footprints of africa rising

Footprints of Africa RISINGPhase I: 2011–2016

ii F O O T P R I N T S O F A F R I C A R I S I N G

The Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation (Africa RISING) program comprises three regional research-in-development projects supported by the United States Agency for International Development as part of the US Government’s Feed the Future initiative. Inaugurated in late 2011 and currently in its second phase (since September 2016), the purpose of Africa RISING is to provide pathways out of hunger and poverty for smallholder farm families through sustainably intensified farming systems that sufficiently improve food, nutrition and income security, particularly for women and children, and conserve or enhance the natural resource base.

© International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and International Livestock Research Institute, 2018

Citation: Africa RISING. 2018. Footprints of Africa RISING. Phase I: 2011–2016. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan and International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa.

This document was coordinated and compiled by Jonathan Odhong’, IITA; Ewen Le Borgne, ILRI; and Simret Yasabu, ILRI.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.

Cover photos, top row: Gloriana Ndibalema/IITA, Kindu Mekonnen/ILRI; middle row: Jim Richards, Stephanie Malyon/CIAT;

bottom: Jonathan Odhong’/IITA

Editing and layout: Green Ink, www.greenink.co.uk

http://www.greenink.co.uk

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 iii

Acronyms

CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture

CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

CIP International Potato Center

ETB Ethiopian birr

ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

KSU Kansas State University

LER land equivalent ratio

MSU Michigan State University

SIIL Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Sustainable Intensification, Kansas State University

SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region (Ethiopia)

TZS Tanzanian shillings

UF University of Florida

USD US dollars

USDA-ARS United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WorldVeg World Vegetable Center

WUR Wageningen University & Research

ZARI Zambia Agricultural Research Institute

iv F O O T P R I N T S O F A F R I C A R I S I N G

Acknowledgements

The following drafted specific sections of this document:

Seid Ahmed, ICARDA

Addisu Asfaw, ILRI

Yetsedaw Aynewa, ICARDA

Carlo Azzarri, IFPRI

Zekarias Bassa, Areka Agricultural Research Center

Filippo M. Bassi, ICARDA

Jerome Bossuet, ICRISAT

Gundula Fischer, IITA

Andreas Gramzow, WorldVeg

Beliyou Haile, IFPRI

Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon, IITA

Nathanael Johnson, Grist

Fred Kizito, CIAT

Wasihun Legesse, Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center

Halimu Malumo, Total LandCare

Stephanie Malyon, CIAT

Kindu Mekonnen, ILRI

Mirja Michalscheck, WUR

Inviolate Mosha, WorldVeg

Annet Mulema, ILRI

Gloriana Ndibalema, IITA

Justus Ochieng, WorldVeg

Caroline Sobgui, WorldVeg

Christian Thierfelder, CIMMYT

Peter Thorne, ILRI

ContentsForeword Page vi

What is Africa RISING? Page 1

Africa RISING – Steps towards impact

Eight interwoven themes Pages 8–36:

How Africa RISING works Page 37

A F R I C A R I S I N G P H A S E I ( 2 0 1 1 – 1 6 ) v

Deploying improved varietiesPage 8

Manipulating crop ecologies to get more from limited landPage 12

Applying integrated soil fertility managementPage 15

Enhancing livestock productionPage 18

Improving food safety and reducing waste

Page 21

Reducing soil loss and enhancing water

utilizationPage 27

Improving household nutrition

Page 31

Developing decision-support tools

Page 33

vi F O O T P R I N T S O F A F R I C A R I S I N G

ForewordIn 2011, USAID’s Agricultural Research Division solicited brief proposals from IITA and ILRI as to how they would lead research efforts offering solutions to the numerous constraints to smallholder farm productivity while simultaneously achieving multiple objectives around food and nutritional security, improved incomes, and soil and water conservation. Three key production regions across sub-Saharan Africa were targeted, each quite distinct and distant from one another.

When the proposals came in, it became clear that the top-line challenges in each region are common to all. These are the persistent problems of land degradation characterizing much of the farmland in the regions; limited smallholder access to sufficient resources to invest in advanced solutions; and insufficient regional infrastructure, market links and institutional capacity. Over the decades, these challenges have been approached from different angles, using different approaches, but generally in a commodity-focused and uncoordinated manner.

In reviewing the proposals and considering the constraints and opportunities identified, thought leaders from across the CGIAR system and universities in Africa, Australia, Europe and North America came to a unanimous conclusion – do something differently. That is, develop a unified, multidisciplinary program using an integrated systems research approach to identify, validate and transfer a suite of plausible options and information suitable for smallholder farmers. These options needed to offer more than simply increasing grain yields or providing supply-driven technologies. They needed to be options that farmers wanted in order to solve the problems they wanted to overcome.

The resulting program proposal –Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation (Africa RISING) – did not limit research efforts to crop or livestock systems, but allowed for inclusion of agroforestry, horticulture, irrigation, soil conservation and nutrition as components of more effective solutions. Using iterative co-learning approaches, implementation of the proposal would directly engage scientific leaders in agronomy, economics, livestock, natural resource management and the social sciences; local, regional and national governments; NGOs; and over 10,000 farm households. This plan seemed high-risk – it was not clear what the solutions would look like, or how all the pieces would fit together.

Five years later, the risk has paid off. Many plausible options developed across the program have proven viable, from high-value fruits and vegetables, improved livestock, feed and forage management, and improved crop varieties and agronomic practices, through to farm- and landscape-scale natural resource management practices. Tens of thousands of farmers across the continent have a much expanded ability to make decisions that will launch them on their chosen pathways out of poverty and food and nutrition insecurity, while allowing them to protect the natural resources essential for the next generation of farmers. This is Africa RISING.

Jerry GloverSenior Sustainable Agriculture Systems AdvisorUSAID, Bureau for Food Security

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 1

What is Africa RISING?Africa RISING stands for Research In Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation.

What is it doing?

Phase I (2011–16) identified, adapted, validated and deployed relevant, innovative farming technologies for sustainable intensification in six countries.

Phase II (2016–21) aims to scale the innovations validated in Phase I to at least 1.1 million households by 2021 and implement more research-in-development activities.

Who is involved and where?

Supported by USAID as part of the US Government’s Feed the Future initiative, the program works in six countries across three regions:

IITA leads Africa RISING activities in east and southern Africa and in west Africa; and ILRI leads activities in the Ethiopian Highlands. IFPRI leads monitoring and evaluation while ILRI leads communication for the whole program.

11 CGIAR centers and over 100 partner organizations Africa RISING activities are implemented through intricate and vibrant partnerships with various national organizations, universities, nongovernmental organizations and international research institutions.

W H AT I S A F R I C A R I S I N G ?

ETHIOPIAN HIGHLANDS

ILRI Ethiopia

WEST AFRICA

IITA Ghana, Mali

Afric

a Rice Center

Centre

du riz pour l’A

friq

ue

A r f caR ce

MONITORING AND EVALUATION IFPRI

COMMUNICATION ILRI

EAST AND SOUTHERN AFRICA

IITA Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia

2 F O O T P R I N T S O F A F R I C A R I S I N G

Who is it for?

Africa RISING works at the scale of smallholder farm household, community and landscape levels. It provides pathways out of hunger and poverty by offering demand-driven, locally tailored, resource-saving agricultural innovations for sustainable intensification that improve household welfare and at the same time enhance sustainability. Research results that focus on the farmers in Africa RISING’s intervention areas are also applicable to similar contexts beyond.

How does it all fit together?

At the farming system level, sustainable intensification lies at the interconnection between improved crops, livestock, natural resource management and ecology. All of these elements are affected by the social context, which includes policies, markets and gender.

Sustainable intensification is complex. It takes account of tradeoffs between inputs, desired outcomes and undesired outcomes.1 It is based on the eco-efficiency concept, which describes how any output (desired or undesired) is related to inputs.

For example, two thirds of people in developing countries rely on smallholder crop–livestock systems. They need crop residues as livestock feed; as soil amendments for crop productivity; as fuel; and as construction material, resulting in internal competition.

1 Adapted from Figure 2.1 of Keating, B., Carberry, P., Thomas, S. et al. 2013. Eco-efficient agriculture and climate change: Conceptual foundations and frameworks. In: Hershey, C.H. and Neate, P. (eds), Eco-efficiency: From vision to reality. Cali, Colombia: CIAT: 19–28.

What is sustainable intensification?

Sustainable intensification focuses on improving the efficient use of resources for agriculture, with the goal of producing more food on the same amount of land, but with reduced negative environmental and social impacts.

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 3

More than the sum of its parts

As the program unfolded, studies were carried out to identify sustainable intensification indicators and metrics to track progress, assess tradeoffs, identify synergies and assess potential/intended benefits of the technologies validated by Africa RISING.2 A Guide for the sustainable intensification assessment framework3 has now been developed through a collaborative effort by scientists drawn from the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Sustainable Intensification (SIIL), USAID, Michigan State University (MSU), University of Florida (UF), Kansas State University (KSU) and Africa RISING researchers. The framework provides indicators for assessing the relative sustainability of an innovation across the five domains: productivity, economic, environmental, human and social.

For an intervention to contribute to sustainable intensification, it has to be at the junction between two or more of the domains and ideally across all of them. But if, for example, an intervention contributes to sustainable intensification in two domains but reduces it in the other three, mitigation measures would be needed to counter the negative impacts in those domains.

The interventions described in this report focus on Phase I work, which in most cases measured improvements in the productivity domain. In Phase II the impact on the other domains will also be considered.

2 Smith, A., Snapp, S., Chikowo, R. et al. 2017. Measuring sustainable intensification in smallholder agroecosystems: A review. Glob. Food Secur. 12: 127–138. hdl.handle.net/10568/78064

3 Musumba, M., Grabowski, P., Palm, C. et al. 2017. Guide for the sustainable intensification assessment framework. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University. hdl.handle.net/10568/90523; Musumba, M., Grabowski, P., Palm, C. et al. 2017. ‘Sustainable intensification assessment methods manual’ (working draft). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University. hdl.handle.net/10568/90517


Productivity

Economic

EnvironmentalHuman

Social

Syste

m A

Syste

m B

Landscape scale

Farm/household scale

Field/animal herd scale

http://hdl.handle.net/10568/78064




The framework in action4

The relationships between the five domains for sustainable intensification are interdependent and offer exciting insights into the synergies, tradeoffs and opportunities for possible intervention options.

This conceptual spider plot depicts different scenarios for the same improved technology package within a system – production of forage grass to feed the farmer’s own livestock; production of forage grass with a business lens; and what happens occasionally when a farmer adopts the improved technology but doesn’t follow recommended management practice.

• When a farmer produces forage grass to feed their own livestock, the productivity and environmental domains are the biggest beneficiaries (brown pentagon). On the productivity domain, the farmer gets improved forage yield and total factor productivity goes up; in the environmental domain, the forage grass improves soil composition, reduces erosion and improves water-use efficiency on the farm. But the indicators in the other three domains (social, human, economic) are unlikely to improve unless the farmer sells the livestock in the longer term.

4 Based on Figure 22.8 of Kizito, F., Lukuyu, B., Sikumba, G. et al. 2016. The role of forages in sustainable intensification of crop–livestock agro-ecosystems in the face of climate change: The case for landscapes in Babati, northern Tanzania. In: Lal, R., Kraybill, D., Hansen, D.O. et al. (eds), Climate change and multi-dimensional sustainability in African agriculture. Cham, Switzerland: Springer: 411–430. hdl.handle.net/10568/78414

Productivity• yield• total factor

productivity

Environmental• soil composition• erosion• water-use

efficiency

Economic• income• poverty

Human• education• health• nutrition

Social• farmer groups• social capital• gender equality

Sustainable forage grass production with a business lens

Forage grass production to feed own livestock

Forage grass production with a business lens, not following recommended practice

External factors• markets• policy• infrastructure• farmer

preferences• cultural barriers• development

priorities


P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 5

• A choice by the farmer to produce forage grass with a business lens – focusing on balancing productivity and economic domains without harming the environmental domain (green pentagon) – comes with significant benefits in the productivity indicators (yield and total factor productivity), economic indicators (more income, poverty reduction), human indicators (can now pay for education, health and better nutrition) and in the social domain (better social capital in the village, can pay for membership of cooperatives/farmer groups), and this can also have a positive impact on gender equity within the household. However, the benefits foregone in the environmental domain are not as adverse if a balanced approach were used. There may be some slight tradeoff in the economic domain because the farmer follows the recommended practice of cutting back only 60% of biomass, leaving 40% as regeneration biomass.

• Sometimes, when the fodder market is thriving and optimal, a farmer may get carried away and try to cash in by cutting off forage grasses to the base of the stalks and marketing as much as possible for increased cash gains (red pentagon). This leaves the soil more exposed to rain, water runoff and erosion, and could lead to worsening of the environmental domain indicators (tradeoffs) – but the farmer would still record positive impacts in the other domains. However, a question of long-term sustainability arises, hence the need to provide farmers with improved interventions coupled with capacity building (as a package) to ensure that a delicate balance between all the domains is achieved and maintained.



Africa RISING’s theory of change

Demand-driven research identifies, adapts, validates and deploys sustainable intensification innovations for smallholder agricultural production systems

Better efficiency increases production

So rural households get more from the same amount of land – without compromising the needs of future generations to enhanced livelihood outcomes

Multiple sustainability domains (productive, economic, social, human, environmental) result in long-term equity and viability

And improved income flow means better household nutrition and increased human capacity, leading to enhanced livelihood outcomes

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 7

Africa RISING – Steps towards impact

Oct 2011 Phase I begins in five countries

Mar 2012 Work on program framework commences

Mar–Sep 2012 Partner identification, situation analysis, jumpstart activities and quick-win projects

Sep–Oct 2012 First annual review and planning meetings for the three projects

Nov 12–Mar 13 In all project countries, sites selected in USAID-defined zones of influence

Aug–Oct 2013 Comprehensive baseline surveys in all project sites

Jul 2013 Partners begin activities with farmers at project sites

Sep 2014 Collaboration on sustainable intensification framework with SIIL, KSU, MSU and UF

Oct 14–Apr 15 Internally commissioned reviews of the three projects

Sep 15–Mar 16 USAID-commissioned external review of the three projects

Oct 2016 Phase II begins

Jan 2017 Science for Impact event; partners discuss and refine program’s vision of success

Nov 2017 Sustainable intensification assessment framework launched

Sep 2018 Vision of success: Scale Africa RISING technologies to 392,190 households



PHASE I

PHASE II

Sep 2013 First program-wide learning event

Sep 2013 Zambia added to project countries; activities implemented in Eastern Province

Nov 2013 Joint M&E expert meeting with Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia

Oct 2014 USAID Tanzania country mission initiates Africa RISING–NAFAKA partnership project

Jul 2014 First meeting of Africa RISING Science Advisory Group

Sep 2021 Vision of success: Scale Africa RISING technologies to 1,119,438 households

A F R I C A R I S I N G – S T E P S T O W A R D S I M PA C T


Praise for wonder wheatEthiopian farmers are enthusiastically adopting Utuba, a reliable, high-yielding new durum wheat.

Utuba is capturing the affections of Ethiopian farmers. The variety, which offers a staggering 1 t/ha advantage over the most recently released bread wheat cultivars such as Ude and Mangudo, is putting smiles on faces in many households in Ethiopia.

Africa RISING tested Utuba in six kebeles (wards/neighbourhoods) – two each in Amhara, Oromia and Southern regions. Across the sites, the average yield for Utuba was 4.7 t/ha compared with 3.0 t/ha for Ude and 3.8 t/ha for Mangudo. This success builds on years of advanced breeding work by ICARDA and the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research.

In 2015, farmers’ field days in the Bale Highlands showcased the new ‘wonder wheat’ and farmers purchased more than 11.5 t of Utuba seed.

Utuba has several advantages that make it attractive to farmers. Its great tillering capacity, producing more spikes and therefore higher yield, is the trait that growers appreciate most. The extra stems give more straw, which is used to feed livestock – a major benefit for smallholder farmers. Early heading avoids damaging effects of the terminal drought and desiccating winds that can happen towards the end of the growing season. And its high level of resistance to rust is one of the most visually compelling decision points for growers – farmers near Bale saw their neighbours’ bread wheat fields completely wiped out by stem rust, but with Utuba even the worst rust infections affected only 5% of the stem.

Partners: Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research; ICARDA

5

4

3

2

1

0 Ude Mangudo Utuba

Durum wheat

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

Africa RISING field day in Basona Worena, November 2015. Photo credit: Apollo Habtamu/ILRI

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 9

D E P L O Y I N G I M P R O V E D VA R I E T I E S

Protein boostThree new quality protein maize varieties are ready for scaling.

The biggest buzz in the Africa RISING pavilion at Tanzania’s 2016 Nane Nane Agricultural Show was around the samples of healthy quality protein maize varieties – impressive results, given that poor rains had led to a dismal performance by other types of maize.

These resilient varieties are especially important to households where maize is the main staple food and people can’t afford to supplement their diets with protein-rich foods.

In partnership with CIMMYT, Africa RISING has been evaluating several nutrition-dense maize hybrids of quality protein maize. As well as being drought-tolerant, these varieties are biofortified with the essential amino acids lysine and tryptophan, important in protein synthesis. Work in Kongwa and Kiteto districts of Tanzania during the 2014 and 2015 growing seasons led to the release of hybrids CZH132019Q and CZH132003Q, which showed higher yield and better agronomic performance among the hybrids tested. Further evaluations of an additional 50 quality protein maize hybrids in 2015 led to the identification of more varieties, with CZH132015Q being recommended for fast-track release. This hybrid will be placed in national performance trials for presentation to the Tanzania Official Seed Certification Institute for potential release in 2018.

Africa RISING and its predecessor projects have also been testing quality protein maize in Zambia. In September 2015, the country’s Seed Control and Certification Institute approved the release of two maize hybrids (GV682P and GV687P) with grains containing around 4% lysine and 0.08% tryptophan by weight. In farmer trials, these two hybrids compared well with the best commercial hybrids in the market, especially under conditions of drought and low soil fertility.

Partners: CIMMYT; Hombolo Agricultural Research Institute; ICRISAT; Meru Agro-Tours and Consultants

Vegetable nutritionTanzanian farmers embrace vegetable farming to access higher-value markets and improve nutrition.

Vitalis Joseph, a 32-year-old farmer from Bermi Village, Babati District, north-eastern Tanzania, began growing and selling tomatoes, Ethiopian mustard and amaranth after attending a meeting in his village convened by the World Vegetable Center (WorldVeg) and learning how farmers could both improve their nutrition and earn additional income through vegetable production. ‘My friends and neighbours will tell you that I am where I am now because of farming and selling these vegetables. I come from a very poor background and others even wonder how I have managed to achieve this’, says Joseph. He had been growing vegetables marginally before, but never considered it could earn him significant income. Benefiting from training in good agricultural practices and a buoyant market for the project’s improved varieties, Joseph has built a permanent house for his family out of the proceeds from vegetable farming.

Since 2013, this project has targeted over 6,000 smallholder farmers in seven districts across Tanzania to promote vegetable farming as a complementary agricultural activity in the largely maize-dominated farming


systems – important for dietary diversity in areas where the staple foods are high in carbohydrates but low in micronutrients and vitamins. And as well as increasing household consumption of vegetables, improved incomes are clearly important in reducing malnutrition, allowing families to spend more on food, clean water, hygiene and healthcare.

Between 2014 and 2016, the combined use of healthy seedlings and good agronomic practices increased average tomato production in Babati, Kongwa and Kiteto districts from 10.7 to 17.2 t/ha, African eggplant production from 8 to 14.4 t/ha and amaranth production from 8.6 to 12.2 t/ha.

Justus Ochieng, a WorldVeg scientist, explains that linking farmers to high-value markets has enabled several of them to sell their produce at higher prices. Other income was generated from selling healthy seedlings to neighbouring farmers. These approaches have been especially successful in the Africa RISING research villages of Bermi, Galapo, Matufa, Seloto and Shaurimoyo in Babati District, where farmers benefit from collective marketing of vegetables to access markets and reduce transaction costs. With growing interest in better storage methods for the larger quantities produced, increasing access to viable markets and opportunities for using the inedible components of the vegetable plants as feed components in poultry rations, the synergies of the Africa RISING approach are clear to see.

Partners: Babati District Agriculture Office; IITA; WorldVeg

20

15

10

5

0

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

Regional average With healthy seedlings (NE Tanzania) and good practices

Tomato production

High performers

In Ethiopia, trials of improved cereal and food legume varieties showed two to three times greater average yield than local cultivars. These new, high-yielding varieties are favoured by farmers and preferred by industry. Adopting them can assist with diversification and improve soil fertility; in some cases, such as bread wheat, the varieties also incorporate resistance to diseases like rusts.

In southern Mali, following detailed studies of how different varieties interact with a range of farming practices, high-performing varieties of okra, eggplant and tomato are now being scaled up. Smallholder farmers took part in on-farm trials and participatory variety selection, and identified improved and resilient varieties of okra (variety Konni), African eggplant (variety L10) and tomato (variety Rio Grande) for intensified production.5

Due to the early and continuing engagement of development partners, and active participation of end-users in demand identification, the first indications from Phase II are that scaling of these new varieties is rapid.

5 Larbi, A., Tignegre, J.-B., Nurudeen, A. et al. 2017. Options for intensifying vegetable production. Poster for Africa RISING Science for Impact Workshop, Dar es Salaam, 17–19 January 2017. hdl.handle.net/10568/80618; Lukumay, P.J., Afari-Sefa, V., Ochieng, J. et al. 2017. Reducing yield gap in vegetables in Tanzania. Poster for Africa RISING Science for Impact Workshop, Dar es Salaam, 17–19 January 2017. hdl.handle.net/10568/80626

Faba Duram Bread Lentil Field Food Malt bean wheat wheat pea barley barley

Crops

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Yiel

d (t

/ha)



P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 11

D E P L O Y I N G I M P R O V E D VA R I E T I E S

Publications

Abudulai, M., Kusi, F., Seini, S.S. et al. 2017. Effects of planting date, cultivar and insecticide spray application for the management of insect pests of cowpea in northern Ghana. Crop Prot. 100: 168–176. hdl.handle.net/10568/83185

Lazaro, V., Rajendran, S., Afari-Sefa, V. et al. 2017. Analysis of good agricultural practices in an integrated maize-based farming system. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 23: 598–604. hdl.handle.net/10568/82832

Melke, A. and Fetene, M. 2014. Apples (Malus domestica, Borkh.) phenology in Ethiopian Highlands: Plant growth, blooming, fruit development and fruit quality perspectives. Am. J. Exp. Agric. 4: 1958–1995. hdl.handle.net/10568/77162

Sugri, I., Abdulai, M.S., Larbi, A. et al. 2015. Participatory variety selection of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) genotypes for adaptation to the semi-arid agro-ecology of northern Ghana. Afr. J. Plant Sci. 9: 466–475. hdl.handle.net/10568/72658

Yemataw, Z., Mekonen, A., Chala, A. et al. 2017. Farmers’ knowledge and perception of enset Xanthomonas wilt in southern Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 6: 62. doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0146-0









https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0146-0

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0146-0


Double grain, double gainIntercropping two legumes – groundnut and pigeon pea – means two grain harvests plus two crop residues to improve soil fertility.

Smallholder farmers in southern Africa face a conundrum. They need to get more crops onto their limited land – but without reducing the land’s fertility. And farm sizes have actually shrunk over the years due to families subdividing. The average farm in central Malawi is now 0.7 ha and smallholder farmers can’t afford fertilizers. Malnutrition in young children is high in rural areas as diets are mainly cereal-based and meat products are scarce.

One innovative way of getting the most out of the land is by intercropping two grain legumes with different growth habits, in rotation with maize – the doubled-up legume technology. The crops need to be selected and planted so that they won’t compete with one another. Africa RISING projects in central Malawi and Eastern Province of Zambia worked with smallholder farming communities to find the optimal sequencing of crops and spatial crop arrangements under conventional tillage and conservation agriculture, respectively. In Malawi, the team worked with local extension officers and farmers to co-establish ‘mother trials’, and in turn farmers used components of the mother trials to establish their own simple ‘baby trials’, which they evaluated collectively.

Groundnut–pigeon pea intercropping proved to be the most successful doubled-up system due to the two crops’ contrasting structures and maturity dates. Pigeon pea initially grows very slowly, with more rapid growth and pod formation taking place after groundnut has already matured and been harvested. The doubled-up technology offers farmers the opportunity to get 48% more profit from their land compared with growing sole legume stands of either groundnut or pigeon pea.

In early 2016, the doubled-up legume technology was officially released by Malawi’s Agricultural Technology Clearing Committee for use by farmers countrywide. It offers huge opportunities for increasing land productivity and diversifying crop production for both resource-limited and larger-scale growers, with over 2 million households in Malawi and Zambia potentially set to benefit. Already, Catholic Relief Services is incorporating the results into its future programming; and smallholder farmers can increase their profitability by linking into Malawi’s Indian pigeon pea market.

Partners: CIMMYT; IITA; Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources; Michigan State University; Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI)

Pigeon pea–groundnut doubled-up legumes intercropping in Malawi. Photo credit: Jim Richards

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 13

M A N I P U L AT I N G C R O P E C O L O G I E S T O G E T M O R E F R O M L I M I T E D L A N D

When is a weed not a weed?Focusing research on farmers’ preferred practice has resulted in tripled faba bean yield.

Africa RISING researchers in the Ethiopian Highlands were intrigued to see that smallholders growing faba bean chose to weed only once in a season, even though they were aware that weeding twice gave consistently higher yields. So to find out why, in 2014 they carried out a study at two sites – Lemo woreda (Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region – SNNPR) and Basona woreda (Amhara Region).

They found that farmers deliberately weed their faba bean fields much later than is recommended to allow volunteer ‘weeds’ like oats and Trifolium species – which give relatively nutritious fodder – to create an informal legume–forage intercrop in areas with limited grazing land. Because most smallholders have no other source of livestock feed in the growing season, giving up this forage resource would force them to sell their animals at lower prices.

This information led Africa RISING to successfully intensify faba bean-based systems in the Ethiopian Highlands. Researchers introduced competition-tolerant faba bean varieties alongside forage combinations that optimize producing grain for both human consumption and livestock feed.

These innovations have yielded impressive results. Intercropping the improved faba bean and an improved forage crop like oat (previously considered a weed) resulted in increased feed biomass, with a slight decrease in grain yield but overall increased total plot benefit. A farmer practising this intercrop makes approximately USD 2,750 per hectare from their plot, compared with USD 700 per hectare for traditional management (one late weeding) and USD 950 per hectare for improved management (two weedings).

Farmers in the Ethiopian Highlands are embracing this technology because it is based on their traditional practice, requires no extra weeding – and improves their livelihoods.

Partners: ICARDA; ILRI; Lemo woreda/District Extension; Southern Agricultural Research Institute

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 One Two Oat weeding weedings intercrop

USD

/ha

Making the most of the land

Africa RISING researchers in Ghana found that for maize–legume systems, the two most successful strip-cropping options are two maize to two cowpea, with an LER* of 2 and thus a 50% land saving.

For maize–vegetable systems, an intercrop of maize (at 133,000 plants per hectare) and okra (at 56,000 plants per hectare) was the most profitable option, with an LER of 1.2 and a benefit–cost ratio of 2 (that is, the farmer can double their investment).

* Land equivalent ratio (LER) compares the yields from growing two or more crops together with the yields from growing the same crops in monocultures or pure stands. An LER > 1 means that intercropping is the better choice.


Publications

Binam, J.N., Place, F., Djalal, A.A. et al. 2017. Effects of local institutions on the adoption of agroforestry innovations: Evidence of farmer managed natural regeneration and its implications for rural livelihoods in the Sahel. Agric. Food Econ. 5: 2. hdl.handle.net/10568/81210

Chikowo, R., Zingore, S., Nyamangara, J. et al. 2015. Approaches to reinforce crop productivity under rain-fed conditions in sub-humid environments in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Rattan, L. et al. (eds), Sustainable intensification to advance food security and enhance climate resilience in Africa. London: Routledge: 235–253. hdl.handle.net/10568/79362

Desta, L.T., Mponela, P., Sileshi, G.W. et al. 2016. Spatial variation in tree density and estimated aboveground carbon stocks in Southern Africa. Forest 7: 57. hdl.handle.net/10568/72630

Manda, J., Alene, A.D., Mukuma, C. et al. 2017. Ex-ante welfare impacts of adopting maize–soybean rotation in eastern Zambia. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 249: 22–30. hdl.handle.net/10568/87895

Ortega, D.L., Waldman, K.B., Richardson, R.B. et al. 2016. Sustainable intensification and farmer preferences for crop system attributes: Evidence from Malawi’s central and southern regions. World Devel. 87: 139–151. hdl.handle.net/10568/78140

Smith, A., Snapp, S., Dimes, J. et al. 2016. Doubled-up legume rotations improve soil fertility and maintain productivity under variable conditions in maize-based cropping systems in Malawi. Agr. Syst. 145: 139–149. hdl.handle.net/10568/73397

Snapp, S., Kerr, R.B., Smith, A. et al. 2013. Modeling and participatory farmer-led approaches to food security in a changing world: A case study from Malawi. Sécheresse 24: 350–358. hdl.handle.net/10568/66464

Timler, C., Michalscheck, M., Alvarez, S. et al. 2017. Exploring options for sustainable intensification through legume integration in different farm types in eastern Zambia. In: Oborn, I. et al. (eds), Sustainable intensification in smallholder agriculture: An integrated systems research approach. London: Routledge. hdl.handle.net/10568/89048









P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 15

Myth-busting in TanzaniaA long-held local belief that mineral fertilizers damage soils is being challenged step by step.

Farmers in Babati District of northern Tanzania had been reluctant to use fertilizers due to a belief, handed down the generations, that inorganic fertilizer ‘kills’ the soil. This myth was born out of a poorly implemented fertilizer scaling exercise decades ago – the ammonium sulfate that was recommended then isn’t good for the soils in Babati because it increases acidity. So most smallholders in the district had been using their limited supplies of manure, rather than mineral fertilizers, to replenish depleted soils. Over the past five years, Africa RISING researchers have invested significant resources to dispel this myth by showing how fertilizers can be an important part of a broader systems approach to getting the most out of the land.

Soils in Babati are deficient in key nutrients, mainly nitrogen and phosphorus. The Babati research team conducted farmer participatory research during 2012/13 and 2013/14 to demonstrate the impact of locally manufactured Minjingu fertilizers on the yield of improved maize varieties intercropped with elite pigeon pea variety Mali (ICEAP 00040). Minjingu fertilizers, which are relatively new on the market, are cheaper than other fertilizers such as diammonium phosphate (DAP).

In the first year, three fertilizer treatments were compared with farmers’ traditional practice: Minjingu Phosphate Rock (0% nitrogen, 13% phosphate), Minjingu Mazao (10% N, 9% P) and DAP (18% N, 20% P).

In one village (Sabilo), yield gains in response to fertilizer application were 3.8 t/ha for Minjingu Phosphate Rock, 4.1 t/ha for Minjingu Mazao and 4.6 t/ha for DAP, compared with only 0.71 t/ha under farmers’ practice. Farmers’ preference for the fertilizers varied between villages, based on the level of yield increase, fertilizer availability and price.

Farmers’ practice Minjingu Phosphate Rock0% N / 13% P

Minjingu Mazao10% N / 9% P

DAP18% N / 20% P

5

4

3

2

1

0

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

P NP

NP

A P P LY I N G I N T E G R AT E D S O I L F E R T I L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T


‘It’s more work to use fertilizer – but it’s worth it’, says Rita Matias, who took part in the fertilizer trials. She reports that she has increased her income by 50% or more, depending on the market. As Rita points out, getting the best out of her investment does take more than just applying the fertilizer – it also needs weeding, correct spacing, and pest and disease control.

As a result of their involvement in the project, several farmers in Sabilo and Seloto Villages have taken up good agricultural practices, including optimal spacing and improved varieties, as well as correct fertilizer application. Mrs Elizabeth S. Miindi and Mr Paulo Yawaki, for example, used DAP and Minjingu Mazao fertilizers with improved maize and pigeon pea seed in 2013/14, and produced 62–75 bags each weighing 100 kg.

This change of mindset on using improved agronomic practices – including fertilizer – is a key step towards increased productivity, income generation and improved livelihoods for farmers in Babati District.

Partners: CIAT; Selian Agricultural Research Institute

Weighing maize cobs harvested from a 3 × 3 m area in Babati, Tanzania. Photo credit: Stephanie Malyon/CIAT

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 17

A P P LY I N G I N T E G R AT E D S O I L F E R T I L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T

Publications

Kihara, J., Tamene, L., Massawe, P. et al. 2014. Agronomic survey to assess crop yield, controlling factors and management implications: A case-study of Babati in northern Tanzania. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 102: 5–16. hdl.handle.net/10568/51658

Mponela, P., Desta, L.T., Ndengu, G. et al. 2016. Determinants of integrated soil fertility management technologies adoption by smallholder farmers in the Chinyanja Triangle of Southern Africa. Land Use Policy 59: 38–48. hdl.handle.net/10568/76727

Silberg, T.R., Richardson, R.B., Hockett, M. et al. 2017. Maize–legume intercropping in central Malawi: Determinants of practice. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 15: 662–680. hdl.handle.net/10568/89158

Tamene, L., Mponela, P., Ndengu, G. et al. 2016. Assessment of maize yield gap and major determinant factors between smallholder farmers in the Dedza district of Malawi. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 105: 291–308. hdl.handle.net/10568/66111

Fine-tuning fertilizers

Why, despite ever-increasing imports of chemical fertilizers by governments since the 1990s, were Ethiopia’s crop and livestock yields not improving?

Recent work by Africa RISING partners in the Ethiopian Highlands6 found that landscape position and slope have more effect on crop responses to fertilizers than soil types and application rates. Especially on hillslopes, where crop responses to mineral fertilizers are very low, organic resources – manure, crop residues and green manures – are needed to improve the soil’s organic carbon and therefore its water-holding capacity and its nutrient- and water-use efficiency. In addition, limited responses to nitrogen and phosphorus application may be caused by critical deficiencies of micro- and secondary nutrients. Researchers identified specific fertilizer blends and rates for marginal soils in eight research kebeles.

There was a strong yield response to applications of nitrogen and phosphorus in fertile soils, but also a positive response to potassium, especially in degraded soils and in clay-rich Nitisols. Although the response to sulfur was limited to pocket areas, applications of sulfur and zinc did improve grain quality. Blended treatments (NPKSZn) significantly increased the calcium content of grain by up to 300%. These new recommendations have boosted yields by 200–300%, even in previously unresponsive soils, and this research into targeting micronutrients in fertilizers has catalysed a new national initiative to deliver these innovations countrywide.

6 Amede, T., Asrat, T., Legesse, G. et al. 2016. Decision support tools for fertilizer recommendation. Poster for Africa RISING Ethiopia Review and Planning Meeting, Addis Ababa, 29–30 November 2016. hdl.handle.net/10568/78248; Amede, T., Asrat, T., Legesse, G. et al. 2017. Africa RISING science, innovations and technologies with scaling potential from the Ethiopian highlands. Poster for Africa RISING Science for Impact Workshop, Dar es Salaam, 17–19 January 2017. hdl.handle.net/10568/79999

Control 33%NP NP NPK NPKS NPKSZn

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Whe

at g

rain

yie

ld (t

/ha)

Fertile soils Marginal soils










Tackling the dry-season feed gapsProducing irrigated oat–vetch fodder during the dry period can bring profits for smallholder sheep farmers – if the timing is right for the market.

In many African smallholder communities, livestock such as cattle, sheep, goats and poultry play a pivotal role. They provide meat and milk for food; manure for crop production; cash; and power for both land cultivation and transport. But the animals mostly get limited feed, shelter, healthcare and breeding management – and commercial feeds are generally not affordable.

Africa RISING has been working to identify which combinations of improved livestock breeds and husbandry practices will result in higher animal productivity, income and household food security, and which sustainable intensification options can reduce the dry-season feed gaps and increase intensive livestock production.

One trial, in Lemo and Angacha woredas of Ethiopia’s SNNPR, showed how producing irrigated oat–vetch fodder during the dry period can supplement the diet of fattening sheep and generate extra income for smallholders. The irrigated oat–vetch fodder made a good quality green feed supplement to the flock’s basal diet. And in addition to the irrigated fodder, the study showed that leaves of some indigenous trees, such as tree lucerne, have potential as supplements to enhance the feeding value of crop residues.

Desta Woldearegay, a farmer in Basona Werana woreda, Amhara Region, says that the project’s oat–vetch innovation has provided fresh fodder and hay in times of feed shortage and he also has forage seed for next season. With this and other innovations, such as improved storage of seed potatoes (see page 24), he says, ‘Africa RISING has improved my family’s livelihood. I can educate my two children in Debre Berhan as I can now pay their rent (330 Ethiopian birr [ETB] per month) and cover their pocket money (ETB 350 per month) and other related costs.’7

A budget analysis revealed that while farmers practising good feeding management could earn an additional income in the range of ETB 55–161 per sheep, the return is highly dependent on market prices. Sheep prices fluctuate, peaking during major holiday periods in the dry season. So market information on the timing of the fattening period is critical for profitability due to the clear seasonal and inter-market differences in the price of sheep.

7 Mekonnen, K. and Thorne, P. 2017. Africa RISING in the Ethiopian highlands: Some phase I achievements. Presented at Africa RISING Science for Impact Workshop, Dar es Salaam, 17–19 January 2017. www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/ar-dar217-kindu-71214699

Mixing it up

In Ethiopia, farmers like this man in Higum Birda kebele, Ofla woreda, southern Tigray have started allocating much larger land areas (more than 0.25 ha) to produce nutritious oat–vetch mixtures for animal feed. Africa RISING’s demonstration plots, which this farmer is harvesting, show that oat–vetch mixtures are also useful in rotations to break monocropping and avoid disease infestation.

Producing nutritious feed mixtures from demonstration plots in southern Tigray. Photo credit:

Kindu Mekonnen/ILRI

Partners: Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute; ILRI; Oromia Agricultural Research Institute; Southern Agricultural Research Institute; Tigray Agricultural Research Institute; woreda extension offices in Basona (Amhara), Endamehoni (Tigray), Lemo (SNNPR) and Sinana (Oromia)

http://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/ar-dar217-kindu-71214699

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 19

E N H A N C I N G L I V E S T O C K P R O D U C T I O N

Simple structures for successBuilding storage sheds for crop residues and troughs for animal feed improves livestock diets.

Traditionally, hay and crop residues are stored in heaps in the open air and simply spread on the ground for animals to feed on. Open to the weather, pests, contamination and moulds, this can lead to a considerable loss of feed biomass and quality. And where animals are feeding on fresh cultivated forages, trampling and defecation on the feed causes wastage. But for smallholders in the Ethiopian Highlands who practise mixed crop–livestock farming, crop residues are a vital part of their livestock’s diet, especially in the dry period when green forage is scarce.

An Africa RISING team tested feeding trough and feeding shed technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands and found that they reduce wastage during storage and use by 30–50%, which is especially important during the dry season. The sensory quality (colour, odour, mouldiness) of stored crop residues was significantly better with improved sheds. The structures can be built mostly from locally available materials (with the exception of nails). The economic benefit is clear, as feed prices are generally high. Keeping feedstuffs safely stored also saves 10–20% of labour time, especially reducing the workload of women and young people, who are disproportionately responsible for taking care of animals around the homestead. And, importantly, technologies that need less family labour make it more possible for children and young girls to go to school.

Partners: Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute; ILRI; Oromia Agricultural Research Institute; Southern Agricultural Research Institute; Tigray Agricultural Research Institute; woreda and zonal extension offices in Basona (Amhara), Endamehoni (Tigray), Lemo (SNNPR) and Sinana (Oromia)

Training of trainers on improved feed troughs in the Ethiopian Highlands. Photo credit: ILRI and Wachemo University

Jan Feb Mar Apr May

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0Sens

ory

scor

e in

a 5

-poi

nt sc

ale

Improved shed Open heap

Month of sampling

Sensory score for stored crop residue on a five-point scale (5 = very good, 1 = very poor)


Small changes bring large gains

In Tanzania, poultry provided with housing were 43.5% heavier, and had a lower mortality rate (19.5%), than their free-range counterparts at 15 weeks of age.

In northern Ghana, a formulated feed and health package for village sheep and goat flocks was tested over three years. The feed package supplemented grazing on natural pastures and/or crop residues with a protein supplement formulated from purchased and/or home-grown feed resources. The health package consisted of antibiotics and multivitamins, deworming and vaccinations. Results showed a doubling of the birth rate, significantly higher weight gain and survival rate, and a higher offtake rate (proportion of animals sold or consumed in a year), leading to improved household income and nutrition. About 25% of the 60 experimental farmers continued with vaccinations through the Ministry of Food and Agriculture; nearly all of them also continued with supplementary feeding using locally available feed resources.

Animals receiving Animals receiving no intervention feed and health (control) package

200

150

100

50

0

Birt

h ra

te 2

013/

14 (%

)Publications

Amole, T., Zijlstra, M., Descheemaeker, K. et al. 2017. Assessment of lifetime performance of small ruminants under different feeding systems. Animal 11: 881–889. hdl.handle.net/10568/81214

Avornyo, F.K., Ayantunde, A.A., Shaibu, M.T. et al. 2015. Effect of feed and health packages on the performance of village small ruminants in northern Ghana. Int. J. Livest. Res. 5: 91–98. hdl.handle.net/10568/68294

Ayantunde, A.A. and Amole, T.A. 2016. Improving livestock productivity: Assessment of feed resources and livestock management practices in Sudan-Savanna zones of West Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 11: 422–440. hdl.handle.net/10568/72748

Bezabih, M., Duncan, A.J., Mekonnen, K. et al. 2016. The role of irrigated fodder production to supplement the diet of fattening sheep by smallholders in southern Ethiopia. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 19: 263–275. hdl.handle.net/10568/79450

Konlan, S.P., Ayantunde, A., Addah, W. et al. 2017. The combined effects of the provision of feed and healthcare on nutrient utilization and growth performance of sheep during the early or late dry season. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 49: 1423–1430. hdl.handle.net/10568/89128

Konlan, S.P., Ayantunde, A.A., Addah, W. et al. 2018. Emerging feed markets for ruminant production in urban and peri-urban areas of Northern Ghana. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 50: 169–176. hdl.handle.net/10568/89006

Mekonnen, K., Jogo, W., Bezabih, M. et al. 2017. Determinants of survival and growth of tree lucerne (Chamaetysisus palmensis) in the crop–livestock farming systems of the Ethiopian highlands. Agrofor. Syst. 4 Jan. doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0066-1

Mengesha, M., Bezabih, M., Mekonnen, K. et al. 2017. Tagasaste (Chamaecytisus palmensis) leaf supplementation to enhance nutrient intake and production performance of sheep in the Ethiopian highlands. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 49: 1415–1422. hdl.handle.net/10568/82984

Mengistu, G., Bezabih, M., Hendriks, W.H. et al. 2016. Preference of goats (Capra hircus L.) for tanniniferous browse species available in semi-arid areas in Ethiopia. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 101: 1286–1296. hdl.handle.net/10568/82983

Nassoro, Z., Rubanza, C.D.K. and Kimaro, A.A. 2015. Evaluation of nutritive value of browse tree fodder species in semi-arid Kiteto and Kongwa districts of Tanzania. Food Agr. Env. 13: 113–120. hdl.handle.net/10568/79449

Umutoni, C., Ayantunde, A.A. and Sawadogo, G.J. 2015. Evaluation of feed resources in mixed crop–livestock systems in Sudano-Sahelian zone of Mali in West Africa. Int. J. Livest. Res. 5: 27–36. hdl.handle.net/10568/68295

Umutoni, C., Ayantunde, A., Turner, M. et al. 2016a. Community participation in decentralized management of natural resources in the southern region of Mali. Environ. Nat. Resour. Res. 16: 1–5. hdl.handle.net/10568/76133

Umutoni, C., Ayantunde, A.A. and Sawadogo, G.J. 2016b. Connaissance locale des pratiques de la transhumance dans la zone soudano-sahélienne du Mali. Rev. élev. méd. vét. pays trop. 69: 53–61. hdl.handle.net/10568/77711

Wamatu, J., Mersha, A., Tolera, A. et al. 2017. Selecting for food–feed traits in early and late maturing lentil genotypes (Lens culinaris). J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 5: 697–705. doi.org/10.18006/2017.5(5).697.705









http://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0066-1







http://doi.org/10.18006/2017.5(5).697.705

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 21

Sealing the dealHermetically sealed storage bags are an affordable, easy-to-use way to keep quality maize grain free from damage.

Magdalena Edward Haule, a Tanzanian farmer and mother of six, now uses hermetic storage bags for her maize grain. She says, ‘I’m assured of food security because I have stored the amount that I will use: some for home consumption and the remainder will be for selling when the price goes higher.’

In 2016, Magdalena took part in postharvest training and demonstration activities conducted in her village – Itumpi Village in Mbozi District – by Africa RISING and NAFAKA (see page 34). She was especially impressed by the bag-opening ceremony at her village, where she was able to personally assess the quality of maize grains after six months’ storage.

She followed up the opportunity straightaway: ‘Last year, immediately after the training, I bought five PICS bags at 4,500 Tanzanian shillings (TZS) each, but I’m lucky that this season I liaised with staff from NAFAKA who advised us to buy in bulk so as to get a discount. He connected us to a supplier where I joined together with five other farmers.’ This way, Magdalena was able to buy 30 bags at TZS 3,600 each and next year she plans to double the number of bags to 60 as she increases her 2 acre maize crop to 5 acres.

Magdalena commented that she has also learned to dry her maize for longer, but she would also appreciate having access to grain-drying solutions such as the collapsible dryer case. Sealing the bags and arranging them in the storage room was manageable; and when the time comes to sell, buyers will arrive with casual labourers who transfer the maize into normal polypropylene bags for transport.

I M P R O V I N G F O O D S A F E T Y A N D R E D U C I N G W A S T E

Maria, a farmer from Sabilo Village in Babati District, Tanzania, demonstrates proper storage of maize using Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS)™ bags. Photo credit: Gloriana Ndibalema/IITA


The leaky food pipeline

In an Africa RISING assessment of postharvest handling practices and food losses in a maize-based farming system in semi-arid areas of central and northern Tanzania, farmers estimated that their total crop loss from the field until final marketing was between 25% and 40%. The main causes of crop losses were indigenous postharvest practices such as harvesting by hand, head-load transportation, manual processing, and storage on the floor/in the open or in oxygen- and moisture-permeable bags, cribs or granaries.

Source: adapted from Abass, A.B. et al. (2014)8

8 Abass, A.B., Ndunguru, G., Mamiro, P. et al. 2014. Postharvest food losses in a maize-based farming system of semi-arid savannah area of Tanzania. J. Stored Prod. Res. 57: 49–57. hdl.handle.net/10568/34458

What is hermetic storage?

‘Hermetic’ means sealed or air-tight. Grain is simply packed in special air-tight storage bags. Once the bags are sealed, the contents (maize grains, insect pests and fungal spores) respire, using up oxygen and emitting carbon dioxide. When the oxygen level gets low enough, the pests stop feeding and eventually die.

CO2

O2

Pra

ctic

es p

rom

oti

ng

p

ost

har

vest

loss

es:

Poor harvest practices and tools

Gunny (jute) bagsHead-loads

Storage:

• On floor• In attic• In water- and

oxygen-permeable bags, cribs or granaries

Poor processing practices:

• Threshing• Shelling• Drying • Dehulling• Sorting• Winnowing• Milling• Fermenting• Oil extraction

Re-using gunny bags

Pro

cess

es:

Field Harvesting Transportation Storage(3–6 months) Processing Packaging and

marketing

Aff

ecte

d g

rain

s: • Maize• Sunflower• Pigeon pea

• Maize• Millet• Sunflower• Groundnut

• All crops • Most crops • Maize• Sorghum• Sunflower• Groundnut• Pigeon pea• Sesame• Millet

• All crops

Loss

ag

ents

: • Unfavorable weather

• Animals: termites, birds, wild pigs

• Microbes• Toxins

• Breakage, impact, pressure, puncture

• Poor handling, slow delivery

• Animals: larger grain borers, rats, termites

• Microbes• Toxins

• Poor processing practices and tools

60–75% of harvested food

Producers’ basket


P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 23

Africa RISING’s participatory on-farm storage trials in Babati District compared traditional and polypropylene bags with hermetic storage bags, and also examined the financial gains from improved handling and storage technologies. Trials conducted with 50 t of maize stored in 60 farmers’ stores clearly showed that hermetic storage can significantly suppress build-up of insect populations and grain damage. Hermetic storage bags were most profitable for an average-sized maize producer or household, and storage over about six months gave the highest returns.

Population of live adult maize weevils and grain damage in polypropylene versus hermetic bags over an eight-month storage period inside farmers’ stores in Babati, Tanzania

Partner: IITA

Safety firstAflasafe helps farmers keep their food safe and reduce postharvest losses.

Maize can be poisonous – foods with high aflatoxin content, caused by the fungus Aspergillus section Flavi, can cause acute liver cirrhosis and death, while sublethal chronic exposure may cause cancer, stunting in children, immune system suppression and impaired food conversion. Animal productivity is also affected when feeds contain high aflatoxin levels.

To help farmers minimize aflatoxin contamination in food value chains, the Africa RISING project has been making Aflasafe, a biocontrol product, commercially available to farmers in Ghana and Zambia. Aflasafe contains native, nontoxic Aspergillus flavus fungi that compete with the toxic fungi and reduce aflatoxin levels in maize and groundnut. Initially developed by the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA-ARS) and deployed in the USA, Aflasafe has been adapted and refined for Africa over a decade of research and development, through a partnership led by IITA working with USDA-ARS and many national partners in countries across the continent.

Working with national partners in both countries, IITA with support from Africa RISING and other partners developed four Aflasafe biocontrol products specifically for Ghana (Aflasafe GH01 and GH02) and Zambia (Aflasafe ZM01and ZM02). These products have been tested with smallholder farmers on their farms, with impressive results – in both countries the Aflasafe products reduced aflatoxin contamination in maize and


Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

250

200

150

100

50

0

Pest

pop

ulat

ion/

kg m

aize

Moisture and oxygen impermeable bags

Moisture and oxygen impermeable bags

Storage months

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0Num

ber o

f dam

aged

gra

ins p

er k

g m

aize

Jan 2014

Apr 2014

Polypropelene bagsPolypropelene bags


groundnut by 90–99%. This is welcome news for farmers – as well as knowing their food is safe, they can now now sell their products to export markets with strict aflatoxin regulations, such as the European Union.

Results have been submitted to the regulatory agencies in Ghana and Zambia for registration of the Aflasafe products and it is anticipated that both products will gain full registration early in 2018. IITA is currently in the process of identifying key partners for production, commercialization and use of the Aflasafe products in Ghana and Zambia at scale, as part of the Aflasafe Technology Transfer and Commercialization Project funded by USAID and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Partners: IITA; Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology; USDA–ARS; Zambia National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research; ZARI

Potato farmers see the lightIn the Ethiopian Highlands, where yields have been only about one third of their potential, diffused light storage of seed potatoes is getting results.

Mrs Tadelech Lachemo, a farmer in the Ethiopian Highlands, had a dream to increase her agricultural productivity and run a profitable restaurant. Taking part in Africa RISING’s potato seed multiplication training has given her a head start to achieve her ambition.

Potato varieties that are disease-resistant and yield three to seven times more than local varieties were identified through participatory selection of varieties. Tadelech received 7 quintals (70 kg) of a selected improved potato variety (Gudene), and during her first year she produced about 70 quintals of potato, earning about ETB 23,000 from the sale of her

John Baanaah, a farmer in Nator-duori community, northern Ghana, shows off his maize harvest, which is greatly improved by the Aflasafe biocontrol product. Photo credit: Jonathan Odhong’/IITA

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 25

produce (fresh and seed potato) to fellow farmers. She used to plant only 1 quintal of the local variety and harvest 4 quintals per year. Tadelech set a market price of ETB 500 per quintal in consultation with the Africa RISING project and local government administrators. She helped four female heads of household by selling potatoes to them at a lower price of ETB 400 per quintal, so they can also benefit as she does; she also gave 4 quintals as a gift to her family and 3 quintals to very poor farmers who couldn’t buy the seed.

The family consumed around 10 quintals of potato at home during the cropping season. From the money she obtained, she supported her son with ETB 10,000 to build a house and is constructing a traditional restaurant house for herself. With support from the project she has also built a diffused light store for potato seed.

Tadelech explained that before the new variety was introduced to her village, she and many other farmers used to plant only once a year; now many people are planting potatoes twice a year, in both cropping seasons. Before the introduction of the diffused light stores, the maximum seed she used to save as planting material was about 0.5 quintal; now she saves around 50 quintals of quality potato seed for sale and as planting material.

Farmer Amarch Lechamo demonstrates her diffused light potato store in Upper Gana kebele, Lemo woreda, SNNPR. Photo credit: Apollo Habtamu/ILRI

What is diffused light storage?Traditionally, farmers store potatoes in a dark room to use as seed potatoes for the next planting, as well as for sale and home consumption. But dark storage can mean increased losses caused by insects and excessive sprouting. Diffused light storage, initially developed by CIP, involves storing potatoes in thin layers on shelves or trays in natural, diffused (indirect) light and with good ventilation. As light causes potatoes to go green, making them unsuitable for eating, the method can only be used for storing seed potatoes.

Africa RISING studies found that seed potatoes in diffused light storage are better quality and produce a much higher yield. The project has increased diffused light storage capacity to 240 t, with 2,000 farmers benefiting.


Partners: Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute; CIMMYT; CIP; Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research; ICARDA; ILRI; Oromia Agricultural Research Institute; Southern Agricultural Research Institute; Tigray Agricultural Research Institute; woreda extension offices in Basona (Amhara), Endamehoni (Tigray), Lemo (SNNPR) and Sinana (Oromia)


Publications

Abass, A.B., Ndunguru, G., Mamiro, P. et al. 2014. Postharvest food losses in a maize-based farming system of semi-arid savannah area of Tanzania. J. Stored Prod. Res. 57: 49–57. hdl.handle.net/10568/34458

Akello, J., Chabi-Olaye, A. and Sikora, R. 2017. Insect antagonistic bio-inoculants for natural control of leaf-mining insect pests of French beans. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 25: 237–251. hdl.handle.net/10568/89785

Kachapulula, P.W., Akello, J., Bandyopadhyay, R. et al. 2017a. Aflatoxin contamination of groundnut and maize in Zambia: Observed and potential concentrations. J. Appl. Microbiol. 122: 1471–1482. hdl.handle.net/10568/80924

Kachapulula, P.W., Akello, J., Bandyopadhyay, R. et al. 2017b. Aspergillus section Flavi community structure in Zambia influences aflatoxin contamination of maize and groundnut. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 261: 49–56. hdl.handle.net/10568/83513

Nyangi, C., Mugula, J.K., Beed, F. et al. 2016a. Aflatoxins and fumonisin contamination of marketed maize, maize bran and maize used as animal feed in northern Tanzania. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 16: 11054–11065. hdl.handle.net/10568/76535

Nyangi, C., Beed, F. , Mugula, J.K. et al. 2016b. Assessment of pre-harvest aflatoxin and fumonisin contamination of maize in Babati District, Tanzania. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 16: 11039–11053. hdl.handle.net/10568/76536

Seetha, A., Munthali, W., Msere, H.W. et al. 2017. Occurrence of aflatoxins and its management in diverse cropping systems of central Tanzania. Mycotox. Res. 33: 323–331. hdl.handle.net/10568/89119

Sugri, I., Osiru, M., Larbi, A. et al. 2015. Aflatoxin management in Northern Ghana: Current prevalence and priority strategies in maize (Zea mays L.). J. Stored Prod. Postharvest Res. 6: 48–55. hdl.handle.net/10568/73022

Sugri, I., Osiru, M., Abudulai, M. et al. 2017. Integrated peanut aflatoxin management for increase income and nutrition in northern Ghana. Cogent Food Agric. 3: 1312046. hdl.handle.net/10568/81211













P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 27

Conservation in a time of changeConservation agriculture is a resilient technology for tackling climate uncertainty.

The three main principles of conservation agriculture are:

● no tillage

● crop diversification

● soil cover.

But achieving its greatest benefits also involves good agricultural practices – fertilizers, weed control, timely planting and improved varieties. Most crops can be grown successfully under conservation agriculture in Africa. In South Africa it is practised on large-scale commercial farms, but elsewhere it tends to be promoted mainly for smallholders.

Conservation agriculture systems have been successfully tried and tested by Africa RISING in eastern Zambia since 2011, and more than 20,000 farmers have been exposed to the system. The 2014/15 cropping season in Zambia, which fell in an El Niño year, was the worst in a decade due to sporadic rains that started late and ended early. In years like this, with seasonal dry spells and erratic rainfall, conservation agriculture provides its greatest benefits to smallholder farming systems. In 2014/15, compared with conventional practices, manually direct-seeded maize following cowpea yielded

R E D U C I N G S O I L L O S S A N D E N H A N C I N G W AT E R U T I L I Z AT I O N

Mulundu Mwila of ZARI showing the superior performance of conservation agriculture over conventional ridge tillage. Photo credit: Christian Thierfelder/CIMMYT

Minimum soil disturbance (left), retaining crop residues (middle) and diversifying crops (right) are the basic principles of conservation agriculture


Growing yields

In Zambia, Mr Richard Soko, a farmer in Mugubudu Village, Chipata District in the Eastern Province, harvested 6,750 kg of maize from his 2.5 ha land using conservation management: direct seeding (ripper), crop rotation with cowpeas, improved maize seed, and fertilizer at eight bags per hectare. In the same season (2014/15 – the worst cropping season in a decade), his neighbours only harvested an average of 4,225 kg from a plot of the same size.

117% (1,942 kg/ha); and rip-line seeding – which opens a narrow furrow but doesn’t turn the soil – yielded 109% (1,993 kg/ha).

There are also big benefits for labour – results in Zambia have shown savings of 47% for sole maize and 33% for intercropped maize under conservation agriculture compared with conventional ridge tillage. Farmers can use the extra time gained for other pressing activities.

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Yiel

d (k

g/ha

)

Neighbors Mr Soko

Maize

Yield benefits from conservation agriculture can typically be achieved in two to five cropping seasons, especially in drought-prone rainfed areas. Studies in Malawi revealed high net returns from conservation agriculture due to less farm labour being needed for planting and weeding. Combined with increased productivity, this contributes to an extra net benefit of USD 173–658 per hectare in conservation agriculture compared with conventional ridge-and-furrow systems. In Zambia, the gross margin for sole maize under conservation agriculture (USD 806) was nearly double that under conventional ridge tillage (USD 468).

Successful examples of conservation agriculture already exist in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. But a number of technological challenges remain, depending on farmers’ circumstances:

● retaining enough crop residues can be difficult in intensive crop–livestock systems

● weed control in the early years of converting to conservation agriculture can be difficult if no herbicides are used

● critical inputs and machinery may be difficult to obtain

● profitable crop rotations need to be established

● farmers and extension agents need the knowledge and capacity to apply the principles of conservation agriculture correctly.

Partners: CIMMYT; Community Markets for Conservation; Total LandCare; ZARI

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 29

Restoring eroded landscapesStructures and planting to conserve water and soil are costly – but worth it.

Ethiopia’s 2016 drought was the worst in 50 years. But it isn’t just the lack of rainfall that causes problems – when it does eventually rain, the water runs downhill off the parched land, taking the soil with it. In the Ethiopian Highlands, farmers commonly lose 130 t/ha of soil a year, comparable with the worst erosion recorded on US farms in recent history. Wells go dry and crops fail, exposing bare soil to further erosion.

Successful government-sponsored water conservation work in Tigray inspired Africa RISING to take a similar approach in Adisghe County, where the fields were severely degraded. Working with the Ethiopian Bureau of Agriculture and in close collaboration with farmers and local government, the project built terraces and recharged ponds, planted trees on hilltops and grew cover crops on degraded areas. Farmers built check dams across gullies to stop the headlong flow of water, catch the soil and create pools that would percolate into the ground, increasing water reliability throughout the area. They also received training on good agricultural practices and precise use of fertilizers (synthetic and manure). Smallholders living in Adisghe are now starting to see a rise in their farm production.

Lulseged Desta, a soil scientist and landscape ecologist at CIAT, says that for this kind of restorative measure to work, farmers must set aside up to two months a year for building dams and planting trees. When calculated as the cost of labour, that equates to USD 2,200 for 4 square miles. While that is expensive, it is certainly less than the cost of resettling families and losing farmers from the land.

Partners: CIAT; ILRI; Mekele University; Wachemo University; woreda and zonal extension offices in Basona (Amhara) and Lemo (SNNPR)

R E D U C I N G S O I L L O S S A N D E N H A N C I N G W AT E R U T I L I Z AT I O N

CIAT researcher Tesfaye Tesfamichael demonstrates check dams to prevent soil loss on the slopes in Debre Berhan, central Ethiopia. Photo credit: Georgina Smith/CIAT


Publications

Alkhtib, A., Wamatu, J., Wegi, T. et al. 2016. Variation in the straw traits of morphological fractions of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) and implications for selecting for food–feed varieties. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 222: 122–131. hdl.handle.net/10568/78437

Kizito, F., Lukuyu, B., Sikumba, G. et al. 2016. The role of forages in sustainable intensification of crop–livestock agro-ecosystems in the face of climate change: The case for landscapes in Babati, northern Tanzania. In: Lal, R. et al. (eds) Climate change and multi-dimensional sustainability in African agriculture. Cham, Switzerland: Springer: 411–430. hdl.handle.net/10568/78414

Mupangwa, W., Mutenje, M., Thierfelder, C. et al. 2016. Are conservation agriculture (CA) systems productive and profitable options for smallholder farmers in different agro-ecoregions of Zimbabwe? Renew. Agr. Food Syst. 32: 87–103. hdl.handle.net/10568/73665

Tamene, L., Adimassu, Z., Ellison, J. et al. 2017. Mapping soil erosion hotspots and assessing the potential impacts of land management practices in the highlands of Ethiopia. Geomorphol. 292: 153–163. hdl.handle.net/10568/80914

Thierfelder, C., Matemba-Mutasa, R., Bunderson, W.T. et al. 2016. Evaluating manual conservation agriculture systems in southern Africa. Agr. Ecosyst. Envir. 222: 112–124. hdl.handle.net/10568/71137

Zemadim, B. 2016. The challenges of rainfed agricultural practices in Mali – Redefining research agenda. Adv. Plant Agr. Res. 4: 00128. hdl.handle.net/10568/77324

Zemadim, B. and Tabo, R. 2016. Shallow wells, the untapped resource with a potential to improve agriculture and food security in southern Mali. Agr. Food Secur. 5: 5. hdl.handle.net/10568/75643

Water for life

In Babati District, northern Tanzania, Africa RISING scientists introduced forage grass–legume intercrops for soil and water conservation. As a result, water runoff levels were reduced by 40–60% and soil moisture storage over a depth of 50 cm was 30% more than that with sole legume or grass forage. As well as serving as feed resources, this combination of perennial forages improves the sustainability of farming systems through erosion control and soil moisture retention.

In Zambia, one immediate benefit of the combined conservation agriculture practices of no-tillage, residue retention and crop rotations has been the ability to maintain high rates of water infiltration. This increases the available soil moisture, buffering conservation agriculture systems against unseasonal dry spells and heat stress.

• Maize yields under the two conservation agriculture treatments (sole maize and intercropped maize) were higher than conventional ridge tillage, ranging from 11% to 70% at various sites.

• The gross margin for sole maize under conservation agriculture (USD 806) was nearly double that of sole maize under conventional ridge tillage (USD 468).

In the Ethiopian Highlands, net soil losses are predicted to be as high as 88 t/ha per year – a weight equivalent to 223 fully grown Boran cattle. To combat this, terraces with trenches on cropland have reduced runoff by 44% and soil loss by 52%. Integrated soil and water conservation practices at landscape level can reduce soil loss by over 80% and improve base flow by 30%. And adding water-harvesting structures like dams can encourage farmers to adopt these measures.











P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 31

Feeding the futureAt nutrition field schools in southern Mali, young mothers are learning and teaching about the building blocks of life.

‘We must take care of our babies even before they are born’, says Assa Kayentoo, a nutrition field school trainer in Koutiala District, Mali. ‘It’s like when you want to have good cotton, you need to fertilize the soil to nourish the seeds for a good yield.’ As fewer than one third of adult women in Mali are literate, Kayentoo needs to simplify the facts about nutrition to help them understand. ‘I tell them that proteins are like the bricks needed to build a house – without proteins, a child won’t grow.’ Kayentoo provides oral and visual nutrition education, followed by a communal cookery class.

Fighting child malnutrition in the Sahel has always been a daunting task. In southern Mali, over 28% of children under five are stunted – despite this area being the grain basket of the country. Iron deficiency is a major cause of anaemia, which is particularly severe in the region.

In Koutiala, nutrition field schools established by Africa RISING partners have trained around 9,500 women. The real stars of this show are the women themselves: nutrition field school trainers pass on their knowledge, then select village nutrition leaders from the local communities, who go on to train others in their village clusters.

I M P R O V I N G H O U S E H O L D N U T R I T I O N

Mariam and Madou

Mariam Coulibaly and her baby, Madou, have been attending one of the nutrition field schools in Koutiala led by Kayentoo and her fellow trainers.

‘The field schools have saved the life of my son, Madou. He used to suffer from acute malnutrition and I used to think that he was cursed’, says Mariam, shaking her head. ‘I was so desperate, I even took him to the local traditional healers, who took a lot of money from me, without success.’

‘Eventually, with help from one of my neighbours, I was introduced to a nutrition community support group and the nutrition field schools. The more of these recipes I’ve learned and implemented at home, the better Madou’s health has gotten . . . Now my son’s porridge is always made with at least four different food items.’

Mariam and Madou at the nutrition field school. Photo credit: Caroline Sobgui/WorldVeg

Lessons given at the field schools don’t end with nutrition: they also cover health advice such as reducing the risk of diarrhoea by always washing hands with soap before handling food, and training on how to establish a home garden for a continuous supply of nutritious vegetables to supplement cereal-based diets.

Partners: Association Malienne d’Eveil au Developpement Durable; ICRISAT; WorldVeg


Variety and the spice of life

In northern Ghana, an Africa RISING baseline study found 33.8% of children under five to be malnourished – five percentage points higher than the 28% national average. This worrying statistic demonstrates a vital need for more, and more effective, nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions.

But there is a concern that a focus on crop intensification – which is frequently a goal of agricultural projects – can result in less dietary diversity. A survey of Africa RISING maize farmers in Tanzania found that improving crop diversity by introducing micronutrient-rich vegetables led to improved household dietary diversity among smallholder farmers, with a more marked improvement among those below the average crop income threshold. This is especially important for households in maize-based farming systems, where depending mainly on maize can lead to nutrient deficiencies.

And a study in Malawi indicated that two types of impact are relevant here: diversified cropping has a direct influence on available food quality; but adopting modern maize varieties has an indirect influence as commercialization and improved incomes support more diverse food purchases by households. Although crop diversity was positively associated with dietary diversity, more influence was seen from education, income, market access and improved storage technologies. The study highlights the importance of investing in education and creating employment, especially for female household heads.

A mother vegetable nursery plot in Manienga Village, Mvomero District in Tanzania. Photo credit: Jonathan Odhong’/IITA

Publications

Glover-Amengor, M., Agbemafle, I., Hagan, L.L. et al. 2016. Nutritional status of children 0–59 months in selected intervention communities in northern Ghana from the Africa RISING project in 2012. Arch. Public Health 74: 12. hdl.handle.net/10568/72867

Saaka, M., Oladele, J., Larbi, A. et al. 2017. Household food insecurity, coping strategies and nutritional status of pregnant women in rural areas of Northern Ghana. Food Sci. Nutr. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694868

Rajendran, S., Afari-Sefa, V., Shee, A. et al. 2017. Does crop diversity contribute to dietary diversity? Evidence from integration of vegetables into maize-based farming systems. Agr. Food Secur. 6: 50. doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0127-3

Saaka, M., Oladele, J., Larbi, A. et al. 2017. Dietary diversity is not associated with haematological status of pregnant women resident in rural areas of northern Ghana. J. Nutr. Metab. 8497892. hdl.handle.net/10568/78833

Snapp, S. and Fisher, M. 2015. Filling the maize basket supports crop diversity and quality of household diet in Malawi. Food Secur. 7: 83–96. hdl.handle.net/10568/66458



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694868

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694868

http://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0127-3



P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 33

Scaling new heightsNew data analysis tools can target technologies at situations where they have the best chance to flourish – while avoiding harm to the environment.

Africa RISING Phase II aims to put validated technologies in the hands of over a million smallholder households by 2021. While traditional dissemination methods such as extension systems and demonstration sites have local potential, achieving this ambitious goal will need more cost-effective technology dissemination approaches at much larger scales.

D E V E L O P I N G D E C I S I O N - S U P P O R T T O O L S

Precision scaling

Using geospatial data, as applied by Africa RISING, allows projects to scale technologies in agricultural ecologies that have similar biophysical and socio-economic characteristics.

Recent research has shown that scaling agricultural technologies in sites that share biophysical and socio-economic characteristics increases the likelihood of technologies being adopted. The Africa RISING–NAFAKA project in Tanzania (see Box on page 34) applied spatial data obtained using remote-sensing satellites and geographic information systems to describe 20 relatively homogeneous zones with similar biophysical and socio-economic characteristics (known as recommendation domains). These are zones where various technologies developed and promoted by Africa RISING have the greatest possibility of gaining smallholder acceptance, which will therefore be targeted in the future.

The method used – cluster analysis – aims to identify natural groups within a data set in a way that maximizes both within-group similarity and between-groups dissimilarity. By analysing the statistical properties of data, in contrast to previously used subjective classifications, this method is easy to replicate in different ecologies or technologies. For example, common classifications such as ‘lowlands’, ‘mid-latitudes’ and ‘highlands’ can vary between regions or researchers. As the project’s Francis Muthoni of IITA points out, ‘“highlands” in Tanzania could be “lowlands” in Nepal around Mount Everest’, and such subjective classifications have limited potential for spatial extrapolation and replication.

Five to watch

The Africa RISING study in Tanzania selected five key impact variables for scaling sustainable intensification:

• total population

• number of people living below the poverty line

• women of child-bearing age – because they are over 50% of the agricultural workforce

• children under five years – because their specific nutrient requirements influence the introduction of crop varieties that can help fight malnutrition

• currently cultivated area – because sustainable intensification aims to increase agricultural production without encroaching on uncultivated land.


The newly generated domains deliberately omit (mask) critical ecosystems such as nature conservation parks and wetlands to ensure scaling of agricultural technologies has minimal negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The masked areas in Tanzania include three national parks – Mikumi, Ruaha and Udzungwa Mountains – which are globally recognized biodiversity hotspots and water catchments with high vegetation biomass that store significant amounts of carbon.

Muthoni and his team are working on an impact-based spatial targeting index to be used as an objective tool for priority-setting when scaling agricultural technologies. Once appropriate sustainable intensification technologies are allocated to each recommendation domain, the spatial index can be used to pinpoint high-impact clusters. Demonstration sites are then targeted at these high-impact areas in order to reach more farmers.

Development agencies can use the index to estimate potential impacts of their technologies and to support evidence-based site selection. This means limited resources can be allocated more effectively to realize greater impact, especially for projects with a limited time span.

Partners: ACDI/VOCA; CIMMYT; IITA

Working together

Increasing yields of both maize and rice by 50% was one of the initial aims of a partnership between two USAID-funded programs. Africa RISING in Tanzania is working in partnership with the NAFAKA* Staples Value Chain Activity to achieve shared objectives. The collaboration aims to help at least 47,000 smallholder farm households in rural Tanzania to access technologies to diversify and increase their food supply and income sources, and to grow the area under improved crop production technologies by at least 58,000 ha.

The Africa RISING–NAFAKA project model has become a case study within USAID on how future partnerships could work. Elizabeth Maeda, USAID Tanzania’s research and production advisor, says that despite some early ups and downs,

‘Africa RISING–NAFAKA is lauded within USAID as a great example of how a collaboration should work between an international research institute and a local partner project to create lasting impact on farmers’ lives.’

As Thomas Carr, NAFAKA project chief of party, explains:

‘Our third year, 2016/17, is for me the best of our collaboration because the relationships got better. And I believe this will continue into the second phase of this project.’

* Nafaka means cereal or grain in Swahili.

Complex systems – simple solutions?Typology studies can help cope with the big differences between smallholder farmers.

During field work by Africa RISING in Zambia, men and women of the same household were interviewed separately and asked the same questions about their farm. The answers differed considerably, each respondent tending to focus on their own areas. The men overstated the number of animals they tended, while the women overstated the number of hours they spent on household chores. As most surveys are based on the statements of a single household member – usually the (male) household head – there is likely to be a major bias in most contemporary data sets.

‘Smallholder farmers’, often classed as a single group, are not all the same. They have more or less land of variable quality; they own different types and numbers of livestock; and they have different ways of marketing what they produce. The make-up of each household influences the availability of labour and how decisions are made, which is fundamental for their adoption of new agricultural technologies and techniques.

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 35

Farmers are often grouped according to the resources they have, as this strongly determines their room to manoeuvre – that is, the sum of possible choices for alternative resource allocation and farm management. Africa RISING is interested in alternatives that improve not only productivity, but also the other dimensions of sustainable intensification – social, economic, human and environmental (see page 3). The program has compiled tools and protocols to use for baseline surveys and typology identification in Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Tanzania.

As well as differences among farming systems, the diversity and dynamics within farm households are also important. For instance, a typical smallholder farm in northern Ghana is a family farm consisting of several partially independent units of production, each run by a different family member with a distinct production orientation. While the male household head cultivates cereals and tubers to ensure the family’s food security, women farm different plots with vegetables and cash crops to achieve nutritional diversity. Livestock ownership and responsibilities differ according to age and gender. Understanding the matrix of divergent responsibilities, interests and power positions is crucial to understanding how farm management decisions come about.

D E V E L O P I N G D E C I S I O N - S U P P O R T T O O L S

Aspects of the four main types of smallholder farms in Ghana’s Africa RISING sites

H O U S E H O L D T Y P O L O G Y

Type 1Female-headed

households with low to medium levels of

endowments

Type 2 Young

medium-endowed

households

Type 3Medium- to

highly endowed households

breeding cattle

Type 4 High-yield

households with high

endowments

Cattle 1.0 1.8 4.8 4.7

Goats and sheep 6.2 8.6 11.1 13.0

Chickens 10.1 14.4 15.2 18.1

Land (ha) 2.0 3.4 4.8 5.3

Households with women having plot responsibilities

36% 20% 16% 25%

All harvest (kg) 473 1,778 5,028 16,036

Parcels with incrusted soils

13% 12% 18% 8%

Households using urea 2% 5% 7% 9%

Average years of education

3.3 3.0 2.7 2.4

Agricultural wealth index

–0.45 0.07 0.51 1.05


Publications

Groot, J. 2016. Comparison of statistical and participatory clustering of smallholder farming systems: A case study in northern Ghana. Africa RISING Evidence Brief. hdl.handle.net/10568/80630

Haile, B., Azzarri, C., Roberts, C. et al. 2016. Targeting, bias and expected impact of complex innovations on developing-country agriculture: Evidence from Malawi. Agric. Econ. 48: 1–10. hdl.handle.net/10568/79448

Hockett, M. and Richardson, R.B. 2016. Examining the drivers of agricultural experimentation among smallholder farmers in Malawi. Exp. Agr. 54: 1–21. hdl.handle.net/10568/78116

Jun Xiong, Thenkabail, P.S., Gumma, M.K. et al. 2017. Automated cropland mapping of continental Africa using Google Earth Engine cloud computing. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 126: 225–244. hdl.handle.net/10568/81208

Kotu, B.H., Alene, A., Manyong, V. et al. 2017. Adoption and impacts of sustainable intensification practices in Ghana. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 15: 539–554. hdl.handle.net/10568/83369

Kuivanen, K.S., Alvarez, S., Michalscheck, M. et al. 2016a. Characterising the diversity of smallholder farming systems and their constraints and opportunities for innovation: A case study from the northern region, Ghana. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 78: 153–166. hdl.handle.net/10568/77101

Kuivanen, K.S., Michalscheck, M., Descheemaeker, K. et al. 2016b. A comparison of statistical and participatory clustering of smallholder farming systems – A case study in Northern Ghana. J. Rural Stud. 45: 184–198. hdl.handle.net/10568/76362

Michalscheck, M., Groot, J.C.J., Kotu, B. et al. 2018. Model results versus farmer realities. Operationalizing diversity within and among smallholder farm systems for a nuanced impact assessment of technology packages. Agr. Syst. 162: 164–178. doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.028

Muthoni, F.K., Guo, Z., Bekunda, M. et al. 2017. Sustainable recommendation domains for scaling agricultural technologies in Tanzania. Land Use Policy 66: 34–48. hdl.handle.net/10568/80938

Ollenburger, M.H., Descheemaeker, K., Crane, T.A. et al. 2016. Waking the Sleeping Giant: Agricultural intensification, extensification or stagnation in Mali’s Guinea Savannah. Agr. Syst. 148: 58–70. hdl.handle.net/10568/76485

Paas, W. and Groot, J.C.J. 2017. Creating adaptive farm typologies using Naive Bayesian classification. Inf. Process. Agr. 4: 220–227. hdl.handle.net/10568/87896

Tegbaru, A., FitzSimons, J., Kirscht, H. et al. 2015. Resolving the gender empowerment equation in agricultural research: A systems approach. J. Food Agr. Environ. 13: 131–139. hdl.handle.net/10568/69099

Combining viewpoints

Complementary typology studies by Wageningen University and IFPRI applied qualitative (participatory) and quantitative methods, respectively. The knowledge gained through the different viewpoints provides a rich picture that researchers can use to improve their understanding of the farmer–technology combinations they encounter.

‘A technology might be expensive for one and affordable for another farm type. While it isn’t possible to offer the same inputs at different prices, we might think of offering microcredit opportunities, or facilitating the purchase of inputs.’ – Mirja Michalscheck, researcher, Wageningen University

‘The results underline the fact that no group is performing well across the board, but each of them needs support in their specific weaknesses.’ – Sara Signorelli, researcher, IFPRI

Characteristics of five farm types in northern Ghana compiled using participatory methods – the symbols were drawn by participants (Groot 2016)

‘Household heads are always happy and

smiling.’

Fist and outstretched hand indicate that

‘what these farmers have is not enough,

they need to be more self-sufficient.’

The hoe symbolizes that the farmers ‘cannot afford to

hire the services of a tractor.’

The cooking pot and cutlass are ‘tools used

by women.’

The ear suggests that the ‘farm-less always

listen out for work opportunities.’

Partners: IFPRI; Wageningen University & Research (WUR)









http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.028






P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 37

Africa RISING’s collaborative DNAThe program’s unique collaborative approach needs innovative management and evaluation, provided through cross-cutting services.

Communication

Integrating 11 CGIAR centers with over 100 partner organizations drawn from national research systems and extension agencies, nongovernmental organizations and international research organizations – and their various disciplines – all adds to the program’s complexity. It has taken effort from the start to get all the contributors on board and aligned in the same direction.

Complex ideas and results were communicated among partners and stakeholders using a variety of media.

ILRI leads the program-level communications work for Africa RISING, taking an approach summarized by Simret Yasabu in a successful competition entry for the USAID Collaborating, Learning and Adapting Case Competition:

‘Collaboration and learning needs to start from the beginning of the program and be part of its “DNA”. It is not something to add at the end, nor is it just “communications” and awareness.’

H O W A F R I C A R I S I N G W O R K S

Local relationships support national progress

Peter Thorne, Africa RISING’s Ethiopia Project Manager, explains the long-term benefits of the program’s collaborative spirit:

‘At each Africa RISING site, the core partnership is formed from the woreda bureaus of agriculture, local universities and regional research centers. During a social event, I was very pleased to hear that Africa RISING had been able to convene the first proper meeting between the heads of these three organizations. To my mind, if the project can also facilitate this kind of coming together, then we have a great opportunity to contribute to another dimension of sustainability – the institutional sustainability of agricultural research and development in the country as a whole.’

Lessons and focus for Phase II

• Radio and print media matter more than electronic media in the target communities.

• The program’s strategic vision, impact on policy and up-scaling efforts need to be more visible.

• More can be made of program-wide communication; synergies between countries, regions and projects; and collaboration with relevant external projects.

online stories

32,000708,500442,000

317,000

Over 2.2 million reached



Monitoring and evaluation

Africa RISING’s monitoring and evaluation activities are led by IFPRI. The team’s approach includes collecting household and community data from five countries through the Africa RISING Baseline Evaluation Survey; development of a web-based monitoring and evaluation tool and a number of offline tools; in-country training on project monitoring and data management; and online management of all program-generated socio-economic and agronomic data.

In total, the data sets include information from 4,510 households in 81 program communities and 76 control communities. Interviews were completed using computer-assisted personal interviews conducted in local languages. IFPRI also works with local data-collection firms to conduct key informant interviews with local community leaders about village characteristics that could have a bearing on agricultural production. Data from the survey have been used extensively both within and outside the program.9

9 Azzarri, C., Haile, B. and Shee, A. 2016. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in systems research: Experience from Africa RISING. Poster for Africa RISING Humidtropics Systems Research Marketplace, Ibadan, Nigeria, 15–17 November 2016. hdl.handle.net/10568/78118

81

prog

ram

com

m

unities

4,510 households 76 control comm

unities

Think globally, apply locally

‘What’s unique here is that you can think globally and apply locally’, comments Apurba Shee, regional monitoring and evaluation coordinator with IFPRI. ‘All the research we’re doing is very sound and innovative. And we have a chance to ask farmers directly about their opinions and attitudes toward specific technologies. This is what’s unique about Africa RISING.’

‘One of the challenges is in choosing the technologies that are most promising for scaling. The project is trying various cost–benefit and sensitivity analyses for assessing the most promising technologies . . . For the second phase it would be better if we set up various evaluation designs at the beginning with a detailed logical framework and theory of change.’

‘In Phase II, we have the opportunity to capitalize on the activities and achievements of the past five years. The team will have more presence in the field through the three local M&E coordinators (one per regional project). This arrangement should boost collaborative activities between the M&E and research teams.’ – Carlo Azzarri, Africa RISING M&E leader


P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 39


• A strong field presence and local, decentralized monitoring are highly valued.

• Regular monitoring, supervision and training on data collection and management is a must-have.

• Farm typologies need to be deployed more effectively.

• Ex-post evaluations (after the event) need to be combined with ex-ante assessment of technologies (before the event) to generate evidence on the expected effects of technologies if scaled up to national level or beyond.


Innovation systems and platforms

From 2014, Africa RISING established multi-stakeholder innovation platforms and research for development platforms to identify needs on the ground and to connect with national policy- and decision-making circles to stimulate a creative environment for sustainable intensification.


The platforms worked well in Ethiopia and to some extent in Tanzania, but less so in the other countries.

Key lessons include the importance of a genuinely bottom-up agenda, avoiding competing with existing structures, greater stakeholder ownership, a strong strategy for platform development, transparent sharing of research outcomes, and stronger links with national-level platforms.

These multi-stakeholder platforms could become very strong collective brains that respond to felt needs and own the agendas in the communities concerned.

Trials by farmers for farmers

Africa RISING’s participatory action research is based on innovation clusters in Ethiopia; mother-and-baby trials in east and southern Africa; and technology parks in west Africa.

Innovation clusters are farmer research groups within the Ethiopian innovation platforms to help address specific local needs, test and adapt innovations, and contribute to developing research protocols.

Mother-and-baby trials are both a research trial design and an approach to on-farm participatory action research. In the mother trial, farmers work with researchers to learn about a set of innovations. They then select some for their baby trials, using their own management methods. This approach encourages farmer testing, demonstration, adaptation and scaling as other farmers are exposed to their fellow farmers’ experiences. The program benefited from 32 mother and 1,400 baby trials in central Malawi, and 240 mother and 688 baby trials in Tanzania’s Babati District.

Technology parks are community-based experimental stations consisting of a series of replicated and unreplicated experiments (similar to mother trials). Volunteer farmers choose a technology and replicate it in their own farm to train fellow farmers (like the baby trials), and farmer field days reach out to larger numbers of farmers.


Based on the Phase I experience, Phase II has developed engagement standards with participating farmers.

Participating scientists have come to understand that while partnerships and collaboration are costly and time-consuming, they are well worth the effort for complex research that needs to show sustainable results.





Gender

Women’s contribution to food security is restricted by unequal access to and control of productive resources: land, technologies, credit and labour. Sustainable intensification will remain a distant dream unless women are empowered to engage in action research and boost their role in agriculture and contribution to food security.

The Africa RISING gender team conducted gender capacity assessments in 2014 and 2015 in all three regions, and has developed a gender training manual for farming systems action research. In Ethiopia, gender champions were appointed to help test gender-responsive approaches such as affirmative action, and collaborated on livestock feed and forages, potato seed multiplication, fruit tree planting and irrigation.

A two-way process

‘Gender mainstreaming is like a two-headed arrow’, says Gundula Fischer, Africa RISING gender specialist.

‘On one hand, it’s important to understand more of the gender dynamics in our target groups – for instance, how do our technologies interact with intrahousehold gender dynamics? . . . On the other hand, what about our internal policies and arrangements? What about our organizational culture? Gender is fully integrated when we’re deliberately working in both directions.’

TARGET GROUP

IMPLEMENTING ORGANIZATION


Current norms that devalue women’s role in farming need to be challenged continually.

Strengthening women’s leadership and entrepreneurial skills will boost their confidence to participate in decision-making forums and have their voices heard – technologies alone are not enough.

Monitoring and evaluation also needs to measure women’s empowerment.

Research should be combined with transformative approaches (household methodologies) to investigate how equitable change can happen.

Capacity development

Not a specific part of the original program framework, capacity development for a range of stakeholders will be more clearly focused and embedded in Phase II to ensure sustainability of the program’s interventions.

In the first phase of Africa RISING, 92 postgraduate students were attached to the projects for their dissertation research and over 3,800 stakeholders have been enrolled annually in training and knowledge-sharing forums.

And Africa RISING has also been building partners’ capacity with practical support by providing computers, books, and in some cases financial support for partners organizing events that facilitate learning and knowledge-sharing on sustainable intensification.


P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 41



Capacity development should be incorporated into the program’s theory of change.

Existing opportunities to use innovative learning materials can be tapped into.

The collaboration and partnering capacity of all parties needs improvement.

The focus should be not just on training, but also on organizational development – by investing in national agricultural research systems and extension services.

Monitoring and evaluation must take capacity-building into account.

EAST AND SOUTHERN AFRICA 28 MScs 8 PhDs

plus 1,000+ individuals/year received training/knowledge

WEST AFRICA

19 MScs

7 PhDs

plus 800+ individuals/year

received training/knowledge

ETHIOPIA

23 MScs

7 PhDs

plus 2,000+ individuals/year

received training/knowledge

Africa RISING building capacity in Phase I

Publications

Africa RISING. 2015. Engagement standards in participatory research for the Africa RISING Program. hdl.handle.net/10568/34830

Fischer, G., Wittich, S. and Temu, E. 2016. Gender capacity assessment report for Africa RISING West, East and Southern Africa projects. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA. hdl.handle.net/10568/72524

Haile, B. 2016. Five comparable country datasets for Africa RISING now available. IFPRI Blog, May 11. www.ifpri.org/blog/five-comparable-country-datasets-africa-rising-now-available

Yasabu, S. 2015. Africa RISING project in Ethiopia recognized in collaboration and learning competition. Africa RISING, 10 December. africa-rising.net/2015/12/10/cla-award/






http://www.ifpri.org/blog/five-comparable-country-datasets-africa-rising-now-available



http://africa-rising.net/2015/12/10/cla-award/

http://africa-rising.net/2015/12/10/cla-award/


Pathways to transformative changeThe future scaling of sustainable intensification will be built on research-in-development through successful partnerships and an evolving theory of change.

Sustainable intensification leads to more productive agricultural systems that provide sufficient nutritious food without compromising the needs of future generations. It aims to translate these productivity increases into improved livelihoods and health in a way that is culturally and socially acceptable and that preserves or restores the environment.

Such transformative changes are shaped by complex tradeoffs and synergies, which can lead to unintended consequences that may not be desirable. To take account of these complexities, Africa RISING takes a broad, systems-based approach to identifying pathways to sustainable identification.

These three characteristics – productivity, sustainability and demand – converge into an evidence-based pathway that effectively reduces the risks faced by both the development practitioners who promote Africa RISING technologies and the farmers who adopt them. This pathway will lead to the wider proliferation of pragmatic and implementable sustainable intensification.

Africa RISING has already seen many successes in sustainable intensification within its direct zones of influence. In Phase II, the transferability of this approach will be the project’s key contribution to the global public good.

‘To achieve the best results, the Africa RISING program has had to channel the wealth of experiences and lessons learned from Phase I and make them into successful implementation strategies and plans for the second phase.’ – Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon, Manager, Africa RISING West Africa and East/Southern Africa Projects

The partnership dividend

In addition to continued research to come up with innovations that help farmers find ways out of poverty, Africa RISING Phase II has set itself a target to scale sustainable innovation technologies to 1.1 million smallholder households in the six project countries by 2021. Team members are currently working on various arrangements for co-investment with development partners for wider uptake and adoption of the program’s Phase I outputs. This will in turn generate a partnership dividend, enabling research projects to generate impact at scale.

‘We have achieved a lot in terms of identifying best bet technologies in Phase I of Africa RISING. In the second phase we need to adopt more dynamic scaling approaches to ensure these technologies get into the hands of millions of farmers who are counting on us.’ – Bernard VanLauwe, alternate Chair, Africa RISING Program Coordination Team

SUSTAINABILITY

SUSTAINABLE INTENSIFICATION

DEMANDPRODUCTIVITY

Across all five dimensions: productivity, economic, social,

environmental, human

Demonstrably promotable and adoptable

Long-term, evidence-based increases

Productivity

Economic Social Environmental

Human

P H A S E I : 2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 6 43

Targets for Phase II

Research-in-development

In a shift from research-for-development to research-in-development, Africa RISING Phase II is anchoring its research in existing activities by asking development partners/initiatives that are currently active – What solutions do you need, that we can develop for you?

This approach will lead to technology development that:

● is demand-driven, based on long-term engagement of research and development partners

● aligns with the geographical focus and agenda of development partners

● backstops research priorities driven by development partners

● has shared output and outcome targets between research and development partners.

‘Research-in-development means that Africa RISING will deliver scientifically validated integrated innovations and knowledge to improve productivity, while the development partners will provide opportunities for scaling these innovations, through their established scaling channels, to the thousands of households in their target regions.’ – Mateete Bekunda, Chief Scientist, Africa RISING East and Southern Africa Project


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Households participating directly in Africa RISING research Households participating in Africa RISING development partner activities

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

Farm

hou

seho

lds

6,921 10,007 12,195 14,329 16,997 20,332 24,501

7,967

111,413

257,625

392,190

588,149

840,365

1,119,438

africa-rising.net

cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/16498

www.flickr.com/photos/africa-rising/

About Africa RISING

The Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation (Africa RISING) program comprises three regional research-in-development projects supported by the United States Agency for International Development as part of the US Government’s Feed the Future initiative. Inaugurated in late 2011 and currently in its second phase (since September 2016), the purpose of Africa RISING is to provide pathways out of hunger and poverty for smallholder farm families through sustainably intensified farming systems that sufficiently improve food, nutrition and income security, particularly for women and children, and conserve or enhance the natural resource base.

www.slideshare.net/africa-rising

bit.ly/2IiWZpf

http://africa-rising.net

http://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/16498

http://www.flickr.com/photos/africa-rising/

http://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising

http://bit.ly/2IiWZpf

footprints of africa rising

Documents