
Dec 2010
ASARECA or
consultant
contracted by
ASARECA
ASARECA has highly relevant
gender expertise that is relevant
for eastern and southern Africa
countries.
Gender issues incorporated
into research design,
monitoring and evaluation
Reporting of gender outcomes
in national research workshops
Understanding of processes and
compilation of data on effects of
gender sensitive research designs
Annually from
September
2010
National
scientists
Relevance of gender issues to the
CA-oriented maize-legume
systems
Adjustment of workplans to
improve research
effectiveness and outcomes
wrt gender
4.1.2
Activity
4.1.3
Activity
4.1.4
Output
4.2
Functioning program M&E
system incorporated into the
program providing
information system
assessments to national and
regional program managers.
Page 82
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Activity
Fine-tuning of existing
participatory low-cost M&E
system to program outputs and
modalities through discussion
with the program staff;
participation of M&E specialist in
national inception workshops to
brief national teams and M&E
staff
Functioning common M&E system
established based on experiences in
eastern Africa
May 2010
ASARECA or
consultant
contracted by
ASARECA
For eastern Africa, ASARECA
provides both expertise and
authority in implementing M&E for
the program.
Low cost and effective M&E
system
4.2.1
Given absence of a similar
authority in southern Africa, the
same M&E system is adopted as
one effective approach to M&E for
the program in southern African
countries.
In case SADC assigns a regional
authority to execute M&E for
agricultural research in southern
Africa, ASARECA would liase with
that office for alignment and
implementation of the M&E
system in this program.
Activity
4.2.2
Activity
4.2.3
M&E specialist trains eastern
and southern African NARS
scientists in implementing
common M&E system
NARS scientists in five program
countries trained in implementing
common M&E system in ten local
innovation systems
Dec 2010
Formats for the collection and
preparation of monitoring data
provided to national and
regional program management
each six months
NARS scientists in five program
countries have formats for the
collection and reporting of
monitoring data in ten local
innovation systems
Y2-Y4, each
six-months
Page 83
ASARECA or
consultant
contracted by
ASARECA
ASARECA or consultant provides
both expertise and authority in
implementing M&E.
ASARECA;
National scientists unaccustomed
to low cost participatory M&E
NARS
scientists to incountry and
regional
Program
Management
M&E system is used in
eastern African program
countries
In case SADC assigns a regional
authority to execute M&E for
agricultural research in southern
Africa, ASARECA would liase with
that office for alignment and
implementation of the M&E
system in this program.
Effectiveness of program
interventions can be
assessed
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Activity
Analysis and discussion of
monitoring data at annual
program meetings
Effectiveness of program
interventions is assessed
Y2-Y4
ASARECA
M&E results are available in time
for the annual meetings
Workplan adjusted to
maintain program relevance
and dynamism; milestones
monitored annually
Sep 2011
ASARECA or
consultant
contracted by
ASARECA
Systematic lessons can be derived
past experiences
Improved organization of
spillover mechanisms
4.2.4
Output
4.3
Knowledge of relevant
program innovations and
germplasm available in five
additional countries in the
region
Activity
Analyze past experiences and
bottlenecks for maize-legume
system product spillovers
among ASARECA member
countries and between
ASARECA and SADC
Peer-reviewed publication
Competitive grants for eastern,
central and southern African
countries in implementing low
cost approaches that effectively
use program spill-over’s
Member and non-member countries
are able to effectively implement
program spillovers
Jan 2012
ASARECA for
ASARECA
member
countries,
SOFECSA for
southern Africa
Program research results are
relevant to priorities in similar
agroecologies in non-program
countries in the region
Accelerated dissemination
of, and feedback on,
maize/legume system
research products to nonprogram countries
Identify agroecological
analogues between Australia
and ESA
Maps demonstrating agro-ecological
analogues between Australia and
eastern and southern Africa
Sep 2010
QDEEDI in
consultation
with ASARECA
and CIMMYT
Agroecological analogues may
need to be supplemented with
socioeconomic profiles
Accelerated dissemination
of, and feedback on,
maize/legume system
research products between
Africa and Australia
4.3.1
Activity
4.3.2
Activity
4.3.3
Conclusions for low cost
approaches which extend spillovers
between member countries and
between member and non-member
countries
Conclusions for effective sharing of
research results on CA-based
maize/legume systems and eastern
and southern Africa
Page 84
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Activity
Cross-participation in annual
research workshops between
program members and other
programs in the region and
West Africa
Shared understanding of regional
research challenges and products;
sharing of innovative agronomy,
breeding and socio-economic
research methods and maize
legume system products
Crossparticipation
in all years
ACIAR;
AusAID;
CIMMYT;
National
Program
scientists
Relevance of West African
conditions to the region
Fine-tuning of research
methods through greater
understanding of alternate
research methods
Enhance the interchange of
maize and legume germplasm
within the sub-Saharan Africa
region and with Australia
facilitated by enhanced
knowledge on germplasm
adaptation
Increased availability of relevant
germplasm among program
participants in Africa and Australia
From
September
2010
CIMMYT;
Legume 2
members
Adaptability of germplasm
Strengthened local breeding
activities
4.3.4
Activity
4.3.5
Page 85
Objective 5: Capacity building to increase the efficiency of agricultural research today and in the future
No.
Outputs / Activities
Output
5.1
Training on technology
targeting and value chain
analysis provided to build and
enhance capacity of national
and regional programs
Activity
5.1.1
Activity
5.1.2
Activity
5.1.3
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Practical non-degree training on
methods for risk analysis and
technology targeting in maizelegume systems
Skills of program partners in the
national and regional programs
enhanced in risk analysis and
technology targeting
Year 2
Lead: QDEEDI;
Suitable candidates can be
identified in time and
complimentary funds will be made
available
Improved skills that can be
immediately used by the
research teams for systems
diagnosis
Practical non-degree training on
methods for market opportunity
identification and value chain
analysis
Capacity of program partners in the
national and regional programs
enhanced in identifying market and
agro- enterprise opportunities
Year 3
Suitable candidates can be
identified in time and
complimentary funds will be made
available
New skills that can be used
by the research teams for
analysis of value chains and
business opportunities
Regional M.Sc. training for 3
candidates (technology adoption
and commercialization in maizelegume systems)
Capacity of national and regional
partners enhanced for conducting
research agricultural economics in
maize-legume systems
Year 4
Regional universities would host
students and partnerships with
Australia will be established for cosupervision
Human capital that can be
used by the research teams
for analysis of adoption
pathways and enterprise
development strategies for
maize-legumes
Partners:
CIMMYT,
ICRISAT,
NARS
Lead: CIMMYT
Partners:
QDEEDI,
ICRISAT,
NARS
Lead: CIMMYT
Partners:
QDEEDI,
ICRISAT,
NARS, Local
universities in
partner
countries and
South Africa
Partnerships between regional and
Australian institutions strengthened
Page 86
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Activity
PhD training (2) on bioeconomic modeling of
household decision behavior
under risk
Competence of national and
regional partners enhanced for
conducting strategic research and
new options for sustainable
intensification identified
Year 4
Lead: QDEEDI;
PhD students registered in
Australian and/or regional
universities will be supported for
their thesis research to work in the
program
Greater knowledge on
economically viable options
for sustainable intensification
and new capacity in the
region for sustaining
program interventions
Assumption: Adequate climate,
crop, and soil information is
available for the target
communities.
Increased awareness among
program staff of the
opportunities of using
crop/soil simulation models
for developing and testing
hypotheses on technology
adaptation and productivity.
5.1.4
Partners:
CIMMYT,
ICRISAT,
NARS
Partnerships between African and
Australian institutions strengthened
Output
5.2
Training course on simulation
model utilization and
participatory evaluation
Activity
Training course on the
participatory evaluation (costs,
benefits and risks) of
opportunities for the application
of crop/soil simulation models
for the ex ante analysis of
technology options for maizelegume systems, including
conservation agriculture
technologies, nitrogen
management strategies, crop
sequencing, grain-legume mixed
systems, rainfall harvesting, and
residue management strategies.
5.2.1
Output
5.3
Capacity built in the program
countries in utilizing the outputs from
systems modeling to evaluate
technology options and risk
management strategies; and assist
in the ex-ante analysis of technology
options and farming systems
designs. Two courses will be held in
the region with 25 participants in
each course.
September
2010
Training on cropping systems
management research
including the principles and
practice of conservation
agriculture.
Page 87
Lead: D
Rodriguez
(QDEEDI);
Participate:
Program
Coordinator
(CIMMYT);
National staff
Assumption: Socio-economic and
institutional/chain information
available
Initial list of productive, lower
risk, sustainable
technologies developed for
each of the target ecologies.
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Activity
Short training courses held in
each of the program countries
for national program partners
on: the principles and practice of
CA-based maize/legume
systems; principles and tools for
improving risk management
strategies; options for increasing
household livelihoods and food
security.
One training course of one week
duration held for approximately 25
agronomists (including extension
officers) in each of the five program
countries.
May 2010 in
Kenya and
Tanzania;
July 2010 in
Ethiopia;
October 2010
in Malawi and
Mozambique;
and recurrent
during the life
of the
program as
needs and
topics are
identified by
the program
management
team.
Lead: CIMMYT
Managers will allow staff to attend
a course during the crop season in
Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia.
Technical staff involved in
the program have a better
grasp of the principles and
practice of CA and therefore
are able to accomplish the
field studies more efficiently
and effectively.
Capacity of researchers and
extension agents to manage
efficient participatory on-farm
research and demonstration
programs enhanced through
short national or regional
courses, each divided into 3-4
periods or “calls” of
approximately 2 weeks each
during the crop cycle: i.e. a “callsystem” course.
Two “Call-system” courses of 6
weeks duration conducted in the
region - each for 20 participants
Dec 2012
Lead: CIMMYT;
Participate:
QDEEDI;
ICRISAT; ARC;
National
Program
partners
5.3.1
Activity
5.3.2
Page 88
Participate:
QDEEDI;
National
Program
agronomists in
each program
country
Sufficient program staff can be
identified for training in Malawi and
Mozambique
Technical staff involved in
the program aware of the
options for reducing climate
risks and improve the
allocation of limited
resources at the household
level (including access to
input – output markets) (in
collaboration with
researchers from Objective
1).
Sufficient funds are available to
allow for the complete courses.
Sufficient candidates can be found
in each region to justify a course
(at least 8 participants)
Improved management of
applied research and
extension programs, not only
in the program but in general
in the participating countries
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Activity
Capacity of the best participants
from the call-system courses
further enhanced with respect to
cropping system research
through a targeted course
Crop Systems Research
Management course given in
Queensland for at least 5
outstanding candidates from
Eastern and Southern Africa
July 2013
Lead: QDEEDI;
Participate:
Sufficient candidates can be found
in each region to justify a course
(at least 5 participants)
Improved management of
applied research and
extension programs, not only
in the program but in general
in the participating countries
Post Graduate training in
agronomy
5 M.Sc. students in agronomy
finishing thesis programs on
program-related topics
Dec 2013
CIMMYT
agronomists,
local
universities in
partner
countries and
South Africa
Scholarships available from other
programs/donors
Strengthened NARS
capacity
5.3.3
Activity
5.3.4
Murdoch Univ;
CIMMYT, Local
universities in
partner
countries and
South Africa
Output
5.4
Training on crop improvement
Activity
Training of new breeders
Regional training course including 510 maize and legume breeders from
partner countries
Dec 2010
CIMMYT &
resource
persons
NARS nominate appropriate
choice of candidates
Strengthened NARS
capacity
Technician training in farmerparticipatory maize variety
evaluation
5 in-country training courses
including a total of 20-30
participants from partner countries
Dec 2011
NARS
breeders,
backstopped by
CIMMYT
NARS nominate appropriate
choice of candidates
Strengthened NARS
capacity
Training course involving 2-10
maize and legume breeders
Dec 2011
5.4.3
Short training course on GxExM
analysis, its use in breeding
programs and how to fast-track
variety identification and release
CIMMYT,
QDEEDI, ARC
NARS nominate appropriate
choice of candidates
Participants use workshop
content to fast-track variety
identification and release
Activity
Seed producers training
Regional training course involving
10 seed company participants
Dec 2013
CIMMYT
Interest by seed companies
Strengthened seed company
capacity
5.4.1
Activity
5.4.2
Activity
5.4.4
Page 89
No.
Outputs / Activities
Milestones
Output
5.5
Training and APSIM model
parameters
Genotype and environment
parameters
Activity
Practical training in
environmental characterization
5.5.1
Activity
5.5.2
Activity
5.5.3
Due date of
milestone
Responsible
Risks / assumptions
Application of activities
Two CIMMYT staff trained in
environmental characterization
Dec 2010
QDEEDII
Staff identified and visa is
procured in a reasonable time
frame.
Use of data from main
testing sites for GxExM
analysis
PhD training in crop simulation
model based analysis of GxExM
Tropical germplasm parameterized
to apply APSIM models to predict
performance in changing climate
under different management options
in Africa and Australia. Research for
one PhD study completed
Dec 2013
QDEEDII
breeder/APSIM
group/UQ
Scholarships available from other
programs/donors
Enable implementation of
GxExM analysis for tropical
germplasm
Post Graduate training in
breeding
4 M.Sc. students in breeding
finishing thesis programs on
program-related topics
Dec 2013
CIMMYT and
ICRISAT
breeder, local
universities in
partner
countries and
South Africa
Scholarships available from other
programs/donors
Strengthened NARS
capacity
Page 90
Page 91
5.3 Program personnel
5.3.1
List of participants involved in the program
Commissioned IARC – CIMMYT
CIMMYT as Commissioned Organization leads and coordinates the overall program
through the Program Coordinator, who is supported by the CIMMYT financial,
administrative and legal services and Program Management Committee. The PMC
comprises four members: the Coordinator and the three line Directors for Agronomy,
Economics and Maize Breeding who collectively provide oversight for program
implementation and individually of their respective disciplinary areas. Each Collaborating
Organization will progressively adjust the disciplinary composition of its research team to
reflect the overall disciplinary balance and priorities of the program, and will manage the
research team and other partner/contractor activities through a Partner Coordinator.
Name
Sex
(m/f)
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Program Coordinator, overall
leadership of the
program(Agricultural
Economist)
Testing value chain
innovations Poverty/Value
Chain Economist )
Analysis of markets and
value chains; impacts(Market
Economist)
Oversight of socioeconomic
research quality, member
PMC)
Agronomist (agronomy
research in Kenya,
Tanzania, Ethiopia)
Agronomist (agronomic
research in Southern Africa
Oversight agronomy
research quality, member
PMC (Agronomist)
Breeder/Bioinformatics
(Breeder/Bioinformatics)
Mulugetta Mekuria
m
CIMMYT, Senior Scientist
Harare based, relocation
under consideration)
Jonathan Hellin
m
CIMMYT, Senior Scientist
(UK based)
To Be Recruited
-
CIMMYT, Assoc Scientist
(Africa based)
Bekele Shiferaw
m
CIMMYT, Director, SEP
(Nairobi-based)
Fred Kanampiu
m
CIMMYT, Senior scientist,
(Nairobi-based)
To Be Recruited
-
Patrick Wall
m
To Be Recruited
-
Scientist
(Southern Africa-based)
CIMMYT, Director GCAP
(Harare-based, relocating
to Mexico)
Scientist
(Africa based)
Gary Atlin
m
Marianne
Banziger
Luz George
f
f
Mike Listman
m
Petr Kosina
m
Wilfred Mwangi
m
CIMMYT, Associate
Director GMP
(Mexico based)
CIMMYT, DDG-RP,
(Mexico based)
CIMMYT, Head, Project
Management Unit (Mexico
based)
CIMMYT, Head, Corporate
Communications (Mexico
based)
CIMMYT, Knowledge
Management Scientist
(Mexico based)
CIMMYT, Principal Scientist
(Nairobi)
Page 92
Time
input
(%)
100
Funding
50
10
ACIAR
CIMMYT
100
ACIAR
20
10
ACIAR
CIMMYT
83
10
ACIAR
CIMMYT
67
10
20
10
ACIAR
CIMMYT
ACIAR
CIMMYT
50
30
ACIAR
CIMMYT
10
5
ACIAR
CIMMYT
5
ACIAR
2.66
ACIAR
Communications support
(Communications)
5
ACIAR
Knowledge management
(Knowledge management)
13
ACIAR
Support country and
regional liaison (Agricultural
Economist)
10
CIMMYT
Oversight breeding research
quality, member PMC
(Breeder)
Institutional support
(Breeder)
Administrative support
(Management)
ACIAR
To Be Recruited
CIMMYT, locally recruited
staff (Africa based)
Research support
socioeconomics
(Agricultural Economist)
125
ACIAR
To Be Recruited
CIMMYT, locally recruited
staff (Africa based)
Research support agronomy
(Agronomist)
135
ACIAR
To Be Recruited
CIMMYT, locally recruited
staff (Africa based)
CIMMYT, locally recruited
field staff (Africa based)
Data management
technician (Bioinformatics)
Support to seed production
(Agriculture)
100
ACIAR
200
ACIAR
To Be Recruited
CIMMYT, locally recruited
staff (Africa based)
Research support breeding
(breeding)
80
ACIAR
To Be Recruited
CIMMYT, Locally recruited
staff (Africa based)
Locally recruited staff
(same location as Program
Coordinator)
Support communication
40
ACIAR
Program Administrators,
support to program
management and
coordination (Administration)
170
ACIAR
To Be Recruited
(2)
To Be Recruited
-
Partner country institution - Ethiopia
Name
Sex
(m/f)
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Time
input
(%)
Funding
Dagne Wegary
Gissa
m
EIAR, Researcher
Melkassa RC (Melkassa)
Partner Coordinator, Maize
breeding (Breeder)
50
EIAR
Gezahegn
Bogale Gebre
m
EIAR Senior Researcher,
Melkassa RC (Melkassa)
Maize breeding (Breeder)
35
EIAR
Setegn
Gebeyehu
Endire
Solomon
Admassu
Seyoum
Habtamu
Admassu Ayana
m
EIAR Director, Melkassa
RC (Melkassa)
Common bean breeding and
physiology (Physiologist)
20
EIAR
m
EIAR Researcher, Awassa
RC (Awassa)
Maize breeding (Breeder)
40
EIAR
m
EIAR, Researcher,
Melkassa RC (Melkassa)
Agronomy research
(Agronomist)
15
EIAR
Bedru Beshir
Abdi
m
EIAR, Head of Research
and Extension, Melkassa
RC (Melkassa)
Socioeconomics analysis,
extension linkages
(Economist)
40
EIAR
Tolera Abera
Goshu
m
EIAR Head of Agronomy
and Crop Physiology
Research Division, Bako
RC
Agronomy research
(Agronomist)
35
EIAR
Mosisa Worku
m
EIAR, Breeder, Bako RC
(Bako)
Maize breeding (Breeder)
10
EIAR
Dawit Alemu
Bimerew
m
EIAR, Economist, HQ
(Addis)
Socioeconomics and
Extension Coordinator
(Economist)
25
EIAR
Partner country institution - Kenya
Name
John Achieng
Sex
(m/f)
m
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
KARI, Senior Research
Officer
Partner Coordinator,
Agronomy research
(Agronomist)
Page 93
Time
input
(%)
50
Funding
KARI
Name
Sex
(m/f)
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Time
input
(%)
Funding
Beatrice Dorna
Sakwa Salasya
f
KARI, Senior Research
Officer and Coordinator,
Head Socio economics
Section
Socioeconomics
(Economist)
30
KARI
Christine
Ndinya-Omboko
f
KARI, Technical Officer,
Head of seed program
Seed Science (Agriculturist)
20
KARI
Charles John
Masaku
Mutinda
James O.
Ouma
m
KARI, Senior Research
Officer
Plant Breeding (Breeder)
50
KARI
m
KARI, Economist
Socioeconomics
(Economist)
30
KARI
Ezekiah Ngoroi
m
KARI, Agronomist
Seed Science (Agronomist)
20
KARI
Micheni Alfred
Ngera
m
KARI, Assistant Head of
SWM and adaptive
research
Agronomy (Agronomist)
20
KARI
James Gethi
m
KARI, Breeder
Plant Breeding, National
Maize Coordinator (Breeder)
5
KARI
David Karanja
m
KARI, Agronomist
Agronomy, National
Legumes Coordinator
(Agronomist)
10
KARI
Partner country institution - Malawi
Name
Sex
(m/f)
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Time
input
(%)
Funding
Cyprian Mwale
m
DARS Research Scientist,
Chitedze Research Centre
Breeding (Breeder)
30
DARTS
Samson F.M.
Kazombo
m
DARS Agric
Economist/SocioEconomist, Chitedze
Research Centre
Socioeconomics analysis
(Economist)
30
DARTS
Kesbell
Kaswela Eston
Kaonga
m
DARS Principal Maize
Breeder and Maize
Commodity Team Leader,
Chitedze Research Centre
Maize breeding (Breeder)
30
DARTS
Francis
Maideni
m
DARS Chief Scientist, Plant
Breeding, Chitedze
Research Centre
Seed systems
(Agriculturalist)
30
DARTS
Amos Robert
Ngwira
m
DARS Agronomist,
Chitedze Research Centre
Agronomist focused on CA
(Agronomist)
30
DARTS
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Time
input
(%)
Funding
Partner country institution - Mozambique
Name
Sex
(m/f)
Domingos José
Brás Dias
m
IIAM Head, Research Dept,
Central Zonal Center
Agronomy research
(Agronomist)
30
IIAM
Rafael Nemba
Uaiene
m
IIAM Project Coordinator
Partner Coordinator,
socioeconomic analysis
(Agricultural Economist)
30
IIAM
Feliciano Mário
Mazuze
m
IIAM, Economist
Socioeconomics analysis
(Socioeconomist)
30
IIAM
Page 94
Name
Pedro Fato
Sex
(m/f)
m
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Time
input
(%)
Funding
IIAM Biologist and Maize
Breeder
Maize breeding (Breeder)
30
IIAM
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Time
input
(%)
Funding
Partner country institution - Tanzania
Name
Sex
(m/f)
Alfred Joseph
Moshi
m
ARS Zonal Director,
Research & Development,
Eastern Zone
Partner Coordinator, maize
breeding (Breeder)
30
ARS
Adrian B.C.
Mbiza
m
ARS Principal Agric
Research Officer 1, Agric
Research Inst, Ilonga,
Eastern Zone
Maize agronomy research
(Agronomist)
30
ARS
Fidelis A.
Myaka
m
ARS Ilonga Agric Research
Inst Eastern Zone
Grain legumes agronomy
(Agronomist)
30
ARS
Ruth Madulu
f
ARS Eastern Zone, Agric
research officer
Farming Systems and Socio
Economics analysis
(Economist)
30
ARS
K. Kitenge
m
ARS Northern zone, Agric
research officer
Maize breeding (Breeder)
30
ARS
T. Mbaga
f
ARS Selian Agric Research
Inst, Northern zone
Maize agronomy research
(Agronomist)
30
ARS
M. Mgendi
m
ARS Northern zone, Agric
research officer
Pigeon pea research
(Breeder)
30
ARS
Mbando
m
ARS Northern zone, Agric
research officer
Farming Systems and
Socio- Economics
(Economist)
30
ARS
Partner country institution – Republic of South Africa
Name
Sex
(m/f)
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Time
input
(%)
Funding
Mohammed
Jeenah
m
Agricultural Research
Council, Executive
Director, Research and
Development
National Coordinator,
organization of strategic
capacity building
(Biotechnologist)
5
ACIAR
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Time
input
(%)
Funding
Partner Australian institution - QDEEDI
Name
Sex
(m/f)
Daniel
Rodriguez
m
QDEEDI, Team Leader,
Agricultural Systems
Modeling
Partner Coordinator,
Systems modeling (Crop
Eco-physiologist)
30
QDEEDI
Andries
Potgieter
m
QDEEDI, Principal
Scientist
GIS & regional production
modeling (GIS)
30
QDEEDI
Richard Routley
m
QDEEDI, Principal
Scientist
Field research agronomy,
coordinator of Queensland’s
field agronomic trials
(Agronomist)
30
QDEEDI
Jo Owens
f
QDEEDI, Senior Scientist
Farming system modeling
and interactions (Modeling)
20
QDEEDI
Page 95
Name
Sex
(m/f)
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Time
input
(%)
Funding
Solomon
Kebede
Fekybelu
m
QDEEDI, Senior Scientist
Maize breeding in
Queensland (Breeder)
20
QDEEDI
Andrew Ward
m
QDEEDI, Science Leader
Sustainable Farming
Systems
General agronomy in
Queensland, training
(Agronomist)
5
QDEEDI
TBA
-
Senior Scientist
Field research agronomy
(Agronomy)
40
QDEEDI
TBA
-
QDEEDI, Research Officer
Field research agronomy in
Qld (Agronomist)
100
ACIAR
TBA
-
QDEEDI, Field Technician
Field breeding in Qld
(Breeder)
100
ACIAR
TBA
-
QDEEDI, Field Technician
Field research agronomy in
Qld (Agronomist)
50
ACIAR
Howard Cox
m
QDEEDI, Principal
Scientist
Cropping systems modeling
(Agronomist)
25
ACIAR
TBA
-
QDEEDI, Research Officer
Systems modeling and
climate risk management
100
ACIAR
Alex Hoffman
m
QDEEDI, Resource
Economist
Farm typologies and
resource allocation
(Economist)
20
ACIAR
Peter Davies
m
QDEEDI, Research
Scientist
GIS regional production
modeling (GIS)
20
ACIAR
Karine Chenu
f
QDEEDI, Senior Research
Scientist
GxExM modeling (Modeler)
30
ACIAR
TBA
-
QDEEDI-QAAFI student
Small household livelihoods
analysis
100
ACIAR
Partner Australian institution - Murdoch University
Name
Sex
(m/f)
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Time
input
(%)
Funding
John Howieson
m
Murdoch University
Director, Inst for Crop and
Plant Sciences
Partner Coordinator,
Legumes in farming systems
(Rhizobiologist)
10
Murdoch
Univ
Graham O'Hara
m
Murdoch University,
Director, Centre for
Rhizobium Studies; Dean,
Graduate Studies,
Inoculant production,
nitrogen fixation, training
(Microbiologist)
10
Murdoch
Univ
Peter White
m
Murdoch University,
Agronomist
Pulse legume agronomy,
farming systems
(Agronomist)
50
ACIAR
TBA
-
Murdoch University,
technician
Technician, glasshouse
experimentation in
nodulation and rhizobiology
50
Murdoch
Univ
Partner regional institution - ASARECA
Name
Sex
(m/f)
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Page 96
Time
input
(%)
Funding
Lydia Kimenye
f
ASARECA, Knowledge
Management
Partner Coordinator, Spillover Management
(Economist)
40
10
ACIAR
ASARECA
Monica
Kansiime
f
ASARECA, M&E Specialist
Monitoring and evaluation
(Economist)
40
10
ACIAR
ASARECA
Elizabeth
Sseniwale
f
ASARECA, Gender
Specialist
Gender awareness,
implementation and
analysis (Gender analysis)
20
10
ACIAR
ASARECA
Partner IARC - ICRISAT
Name
Sex
(m/f)
Agency, position
(location)
Role in program
(discipline)
Time
input
(%)
Funding
Said Silim
m
ICRISAT, Director for
Africa (Kenya based)
Partner Coordinator
(Physiologist/Breeder)
5
10
ACIAR
ICRISAT
Moses Siambi
m
ICRISAT, Agronomist
(Malawi based)
Agronomy research, crop
modeling, southern Africa
(Agronomist)
25
10
ACIAR
ICRISAT
Emmanuel
Monyo
m
ICRISAT, Breeder (Malawi
based)
Pulses breeding (Breeder)
20
20
ACIAR
ICRISAT
K.P.C. Rao
m
ACIAR
m
Research agronomy, pulses,
eastern Africa (Agronomist)
Administrative support
25
Peter Ninnes
10
ACIAR
David
Hoisington
To Be
Recruited
m
ICRISAT, Agronomist
(Kenya based)
ICRISAT, Director,
resource mobilizationpartnerships (India based)
ICRISAT, DDG-R (India
based)
ICRISAT, locally recruited
staff (Africa based)
Institutional support
(Biotechnology)
Agronomy research
agronomy (Agronomist)
10
ACIAR
54
ACIAR
To Be
Recruited (2)
-
ICRISAT, locally recruited
field staff (Africa based)
Support to seed production
(Agriculture)
100
ACIAR
To Be
Recruited
-
ICRISAT, locally recruited
staff (Africa based)
Support to breeding
(breeding)
54
ACIAR
-
Collaborators have sent support and endorsement of the program as follows:
Partner Institution
Official Endorsing the Proposal
Date of
endorsement
Malawi, DARS
Dr. Jeff Luhanga
Controller , Ag.G Extension and Technical Support,
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
Dr. Calisto Bias
Director General, IIAM
Dr. Solomon Assefa,
Director General , EIAR
Mr. Timothy Kirway, Acting Director
04 January 2010
Mozambique ,IIAM
Ethiopia, EIAR
Tanzania, DRD
Kenya, KARI
ASARECA
QDEEDI
Ted Njagi Deputy Director
On behalf of the Director Dr. E. Mukisira
Dr. Seyfu Ketema
Executive Director, ASARECA
Paul Grieve
General Manager, Emerging Technologies, QDEEDI
Page 97
30 December 2009
12 January 2010
14 January 2010
15 January 2010
15 January 2010
18 January 2010
Partner Institution
Murdoch University
ICRISAT
ARC
5.3.2
Official Endorsing the Proposal
Professor Jim Reynoldson
Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Murdoch University
Dr. Peter Ninnes
Director Resource Mobilization, ICRISAT
Dr Muhammed Jeenah, Executive Director, ARC
Date of
endorsement
18 January 2010
18 January 2010
25 January 2010
Description of the comparative advantage of the institutions involved
The NARS in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi and Mozambique deliver public
agricultural research products (varieties, technologies, knowledge) for smallholder farmers
in close cooperation with extension and, increasingly, small and large commercial seed
companies. The NARS capacity varies by country, but several of these rank among the
top NARS in SSA.
ASARECA has established capacity in M&E, scaling out/knowledge management and the
incorporation of gender in agricultural research. As an association for NARS in the east
and central sub-regions, ASARECA has a natural role in fostering technology and
knowledge spillovers between the 10 countries of the sub-region. It will apply its M&E
frameworks to the four World Bank supported centres of excellence including rice
(Tanzania), dairy (Kenya) and wheat (Ethiopia). With the assistance of the CGIAR System
wide program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis PRGA, ASARECA has
developed a framework and approach to the mainstreaming of gender in agricultural
research which can be mainstreamed in food security research in the sub-region.
CIMMYT has a long history of successful development of stress-tolerant maize OPVs and
hybrids, supported in recent years by molecular breeding, and a considerable proportion
of improved maize varieties in ESA contain significant CIMMYT germplasm. CIMMYT
research is well known for a strong multi-disciplinary orientation with breeders,
agronomists and economists interacting closely. Drought tolerance is an ongoing focus of
CIMMYT maize improvement (supported by BMGF); another planned target is nitrogen
efficient maize for sub-Saharan Africa. CIMMYT has catalyzed and successfully
participated in CA research in the developing world over the past three decades and
brings this experience to the program. The CIMMYT conservation agriculture program has
strong participatory systems agronomy expertise and has collaborated with a range of
national and regional partners to initiate successful scaling out of conservation agriculture
in maize based systems in Malawi. CIMMYT social scientists are engaged in value chain
analyses of maize inputs and produce, as well as on-farm technology evaluation. Other
relevant expertise include capacity building in participatory diagnosis of farming systems
and the management of on-farm research.
Other CG Centers have strong relevant experience and capability. ICRISAT has a long
experience in dryland agriculture. In ESA, it has scientists dedicated to the development,
deployment and linking farmers to markets in legumes. ICRISAT works on chickpea,
pigeon pea and groundnuts and improved and high yielding varieties with resistance or
tolerance to biotic and biotic stresses have been developed to fit specific agro-ecologies.
Pigeonpeas have been developed for intercropping with maize. ICRISAT social scientists
have history of working along value chains. CIAT has not only worked on bean
improvement and promotion but also, through TSBF, on soil management including
conservation agriculture.
Page 98
5.4 Intellectual property and other regulatory compliance
SIMLESA partners will exchange knowledge and information about crop production and
cropping systems, value chains, socio-economic and GIS characterization data,
approaches, inputs and outputs of APSIM models, germplasm of maize and legumes;
nodulant bacteria; and IT systems. Knowledge and information will be provided as
Background Intellectual Property (IP) and developed as Foreground IP and exchanged
freely and without restrictions among program partners for use in the program.
SIMLESA Partners will also exchange germplasm and bacteria. The Standard Material
Transfer
Agreement
(SMTA;
http://www.cimmyt.org/english/wps/obtain_seed/
smtainformation-en.htm) of the International Treaty of Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture will regulate the exchange and distribution of maize and legume
germplasm contributed to by the IARCs (CIMMYT, ICRISAT, IITA and CIAT), and
QDEEDI’s germplasm will be provided under a DEEDI MTA (see section 6.3 of Appendix
A), which allows free use of the contributed germplasm for research and development for
the project. The SMTA makes germplasm freely available for research and
commercialization. SMTA compatible terms will regulate the exchange and use of
nodulant bacteria. As part of the program subcontract to NARS, a Memorandum of
Understanding on the exchange of NARS germplasm will be developed in the first year of
the program as described in the Log Frame (Objective 3.3). The current practice is that
licensing of NARS germplasm for production and deployment through seed companies is
managed through a public tender process. The Memorandum of Understanding will
request that germplasm developed in the course of this program as Foreground IP is
made available for research purposes to other partners and that licensing to seed
companies for commercialization will be managed in a manner that allows
commercialization in African countries and Australia.
The APSIM modeling framework for farmer systems contributed by QDEEDI will be
available free of charge as Background IP for the use by SIMLESA partners and
participants for non-commercial R&D purposes.
All Background IP contributed to the program by the SIMLESA partners either existing
before of the program or developed independently by the partners and contributed to it,
remains the property of each contributing partner and each partner is responsible for
observing licensing agreements that may be relevant in the use of that Background IP.
This may in particular apply to private sector contribution to germplasm or software used
as Background IP.
Foreground IP is represented by diverse outputs (see Appendix A for details) such as
knowledge and information on improved cropping systems, farmer resource allocation and
value chains; socioeconomic and biophysical data, new and suitable hybrids, parental
lines and OPVs of maize and legumes; improved APSIM systems; CA-based technologies
that are beneficial and effective in eastern and southern Africa, and training materials. For
research purposes, all SIMLESA partners will make available Foreground IP on an
unrestricted, royalty-free and non-exclusive basis. For commercial purposes, IARCs make
available Foreground IP on an unrestricted, royalty-free and non-exclusive basis, while
NARS, QDEEDI and Murdoch University will make available Foreground IP according to
licensing terms determined by them on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
recommendations by the Steering Committee of the program.
SIMLESA partners will follow all applicable laws and regulations, in particular seed and
phytosanitary laws of the target countries and, if such germplasm and knowledge is being
utilized, agreements signed within Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported programs
Page 99
(DTMA and TL-2) that support Global Access33. All germplasm will be attained through
conventional breeding methods and no genetically modified organisms will be utilized.
33
Global Access. The partner organization understands and acknowledges that the Foundation is making a
grant in furtherance of its charitable purposes and hence, as a condition to making the grant, the Foundation
requests that the partner organization agrees to the extent it is within reasonable control, to conduct and
manage support of the research, product development and innovations funded by this grant in a manner that
enables availability and accessibility at reasonable costs to the developing countries of the world. The purpose
and intent of this paragraph is to evidence the partner organization’s commitment to engage in negotiations on
intellectual property rights created in whole or in part with funding from this grant as applicable and related
commercialization activities, in a manner that furthers the Foundation's charitable purpose as stated above.
Page 100
5.5 Travel table
PART A Commissioned Organization or IARC
Trip
no.
Person or position
CIM-1
Value Chain Specialist
CIM-2
From / to
Purpose
1-Feb-10
Ken-Tan-Ken
Selection+Planning Meeting
4
Value Chain Specialist
1-Feb-10
Ken-Eth-Ken
Selection+Planning Meeting
4
CIM-3
Value Chain Specialist
1-Feb-10
Ken-Mal-Ken
Selection+Planning Meeting
4
CIM-4
Breeder (maize)
1-Feb-10
Eth-Ken-Eth
National planning meeting
5
CIM-5
Breeder (maize)
1-Feb-10
Eth-Tan-Eth
National planning meeting
5
CIM-6
Breeder (legume)
1-Feb-10
Mal-Ken-Mal
National planning meeting
5
CIM-7
Breeder (legume)
1-Feb-10
Mal-Tan-Mal
National planning meeting
5
CIM-8
Project Leader
1-Feb-10
Zim-Tan-Zim
National planning meeting
5
CIM-9
Project Leader
1-Feb-10
Zim-Ken-Zim
National planning meeting
5
CIM10
Value Chain Specialist
1-Mar-10
Ken
Selection+Planning Meeting
4
CIM11
Value Chain Specialist
1-Mar-10
Ken-Zim-Ken
Selection+Planning Meeting
4
CIM12
Agronomist -EA
1-Mar-10
Ken-Tan-Ken
CA Short Course
7
CIM13
Agronomist -EA
1-Mar-10
Ken-Tan-Ken
Planning Meeting
5
CIM14
Agronomist -EA
1-Mar-10
Ken
Planning Meeting
3
CIM15
Agronomist -EA
1-Mar-10
Ken
Planning Meeting
5
CIM16
Agronomist -SA
1-Mar-10
Zim-Ken-Zim
CA Short Course
7
CIM17
Agronomist -SA
1-Mar-10
Zim-Ken-Zim
Planning Meeting
5
CIM18
Oversight Agronomist
1-Mar-10
Mex-Ken-Tan-Mex
Planning Meeting
12
CIM19
Breeder (maize)
1-Mar-10
Eth-Ken-Eth
Induction CIMMYT-Zim
5
CIM20
Project Leader
1-Mar-10
Zim-Ken-Zim
Project initiation visit
5
Market Economist
1-Apr-10
Ken-Eth-Ken
CIM-
Estimated
date of
travel
Page 101
Baseline Survey, Training
Duration
(days)
5
Trip
no.
Person or position
Estimated
date of
travel
From / to
21
Purpose
Duration
(days)
Supervision
CIM22
Market Economist
1-Apr-10
Ken
Baseline Survey, Training
Supervision
5
CIM23
Agronomist -EA
1-Apr-10
Ken
Planting
5
CIM24
Agronomist -EA
1-Apr-10
Ken-Tan-Ken
Planting
7
CIM25
Market Economist
1-May-10
Ken-Tan-Ken
Baseline Survey, Training
Supervision
5
CIM26
Market Economist
1-May-10
Ken
Baseline Survey, Training
Supervision
5
CIM27
Agronomist -EA
1-May-10
Ken-Eth-Ken
Planning Meeting
5
CIM28
Agronomist -SA
1-May-10
Zim-Eth-Zim
CA Short Course
7
CIM29
Oversight Agronomist
1-May-10
Mex-Eth-Ken-TanMex
Planning Meeting + Trial
evaluation
14
CIM30
Breeder (maize)
1-May-10
Eth
National planning meeting
5
CIM31
Breeder (legume)
1-May-10
Mal-Eth-Mal
National planning meeting
5
CIM32
Project Leader
1-May-10
Zim-Eth-Zim
National planning meeting
5
CIM33
Project Leader
1-May-10
Zim-Eth-Zim
Project initiation visit
5
CIM34
Project Leader
1-May-10
Zim-Tan-Zim
Project initiation visit
5
CIM35
Market Economist
1-Jun-10
Ken-Eth-Ken
Baseline Survey, Training
Supervision
5
CIM36
Senior Economist
1-Jun-10
Ken-Uga-Ken
Visits to ASERECA
5
CIM37
Agronomist -EA
1-Jun-10
Ken-Tan-Ken
Crop and trial evaluation
7
CIM38
Agronomist -EA
1-Jun-10
Ken
Crop and trial evaluation
5
CIM39
Agronomist -EA
1-Jun-10
Ken-Eth-Ken
Planting
5
CIM40
Agronomist -EA
1-Jun-10
Ken
Prog Support + Trial Evaluation
5
Agronomist -EA
1-Jun-10
Ken-Tan-Ken
Prog Support + Trial Evaluation
7
CIM-
Page 102
Trip
no.
Person or position
Estimated
date of
travel
From / to
Purpose
Duration
(days)
41
CIM42
Breeder (maize)
1-Jun-10
Eth-Ken-Eth
Backstopping
5
CIM43
Breeder (maize)
1-Jun-10
Eth-Tan-Eth
Backstopping
5
CIM44
Breeder (maize)
1-Jun-10
Eth-Ken-Eth
Induction CIMMYT-Ken
5
CIM45
Project Leader
1-Jun-10
Zim-Tan-Zim
National study tour
7
CIM46
Project Leader
1-Jun-10
Zim-Ken-Zim
National study tour
7
CIM47
Agronomist -EA
1-Jul-10
Ken
Harvest methodology course
3
CIM48
Agronomist -EA
1-Jul-10
Ken-Tan-Ken
Harvest methodology course
5
CIM49
Breeder & Technician
(maize)
1-Jul-10
Eth
Planting (several trips)
10
CIM50
Market Economist
1-Jul-10
Ken-Tan-Ken
Baseline Survey, Training
Supervision
5
CIM51
Market Economist
1-Jul-10
Ken
Baseline Survey, Training
Supervision
5
CIM52
Agronomist -EA
1-Aug-10
Ken-Eth-Ken
Crop and trial evaluation
5
CIM53
Agronomist -SA
1-Aug-10
Zim-Mal-Zim
Planning Meeting
5
CIM54
Agronomist -SA
1-Aug-10
Zim-Moz-Zim
Planning Meeting
5
CIM55
Oversight Breeding
1-Aug-10
Ken
Annual Project Meeting
5
CIM56
Breeder (maize)
1-Aug-10
Eth-Ken-Eth
Annual Project Meeting
5
CIM57
Breeder (maize)
1-Aug-10
Eth-Mal-Eth
National planning meeting
5
CIM58
Breeder (maize)
1-Aug-10
Eth-Moz-Eth
National planning meeting
5
CIM59
Oversight CIMMYT
1-Aug-10
Mex-Ken-Mex
Annual Project Meeting
5
CIM60
Breeder (legume)
1-Aug-10
Mal-Moz-Mal
National planning meeting
5
Breeder (legume)
1-Aug-10
Mal
National planning meeting
5
CIM-
Page 103
Trip
no.
Person or position
Estimated
date of
travel
From / to
Purpose
Duration
(days)
61
CIM62
Project Leader
1-Aug-10
Zim-Moz-Zim
National planning meeting
5
CIM63
Project Leader
1-Aug-10
Zim-Mal-Zim
National planning meeting
5
CIM64
Agronomist -EA
1-Sep-10
Ken-Moz-Ken
CA Short Course
7
CIM65
Agronomist -EA
1-Sep-10
Ken-Eth-Ken
Harvest methodology course
3
CIM66
Agronomist -EA
1-Sep-10
Ken-Eth-Ken
Prog Support + Trial Evaluation
5
CIM67
Agronomist -SA
1-Sep-10
Zim-Moz-Zim
CA Short Course
7
CIM68
Breeder & Technician
(maize)
1-Sep-10
Eth
Pollination (several trips)
10
CIM69
Breeder (maize)
1-Sep-10
Eth
Backstopping
5
CIM70
Breeder (maize)
1-Sep-10
Eth-Mex-Eth
Induction CIMMYT-Mex
7
CIM71
Project Leader
1-Sep-10
Zim-Ken-Zim
Annual International Collaborators
Meeting
5
CIM72
Project Leader
1-Sep-10
Zim-Eth-Zim
National study tour
7
CIM73
Agronomist -EA
1-Oct-10
Ken-Mal-Ken
CA Short Course
5
CIM74
Agronomist -SA
1-Oct-10
Zim-Mal-Zim
CA Short Course
7
CIM75
Breeder (maize)
1-Oct-10
Eth-Aus-Eth
GxExM characterization
9
CIM76
Technician
1-Oct-10
Eth-Aus
GxExM characterization
75
CIM77
Technician
1-Oct-10
Zim-Aus
GxExM characterization
75
CIM78
Project Leader
1-Oct-10
Zim-Moz-Zim
Project initiation visit
5
CIM79
Project Leader
1-Oct-10
Zim-Mal-Zim
Project initiation visit
5
CIM80
Market Economist
1-Nov-10
Ken-Eth-Ken
Baseline Survey, Training
Supervision
5
Agronomist -SA
1-Nov-10
Zim-Mal-Zim
Planting
7
CIM-
Page 104
Trip
no.
Person or position
Estimated
date of
travel
From / to
Purpose
Duration
(days)
81
CIM82
Agronomist -SA
1-Nov-10
Zim-Moz-Zim
Planting
7
CIM83
Market Economist
1-Dec-10
Ken-Tan-Ken
Baseline Survey, Training
Supervision
5
CIM84
Market Economist
1-Dec-10
Ken
Baseline Survey, Training
Supervision
5
CIM85
Breeder & Technician
(maize)
1-Dec-10
Eth
Harvest (several trips)
10
CIM86
Advisory Board
1-Dec-10
Africa-Ken-Africa
Annual Meeting
5
CIM87
Advisory Board
1-Dec-10
Aus-Ken-Aus
Annual Meeting
7
For budget purposes, travel in Y2-Y4 will approximate those of Y1
PART B Australian Collaborating Organization/s
Person or position
Estimated
date of
travel*
From / to
Purpose
Duration
(days)
1
Daniel Rodriguez
Apr-10
Australia/ Africa
(Kenya/Ethiopia)
ACIAR-AFRICA
To work on the systems
modeling components within
objectives 1, 2, 4 and 5
15
2
Daniel Rodriguez
Sept-10
Australia/ Africa
(Kenya/Ethiopia)
ACIAR-AFRICA
To work on the systems
modeling components within
objectives 1, 2, 4 and 5
7
3
PhD student (Australia
based)
Sept-10
Australia/ Africa
(Kenya/Ethiopia)
ACIAR-AFRICA
Project farm typologies and
initial interviews with
participating farmers
20
4
Solomon Fekybelu
Apr-10
Australia/ Africa
(Kenya/Ethiopia)
ACIAR-AFRICA
Project review/planning
10
5
Solomon Fekybelu
Sep-10
Australia/Kenya
DTMA meeting
10
6
Project officer (Australia
/ Africa based)
Apr-10
Australia/ Africa
(Kenya/Ethiopia)
To work on the systems
modeling components within
objectives 1, 2, 4 and 5
15
7
Senior modeler
Apr-10
Australia/Africa
To provide modeling training
in alignment with AusAid
funding
10
8
Project officer (Australia
/ Africa based)
Apr-10
Australia/ Africa
(Kenya/Ethiopia)
To work on the systems
modeling components within
objectives 1, 2, 4 and 5
15
9
Project officer (Australia
/ Africa based)
Oct-10
Australia/ Africa
(Kenya/Ethiopia)
To work on the systems
modeling components within
objectives 1, 2, 4 and 5
15
10
John Howieson
Mar-10
Australia/Malawi
or Kenya
Trip
no.
*For budget purposes, travel in Y2-Y4 will approximate those of Y1
Page 105
10
PART C Overseas Partner Organization/s
Trip
no.
Person or position
ETHIOPIA
1
National Coordinator/
Disciplinary Leaders (4)
2
National Maize Breeder
3
National Legume
Breeder
4
National Economist
5
National Research
Agronomist
6
National Extension
agents (6)
7
National crop/livestock
scientist
8
National Maize
Breeder+Assistants (3)
9
National Legume
Breeder+Assistants (2)
10
National
Economist+Assistant
(2)
11
National Extension
Agents (6)
12
National Research
Agronomist + Assistants
(3)
13
Agronomists and
Extension Agents (25)
14
National Maize Breeder
15
National Legume
Breeder
16
National Economist
17
National Research
Agronomist
18
National Extension
agents (6)
19
National crop/livestock
scientist
20
National Maize Breeder
21
22
23
National Legume
Breeder
National Economist
National Research
Agronomist
24
National crop/livestock
scientist
25
National Coordinator
KENYA
26
National Coordinator/
Disciplinary Leaders (4)
27
National Maize Breeder
28
National Legume
Breeder
29
National Economist
30
National Research
Agronomist
31
National Extension
agents (6)
32
National crop/livestock
scientist
Estimated
date of
travel
From / to
Purpose
No of
days/
trip
Apr-10
Eth
5
May-10
May-10
Eth
Eth
Ex-Ante Technology
Analysis Workshop
Planning Meeting
Planning Meeting
May-10
May-10
Eth
Eth
Planning Meeting
Planning Meeting
3
3
May-10
Eth
Planning Meeting
3
May-10
Eth
Planning Meeting
3
May to
Nov 2010
May to
Nov 2010
May to
Nov 2010
Eth
Trial evaluation
2
Eth
Trial evaluation
2
Eth
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
2
May to
Nov 2010
May to
Nov 2010
Eth
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
1
Aug-10
Eth
Short Course on CA
6
Sep-10
Sep-10
Eth
Eth
Annual Study Tour
Annual Study Tour
6
6
Sep-10
Sep-10
Eth
Eth
Annual Study Tour
Annual Study Tour
6
6
Sep-10
Eth
Annual Study Tour
3
Sep-10
Eth
Annual Study Tour
6
Sep-10
Eth-Ken
5
Sep-10
Eth-Ken
Sep-10
Eth-Ken
Sep-10
Eth-Ken
Sep-10
Eth-Ken
Sep-10
Eth-Tan
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
Project Steering Committee
Feb-10
Ken
5
Mar-10
Mar-10
Ken
Ken
Ex-Ante Technology
Analysis Workshop
Planning Meeting
Planning Meeting
Mar-10
Mar-10
Ken
Ken
Planning Meeting
Planning Meeting
3
3
Mar-10
Ken
Planning Meeting
3
Mar-10
Ken
Planning Meeting
3
Eth
Page 106
3
3
2
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
Trip
no.
Person or position
Estimated
date of
travel
Feb to
Sept 2010
Feb to
Sept 2010
Feb to
Sept 2010
From / to
Purpose
Ken
Trial evaluation
No of
days/
trip
2
33
National Maize
Breeder+Assistants (3)
National Legume
Breeder+Assistants (2)
National
Economist+Assistant
(2)
National Extension
Agents (6)
National Research
Agronomist + Assistants
(3)
Agronomists and
Extension Agents (25)
National Maize Breeder
National Legume
Breeder
National Economist
National Research
Agronomist
National Extension
agents (6)
National crop/livestock
scientist
National Maize Breeder
Ken
Trial evaluation
2
Ken
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
2
Feb to
Sept 2010
Feb to
Sept 2010
Ken
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
1
May-10
Ken
Short Course on CA
6
Jun-10
Jun-10
Ken
Ken
Annual Study Tour
Annual Study Tour
6
6
Jun-10
Jun-10
Ken
Ken
Annual Study Tour
Annual Study Tour
6
6
Jun-10
Ken
Annual Study Tour
3
Jun-10
Ken
Annual Study Tour
6
Sep-10
Ken
5
Sep-10
Ken
Sep-10
Ken
National Research
Agronomist
49
National crop/livestock
scientist
50
National Coordinator
MALAWI
51
National Coordinator/
Disciplinary Leaders (4)
52
Agronomists and
Extension Agents (25)
53
National Maize Breeder
54
National Legume
Breeder
55
National Economist
56
National Research
Agronomist
57
National Extension
agents (6)
58
National crop/livestock
scientist
59
National Maize Breeder
Sep-10
Ken
Sep-10
Ken
Sep-10
Ken-Tan
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
Project Steering Committee
Jul-10
Mal
5
Mar-11
Mal
Ex-Ante Technology
Analysis Workshop
Short Course on CA
Aug-10
Aug-10
Mal
Mal
Planning Meeting
Planning Meeting
3
3
Aug-10
Aug-10
Mal
Mal
Planning Meeting
Planning Meeting
3
3
Aug-10
Mal
Planning Meeting
3
Aug-10
Mal
Planning Meeting
3
Sep-10
Mal-Ken
5
60
National Legume
Breeder
National Economist
Sep-10
Kenya
Sep-10
Kenya
National Research
Agronomist
National crop/livestock
scientist
National Coordinator
National Maize
Breeder+Assistants (3)
Sep-10
Kenya
Sep-10
Kenya
Sep-10
Nov-10 to
May-11
Mal-Tan
Mal
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
Project Steering Committee
Trial evaluation
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
National Legume
Breeder
National Economist
48
61
62
63
64
65
Ken
Page 107
2
5
5
5
5
4
6
5
5
5
5
4
2
Trip
no.
Person or position
66
National Legume
Breeder+Assistants (2)
67
National
Economist+Assistant
(2)
68
National Extension
Agents (6)
69
National Research
Agronomist + Assistants
(3)
MOZAMBIQUE
70
National Coordinator/
Disciplinary Leaders (4)
71
Agronomists and
Extension Agents (25)
72
National Maize Breeder
73
National Legume
Breeder
74
National Economist
75
National Research
Agronomist
76
National Extension
agents (6)
77
National crop/livestock
scientist
78
National Maize Breeder
79
80
81
National Legume
Breeder
National Economist
National Research
Agronomist
82
National crop/livestock
scientist
83
National Coordinator
84
National Maize
Breeder+Assistants (3)
85
National Legume
Breeder+Assistants (2)
86
National
Economist+Assistant
(2)
87
National Extension
Agents (6)
88
National Research
Agronomist + Assistants
(3)
TANZANIA
89
National Coordinator/
Disciplinary Leaders (4)
90
National Maize Breeder
91
National Legume
Breeder
92
National Economist
93
National Research
Agronomist
94
National Extension
agents (6)
95
National crop/livestock
scientist
96
National Maize
Breeder+Assistants (3)
Estimated
date of
travel
Nov-10 to
May-11
Nov-10 to
May-11
From / to
Purpose
Mal
Trial evaluation
Mal
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
2
Nov-10 to
May-11
Nov-10 to
May-11
Mal
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
1
Jul-10
Moz
5
Mar-11
Moz
Ex-Ante Technology
Analysis Workshop
Short Course on CA
Aug-10
Aug-10
Moz
Moz
Planning Meeting
Planning Meeting
3
3
Aug-10
Aug-10
Moz
Moz
Planning Meeting
Planning Meeting
3
3
Aug-10
Moz
Planning Meeting
3
Aug-10
Moz
Planning Meeting
3
Sep-10
Moz-Ken
5
Sep-10
Moz-Ken
Sep-10
Moz-Ken
Sep-10
Moz-Ken
Sep-10
Moz-Ken
Sep-10
Nov-10 to
May-11
Nov-10 to
May-11
Nov-10 to
May-11
Moz-Tan
Moz
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
Project Steering Committee
Trial evaluation
Moz
Trial evaluation
2
Moz
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
2
Nov-10 to
May-11
Nov-10 to
May-11
Moz
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
1
Feb-10
Tan
5
Mar-10
Mar-10
Tan
Tan
Ex-Ante Technology
Analysis Workshop
Planning Meeting
Planning Meeting
Mar-10
Mar-10
Tan
Tan
Planning Meeting
Planning Meeting
3
3
Mar-10
Tan
Planning Meeting
3
Mar-10
Tan
Planning Meeting
3
Feb to
Sept 2010
Tan
Trial evaluation
2
Mal
Moz
Page 108
No of
days/
trip
2
2
6
5
5
5
5
4
2
2
3
3
Trip
no.
Person or position
97
National Legume
Breeder+Assistants (2)
National
Economist+Assistant
(2)
National Extension
Agents (6)
National Research
Agronomist + Assistants
(3)
Agronomists and
Extension Agents (25)
National Maize Breeder
National Legume
Breeder
National Economist
National Research
Agronomist
National Extension
agents (6)
National crop/livestock
scientist
National Maize Breeder
98
99
100
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
Estimated
date of
travel
Feb to
Sept 2010
Feb to
Sept 2010
From / to
Purpose
Tan
Trial evaluation
Tan
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
2
Feb to
Sept 2010
Feb to
Sept 2010
Tan
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
Trial evaluation + farmer
meetings
1
May-10
Tan
Short Course on CA
6
Jun-10
Jun-10
Tan
Tan
Annual Study Tour
Annual Study Tour
6
6
Jun-10
Jun-10
Tan
Tan
Annual Study Tour
Annual Study Tour
6
6
Jun-10
Tan
Annual Study Tour
3
Jun-10
Tan
Annual Study Tour
6
Sep-10
Tan-Ken
5
National Legume
Breeder
National Economist
Sep-10
Tan-Ken
Sep-10
Tan-Ken
National Research
Agronomist
National crop/livestock
scientist
National Coordinator
Sep-10
Tan-Ken
Sep-10
Tan-Ken
Sep-10
Tan
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
International Collaborators
meeting
Project Steering Committee
Feb-10
Aug-10
Joh-Ken
Joh-Ken
Visit Kenya
Annual Project Meeting
5
5
Feb-10
Uga - Ken - Uga
National planning or
backstopping
National planning or
backstopping
Selection Gender
consultancy
Selection M&E consultancy
Visit Ethiopia
Visit Kenya
Visit Tanzania
Visit Malawi
Visit Mozambique
Finalizing M&E framework
National planning or
backstopping
Training eastern Africa
5
Selection Spill-over
consultancy
Annual Project Meeting
5
National planning or
backstopping
National planning or
backstopping
Visit Ethiopia
5
112
ARC
113
Muhammed Jeenah
114
Muhammed Jeenah
ASARECA
115
Regional Rep (1)
Tan
116
Regional Rep (1)
Feb-10
Uga - Tan - Uga
117
M&E consultant (1)
Feb-10
Reg - Uga - Reg
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
Gender consultant (1)
M&E, Gender (2)
M&E, Gender (2)
M&E, Gender (2)
M&E, Gender (2)
M&E, Gender (2)
M&E, Gender (2)
Regional Rep (1)
Feb-10
Mar-10
Mar-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
Apr-10
May-10
May-10
Reg
Reg
Reg
Reg
Reg
Reg
Reg
Uga
126
PM, M&E, Gender,
Spill-over (9)
Spill-over consultant (1)
Jul-10
Reg - Ken - Reg
Jul-10
Reg - Uga - Reg
Aug-10
Uga - Ken - Uga
129
PM, M&E, Gender,
Spill-over (4)
Regional Rep (1)
Aug-10
Uga - Mal - Uga
130
Regional Rep (1)
Aug-10
Uga - Moz - Uga
131
Spill-over consultant (1)
Sep-10
Reg - Eth - Reg
127
128
- Uga - Reg
- Eth - Reg
- Ken - Reg
- Tan - Reg
- Mal - Reg
- Moz - Reg
- Uga - Reg
- Eth - Uga
Page 109
No of
days/
trip
2
2
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
Trip
no.
Person or position
132
Spill-over consultant (1)
133
Spill-over consultant (1)
134
Spill-over consultant (1)
135
Spill-over consultant (1)
136
3 RO, 4 NARS (total=7)
ICRISAT
137
Breeder
138
Breeder
139
Agronomist
140
Agronomist
141
Agronomist
142
Breeder
143
Breeder/Agronomist
144
Breeder/Agronomist
145
Breeder & Technician
146
Agronomist
147
Breeder/Agronomist
148
Agronomist
149
Breeder/Agronomist
150
Breeder
151
Oversight ICRISAT
152
Agronomist
153
Agronomist
154
Breeder & Technician
155
Breeder/Agronomist
156
Breeder & Technician
Estimated
date of
travel
Sep-10
Sep-10
Oct-10
Oct-10
Dec-10
Feb-10
Feb-10
Mar-10
Mar-10
Mar-10
May-10
Jun-10
Jun-10
Jul-10
Aug-10
Jan-11
Aug-10
Aug-10
Aug-10
Aug-10
Sep-10
Sep-10
Sep-10
Sep-10
Dec-10
From / to
Purpose
Reg
Reg
Reg
Reg
Reg
Visit Kenya
Visit Tanzania
Visit Malawi
Visit Mozambique
Training southern Africa
No of
days/
trip
5
5
5
5
4
National planning meeting
National planning meeting
CA Short Course
National planning meeting
National planning meeting
National planning meeting
Backstopping
Backstopping
Planting (several trips)
National planning meeting
Backstopping
National planning meeting
Annual Project Meeting
National planning meeting
Annual Project Meeting
CA Short Course
National planning meeting
Pollination (several trips)
Backstopping
Harvest (several trips)
5
5
7
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
3
5
5
5
- Ken - Reg
- Tan - Reg
- Mal - Reg
- Moz - Reg
- Mal - Reg
Ken
Ken-Tan-Ken
Ken-Tan-Ken
Ken-Tan-Ken
Ken
Mal
Ken
Ken-Tan-Ken
Mal
Mal
Mal-Moz-Mal
Mal-Moz-Mal
Ken
Mal-Moz-Mal
Ken
Mal-Moz-Mal
Ken-Eth-Ken
Mal
Mal
Mal
Page 110
6 Appendix A: Intellectual property register
6.1 Administrative details
Project ID
Assigned by ACIAR
Project title
Pathways to sustainable intensification of maize-legume based farming
systems for food security in eastern and southern Africa (SIMLESA)
Assessment provider
Carolina Roa, Ph.D.
If not Australian program
leader, provide title
IP Manager, CIMMYT
Date of assessment
12 January 2010
6.2 Categories of intellectual property and brief description
Plant or animal germplasm exchange
Does the program involve:
Yes
provision of germplasm by Australia to a partner country?
X
provision of germplasm from a partner country to Australia?
X
provision of germplasm from or to an IARC or another organisation and a program
participant?
X
No
use of germplasm from a third party
X
material subject to plant breeders/variety rights in Australia or another country?
X
If “yes” to any of the above, for each applicable country provide brief details of the material
to be exchanged:

If the germplasm exchange can be finalised before the program commencement,
provide a Materials Transfer Agreement.

If the specific germplasm to be exchanged cannot be identified until after program
commencement, indicate the type of material likely to be exchanged.
Country
Details of plant or animal germplasm exchange
Source countries: Mexico, Nigeria,
India, Colombia, Queensland
(Australia)
Recipient countries: Australia*,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi,
Mozambique, South Africa.
Maize:
Maize germplasm from CIMMYT. Some varieties are already under
seed production and distribution by NARS, NGOs and small &
medium seed companies in Sub Saharan Africa.
QDEEDI inbred maize lines and/or breeding materials which are not
commercialized under exclusive licences to other breeding
companies/seed growers
*Note: In relation to Australia as a recipient of germplasm,
participating IARCs may provide germplasm to Australia, while the
terms for an eventual provision of germplasm by African NARS to
Australia will be negotiated in Year 1 as described in Objective 3.3.
Source countries: India, Nigeria,
Colombia.
Recipient countries: Australia*,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi,
Mozambique, South Africa.
Legumes:
Legume varieties obtained from ICRISAT, IITA, and CIAT in SubSaharan Africa. Activities already underway in target countries. The
legumes include beans (Phaseolus), cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata),
pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), groundnuts (Arachis hypogea) and
soybeans (Glycine max).
Source country: Australia
Recipient countries: same as above
Bacteria (Rhizobium):
Inoculants of root-nodule bacteria provided by Murdoch University
collaborator to SIMLESA countries where required and where possible
for both experimentation and training purposes.
Page 111
Proprietary materials, techniques and information
Does the program involve provision (from one party to another) of:
Yes
research materials or reagents (e.g. enzymes, molecular markers, promoters)?
X
proprietary techniques or procedures?
No
X
proprietary computer software?
X
If "yes" to any of the above, for each applicable country provide:

brief details of the materials or information, the organisation providing, and the
organisation receiving the materials

a copy of any formal contract between the parties.
Country
Details of proprietary materials, techniques and information
Australia (Provider)
APSIM, a crop system information tool, is IP of the APSIM Initiative,
an unincorporated joint venture between the Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), The University of
Queensland (UQ) and the State of Queensland through its
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation
(DEEDI).
The use of the APSIM software is encouraged for non-commercial
R&D and educational purposes, through broad licensing, free of
charge to approved third parties under an APSIM Community Source
Framework (see http://www.apsim.info/apsim/default.asp for licensing
terms).
Commercial licensing of APSIM will also be considered for approval
on a case by case basis, upon submission of a detailed
commercialisation proposal to the APSIM Initiative.
Australia (Provider)
There is IP attached to some of the potential carrier materials for
nodule bacteria provided by Murdoch University, but there is no IP
attached to the provided strains of nodule bacteria themselves and
therefore no restrictions for non-commercial use.
Other agreements
Is any aspect of the program work subject to, or dependent upon:
Yes
other materials-transfer agreements entered into by any program participant?
X
confidentiality agreements entered into by any program participant?
No
X
If "yes" to any of the above, for each applicable country provide:

brief details of the agreements and conditions

a copy of any such agreement before program commencement.
Country
Details of other agreements
Australia
QDEEDI will require an MTA be signed for any QDEEDI germplasm
material that is supplied for use in the project.
6.3 Foreground, background and third party Intellectual Property
This includes, but is not limited to patents held or applied for in Australia and/or in partner
countries and/or in third countries. For example, Foreground IP includes any new
germplasm, reagents (such as vectors, probes, antibodies, vaccines) or software that will
be developed by the program.
Page 112
Foreground IP (IP that is expected to be developed during the program)
Ownership of or rights to Foreground IP other than as detailed in the ACIAR Standard
Conditions must be approved by ACIAR.
Yes
Is it expected that there will be Foreground IP?
No
X
If "yes",

for each applicable country provide brief details of the IP and who will have rights to
use the IP (e.g. Commissioned Organisation, Australian collaborating organisation/s
partner countries).

If a patent, give details of patent status (provisional, application, granted), priority date
and designated countries.
Country
Details of foreground IP
México, Nigeria, India and Colombia
New and improved experimental germplasm, inbred lines and varieties
of maize and legumes by IARCs. Available to any entity without
restrictions through the SMTA.
Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi,
Mozambique and Tanzania
New varieties and hybrids of maize and legumes by NARS. Available
for research purposes and under NARS specific license agreements
to seed companies in Eastern and Southern Africa.
Australia
Improved QDEEDI’s maize germplasm will be available under the
QEEDI MTA for research purposes and will be made available under
specific license agreements for commercial purposes.
Australia
New software that might be developed will be part the APSIM Initiative
and will be available to third parties for non-commercial R&D and
educational purposes, through broad and free of charge licensing to
approved third parties under an APSIM Community Source
Framework (see http://www.apsim.info/apsim/default.asp).
All countries
From all partners: knowledge and information on socio-economics,
geophysical, agribusiness, conservation agriculture and modeling of
targeted farming systems, and value chains ( including market
instruments, technology evaluation and risk management mechanisms
for farmer-based production systems); policies; training approaches
and materials; germplasm information. Available to all partners and to
target users in Eastern and Southern Africa.
Background IP (IP that is necessary for the success of the program but that has
already been created and is owned by parties to the program)
Any agreements in place regarding Background IP should be provided to ACIAR prior to
program commencement.
Yes
Is it there Background IP?
No
X
If “yes”,
are there any restrictions on the program's ability to use the Background IP?
X
would there be any restriction on ACIAR or the overseas collaborator claiming their
rights to IP for the program based on the Background IP (refer ACIAR Standard
Conditions)?
X
If "yes", for each applicable country provide brief details of:

the source of the Background IP.

whether the Commissioned Organisation and/or Australian collaborators and/or
developing country collaborators own it.

any conditions or restrictions on its use.
Page 113
country
Details of background IP
México, India, Nigeria and Colombia
IARCs maize and legume germplasm; no restrictions on R&D use
Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi.
Mozambique, and Tanzania
NARS’ developed maize and legumes germplasm; available for
research use and under NARS-specific licensing agreements for
commercial use
Australia
QDEEDI maize varieties; no restrictions on use for the program
activities and partners. Grain Research Development Corporation
(GRDC) holds some IP on QDEEDI’s germplasm (see below). No
restrictions apply for the use of QDEEDI germplasm for research and
development purposes in this project.
Australia
Murdoch University’s nodulant bacteria; no restrictions on
experimental and research use and commercial licenses on a caseby-case basis.
Australia
APSIM software owned by the APSIM Initiative and provided by
QDEEDI; no restrictions for non-commercial R&D and educational
purposes and through commercial licenses defined on a case-by-case
basis.
Third Party IP (IP that is owned by or licensed from other parties)
Agreements governing the use of third party IP can be related to research materials,
research equipment or machinery, techniques or processes, software, information and
databases.
Yes
Is there any relevant Third Party IP that is essential to the program?
No
X
If “yes”, would there be any restriction on ACIAR claiming its rights to IP for the
program (refer ACIAR Standard Conditions)?
X
If "yes", for each applicable country provide brief details of:

the source of the Third Party IP.

the applicable country/ies, the circumstances/agreement/arrangement under which
the IP is to be obtained or used by the program partners (for example, material
transfer agreement, germplasm acquisition agreement, confidentiality agreement,
research agreement or other arrangements).

any conditions or restrictions on its use.
Country
Details of third party IP
Australia (provider)
On the bacteria provided by Murdoch University: some microbiological
carriers will be owned by a third party. The condition of use is that the
patent on manufacture must be respected. The IP can be transferred
to a third party in Africa by negotiation with its owner, if manufacture of
the carrier in Africa was ever required. ACIAR can exert its IP rights in
this regard.
Australia (provider)
Grain Research Development Corporation (GRDC) holds an IP share
of QDEEDI germplasm. The use of such IP will be under the terms of
the QDEEDI MTA. There are no restrictions on the use of this IP for
Research and Development activities. In the case ACIAR decided to
go for a commercialization of project IP where QDEEDI's maize
germplasm has been used, the same applied for any other of the
contributing party organizations, QDEEDI expects and understands
that a share will be negotiated with all the contributing parties.
Other contracts, licences or legal arrangements
Yes
Are there any other contracts, licences or other legal arrangements that relate to the
program?
Page 114
No
X
If "yes", for each applicable country provide brief details.
Country
Details of other contracts, licences or legal arrangements
Page 115
7 Appendix B: Supporting documentation
7.1 Current experiences with implementing conservation
agriculture practices in Africa
The majority of reports on the effects of CA technologies on smallholder farms in subSaharan Africa show yield benefits with CA systems, including results with maize,
beans, sorghum, cotton, sunflower, potatoes, finger millet, pigeonpeas or
cotton34,35,36,37,38,39 with very few reports of crop yield being reduced. When they do
occur, yield losses may be associated with the necessary adjustments and learning
necessary to adapt the new CA system. Farmers in the Sanyani District of Tanzania,
for example, reported 30% yield reductions due to competition with mucuna in CA
systems40, suggesting that mucuna should be planted later relative to the maize crop a common and necessary system adjustment.
Chemical weed control can be (but does not need to be) a component in CA systems
and the sustainability of promoting such a system among resource-poor farmers has
been questioned, due to access and affordability.”41 Several studies in southern Africa
show that increased weed competition and weeding requirements are common with
the mulch ripping system, a minimum tillage CA system42,43,44 and short term yields can
be lower in the first 1-3 years of use because of increased weed pressure. In
CIMMYT’s projects with small farmers in Malawi, herbicide use is one of the principal
factors that attracted farmers to the CA system as it combines with the labour-saving of
reduced tillage to reduce labour requirements by more than 50% while at the same time
giving a Marginal Rate of Return on variable costs of 450%45. Results from Zimbabwe
show that even without chemical weed control and in poor, degraded and abandoned
soils, CA gives advantages in both increased yields and reduced costs of production46.
An important benefit of CA often manifested by farmers is the reduction in risk with CA
practices. Several reports (e.g. from both Tanzania and Zambia in the 2001/2002
drought year) refer to the reduction in crop failure with CA practices in drought years.
This is supported by the results in Nigeria47 and in Zimbabwe48 and in an analysis of
results from Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia49 – yield advantages were greater in
34Ekboir
et al., 2002
et al., 2004
36Boahen et al., 2007
37Apina et al., 2007
38Erenstein et al., 2008
39Rockstrom et al., 2009
40Boahen et al., 2007
41Rockstrom et al. 2001
42Shumba et al. 1992
43Vogel et al. 1994
44Muza et al. 1996
45 Wall et al., 2008
46Erenstein et al., 2008
47Lal, 1986
48Vogel, 1993
49Rockstrom et al., 2009
35Haggblade
Page 116
dry years, and often absent in “good” seasons. For smallholder farmers this is an
important factor as risk aversion is a major driver of their farming strategy and decision
process.
The reasons for yield increases with CA are variable, although factors related to water
and rainfall use efficiency are generally reported to be the main reasons for yield
benefits. One common effect is a benefit from earlier planting in CA systems: in tilled
systems farmers often have to wait to till the soil until after the first rains soften the
plough layer. In Zambia50, in general CF (Conservation Farming) farmers planted two
weeks earlier than farmers managing conventionally tilled systems, giving an average
benefit of 56 kg ha-1 of cotton or 350 kg ha-1 of maize grain. This benefit was likely due to
extra moisture availability towards the end of the crop season. Reported infiltration rates
are 50-120% higher under CA conditions51,52, resulting in greater soil moisture. Benefits
to CA also resulted from 50% less evaporation of soil water in studies using simulation
modeling in Kenya53 and a combination of the increased water infiltration and reduced
evaporation leads to major increases in rainfall use efficiency – a 150% increase in
water use efficiency with CA was reported in Tanzania54, with 3800m3 water required to
produce a ton of maize grain under conventionally tilled conditions but only 1500m 3 t-1
with CA.
The converse of increased water infiltration is a marked reduction (45-90%) of both
water run-off 55 , 56 , 57 and soil erosion 58 . Based on nutrient and soil loss relationships
derived from the field-plot measured data at Henderson Research Station in Zimbabwe,
it was estimated that annual on-farm losses of soil nutrients through sheet erosion and
predicted alarmingly high levels of nutrient losses: approximately 50 kg ha-1 nitrogen and
8 kg ha-1 phosphorus, about 535 kg ha-1 of organic carbon together with 30 % of
seasonal rainfall59.
There is very little data on the effects of CA systems on soil fertility, although farmers
often perceive that the yield increases are due to improved soil fertility. In studies in
Tanzania60, Zambia and Zimbabwe61, increased earthworm numbers were found under
CA conditions. In Zimbabwe, it was found that after opening new land to cultivation, soil
organic carbon (SOC) fell in all treatments, but it fell far more with conventional tillage (42% in 5 years) than it did in the mulch-rip system (-9%). The mulch-rip treatment also
had greater aggregate stability: aggregate mean weight diameter was 87% higher than
the conventionally tilled treatment, while the percentage of water stable aggregates was
100% greater in the mulch-rip treatment
50Haggblade
and Tembo, 2003
1993
52Thierfelder and Wall, 2008
53Gitonga et al., 2008
54Rockstrom and Steiner, 2003
55Chuma and Hagmann, 1995
56Diallo et al., 2008
57Gitonga et al., 2008
58Chuma and Hagmann, 1995
59 Elwell and Stocking, 1988
60Mariki, 2004
61Nhamo, 2007
51Chuma,
Page 117
7.2 Economic impact of technologies
The following calculations estimate how the project will achieve the impact of (an
average of) 30% increase in productivity and a 30% decrease in production risk on the
farms of 500,000 farmers in the five project countries in Eastern and Southern Africa.
Some of the basic assumptions are as follows:



Number of families per community (assumed)
200
Number of communities targeted in Year 1
38
The adoption of all technologies is dependent on accessible and beneficial
input and output markets etc. Therefore the benefits of improved value chains
are embedded in the increases expected with the different technologies.
a) Effect of new maize varieties. Assumptions:


Number of communities targeted with maize seed increase by 80% each year.
Number of directly exposed farmers that adopt maize varieties - 67%. Spillover
to other farmers likely but not quantified
Maize Varieties
No of communities
reached
No of farmers
reached
1
38
7600
2
68
13680
5092
3
123
24624
9166
4
222
44323
16498
5
399
79782
29697
6
718
143607
53454
7
1292
258493
96217
8
2326
465287
173190
9
4188
837517
311742
10
7538
1507531
561136
Year
Adopters (67%)
b) Effect of new legume species and varieties.
Assumptions:


Number of communities targeted with legume seed increase by 80% each year
Number of directly exposed farmers that adopt legume varieties - 50%.
Spillover to other farmers likely but not quantified
Page 118
Legume Species and Varieties
No of communities
reached
No of farmers
reached
1
38
7600
2
68
13680
3800
3
123
24624
6840
4
222
44323
12312
5
399
79782
22162
6
718
143607
39891
7
1292
258493
71804
8
2326
465287
129246
9
4188
837517
232644
10
7538
1507531
418759
Year
Adopters (50%)
c) Effect of crop management based on the principles of conservation
agriculture.
Assumptions:
 Number of communities targeted with CA technologies increase by 60% each
year
 Adoption of CA is slow but exponential. In 2nd year 60 farmers try CA on their
own fields
 Number of farmers testing CA grows by a factor of 3 each year. This is half the
rate we have experienced in southern Africa
CA with fertilizer and weed control
No of communities
reached
No of farmers
reached
1
38
7600
2
68
13680
60
3
123
24624
180
4
222
44323
540
5
399
79782
1620
6
718
143607
4860
7
1292
258493
14580
8
2326
465287
43740
9
4188
837517
131220
10
7538
1507531
393660
Year
Adopters
Page 119
d) Overall numbers of farmers and effects on yield.
Assumptions:









Maize variety without any other factors will give a 5% yield increase. Greater
increases are expected as yield improves but have not been quantified.
Legume variety without any other factors will give a 5% yield increase. Greater
increases are expected as yield improves but have not been quantified.
Average yield increases with CA over time in Zimbabwe show approximately 0,
14 and 24 % yield increases in the first, second and third years of CA. No
further increase
Average yield increases with CA over time in Malawi show approximately 16%
yield increase over tilled check in all seasons.
Based on the above data we assume a conservative average of 5, 10 and 15%
increase in yield in years 1-3 respectively and no further increase.
We assume a very conservative 40% yield increase due to fertilizer application.
Fertilizer application is adopted because of lower risk with CA. CA with fertilizer
and weed control gives a 45% yield increase in the first year of CA.
CA with fertilizer and weed control gives a 50% yield increase in the second
year of CA.
CA with fertilizer and weed control gives a 55% yield increase in the third year
of CA. No further yield increase in succeeding years.
We have not taken into account a reduction in costs with CA likely at least after
year 3 with CA.
Number of farmers with different percentages of yield increases
CA + Mz/ CA + Mz/
CA + Mz/
Maize
legumes /legumes legumes
and
Maize
Yr. 3
Yr. 2
Yr. 1
legumes only
Year 55%
50%
45%
10%
5%
Farmers
Ave %
benefit
1
2
3
60
3800
1232
5092
9
60
120
6660
2326
9166
9
4
60
120
360
11772
4186
16498
10
5
180
360
1080
20542
7535
29697
11
6
540
1080
3240
35031
13563
53454
12
7
1620
3240
9720
57224
24413
96217
14
8
4860
9720
29160
85506
43944
173190
18
9
14580
29160
87480
101424
79099
311742
24
10
43740
87480
262440
25099
142378
561136
35
e) Risk


The measure of risk that we use in the project (possibly per country or per
agroecosystem) will need to be defined during the project.
New stress tolerant maize varieties result in a 5% reduction in risk
Page 120





New legume varieties with higher yield result in a 5% reduction in risk
Data from Zimbabwe shows a 50% reduction in risk with fertilized CA compared
to fertilized farmer practice.
Data from Malawi show the fertilized conventional ridge planting has a 10% risk
of yield lower than 1.5 t/ha.
On the same farms in Malawi yields of CA plots have never been below 1.5 t/ha
(i.e. 100% reduction)
Based on these data and assumptions we believe that the estimated 30%
reduction in risk will be achieved
Page 121
7.3 References
Apina T, Wamai P, Mwangi PK. 2007. Laikipia District. In: Kaumbutho P. and Kienzle J.
(Eds.) Conservation Agriculture as practiced in Kenya: two case studies. Nairobi,
African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Internationale de
Recherche Agronomique por le Développement, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. p 1-56.
Boahen P, Dartey BA, Dogbe GD, Boadi EA, Triomphe B, Daamgard-Larsen S,
Ashburner J. 2007. Conservation Agriculture as practiced in Ghana. Nairobi,
African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Internationale de
Recherche Agronomique por le Développement, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. 45 pp.
Carberry P, Gladwin C, Twomlow S. 2004. Linking Simulation Modelling to Participatory
Research in Smallholder Farming Systems. In: Delve, R.J. and Probert, M.E.
(Eds.) Modelling nutrient management in tropical cropping systems. ACIAR
Proceedings No. 114. pp32-46).
Chuma E, Hagmann J. 1995: Summary of results from on-station and on-farm testing
and development of conservation tillage systems in semi-arid Masvingo. In "Soil
& Water Conservation for small-holder farmers in Zimbabwe: tansfers between
research and extension." Eds. S. J. Twomlow, J. Ellis-Jones, J. Hagmann and H.
Loos, ,Belmont Press, Masvingo, Zimbabwe. pp. 41-60
Denning G, Kabambe P, Sanchez P, Malik A, Flor R. 2009. Input Subsidies to Improve
Smallholder Maize Productivity in Malawi: Toward an African Green Revolution.
PLoS Biol 7(1): e1000023. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000023
Derpsch R and Friedrich T. 2009. Development and current status of no-till adoption in
the world. Proceedings on CD-ROM. 18th Triennial Conference of the
International Soil Tillage Research Organization (ISTRO), June 15-19, Izmir,
Turkey.
Diallo D, Boli Z, Roose E. 2008. Influence of no-tillage and soil conservation, carbon
sequestration and yield of intensive rotation maize-cotton: Research on sandy
alfisols of Cameroon and Mali. . In: Goddard T., Zoebisch M.A., Gan Y.T. Ellis
W., Watson A. And Sombatpanit S. (Eds.) “No-Till Farming Systems”. Special
Publication No. 3, World Association of Soil and Water Conservation, Bangkok.
p383-392.
Dixon, J., Hellin, J., Erenstein, O. and Kosina, P. 2007. U-impact pathway for diagnosis
and impact assessment of crop improvement. Journal of Agricultural Science
(Centenary Review) 145, 195-206.Dorward S. 2002. A typology of Malawian
Rural Households. Working Paper: Institutions and Economic Policies for propoor Agricultural Growth, July 2002. Imperial College, London, Wye Campus.
Ekboir J. 2002. Part 1. Developing no-till packages for small farmers. In Ekboir J. (ed)
2002. CIMMYT 2000-2001 World Wheat Overview and Outlook: Developing NoTill Packages for Small-Scale Farmers. Mexico, DF: CIMMYT. pp 1-38.
Elwell, HA, and Stocking, MA. 1988. Loss of nutrients by sheet erosion is a major hidden
farming cost. Zimbabwe Science News, 22:7-8
Page 122
Erenstein O, Sayre K, Wall P, Dixon J, Hellin J. 2008. Adapting no-tillage agriculture to
the conditions of smallholder maize and wheat farmers in the tropics and subtropics. . In: Goddard T., Zoebisch M.A., Gan Y.T. Ellis W., Watson A. And
Sombatpanit S. (Eds.) “No-Till Farming Systems”. Special Publication No. 3,
World Association of Soil and Water Conservation, Bangkok. p253-277.
FAOSTAT, 2007. http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx
FAOSTAT, 2010. http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx
GEF. 2003. What Kind of World? The Challenge of Land Degradation. Global
Environment Facility (GEF), p.4.
Gitonga JL, Ngeru JN, Liniger HP. 2008. Impacts of conservation tillage on soil water
and crop production – a case study in the northwest footslopes of Mount Kenya. .
In: Goddard T., Zoebisch M.A., Gan Y.T. Ellis W., Watson A. And Sombatpanit S.
(Eds.) “No-Till Farming Systems”. Special Publication No. 3, World Association of
Soil and Water Conservation, Bangkok. p373-382
Haggblade S, Tembo G. 2003. Development, diffusion and impact of Conservation
Farming in Zambia. Working Paper No. 8. Food Security Research Project,
Lusaka, Zambia. 76 pp
Haggblade S, Tembo G, Donovan C. 2004. Household level fainancial incentives to
adoption of conservation agricultural technologies in Africa. Working Paper No. 9.
Food Security Research Project, Lusaka, Zambia. 23 pp
Hellmuth ME, Moorhead A, Thomson MC, Williams. 2007. Climate risk management in
Africa: learning from practice. International Research Institute forClimate and
Society (IRI), Columbia University, New York, USA.
Meehl GA. 2009. Decadal prediction, can it be skillful? Journal of the American
Meteorological Society, October, 1467-1485
Lal R. 1986. Soil surface management in the tropics for intensive land use and high and
sustained production. Adv. Soil Sci. 5, 1-109.
Mariki WL. 2004. The impact of conservation tillage and cover crops on soil fertility and
crop production in Karatu and Hanang Districts of Tanzania. TFSC/GTZ
Technical Report. Arusha, Tanzania 199-2003. 40 pp.
Miehlbradt, A.O., McVay, M., 2005. From BDS to Making Markets Work for the Poor.
International Labour Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Muza L, Dhliwayo HH, Twomlow SJ. 1996. Dryland maize response to different
combinations of tillage and weeding methods. In: J.K. Ransom, A.F.E. Palmer,
B.T. Zambezi, Z.O. Mduruma, S.R. Waddington, K.V. Pixley and D.C. Jewell
(eds.) Maize Productivity Gains Through Research and Technology
Dissemination. Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern and Southern Africa Regional
Maize Conference. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:CIMMYT. pp. 110-114.
Rockstrom J, Falkenmark, M. 2000. Semiarid crop production from a hydrological
perspective: gap between potential and actual yields. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 19(4),
319–346.
Rockstrom J., P. Kaumbutho, P. Mwalley and M. Temesgen. 2001. Conservation
farming among small-holder farmers in E. Africa: Adapting and adopting
innovative land management options. In: Conservation Agriculture: A Worldwide
Page 123
Challenge. García-Torres, L., Benites, J., Martínez-Vilela, A. (Eds.) . ECAF/FAO,
Córdoba, Spain. Vol. I pp 364-374
Rockstrom J, Kaumbutho P, Mwalley J, Nzabi AW, Temesgen M, Mawenya L. Barron J,
Mutua J, Damgaard-Larsen S. 2009. Conservation farming strategies in East and
Southern Africa: Yields and rain water productivity from on-farm action research.
Soil & Tillage Research 103, 23–32
Sachs JD, McArthur JW, Schmidt-Traub G, Kruk M, Bahadur C, Faye M, McCord,G,
2004. Ending Africa’s Poverty Trap. The UN Millennium Project Report.
Tittonell P, Vanlauwe B, Leffelaar PA, Rowe EC, Gilller KE. 2005. Exploring diversity in
soil fertility management of smallholder farms in western Kenya I. Heterogeneity
at region and farm scale. Agricultural Systems 110, 149-165
Tittonell P, vanWijk MT, Herrero M, Rufino MC, deRidder N, Giller KE. 2009. Beyond
resource constraints – Exploring the biophysical feasibility of options for the
intensification of smallholder crop-livestock systems in Vihiga district, Kenya.
Agricultural Systems 101, 1-19.
UNEP/ISRIC. 1991. World Map of the Status of Human-Induced Soil Degradation
(GLASOD). An Explanatory Note (2nded.). UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya, and ISRIC,
Wageningen, Netherlands.
Wall PC. 2007. Tailoring Conservation Agriculture to the needs of small farmers in
developing countries: An analysis of issues. Journal of Crop Improvement 19,
137-155.
Wall PC, Ekboir JM, Hobbs PR. 2002, Institutional aspects of Conservation Agriculture.
Paper presented at the International Workshop on Conservation Agriculture for
Sustainable Wheat Production in Rotation with Cotton in Limited Water Resource
Areas, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, October 13-18, 2002.
Wall, P.C.; Mekuria, M. and Thierfelder, C. 2008. Is Conservation Agriculture practical
for small-holder farmers in southern Africa? Paper presented at the American
Society of Agronomy Meetings, Houston, Texas, USA. October 5-9, 2008
Page 124
7.4 Acronyms
AGRA
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
APSIM
Agricultural Production Systems Simulator
APSRU
Agricultural Production Systems Research Unit
ARC
Agricultural Research Council
ASARECA
Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and
Central Africa
BMGF
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
BNF
Biological nitrogen fixation
DEEDI
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation,
Queensland
CA
Conservation Agriculture
CIAT
International Center for Tropical Agriculture
CIMMYT
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
COMESA
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
CSIRO
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
CAADP
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program
DARTS
Department of Agricultural Research and Technical Services
DTMA
Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa Project
EIAR
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
ENSO
El Nino Southern Oscillation
FARA
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
FPTE
Farmer participatory technology evaluation
GNI
Gross National Income
GxE
Germplasm by Environment (interaction)
IARC
International Agricultural Research Center
ICRISAT
International Center for Research for the Semi-Arid Tropics
IFAD
International Fund for Agricultural Development
IIAM
Instituto de Investigacao Agraria de Mozambique
KARI
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
MDGs
Millennium Development Goals
Page 125
NARI
National Agricultural Research Institute
NARS
National Agricultural Research System
NARES
National Agricultural Research and Extension System
NEPAD
New Partnership for Africa’s Development
NGO
Non-Governmental organization
NSIMA
New Seed Initiative for Maize in Africa Project
OFR
On-farm Research
OPV
Open Pollinated variety
PASS
Program for Africa’s Seed Systems
PM&E
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
PRGA
Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (program)
RUFORUM
Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Development in Agriculture
SADC
Southern African Development Community
SOFECSA
Soil Fertility Consortium for Southern Africa
SIMLESA
Sustainable Intensification of Maize and Legume Cropping Systems in
Eastern and Southern Africa
TLII, TL-2
Tropical Legumes II project
UQ, UoQ
University of Queensland
Page 126