harmonised seed security project - monitoring and ... · 6.0 summary of the hassp m&e logframe...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Harmonised Seed Security Project - Monitoring and Evaluation Workshop
Held on 8-10 November 2011
Ezulwini Sun Hotel in Ezulwini Valley, Swaziland
11 November 2011
Tel: +27 12 804 2966 / 3186 Fax: +27 12 804 0600 Email: [email protected] www.fanrpan.org
REGIONAL SECRETARIAT 141 Cresswell Road, Weavind Park 0184 Private Bag X2087, Silverton 0127 Pretoria, South Africa
i
Contents 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Objectives of the workshop .......................................................................................................... 1
3.0 Introductions of participants ......................................................................................................... 1
4.0 Welcoming and official opening of the workshop ..................................................................... 1
5.0 Participants’ expectations ............................................................................................................. 2
6.0 Summary of the HaSSP M&E logframe and M&E framework ................................................ 2
7.0 Regional HaSSP progress report presentation .................................................................................. 2
8.0 Country Presentations: Policy Harmonization .................................................................................. 2
9.0 Country Presentations: Community Seed Enterprise ....................................................................... 3
10.0 Feedback from the farmers ........................................................................................................ 4
11.0 Recap of Day 1 ............................................................................................................................ 5
12.0 Planning concept and logic ........................................................................................................ 5
13.0 Introduction to Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................. 6
13.1 Group work outputs on the M&E Concept ................................................................................. 6
13.2 Plenary outputs on the M&E presentation ................................................................................. 6
13.3 Rating of current participatory level of HaSSP. ........................................................................... 7
13.4 Recommendations for making HaSSP M&E more participatory ................................................ 7
13.5 What participants appreciated about M&E ................................................................................ 8
14.0 Identification of information needs for reporting on HaSSP indicators ......................................... 8
15.0 Recap of Day 2 ............................................................................................................................ 8
16.0 Presentations of the country data matrices. ............................................................................ 9
17.0 Proposed regional 2012 workplan ............................................................................................ 9
18.0 Evaluations how to prepare for them and to be evaluated. .................................................. 9
19.0 Reflections .................................................................................................................................. 10
20.0 Close of workshop. .................................................................................................................... 10
ii
List of Annexes
Annex 1: Workshop objectives ........................................................................................................... 1
Annex 2: Workshop programme ........................................................................................................ 3
Annex 3: List of workshop participants ............................................................................................. 5
Annex 4: HaSSP Regional Progress Report .................................................................................... 8
Annex 5: Malawi - Update on Variety Release System, Seed Certification and Quarantine
and Phytosanitary Measures, Progress Report May 2010 – October 2012 ............................. 23
Annex 6: Swaziland - Seed Policy Harmonisation Progress Report .......................................... 27
Annex 7: Zambia - Seed Policy Harmonisation Progress Report May 2010 – October 2011 30
Annex 8: Zimbabwe - Seed Policy Harmonisation Progress Report .......................................... 38
Annex 9: Malawi Community Seed Enterprise .............................................................................. 45
Annex 10: Swaziland Community Seed Project progress report ................................................ 47
Annex 11: Zambia Community Seed Enterprise ........................................................................... 49
Annex 12: Zimbabwe Community Seed Enterprise ...................................................................... 54
Annex 13: Programme/project logic (goal to impact pathway) .................................................... 58
Annex 14: Introduction to Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) ............................. 61
Annex 15: Malawi data collection matrix .......................................................................................... 1
Annex 16: Swaziland data collection matrix ..................................................................................... 7
Annex 17: Zambia data collection matrix ........................................................................................ 11
Annex 18: Zimbabwe Malawi collection matrix .............................................................................. 15
Annex 19: HasSSP 2012 Regional Workplan ................................................................................ 18
Annex 20: Evaluations - Preparing one or preparing to be evaluated. ...................................... 24
iii
List of Abbreviations
CANGO: Coordinating Assembly of Non-Governmental Organizations
COP 17: 17th Conference of the Parties
FANRPAN: Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network
HaSSP: Harmonised Seed Security Project
M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation
NGO: Non-Governmental Organizations
OPV: Open Pollinated Variety
PM&E: Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
SADC: Southern Africa Development Community
SDC: Swiss Agency for Development Co-operation
SPEAR:
SCCI:
UNFCCC: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
1
1.0 Introduction The workshop was held 8-10 November 2011 at the Ezulwini Sun in Manzini, Swaziland. The workshop was co-facilitated by Dr. Tshilidzi Madzivhandila, the FANRPAN M&E Coordinator, and Mr. Gregory Chanda Chilufya, an independent consultant. Dr. Bellah Mpofu, HaSSP Programme Manager, provided oversight and guidance on technical detail to ensure that the facts used during the workshop were correct. Ms. Sipiwe Mapanda, Programme Assistant-FANRPAN, provided administrative support.
2.0 Objectives of the workshop The workshop had the following objectives;
1. To operationalize the HaSSP M&E training manual;
2. To improve the Participants’ understanding of;
• the project context/objectives/progress, i.e., the Core elements of HaSSP
• what is to be achieved (objectives impact), i.e., the assessment of impact
(M&E)
3. To improve the Participants’ understanding of how to achieve measurable and
sustainable results through Implementation plans.
The above workshop objectives, attached as Annex 1, would be attained through the
workshop programme attached as Annex 2.
3.0 Introductions of participants The participants introduced themselves before the opening of the session. This was to
enable the guest of honour to know who they were before addressing them. There were
twenty six participants representing Malawi (6), Swaziland (4), Zambia (8) and Zimbabwe
(8). The list of participants is attached as Annex 3.
4.0 Welcoming and official opening of the workshop Mr. Emmanuel Ndlangamandla, Director CANGO Swaziland, gave the opening remarks. He
welcomed the participants on behalf of the Swaziland node. He expressed gratitude to
FANRPAN for choosing to host the workshop in the Kingdom of Swaziland. He highlighted
the economic challenges facing the country. Mr. Ndlangamandla informed the participants
that food security has been a challenge in Swaziland since independence. This then
underscored the need to improve the productive performance of farmers to assist address
chronic food insecurity. He further alluded to the challenges caused by climate change.
Climate change had changed the rainfall pattern and intensity making it difficult to undertake
productive agriculture. He observed that by Swaziland norm, the planting season had
started. However, the farmers were still waiting for the rains before planting their crop. He
closed by observing that the UNFCCC-COP 17 should provide concrete solutions for
responding to the challenge of climate change.
2
5.0 Participants’ expectations Using the brainstorming technique the participants expressed the following expectations
from the workshop:
1. To learn the M&E concepts;
2. To share own experiences and learn from each other’s experiences;
3. To develop 2011 individual HaSSP workplan
4. To understand the different elements of HaSSP
5. To find mechanisms through which challenges can be addressed
The participants were cautioned not to detail expectations that were not within the
boundaries of the workshop objectives as this raises expectations that cannot be met.
6.0 Summary of the HaSSP M&E logframe and M&E framework The hard copies of the HaSSP logframes and the M&E manual were used to review them
with the participants. This assisted to refocus the participants’ attention to the approved
HaSSP documents. The major contributions in plenary included the following;
1. The need to review the M&E Manual in line with the approved logframe.
7.0 Regional HaSSP progress report presentation Dr. Bellah Mpofu presented the HaSSP regional progress report. This report is attached as
Annex 4. Some of the highlights from plenary were that;
1. The quarterly reporting was not up-to date for most countries.
2. The resources saved from purchase of motor vehicles can be allocated to seed
certification activities.
3. The plant protection workshop ought to include the private sector.
4. The project M&E budget does not cover in-country M&E activities
8.0 Country Presentations: Policy Harmonization Each of the countries presented their progress reports on policy harmonisation. These progress reports are attached as Annexes as follows;
Malawi – Annex 5
Swaziland – Annex 6
Zambia – Annex 7
Zimbabwe – Annex 8 The plenary discussions are summarised as follows;
1. Regulations and statutory instruments are being reviewed to domesticate international agreements pertaining to harmonisation of seed policies.
2. A number of important pieces of regional legislation still need to be domesticated. 3. There is asymmetric progress in the three areas HaSSP is supporting. There is,
therefore, a need to harmonise the rate of progress in these three areas (i.e., seed
3
variety release, phytosanitary, and seed certification policies) as their implementation is interdependent.
4. There is a coordination agreement between FANRPAN and SPEAR. There is need to improve its implementation.
5. There is need to understand the impact of harmonisation on a country that harmonises its policies to SADC standard before the others do so.
6. Swaziland only applies Value for Cultivation and Use in its seeds standards and not Distinctness, Stability and Use.
9.0 Country Presentations: Community Seed Enterprise Each of the countries presented their progress reports on their Community Seed Projects. These progress reports are attached as Annexes as follows;
Malawi – Annex 9
Swaziland – Annex 10
Zambia – Annex 11
Zimbabwe – Annex 12
The plenary discussions are summarised as follows; 1. Incorporate a sustainability strategy into every project that is designed at design
stage.
2. Learning tools should incorporate mistakes into their knowledge base for future
reference.
3. Field missions should multi task. Administrative missions should provide a basis for
monitoring. Backstopping missions should also be capacity building.
4. Farmer selection affects project implementation costs and effort. Implementation
costs escalate if beneficiaries live far apart.
5. Good contracts are required for effective seed production and marketing.
6. There is need for regular seed producer supervision and monitoring for effective
project implementation.
7. Seed producers should be trained in entrepreneurship including training in seed
pricing models. This is because their seed pricing reference point is the retail price
that includes processing, packaging, storage, branding and transporting costs.
8. The progression of seed growers into fully commercial ventures should be
addressed. This should take into account the individual, organisation and institutional
capacities that are required for this to happen. Furthermore, local business
regulations should be analysed as to how they facilitate entry into the seed industry.
9. The value of safe seed storage should be taken into account when designing
programmes that support seed production. Concern was therefore raised that HaSSP
does not cater for construction of seed storage structures. However, participants
observed that over time the costs of renting storage sheds may be equivalent to
constructing a new storage structure.
10. The participants were asked to move towards promoting legume seed production as
there is relatively less produced as compared to maize that has been commercially
promoted over time. Legumes seeds were also viewed as having a ready market.
11. The participants requested for incentives that recognise efficient and effective project
implementation amongst the beneficiaries and implementors. The participants were
informed that Malawi had undertaken a local initiative at which the best performing
seed growers were awarded a wheelbarrow.
12. There is a need for a system that assists track the progress of the seed growers.
4
13. It was observed that there seems to be a lack of a clear vision amongst the countries
as to the type of seed farmer that would be a result of all this work.
10.0 Feedback from the farmers Mrs. Rose Gondwe, a farmer from Malawi, informed the participants that HaSSP has helped
in marketing their products. She said the farmers previously used to sell their output at lower
prices. However, they now sell them at higher prices as they have a processing machine for
the seed. Mrs Gondwe said she had benefitted from training and supply of foundation seed.
She had learnt more, agricultural practices, how to maintain seed processing equipment and
how to keep records,. She further said the local production of seed made seed cheaper for
the local community. Mrs Gondwe informed the meeting that the Seed Services Unit
inspected their seed three times during 2010/11. This had contributed to quicker processing
of the seed and their seed is already on the market. She observed that seed production
should be treated as a business unlike the way the growing of grain is handled. The main
challenge the seed producers had faced was inadequate rain. Mrs. Gondwe informed the
meeting that she grew 10 hectares of maize, 3 hectares of beans, 3 hectares of groundnuts
and 2 hectares of soya during the 2010/11 season. She closed by saying that due to her
participation in the project she now receives many visitors at her farm.
Mr. Sydney Mhango, African Christian College seed grower from Swaziland, said the
institution he works for grew seed maize. They held a field day in April 2011. They faced the
challenge from guinea fowls and other bird damage to newly planted seed. This resulted in
increased labour effort of up to two weeks in guarding the field from bird damage. The other
challenge was the delay by seed services in inspecting the crop in the field. As a result,
some of the maize plants had fallen to the ground by the time they inspected it and some of
the seed had started to deteriorate in quality. Thirty five tonnes of seed was harvested.
Unfortunately, most of the seed maize was stolen by the time it was processed as less than
ten tonnes was finally marketed. The African Christian College sold all their maize to Farm
Chemicals who processed and marketed it under their brand name. Five tonnes has been
sold already. The other marketing channel has been sensitisation of NGOs to promote the
purchase of OPV seed.
Mrs. Getrude Zulu, a farmer from Zambia, informed the participants that participation in
HaSSP has enhanced the seed growers social standing. This was especially after the field
day that had many important visitors bringing substantial material support to the event. At a
personal level, they had generated income. This had personally enabled her to purchase a
double bed, two cows and a plough. She said that the farmers in local community preferred
branded seed as opposed to that produced by the seed growers. The reasons she provided
was that they had the perception that the seed grower’s seed was of poor quality and also
jealousy amongst their peers. She informed the meeting that a seed company SeedCo
requested to deal with the Community Seed Project implementation team in its participation
in purchasing the seed growers’ outputs. Mrs. Zulu asked that FANRPAN and SCCI ensure
they raise them to a level where they can stand on their own.
Mr. Hasios Hungwe, a farmer from Zimbabwe, informed the participants that they had
planted 0.5 hectares with seed and applied fertiliser that had been supplied by HaSSP. A
seed production field day had been held and the best two seed producers awarded with a
wheel barrow each. He said the seed growers faced a problem with marketing their seed.
5
This resulted in their bean seed being damaged by weevils by the time it was sold. Worse
still, the seed producers were not present when the seed was graded and weighed by their
client. As such, they were not sure how much of the seed was actually not quality seed by
the time their client had finished grading it. Mr Hungwe said the farmers had no option but
accept the little payment that was offered by their client as they had to purchase food and
pay school fees. He asked for the project implementors to provide closer supervision of the
seed growers. He further requested for more localised meetings with them instead of the
current trend wherein they meet at a central location. This created challenges for those living
further off in travelling to the meetings. He said the farmers faced a challenge in that the land
they had for cultivation was too small to undertake both seed production and grow crops for
home consumption. The other problem he mentioned was that failure to pay water bills
resulted in them failing to irrigate their crops.
11.0 Recap of Day 1 During the recap each of the participants answered the following question “What if the most
important thing that you learnt yesterday that you shall put to use in your life?
1. Link between the logframe and M&E
2. Kapiri Mposhi farmer’s request for FANRPAN and SCCI to ensure that farmers’ are
independent by close of project
3. The need to monitor and evaluate the project assumptions
4. There should be adequate time to research for a project during design phase
5. The cross country learning
6. The way some countries have incorporated a payback system into their processes
7. The way the HaSSP field team has elevated the rural community’s status by the
number of vehicles, important people and amount and quality of the materials made
available.
8. How the M&E frameworks enables tracking of progress
9. Seed production should be taken as a business unlike the grain production
10. The four countries seems to have a drive to implement the HaSSP but do not seem
to have a common vision of the future of the farmer
11. The discussion on service charters rekindled the desire to prepare one for her
institution
12. The importance of service charters
13. Projects should be designed capable of reacting to changing local circumstances
14. There is need to source a market for produce before the field is planted
15. Adequate time should be allocated towards defining the overall goal
16. The four countries are at different levels of progress in relation to the legislative
reform. There is therefore a need of a framework that assists them progress at
similar rates.
12.0 Planning concept and logic Mr. Chilufya presented the PowerPoint presentation on the programme/project logic that is
attached as Annex 12.
6
13.0 Introduction to Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Dr. Tshilidzi Madzivhandila presented the concepts of monitoring and evaluation; see Annex 13. He also facilitated group work on questions regarding the two topics.
13.1 Group work outputs on the M&E Concept The first group defined monitoring as the continuous internal management progress that
keeps track of what is happening in the project. The group further defined evaluation as the
measuring of impact, effectiveness of a projects at all levels.
The second group identified the following differences between monitoring and evaluation;
Monitoring Evaluation
Regular collection of data Evaluation specific periods
Decision making thought the course of the project
Judgement is done
The third group identified the following positive and negative aspects of monitoring and
evaluation
Positives Negatives
1. Ensure that the goals are achieved 2. Gives feedback and direction to the
project stakeholders 3. Platform for adjustments 4. Ensures proper resource allocation
1. Bring fear and pressure on implementors
2. Used to victimise individuals 3. Improper TORs may lead to bad
rating 4. Wrong person may give bad rating 5. Too straight jacketed/very rigid 6. Expensive
The fourth group identified the following as the major reasons for conducting M&E
Monitoring Evaluation
1. Check progress 2. Provide intervention on late activities 3. Collect data or reporting and
recorded
1. Check if objectives are met 2. Provide scope for future better
planning 3. Realise how effective resources have
been utilised.
13.2 Plenary outputs on the M&E presentation The plenary discussions are summarised as follows;
1. M&E is sometimes viewed as foreign/external to the organisation due to too much
involvement of external Consultants; not viewed as foreign when done by insiders; as
a spying tool; having too many indicators that makes data collection expensive and
laborious; and having inadequate resources allocated to it.
2. Most interested people in M&E are the funders and this makes it appear external to
the needs of the organisation.
3. There was a perception that outsiders participating in M&E undertake fault finding.
4. Project design should incorporate M&E in the regular project processes to reduce the
concerns raised above.
7
5. Be clear at the start of project on who participates in M&E and when it is done.
6. Project implementors should have adequate resources to monitor their performance.
7. It is informative to have an outsider provide M&E inputs into the programme form an
external point of view, as is the case for audits.
8. Integrate M&E into regular activities as opposed to making it separate of regular
administrative activities.
13.3 Rating of current participatory level of HaSSP. Further group work elected the groups’ rating of how participatory HaSSP M&E was. The
rating were 1 (least participatory) and 4 (very participatory)
One group gave a rating of 2, two groups gave a rating of 3 and one group gave a rating of
4.
The following are the explanations given for the rating;
The group that gave a rating of 2 were worried about low level of participation by the
private sector, SADC and farmers.
The two groups that gave a rating of 3 were concerned by the lack of planning for
M&E between the national level and project implementors; and the one way
collection and sending of information to the centre with those at the lowest level not
knowing what the information is used for. They further mentioned that they had
received in country M&E training where there was private sector participation.
Furthermore they mentioned that M&E is still developing for the project and has not
yet been fully grasped. However, they would have preferred training in M&E to have
started before project implementation. They further observed that sometimes the
responsibility for HaSSP M&E at the national level is not clear.
The one group that gave the rating of 4 responded that the project design provides
frequent contacts between countries and secretariat. However, the group observed
that the individual countries need to put their house in order
13.4 Recommendations for making HaSSP M&E more participatory The following suggestions were made in plenary on how to make HaSSP M&E more participatory;
1. Private sector participation 2. Ownership of the project by the seed growers should be emphasized 3. Motivate SADC part through lobbying form government 4. Awareness creation workshops should include the private sector to increase buy in
onto the project. It should not be assumed that the private sector shall automatically contribute to the programme through provision of inputs or marketing. The private sector should therefore be engaged early so that they make adequate arrangements to have them in stock as and when they are needed.
5. HaSSP is setting the stage for the private sector and farmers participation in harmonisation.
6. Need for inclusion of M&E in the national HaSSP workplans 7. Need for capacity building of all stakeholders that are involved 8. Assignment of responsibilities to partners 9. There should be feedback workshops on all evaluations or assessment that are
done. 10. Members countries should have consistent participation in HaSSP activities, e.g.,
attendance at workshops
8
11. Have collective M&E at the national level 12. HaSSP project continue good M&E works by involving farmer, NGOs and private
sector 13. Allocate more M&E resources human and financial at the national level 14. Develop logframes at the national levels for use in M&E
13.5 What participants appreciated about M&E The participants appreciated M&E in the following ways;
1. They now knew how M&E could be undertaken at the regional and national levels;
2. They appreciated that M&E is not a one person exercise. It requires that efforts are
harnessed at all level, i.e. regional, national and farmer level.
3. M&E is a tool that should be used otherwise loses its usefulness.
4. As compared to other disciplines, M&E is seemingly complicated. It is therefore either
that the discipline is complicated or its proponents have failed to teach others
effectively about it.
5. A deliberate effort should be undertaken to ensure that the people that shall collect
data fully understand their roles
14.0 Identification of information needs for reporting on HaSSP
indicators The HaSSP logframe and M&E matrix were used as a template for each county to revisit
their data collection needs. This process was undertaken in country groups and their outputs
were presented in plenary.
15.0 Recap of Day 2 During the recap, the Participants expressed the following as the lessons they had learnt the
previous day;
1. The participants have different perspectives about M&E
2. One positive aspect of M&E is that it provides direction to programme implementors
whilst one negative aspect is that if improperly applied it can be used to victimise
people.
3. An evaluation question can elicit different answers when applied to various groups of
people.
4. The project logic was much appreciated.
5. The application of participatory processes demystifies M&E.
6. Participatory M&E enables project processes to be transparent as all stakeholders
are involved.
7. Evaluation provides a framework of how we should move forward.
8. There is a need for a common vision of what a seed farmer is.
9. It is important to understand the relationship between participatory M&E and results
based budgeting.
10. In participatory M&E beneficiaries are active and not passive.
9
16.0 Presentations of the country data matrices. Each of the four countries presented the matrices they had prepared. The country
presentations are attached as Malawi (Annex ), Swaziland (Annex ), Zambia (Annex ) and
Zimbabwe (Annex )
The plenary comments common to them included the following;
1. Edit text to ensure that it fully captures the writer’s intentions on the statement of
objectives and indicators
2. Avoid complex indicators that require their own indicators for them to be measured
3. State goal as an end or have both the end and means.
4. Share existing data collection and reporting methodologies as adopted across
countries, e.g., data collection on balanced diet consumption patterns
5. All activities planned for should be in the monitoring in the M&E framework.
17.0 Proposed regional 2012 workplan Dr. Bellah Mpofu made a presentation on the proposed regional 2012 annual planning. The
participants made the following comments;
1. Participation of nationals is vital for programme implementation not primarily relying
on consultants. It should be established how flexible SDC towards re-orienting the
programme away from so such reliance on consultants.
2. The technical proposal on legislative reforms should include a national stakeholders’
meeting.
3. What do we want to see this project become.
4. Reduce the emphasis on maize as it is not a high value crop and other players have
made heavy investment into it development.
5. Have a vision of where the seed growers should be at the end of the project or at a
later point in time.
Arising from the last contribution above, some ideas were floated on what factor to take into
account when categorising the type of seed farmer that HaSSP should contribute towards
creating;
1. Land size
2. Financial capacity
3. Taking seed production as a business
4. Having resilience to continue seed production with or without the project and also to
cope with the dynamics of the seed sector.
5. Project implementors should have competency in entrepreneurship if they are to help
farmers grow into business people.
6. The seed growers should have the capacity to participate throughout the value chain.
18.0 Evaluations how to prepare for them and to be evaluated. Having addressed monitoring in detail, both in theory and hands on practice, effort was also
made to address evaluation in similar depth. Mr. Chilufya made the presentation attached as
Annex 14.
10
The participants highlighted the need for evaluation knowledge to be made available early in
project implementation so that it does not come as a surprise or seem externally driven
when it is conducted. The Participants also appreciated that the lessons learned from
evaluations could improve programming for future activities.
19.0 Reflections The participants were grateful for a well organised workshop and presentations. Farmers
were grateful for recognition and the efforts to improve their farm enterprises.
20.0 Close of workshop. Mr. Christopher Mthethwa, standing in for Mr. Ndlangamandla, expressed appreciation for
FANRPAN in choosing Swaziland as the host of the workshop. He had benefitted from the
participants’ comments, learnt about M&E and had fun. He appreciated the way that the
recap was undertaken as ensured that the participants do not forget what they learn. He
further hoped the participants had learnt a lot and shall put it to good use. Mr. Mthetwa
hoped the participants had taken the time to enjoy the Swazi hospitality and wished them
safe travel.
1
Annex 1: Workshop objectives
Harmonised Seed Security Project: M&E Workshop Objectives - Dr. Tshilidzi Madzivhandila;
Background
Objective 6 of HaSSP deals with M&E
• Therefore, M&E basic knowledge is crucial to the successful implementation, design,
monitoring and evaluation of HaSSP
• Training workshop in the four focal countries by Gregory Chanda Chilufya:
– Swaziland: 1-2 December 2010
– Zambia: 13-14 December 2010
– Malawi: 11-12 January 2011
– Zimbabwe: 13-14 January 2011
• Final M&E workshop reports and manual
– Submitted; 4th May, 2011
The framework suggests participatory M&E
Workshop Objectives
• Operationalize the HaSSP M&E training manual
• This Need a full understanding of:
– the project context/objectives/progress
• Core elements of HaSSP
– what is to be achieved (objectives impact)
• Assessment of impact (M&E)
– how to achieve measurable and sustainable results
• Implementation plans
Workshop Structure
A three-day interactive workshop will provide:
• Day 1: Introductions, Workshop Objectives, HaSSP M&E Framework, and Review of
HaSSP progress
2
• Day 2: Training in the fundamentals of Planning and M&E
– concepts, principles, tools and techniques
• Day 3: Developing HaSSP workplans for the next 12 month and the Field Trip
Workshop Format
Workshop Expectations
Levelling Expectations
What are your expectations for attending this Workshop?
1. Individually – Write 2 on your note pad (1 min.)
2. Around your table – Discuss them and develop a list of 5 (2 min)
3. A person to read the Table’s list
4. Plenary – Develop the workshop expectations list
– Noting similarities and differences
Review of the Program
Work Done So far
• What is “not so good” about the program?
• What is “good” about the program?
• What should be changed/improved?
Thank you
Facilitation
Plenary Presentations
Hands-on Group Work
3
Annex 2: Workshop programme
The Harmonised Seed Security Project (HaSSP) Monitoring and Evaluation Workshop
8-10 November
Ezulwini, Swaziland
Day and time Activity Facilitator
7th
November Arrival of Participants Workshop Planning Meeting: Co-facilitators
Dr. Tshilidzi Madzivhandila/ Mr. Gregory Chilufya
8th
November Introductions, Workshop Objectives and Review of HaSSP
08:14 - 08:30 Registration Ms. Sipiwe Mapanda
08:30 - 08:45 Welcome remarks
Introductions
Housekeeping
Mr. E. Ndlangamandla Dr. Bellah Mpofu Gregory Chilufya
08:45 – 09:15 Workshop objectives
Participants’ expectations
Review of workshop programme Plenary
Dr. Tshilidzi Madzivhandila
09:15 - 10:30 Presentation of the HaSSP M&E Framework
The concept of M&E framework and its relationship to the HaSSP Logframe;
Content of the HaSSP M&E Framework; and Plenary identifying links of national HASSP programmes
Mr. Gregory Chilufya
10:30-11:00 Group Photo and Tea break
11:00 – 11:30 Presentation of achievements of regional outputs.
Plenary on national participation, challenges, emerging issues and lessons learned
Dr. Bellah Mpofu
11:30 -13:00 Country Presentations: Policy Harmonization
Variety Release
Seed Certification
Quarantine and Phytosanitary measures for seed
Capacity building of personnel
Capacity building of the lead institutions
Malawi – Mr Misheck Soko
Swaziland – Mr. Christopher Mthethwa
Zambia- Dr. Catherine Mungoma
Zimbabwe – Ms. Praxedis Dube
13:00 - 14:00 Lunch break
14:00 – 15:30 Country Presentations: Community Seed Enterprise
Establishment/Strengthening of community seed enterprise
Capacity building of farmers
Capacity building of communities (seed processing and storage equipment)
Malawi – Mr. Nessimu Nyama Swaziland – Mr. Christopher Mthethwa Zambia – Dr. Francisco Miti Zimbabwe – Mr. Nelson Munyaka
4
15:30 - 16:00 Tea break
16:00 - 17:00 Feedback from farmers. Ms. Rose Gondwe Ms. Getrude Zulu Mr. Hasios Hungwe Mr. Kennedy Mhango
17:00 Close of day
9 November Monitoring and Evaluation Training
08:30 – 08:45 Recap of previous day Mr. Gregory Chilufya
08:45 – 10:30 Programme/Project Planning: Hierarchy of objectives
Group Exercises
Mr. Gregory Chilufya
10:30 – 10:45 Tea break
10:45 – 13:00 Introductory Concepts: Monitoring and Evaluation
Group Exercises
Dr. Tshilidzi Madzivhandila
13:00 – 14:00 Lunch break
14:00 – 15:30 Identification of information needs for reporting on HaSSP indicators
Instructions for the Group Work
National data collections matrix and plan – Group work
Dr. Tshilidzi Madzivhandila/ Dr. Gregory Chilufya
15:30 – 16:00 Tea break
16:00 – 17:00 Group exercises and presentations of countries’ data collections matrix and plan
Groups Report Back
17:00 Close of day
10 November
HaSSP Planning Session
08:15 -08:30 Recap of previous day Mr. Gregory Chilufya
08:30 – 10:30 Instructions for the Group Work
National consultations on 2012 workplans
Dr. Bellah Mpofu
10:30 – 10:45 Tea break
10:45 – 12:45 Presentation on proposed regional 2012 workplan
Presentations on draft national workplans o Plenary
Groups Report Back
Workshop evaluation
12:45 – 13:00 Close of workshop
Seed Elder/ Ministry of Agriculture
13:00 - 14:00 Lunch break
14:00 – 17:00 Field Trip: Malkerns Research Station Mr. Christopher Mthethwa
17:00 Close of Day
11 November Departure
5
Annex 3: List of workshop participants
Harmonized Seed Security Project (HaSSP) Monitoring and Evaluation workshop
Ezulwini Hotel, Swaziland
8-10 November 2011
No. Name Designation Organization Country Email Address Cell Phone Number
1. Connex Masankhindwe
Programme Officer
CISANET Malawi [email protected]
Box 203 Lilongwe
+265 995 204 355
2. Jimmy Mphozongo Phiri
AGRIC Co-ordinator
Ministry of Agriculture
Malawi Box 131 Lumbadzi, Dowa
+265 999 234 460
3. Rose Gondwe
Farmer ASSMAG Malawi Box 108 Lumbadzi
+265 999 291 863
4. Nessimu Nyama
ASSMAG Malawi [email protected] Box 30679 +265 999 580 354
5. Throne Mbundungu
Seed Officer Seed Services
Malawi [email protected]
Box 5748, Limbe
+265 999 252 888
6. Misheck Soko Chief Scientist
Agricultural Research
Malawi [email protected]
Box 5748 Limbe
+265 999 958 122
7. Sipiwe Mapanda
Programme Assistant
FANRPAN South Africa
+27 82 375 9506
8. Tshilidzi Madzivhandila
M&E Coordinator
FANRPAN South Africa
+27 71 741 7551
6
9. Bellah Mpofu Programme Manager
FANRPAN South Africa
+27 82 720 2465
10. Christopher Mthethwa
Officer in Charge
Seed Quality Control Services
Swaziland [email protected]
Box 14 Malkerns
+268 760 55866
11. Peter Khathwane
Assistant Extension Officer
Ministry of Agriculture
Swaziland Box 186 Lomahasha
+268 764 54387
12. Emmanuel Ndlangamandla
Director CANGO Swaziland [email protected]
Box 727 Mbabane
+268 760 24743
13. Sydney Mhango
Farmer Seed Grower
African Christian College
Swaziland [email protected] [email protected]
Box 331 Manzini Swaziland
+268 761 288872
14. Catherine Mungoma
Director Seed Control &Certification Institute
Zambia [email protected]
Box 35019 Chilanga
+260 966 764 822
15. Mable M. Simwanza
Chief Seeds Officer
Seed Control & Certification Institute
Zambia [email protected]
+260 977 783 943
16. Masiye Nawiko
Programme Manager
ACF Zambia [email protected]
P/Bag 16 Woodlands
+260 966 455 696
17. Brenda Mweemba
TRA MACO/ ZARI Zambia [email protected]
Bag 7 Chilanga
+260 977 256 902
18. Gregory C. Chilufya
consultant Zambia [email protected]
+260 772 700 267
19. Francisco Miti Chair Seed Officer
SCCI Zambia [email protected]
SCCI Box 350199 Chilanga
+260 955 999 306
7
20. Getrude Zulu Farmer Pacheche Zambia Box 80237 +260 979 443 146
21. Kanyata Muchula
SAO Ministry of Agriculture
Zambia [email protected] Box 810233 Kapiri Mposhi
+260 977 799 980
22. Praxedis Dube
Principal Research Officer
Seed Services
Zimbabwe [email protected]
Box CY550 Causeway Harare
+263 733 383 510
23. Shingirayi Nyamutukwa
Acting Head Plant Quarantine Services
Zimbabwe [email protected] / [email protected]
24. Delia Chisenga
Seed Technologist
Seed Services
Zimbabwe [email protected]
CY550 Causeway Harare
+263 772 738 063
25. Tambudzai Muchokomori
Seed Technologist
Seed Services
Zimbabwe [email protected]
CY550 Causeway Harare
+263 773 385 653
26. Hasios Hungwe
Farmer Zimbabwe [email protected]
Bag 28 Zaka +263 772 243 715
27. Kennedy Pedzisai
DAEO AGRITEX Zimbabwe [email protected]
Bag 342 Zaka +263 774 362 867
28. Nelson Munyaka
Crops & Seeds specialist
GRM - SAMP Zimbabwe [email protected]
14 Natal road Belgravia Hre
+263 775 470 205
29. Isaiah Mharapara
CEO Node Coordinator
Agricultural Research Council
Zimbabwe [email protected]
79 Harare Drive Marlborough
+263 776 161 977
8
Annex 4: HaSSP Regional Progress Report
By Dr. Bellah Mpofu
Challenges and Constraints
Low agricultural productivity is a major challenge amongst smallholder farmers due in
part to:
Low access to technology
4 % of African smallholder farmers use improved seed
Africa’s seed trade amounts to less than 2% of the global seed trade
Poor input and output market linkages and marketing information
unstructured markets, disorganised supply chains, erratic price fluctuations
Seed Security in SADC
Challenge
In SADC farmers remain seed insecure due in part to
different seed laws and regulations,
procedures which hinder the timely movement of seed across borders
Solution
Harmonization of seed policies, laws, regulations and procedures into a unified
strategy with the aim of increasing the flow of seed across national borders.
Impact
This will increase the choice of quality seed available to farmers, leading to
increased productivity, income and food security.
9
SADC Seed Security Network Project
Launch
SSSN 1 was launched in July 2001 as a unit within the Food, Agriculture and Natural
Resources (FANR) directorate of the SADC secretariat
Aim
To contribute to policy dialogue and formulation, culminating in elimination of trade barriers
that are hindering intra-regional seed trade.
Funding
From 2004-2006 the Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation (SDC) successfully
funded SSSN 1.
Outputs of the SADC Seed Security Network
A Harmonised Seed Regulatory system with 3 components
i. Variety registration and release-to increase the choice of varieties available to
farmers;
ii. Seed certification and quality control-to improve seed quality and allow more
efficient movement of seed in the region; and
10
iii. Phytosanitary and quarantine measures for seed- to enhance safer and faster
movement of seed
iv. Often time regional protocols are developed but not implemented.
What FANRPAN is Doing?
The Harmonised Seed Security Project (HaSSP)
FANRPAN is conducting a pilot project to ensure that the regional protocol on seed
policy harmonization is domesticated and implemented in order to benefit farmers.
Project Purpose: Domesticating and implementing the SADC Harmonised Seed Regulatory
System in four pilot countries
Malawi, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe
Project Goal: To contribute to improved food security of smallholder farmers in the SADC
region through increased availability of and access to improved seed
Duration: Four years (2010 – 2013)
Funding: Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation (SDC)
Project Objectives
1. Alignment of variety release policies;
2. Alignment of seed certification policies; and
3. Alignment of phytosanitary policies in four Member States with SADC protocols.
4. Strengthening of seed certification facilities.
5. Assessment of institutional and individual capacity needs, and capacity strengthening along
the seed value chain.
Implementation Arrangements
Working in partnership with
National Seed Authorities and Institutions: SSU – Malawi, SQCS- Swaziland, SCCI –
Zambia, SS –Zimbabwe
National Plant Protection Organizations:
Plant Quarantine and Phytosanitary Service- Malawi, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe
National Seed Trade Associations and Private Sector: STAM, ZASTA, ZSTA, SANSOR,
GRM International, ASSMAG
11
Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) : CISANET, CANGO, ACF
Research Institutions: ARC, CIMMYT
Committee of HaSSP Seed Elders
Project Status
Objective I:
Alignment of variety release policies in four Member States with SADC Protocols
Swaziland
• 17 officers were trained in Distinctness, Uniformity and
Stability testing (DUS) and Value for cultivation and Use (VCU)
• Aim
a) to increase their understanding in variety trial management, data collection, analysis and
reporting for the purposes of conducting VCU tests; and
b) to capacitate them to conduct valid DUS tests on maize.
Zimbabwe
• 26 participants from seed companies; Seed Services; Research Institutes; University ;
Farmers Union and Agricultural Extension Service were trained in DUS & VCU testing.
• The outputs of the training workshops were:
a) a shared understanding of the requirements of the SADC Variety Release protocol;
b) a shared understanding of the theory behind DUS and VCU testing; and
c) a practical understanding of how to conduct DUS tests.
Objective I:
Alignment of variety release policies in four Member States with SADC Protocols
• The First HaSSP Variety Release Sub-Committee meeting was held on the 14th and 15th of
July 2011 in Harare.
• The meeting focused on the SADC Variety Release System whose purpose is to make it easier
for new and existing seed varieties to gain access to SADC countries.
• The purpose of the meeting was to initiate seed variety release policy analysis, review and
amendment so as to align national legislation and practice to the SADC protocol.
12
Gaps and essential requirements to be addressed for implementation of the SADC Variety Release System
Country GAPS ESSENTIALS
Swaziland No DUS system in place
VCU Testing for three years
No charges for Variety Release
Initiate DUS system
Capacitate human resources to do DUS testing
Reduce VCU testing requirements to two-years
Malawi No regularisation of the SADC MOU
No DUS system in place
VCU Testing for three years
No timelines for implementation
Align HaSSP and SPEAR
Initiate DUS system
Reduce VCU testing requirements to two-years
Constitute a Variety Release Committee
Establish/recognise the National Seeds Authority
13
Gaps and essential requirements to be addressed for implementation of the SADC Variety Release System
Country GAPS ESSENTIALS
Zambia • No annual fees for maintenance of varieties on
national list
• Change national regulations to recognise SADC variety
releases
• Little emphasis on minor crops
• Variety Catalogue to be improved and harmonised
• Completion/publication of the Statutory Instrument
on Variety Release that is in accordance with SADC
Variety Release System
Zimbabwe • Agro-ecological zones need to be defined and
harmonised
• No allowances for Variety Release Committee
• Weak capacity of Seed Trade Associations
• Institutionalisation of the Variety Release Committee
(to minimise lack of representation from stakeholders)
• Monitoring tool for variety releases
• Review and update Statutory Instruments and Seed
Regulations in accordance with the SADC Variety
Release System
• Awareness creation amongst stakeholders
• Training of Variety Release Committee members
• Installation of Variety Catalogue database
14
Practical Training on how to Run the Seed variety release management software (Oct)
The training was conducted at Chitedze Research Station for the Malawi Team under the
SPEAR Project.
Funding was provided for two participants from Swaziland and two from Zimbabwe to
participate in the training session in Malawi to ensure harmonisation in the variety release
systems.
Objective II:
Alignment of seed certification policies in four Member States with SADC protocols
Seed certification Audit
• FANRPAN commissioned an audit of the seed certification institutions in the 4 pilot
countries.
• Audit results showed that all the 4 pilot countries are not yet ready to implement the SADC
protocol on Seed Certification and Quality Control due to limitations in terms of technical,
equipment and institutional capacity.
HaSSP Regional Seed Certification Meeting:
• 22 participants participated in the meeting from 30 August to 1 September in Pretoria,
South Africa.
• The outcomes of the meeting were:
-Development of a draft training curriculum for capacity building of seed analysts and seed
inspectors; and
-Development of a road map for domestication of the SADC protocol on seed certification.
15
Seed certification audits
Country Malawi Swaziland Zambia Zimbabwe
No. of satellite labs 3 0 5 0
Amount of seed
tested/year in MT
20 000 6 000 55 000 36 000
Legislation To amend To amend To amend To amend
Staffing levels Not adequate Not adequate Adequate Adequate
Training Training needed No training program Refresher courses
needed.
No training manuals
Seed classes(5) 4 7 7 4
16
Seed certification audits (cont)
Country Malawi Swaziland Zambia Zimbabwe
Official labels None None None None
Certificates None None None None
SADC Seals None None None None
Electronic data base None None None None
Post control tests Yes None Yes Yes?
Lab equipment Most equipment is
out-dated.
Ovens not working.
Table germinators,
incubation chambers,
grinding mill and
moisture meter.
Fume hood too small
Seed blower; table
germinator, fume
hood, and
sieves.
Germination chambers,
and
planting substrate.
Purity analysis room too
small.
Handbooks ISTA rules None ISTA rules ISTA rules
17
Objective III: Alignment of phytosanitary policies in four Member States with SADC protocols
FANRPAN commissioned a Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation (PCE) study in HaSSP pilot countries
during August 2011.
Objective:
Conduct a system wide PCE of the NPPOs to cover the physical auditing of the complete
system relating to seed.
Evaluate the readiness of the countries to implement the SADC protocol on Quarantine and
Phytosanitary Measures for seed
Visit at least one port of entry in each country to assess capacity to implement the
requirements of the SADC protocol
Conduct a training needs assessment.
The results of the PCE study will enable FANRPAN to identify institutional and human capacity gaps
and training needs of the NPPOs.
Objective IV: Strengthening of seed certification facilities
Vehicles Procured Under HaSSP
Country Partner Vehicle Type
Malawi Seed Services Unit Ford ranger XLT Double cab
4x4
Swaziland Seed Quality Control
Services
Toyota Hilux Double cab 3.0 D
4X4
Zambia Seed Control and
Certification Institute
Toyota Hilux Double cab 3.0 D
4X4
Zimbabwe Seed Services Toyota Hilux Double cab 2.5L
D 4X4
18
HaSSP Community Seed Enterprises
FANRPAN partners: ASSMAG in Malawi;
SCCI in Zambia;
GRM International in Zimbabwe;
SQCS in Swaziland;
mobilized and trained smallholder farmers to participate in Action Research.
The objective of the activity was to establish and strengthen community based small scale
seed production enterprises.
The HaSSP budget has a provision to finance this activity for another 2 seasons.
HaSSP Field Days
1. HaSSP Field Day in Zaka, Zimbabwe
2. HaSSP Field Day in Kapiri Mposhi , Zambia
3. HaSSP Field Day in Tubungu, Swaziland
4. HaSSP Field Day in Mvera, Malawi
FARMER SEED PROCESSING EQUIPMENT PROCURED
Country Seed equipment description Date paid Seed Storage
Malawi Seed cleaner
Seed sorter
Seed dresser
20 April 2011 Renting
19
FARMER SEED PROCESSING EQUIPMENT PROCURED
Country Seed equipment description Date paid Seed Storage (CRIBS)
Swaziland Concrete mixer
Maize Seed Thresher/ Sheller
Plastic sealer Model:S2165
6 measuring wheels Model C2561
29 June 2011
13 May 2011
Diamond Mesh
Treated poles
Roofing screens
4mm plain wire
nails
Treated beam
Flat sheet
FARMER SEED PROCESSING EQUIPMENT PROCURED
Country Seed equipment description Date paid Seed Storage
Zimbabwe 1* Volumetric bag
2* Heat sealers
5* Electronic scale
1* sewing machine
Manual revolving drum
(groundnut seed)
Manual grader (beans and
groundnut)
Manual seed cleaner
(groundnut and beans)
20 April 2011
29 June 2011
Fuve Panganai community
shed
GRM international
requested from SDC use
of 8500USD to renovate
the Fuve Panganai
community shed for seed
storage
Zambia None purchased Rental quotations awaited
by FANRPAN.
20
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
M & E Training Workshops were conducted in all 4 pilot countries.
Objectives:
• Sensitise partners on M&E concepts as relevant to HaSSP; and
• Draft a simplified M&E framework for each of the countries.
An M&E Manual was developed for use in the project.
Standardisation of seed testing
Standardisation in seed quality assessments is one way through which regional seed trade
will be able to understand and interpret the guarantees regarding seed quality, specified for
seed lots traded between various countries.
When seed is traded, it may be tested in different laboratories and it is important that all
laboratories should use standard methods, designed to give universally the same result
within an acceptable range.
The result of a test should be a fair measure of its quality and the test should be made by
such methods that other laboratories testing like samples can reproduce the results.
ISTA Rules for Seed Testing Amendments Analyst Training Workshop in Pretoria (Nov)
To meet this objective a 2-day workshop was conducted at the official seed testing station in
South Africa. (Pamela Strauss)
Two seed analysts were funded to participate in the workshop from each of the pilot
countries
The workshop focused on the amendments to the ISTA rules for 2012 as follows:
Chapter 2 – Sampling
Chapter 3 - Purity analysis
Chapter 4 – Determination of other seed by number
Chapter 6 – The tetrazolium test and
Chapter 9 – Determination of moisture content
ISTA Rules for Seed Testing Amendments Analyst Training Workshop in Pretoria (Nov)
In addition practical sessions were carried out on:
21
Evaluation of maize seedlings with coleoptile defects
Evaluation of the root system of seedling group e.g. Lolium spp.
Rounding results in the germination test; and
Using the ISTA germination calculator from the ISTA website
Submission of HaSSP coordination reports by Nodes
Country 1st quarter 2nd quarter 3rd quarter 4th quarter
Malawi + +
Swaziland +
Zambia
Zimbabwe + +
Scaling up of the Project
Tanzania and Mozambique have requested for assistance in domesticating the SADC seed
protocol.
On 26 May 2011 FANRPAN received a formal request from the Permanent Secretary of the
Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Mozambique expressing Mozambique’s readiness
to commence the domestication` of the SADC seed protocols and requested FANRPAN to
link them with development partners.
The two countries are expected to participating in aspects of the project after the mid-term
review planned for early next year.
Next Steps: 2011-2012
During the next period the focus will be on:
Re-alignment of seed legislation – Domestication of the SADC Seed Regulatory System
(Seed Policy Review – FAO)- awaited.
22
National information/consultation meetings
Plant Variety Workshop- 23-24 November
Capacity building along the seed value chain
Policy training
Strengthening of community seed production enterprises.
Review and learning workshops.
Mid-term review during the next quarter.
THANK YOU
23
Annex 5: Malawi - Update on Variety Release System, Seed Certification and Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures, Progress Report May 2010 – October 2012
VARIETY RELEASE
• Malawi does not yet have the legislation for the awarding of plant variety protection - NO
permit for plant breeders to protect intellectual property rights.
• Malawi Plant Breeders’ Rights Act drafted but yet to be enacted.
• Draft with Ministry of Justice and Constitutional affairs.
Observation and Output
• The is a disparity with the SADC protocol – administrative
• No variety release committee – Agric. Tech. Clearing Com. (ATCC)
• ATCC has the mandate under its functions to “develop strategies and a framework of action
for approving agricultural technologies.”
• Does not provide the best forum for effective evaluation of varieties
• Proposal made to the ATCC to incorporate the VRC in its structure – yet to presented
• SPEARS project through Assistance from Iowa State University helping
Capacity building on variety release
• Software for registration of varieties developed and installed.
• Training conducted on use of the soft ware.
• Public and private sector trained
• Breeders, secretariat of ATCC and Seed Services Unit trained on the
use of the soft ware.
Seed Certification
• Gaps in the Malawi seed certification system compared to the SADC system
identified
• Gaps identified
• Seed certification standards
24
• Laboratory seed testing standards
• A meeting held in October 2011 to sensitize staff on the SADC system and national
system
• Staff introduced to the SADC manual for seed certification
• A review of the standards and regulations has just commenced
Capacity building
• SSU staff trained on the use of international rules for seed testing organized by the
Seed Testing Station in Pretoria.
• Need for capacity building of personnel in seed certification
25
•
Variety Release System in Malawi
Breeders (public/private) conduct trials
1st cycle candidates
on RS crop/AEZ based
2nd cycle candidates on RS /Farm
Controller of seed evaluate
candidates varieties
DUS/VCU
ATCC Secretariat sends
information to members 2
weeks in advance and
convene meeting
Breeder/applicant applies
to release to ATCC with
letter and data
information
Does ATCC
approve the
variety?
Variety released and
registered National List of AT
Yes
ATCC Secretariat
send memo to
Ministry of AG.
Ministry of AG.
approved the
variety through a
gazette
Format of variety
performance
report
ATCC meeting
Breeder
presents v.
Variety rejected
Breeder applies to pre-variety
release to Controller of seed
VR section
Is the variety
approved?
Can variety
be re-tested?
No
No
Yes
No
DUS/VCU data
Report of
Controller of Seed
DUS VCU format
Pre-release
application form
Release
application form
Yes
Variety to be released
VARIE
TY RE
LEAS
E COM
MITTE
E
CONT
ROLL
ER OF
SEED
26
Quarantine and Phytosanitary measures
• The Plant Protection Act of 1969 is outdated
• Regulations and procedures including pest lists to update need review
• There is need to provide infrastructural facilities and equipment at entry points and
• training of Plant Health Inspectors to enhance monitoring of seed movement.
Progress to date
• Review included definitions and operational principles – Declaration of ALPP, PFA,
and removal of pest list from the Act.
• Proposal for establishment of the NPPO as a separate entity… for sustainability
• Incorporation of the Regional protocols
Progress to date
• Review of the Act started through funding by the EU to align out Act with the WTO-
SPS Agreement and the IPPC – from which the Regional protocol is drawn.
• External consortium (SAGEROM SA) hired through international bidding.
• Validation workshops done – to sent to Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs
this week
Challenges
• Resources to do the pest list review
• Due to lack of appropriation provision resources for operations in the sea
• Training of our inspectorate in PRA, Diagnostics
• Shortfall
27
Annex 6: Swaziland - Seed Policy Harmonisation Progress Report
SEED POLICY HARMONISATION – SWAZILAND
PRESENTED BY CHRISTOPHER MTHETHWA
VARIETY RELEASE (1/2)
• Variety release in Swaziland is in accordance to the “Seeds and Plant Varieties Act,
2000”.
• According to the Act, a variety may be recognized if –
it is by reason of any import characteristics, clearly distinguishable from any other
variety of the same kind of plant of which the existence is a matter of common
knowledge;
it is sufficiently homogeneous having regard to the particular features of sexual
reproduction or vegetative propagation;
it is stable with regard to its essential characteristics and remains true to the
description thereof after repeated reproduction or propagation.
VARIETY RELEASE (2/2)
• Currently, only the VCU is conducted by the DARSS, there is no DUS conducted.
The SQCS was tasked with the responsibility of conducting the DUS.
• It was agreed that SQCS will work hand in hand with DARSS i.e. while DARSS will
be concentrating on VCU, SQCS will be conducting the DUS.
• The main challenge in conducting the DUS is the shortage of staff members at
SQCS, only two seed inspectors and one analyst.
• Concerning the alignment of the Act to the SADC Protocol, the country is half-way
through with the amendment of the 2002 Regulations.
SEED CERTIFICATION (1/4)
• According to the “Seeds and Plant Varieties Act, 2000”, the Minister of Agriculture
may by notice in the Gazette establish a scheme for the certification of seeds to
maintain the quality of the seeds and ensure the usefulness for agricultural or
industrial purposes of the products.
• Different schemes may be established for seeds of different kinds of plants and the
requirements for different kinds of varieties of plants, may differ.
• The Minister may recognize certification schemes in other countries to be of equal or
higher standard than the certification schemes established under this Act and may, in
such cases, recognize seed produced under such schemes as imported certified
seed.
28
• The Minister may, at any time by notice in the Gazette, amend or revoke a scheme.
SEED CERTIFICATION (2/4)
• The Minister may, in a notice designate the Seed Quality Control Services to be the
authority which shall exercise the powers, perform the functions and carry out the
duties conferred upon, assigned to or imposed upon such an authority under a
scheme.
• During the Seed Certification Sub – committee Meeting, the country developed a
work plan which is as follows:
ISTA membership/accreditation - No need to be accredited at the moment because
the country is not exporting any seed. Another reason is that the country cannot
afford to pay the fees involved because of financial constraints
SEED CERTIFICATION (3/4)
• Seed Testing quality manual – the development of the manual is almost through.
• Inadequate personnel – recruitment of at least one seed inspector and one seed
analyst. Recruitment process of the seed analyst is underway; it seems that she will
be the only one to join SQCS.
• Internal training programme – still to be developed.
• Calibration of equipment – the Ministry of Commerce has already been requested to
calibrate the equipment. The Ministry promised to calibrate the equipment very soon.
SEED CERTIFICATION (4/4)
• Align the “Seeds and Plant Varieties Regulations” to SADC Protocol – the process is
half – way through (only the Regulations will be aligned).
• Inadequate personnel is a major challenge.
QUARANTINE AND PHYTOMEASURES FOR SEED
• Consultants commissioned by FANRPAN visited the country to assess NPPO
capacity in dealing with phytosanitary and quarantine measures.
• They consulted with the following: Head of DARSS which houses the NPPO, seed
dealers (Seed-Co), Seed Registrar, Head of NPPO and met the P.S. – agric.
• Facilities assessed and inspected included: post – entry plant quarantine facility –
laboratories, offices and green house; border post facility (Ngwenya).
• They interviewed some border post officials on procedures, communication facilities
and record - keeping
29
QUARANTINE AND PHYTOMEASURES FOR SEED
• The process of the review of the Plant Control Act is on – going, there is now the
Plant health Protection Bill.
• It is expected that the Regulations of this Bill will take into account the SADC
Protocol.
CAPACITY BUILDING OF PERSONNEL
• There is a serious shortage of staff for both seed certification and phytosanitary
measures.
• At the SQCS, there is only one seed analyst and two seed inspectors. At the plant
quarantine facility, there is only one officer.
• The seed analyst attended a Seed Training Workshop in Pretoria recently.
• Internal training programme for both the seed analysts and inspectors will be
developed very soon.
CAPACITY BUILDING OF THE LEAD INSTITUTION
• HaSSP bought a vehicle for the SQCS instead of laboratory equipment (Toyota Hilux
D4D 4x4).
•
• THANK YOU.
30
Annex 7: Zambia - Seed Policy Harmonisation Progress Report May 2010 – October
2011
INTRODUCTION
• Seed Control and Certification Institute (SCCI) implements the
Plant Variety and Seeds Act (CAP 236) and the Plant Breeders Rights
Act (Act no. 17 of 2007) of the Laws of Zambia
• The goal of SCCI is to ensure that the seeds and plant varieties
offered for sale to the public is of the highest quality
• In order to achieve the goal, the SCCI does the following:
Variety Testing, Registration and Release
Seed Inspections and
Seed Testing
All the above activities are currently being done based on the national seed and agricultural
policy and taking into account, national regulations
UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS
A. VARIETY RELEASE
A Project called: Seed Policy Enhancement in African Regions (SPEAR) is preparing
Zambia for domestication of the SADC Technical Agreement on Seed Variety Release
System
• Project was Launched: September 2010
• Project end: September 2013
• National Advisory Council – Policy body: SCCI is Secretariat
• Commission – implementing body of the project : SCCI is Secretariat
Objective 1: Streamlining the Variety Release System Executed by SCCI
1.- Establish variety release regulations based on the procedure manual agreed upon by
the region
2.- Update national variety release data management
3.- Build capacity for variety testing
4.- Facilitate the registration of existing and new varieties
Objective 2: Enhancement of Genetics Access and Transfer
Executed by Zambia Seed Trade Association (ZASTA)
31
1.- Develop a Genetic Access and Transfer Scheme (GATS)
2.- Enhance the licensing of new varieties between NAROs and seed companies
3.- Improve the licensing of new material between private genetics providers and seed companies
Progress
Objective 1: Streamlining the Variety Release System
1. Establish variety release regulations based on the procedure manual agreed upon by the
region
Checked for conformity of Zambia’s Regulations to those of SADC
Generally compliant: Statutory Instrument being prepared to recognize International
Agreements on Seed variety Release
2. Update national variety release data management
Private and public personnel trained by ISU in use of SADC software
Software updated twice
Software being used for National Variety Release System
3. Build capacity for variety testing
VRC trained
Public and private researchers trained in variety testing (DUS and VCU)
4.Facilitate the registration of existing and new varieties
Registration of new varieties is facilitated by SPEAR
Two VRC meetings per year
The 2011 variety register is being printed into a booklet by SPEAR
Objective 2: Enhancement of Genetics Access and Transfer
1. Develop a Genetic Access and Transfer Scheme (GATS)
Baseline of the Genetics Access and Transfer has been done
Zambia is now developing the GATS
32
2. Enhance the licensing of new varieties between NAROs and seed companies
Training on licensing of germplasm done by ISU or public and private personnel
3.Improve the licensing of new material between private genetics providers and seed companies
Awaits the GATS
Varieties Released
The following are some of the activities under taken and their outputs: -
165 varieties were evaluated for DUS and VCU
23 varieties were released (11 rainfed and 12 irrigated)
64 varieties were post - controlled
Varieties released – in 2010 and 2011
Crops 2010 2011
Maize 8 9
Sorghum
Pearl Millet
Finger millet
Wheat 4
Rice
Barley
Bambara
Beans 1 2
Cowpea 1
Soybean 1
Pigeon pea
33
Castor
Gnuts
Sunflower 1
Guar
Cotton 1
Potato 7
Cassava
Sweet Potato
Tobacco 6
Pea
Total 18 23
SEED CERTIFICATION
• Nothing much has been done in relation to harmonization
• Audit exercise was conducted early this year
• System is in compliance with SADC requirements in most aspects
• A few gaps identified will be considered during the planned workshop to be conducted
this month to review the current regulations
• Workshop will be financed by government
Hectarage registered and inspected (rainfed)
34
Crop Registered ha Ha Inspected Ha Rejected Withdrawn Downgraded % of Crops
Inspected
Beans 657.65 174.5 0.5 24.5 0 26.5
Cotton 46,280 5,007 21 2 0 10.8
Cowpeas 276.75 0.75 0 0 0 0.3
Cucumber 1 1 0 0 0 100.0
Groundnuts 1,434.345 292.5 11 3.25 0 20.4
Impwa 6.5 0 0 0 0 0.0
Irish Potato 6 6 0 0 0 100.0
Maize 11,445.4 9,035.05 191.75 5 20 78.9
Okra 1.47 1.37 0 0 0 93.2
Pearl millet 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.0
Rice 54.25 4 0 0 0 7.4
Sorghum 108.25 0 0 0 0 0.0
Soyabeans 1104 688.5 30.03 0 0 62.4
35
Sunflower 140.75 37 13 0 0 26.3
Sun hemp 10 0 0 0 0 0.0
Sweet potato 9.1 0 0 0 0 0.0
Tobacco 21.5 16.5 0 0 0 76.7
Velvet beans 5 0 0 0 0 0.0
Total 61,640.215 15,267.17 267.28 34.75 20 24.8
36
Hectarage registered and inspected (Winter/irrigated crops)
Crop
Registered
ha
Ha
Inspected
Ha
Rejected Withdrawn Downgraded
% of Crops
Inspected
Barley 84 0 0 0
Beans 105 0 0 0 0 0
Rape 1 0 0 0 0 0
Rice 22 0 0 0 0 0
Wheat 548 30 0 0 0 5.5
Total 760 30 0 0 20 3.95
Other activities:
The SCCI held a workshop to repeal and replace the Law governing seed issues in the
country in July 2010.
This opportunity was therefore used to incorporate technical agreements on the
harmonization of the SADC seed regulations in the country’s seed law with respect to seed
classes and minimum standards,
The current standards for Zambia are not significantly different from the SADC standards
and hence the changes will not be very dramatic.
For example, the SADC standards stipulates 5
seed certification classes and Zambia has essentially the same number.
Plans are under way to hold another workshop this month to consider the Statutory
Instruments for the seed law.
This opportunity will be used to infuse the specific details of the SADC certification
standards.
• SCCI is implementing the HaSSP community seed project and the seed that was produced
is in a class which is among the seed classes in the SADC standards (Quality Declared Seed).
• Seed sampling and testing were done according to the International Seed testing
Association (ISTA) rules as required by the SADC standards.
37
• SCCI is at the moment in a process of reviewing the training programme for the licensing
of seed industry personnel and the SADC requirements are being given the due attention.
QUARANTINE AND PHYTOSANITORY MEASURES FOR SEED
Not much has been done to prepare this for implementation of the technical agreement
CAPACITY BUILDING OF PERSONNEL
Seed Variety Release System (under SPEAR project)
40 personnel (private and private) trained in DUS and VCU as per SADC Agreement
20 personnel (public and private) trained in data base and use of the SADC software in DUS
and VCU purposes
12 members of the Variety Release Committee
capacitated in the SADC Variety release procedures 22 personnel (public and private) trained
in licensing of varieties
Seed Certification
50 farmers trained in seed production financed by FANRPAN.
Two Seed Analysts attended the course on seed testing training provided by SA government
lab and financed by FANRPAN.
CAPACITY BUILDING OF LEADING INSTITUTIONS
Seed Variety Release System
a) Institutions trained:
a) SCCI, ZARI, UNZA, CDT, Seed companies
b) Training:
• DUS and VCU
• use of SADC software for DUS and VCU
• variety licensing
• SADC variety release procedure
38
Annex 8: Zimbabwe - Seed Policy Harmonisation Progress Report
Seed Policy Harmonization, MONITORING AND EVALUATION WORKSHOP, 8-10
NOVEMBER, 2011, Praxedis Dube, Seed Services and Plant Quarantine Services
Department of Research & Specialist Services, Min. of Agriculture, Mechanization &
Irrigation Development
Seed Services Background
INTRODUCTION
Certification in Zimbabwe started early 60s
Seeds Act, 1965 (Chapter 133)
Seed Regulations, 1971 (Rhodesia Government Notice No. 661 of 1971)
Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, 1973 (Chapter 115)
Unit with DR & SS- established in 1950 to save:
• Rhodesia Seed Maize Association
• Rhodesia Seed Potato Association
• Rhodesia Tobacco Seed Association
• Tobacco Research Board (Breeding)
Variety Release (Seed Services)
DUS: Distinct, Uniformity and Stable
PBR: Plant Breeders’ Rights
VCU: Value for Cultivation and Use
Variety Release Process
Listing the variety in Second Schedule
Statistics
Variety list: Agronomic Crops
White maize 85
Yellow maize 18
Wheat 17
39
Soyabeans 17
Cotton 14
Tobacco 13
Potato (Irish) 9
Other Crops 92
Seed Certification (Seed Services)
It’s a legal requirement of the Seeds Legislation (Seed Certification Scheme Notice
2000).
The certification process:
1. Seed Crop Registration
2. Seed Crop Inspections
3. Seed Testing
4. Marketing
Statistics - Crop list: Agronomic Crops
A total of 26 302ha registered (15 853ha inspected and 253ha rejected) 2010; 45 089ha (21
620ha inspected and 386ha rejected) 2011 various agronomic Crops of which four types top
on the list with more hectares registered and inspected are:
2010 2011
Cotton 10 000 4 870 28 000 10 150
Maize 11 336 8 099 12 367 8 472
Wheat 1 150 750 1 564 712
Soyabean 956 460 774 415
Other crops 2 860 1 674 2 384 1 871
Statistics - Crop list: Agronomic Crop seed samples
A total of 2 212 in 2010, 1950 in 2011 seed samples of various agronomic tested for
purity and germination of which five types top on the list with more seed samples
tested are:
2010 2011
• Maize 500 475
40
• Cotton 378 273
• Tobacco 143 255
• Wheat 93 119
• Soyabean 38 50
• Other crops 998 828
Capacity building of personnel
Seed Services mandate:
• To train and register seed dealers (sellers), register seed testing labs and
seed companies
• To provide advisory services
• To train seed inspectors & analysts
• To train seed growers
Objectives:
• To improve the technical capacity of seed companies’ staff through regular
training workshops on seed technology
• To train seed and agro-dealers on seed handling issues to ensure the quality
of the seed is maintained right through till is offered to farmers
Trainee List: Seed Company Technicians
Eight different seed companies participated in 2011:
2010 2011
• Quton - 3
• TRB - 3
• Prime Seeds - 3
• Seed Potato Co-op- 2
• Arda Seeds - 2
• Pristine Seeds - 1
• Seed Co - 1
• Pannar - 1
41
Trainee List: Seed Analysts
Four different seed companies participated in 2011:
2010 2011
• Quton - 2
• TRB - 2
• Seed Co - 2
• NTS - 1
Trainee List: Seed and agro-dealers
Two provinces so far had been trained:
2010 2011
• Mash Central - 30
• Mash East - 36
Trainee List: Seed growers
One province so far had been trained (HaSSP):
2010 2011
• Masvingo - 125
Capacity building for Seed Services
Objectives:
• To improve the technical capacity staff through regular training workshops on
seed technology (Internationally, Regionally and Locally)
Thirty-seven Seed Services staff drawn from different levels were trained on different
aspects:
2010 2011
• Seed Analysts 6 11
42
• SA. Ass. - 9
• T A - 9
• S. Technologists 2 7
• Acc. Assistant 1 1
Challenges
Currently, we have a strong seed industry compared to what we had in 1980-2000.
Increasing seed companies and traders after 2000.
1980-2000 After 2000
Private Seed Co. 11 26
Parastatal Seed Co. 1 3
Private Breeding Co. 4 4
Public Breeding Inst. 2 2
Parastatal Breeding Inst. 1 2
Registered Seed Dealers +1 500 350
New Seed Dealers under train- 800
Widening of seed grower base due to land distribution through introduction of new players
dotted around the country.
Challenges cont.
International –obligations
Representation- National, Regional and International working groupings
• Development and validation of seed testing methodologies promoting
uniformity in seed testing
• Development of Seed schemes through OECD participation
Participating in new seed testing and technologies (Genetic purity, GM seed
identification and proficiency testing)
Laboratory accreditation to ISTA and proficiency testing
Constraint government resources to attend to vital meeting (ISTA/OECD/UPOV etc.)
43
Emerging issues
Seed Harmonization
• Legal status: Acts are available and requiring to be aligned to the harmonized
protocols
• In view of harmonization, revisiting the formation of the Zimbabwe Seed
Organization or positioning Seed Services to a level where it is independent
and impartial in service delivery is critical
Lessons learnt
Being National Seed Authority
• Effective service delivery
• Economical
No cost to government
No additional costs to companies
• Control from seed production to harvest
• Independency and impartiality
• Upgrading facilities to International standards
Plant Quarantine Services
Plant Quarantine and Phytosanitary Services
Is a discipline-oriented institute that works with 17 ports of entry/exit manned by Plant Health
Inspectors. PQS inspect all agricultural produce including seed, wood material and assist
with the issuance of import and export permits.
PQS enforces;
• Plant Pests and Diseases Act (Chapter 19:08)
• Warehouse Receipt Act (Chapter 18:25)
• Noxious weed Act (Chapter 19:07)
• Sericulture Act (Chapter 18:18)
PQS Functions
44
• Formulation and review of Plant Quarantine policies
• Research and surveillance for generation and dissemination of information/new
technologies
• Provision of regulatory, advisory and specialist services to various stakeholders
• Conduct farmer and traders’ training on phytosanitary services including best farming
practices and import and export procedures
• Quarantine pest surveillance, assessments
• Testing services on plants including seed and crop protection technologies
• Enforcement of crop planting and destruction dates for cotton, tobacco and paprika
PQS quarantine and phytosanitary measures for seed
All seed production should be registered with the PQS and inspected throughout its growth
stages until harvesting.
Registration has only been observed for major crops like maize, wheat and soya with little or
no registrations for small grain crops yet any source of seed production should be subject to
inspections to ensure seed is not a source of pest infestation.
All phytosanitary requirements for seed imports are guided by the SADC harmonised pests
list. However, the trade conditions, though reviewed are yet to be domesticated in the
national legislation.
Other treatment measures are a requirement e.g. fumigation or seed dressing as a measure
to ensure protection from infestation
PQS quarantine and phytosanitary challenges
All seed inspections are mainly conducted using clients’ vehicles making it difficult to
carryout random checks on seed production.
Import regulations still need to be domesticated into national regulations.
Small grain seed production is yet to be fully under inspection by PQS to ensure minimum
pest spread through seed. The HaSSP Project has addressed part of this small seed
production though training of small holder farmers and training 125 farmers I Masvingo on
phytosanitary requirements and inspections of seed crops but more still needs to be done on
a country-wide basis.
Ensuring farmers get high quality seed
Thank you
45
Annex 9: Malawi Community Seed Enterprise
ASSMAG-HaSSP Community Seed Project - By N. Nyama
Community Seed Project Objective
Enhance seed production in order to make certified seed accessible and affordable to
surrounding community members and the area at large which will ultimately contribute to
food and income security.
ASSMAG- HaSSP Community Seed Project
Two participant communities: Lumbadzi in Lilongwe district and Mvera in Dowa
District
Each community has 20 farmer participants; female farmers account for over 50% in
both communities
Establishment/Strengthening of Community Seed Enterprise
40 farmers registered for program
Successfully distributed 250kg of OPV maize seed, 1600kg of groundnuts and 900kg
of beans and required additional inputs
Warehouse rental and acquisition of seed processing machine.
Capacity Building of Farmers
Conducted one training workshop for farmers in field management, seed production,
quality control, storage and record keeping
Evidence of improved organization among farmers
Capacity Building of Communities (Seed processing and storage equipment)
Greater autonomy among communities: evidence of decision making regarding
project sustainability, a potential revolving fund and the maintenance of the seed
processing machine
Rental of warehouse for 3 months
Acquisition of seed processing equipment- communities no longer reliant on external
processors.
Achievements
Achieved majority of planned outcomes for the year
Increased capacity of farmers and communities through training workshop and of
decision making processes.
46
Yields increased by 25% in comparison to previous years- improved food and
economic security for communities
Challenges
Environmental challenges (such as erratic rainfall) continue to affect yields
Unpredictable marketing trends/lack of marketing knowledge...
Initial lack of ownership of project due to improper introduction to project and its
objectives.
Emerging Issues
Some individuals engage in seed side selling. Lack of adequate knowledge of marketing price projection. Inadequate supervision of the project. Delayed approval of seed storage facility funds
Lessons Learned
A sustainability strategy must be part of the project objective and clearly introduced from the beginning
Use past mistakes as learning tools Use incentive system to motivate farmers and project officers.
47
Annex 10: Swaziland Community Seed Project progress report
CHRISTOPHER MTHETHWA ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY SEED ENTERPRISE (1/4)
• Under the HASSP, three communities were established where two maize varieties were produced: Shewula (ZM 611), SWADE (ZM 611) and Tubungu (ZM 309).
• The Bumbeni Farmers’ Association is a group of farmers involved in agricultural activities based at Shewula Area near Lomahasha Border Post. The association has eighteen members and the chairperson is Mr. Petros Sifundza. Since most of the members were not involved in seed production previously, they were thoroughly trained on that aspect.
• The African Christian College which is a college for training pastors is also involved in many agricultural projects amongst which is the production of open-pollinated maize variety (ZM 309).
• The college is located in Matsapa (Tubungu) area. The manager in the seed production, Mr Sydney Mhango was attached to CIMMYT for seed production basics and with the training he obtained, the college benefits a lot from him when it comes to seed production. As a result, the guy performs most of the seed production operations with minimal or no supervision at all.
• The Seed Quality Control Services worked hand in hand with the Swaziland Water and Agricultural Enterprise (SWADE) in recruiting farmers who were willing to engage themselves in seed production at Siphofaneni area (about 50 km from Manzini).
• Since the project had proposed to plant maize seed crop on a 2 ha land, SWADE felt that the project be conducted by their officers as a demonstration plot. They felt that giving the project to one of their schemes will not be of great benefit to the scheme since each scheme has at least fifty members.
• After establishment of the three areas, procurement and distribution of inputs were done.
• The inputs were procured from Farm Chemicals in Malkerns and they included: fertilizers (2:3:2 -37 and LAN) and chemicals like fastac.
• The inputs were distributed at all the three project areas (Shewula, Tubungu and Siphofaneni).
INPUTS PROCUREMENT (1/1)
Location Name of
beneficiary
Amount of
Input
received
(kg)
Basic seed Basal
fertilizer
Top
dressing
Fastac
Shewula Bumbeni
Farmers
Association
50 kg 600 kg (12
x 50 kg)
300 kg (6
x 50 kg)
2 L (1 x
2L)
Tubungu
(Matsapa)
African
Christian
College
100 kg 1200 kg
(24 x 50
kg)
600 kg (12
x 50 kg)
-
Siphofaneni SWADE 50 kg 600 kg (12
x 50 kg
300 kg (6
x 50 kg)
-
48
CROP ESTABLISHMENT (1/1) CAPACITY BUILDING OF FARMERS (1/2)
• Before engaging in seed production, the new groups’ were thoroughly trained in both seed production and seed business management. The training was conducted on the 21st December 2010 at Lomahasha Inkhundla Centre for the Shewula group.
• For the other groups, the training was not conducted because of different reasons. SWADE did not need any training because the project was under the management of its staff (guidance was only needed).
• The African Christian College, on the other hand, also did not need any training because their manager who was responsible for the seed production was attached to CIMMYT for more than six months as a form of training.
• The following topics were covered on seed production: importance of open-pollinated maize varieties in seed production; isolation distance and its importance; best time of planting seed maize; crop cultivation; plant protection; weed control; rouging; harvesting; certification standards for maize; and seed inspection and testing.
• The following topics were covered on seed business management: controllable factors critical for success of a seed business; external factors influencing seed sector development; three basic components in the management of a business; business governance; financial indicators; production capacity; marketing issues; personnel; government and institutional factors; market potential; production and processing; financial security; and marketing strategy.
SEED PROCESSING AND STORAGE EQUIPMENTFor ease of seed processing, the following were purchased for the communities:
(i) Materials for the construction of three cribs – diamond mesh, treated poles/timber, treated beams, galvanised wire, roof screws, nails, purlins and flat iron sheets.
(ii) Maize shellers (two) – these were specially designed to avoid breaking of the kernels.
(iii) Concrete mixers (three) – for seed treatment (iv) Plastic sealers and measuring wheels (three each)
THANK YOU
Numbe
r
Farmer Crop Variet
y
Seed
class
Plo
t
siz
e
Date
planted
Comment
s
18 Bumbeni
Farmers’
Associatio
n
Maiz
e
ZM
611
Certified
1st
Generatio
n
2
ha
29
Decembe
r 2010
Money
for
buying
fuel was
requested
late.
3 SWADE Maiz
e
ZM
611
Certified
1st
Generatio
n
2
ha
08 March
2011
-
4 African
Christian
College
Maiz
e
ZM
309
Certified
1st
Generatio
n
3
ha
05
Novembe
r 2010
A field
day at
this site
was
conducte
d on the
7th
April
this year.
49
Annex 11: Zambia Community Seed Enterprise
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY SEED PRODUCTION PROJECT - ZAMBIA
Francisco Miti, PhD, Chief Seeds Officer, Seed Control and Certification Institute (SCCI)
ZAMBIA
INTRODUCTION
• The HaSSP community seed production project in Zambia is being implemented in
Kapiri Mposhi (district in Central Zambia) by the Seed Control and Certification
Institute (SCCI) in collaboration with other stakeholders.
• The project was established on 19th November 2010 and a number of activities have
successfully been carried out since then.
• Other activities are currently underway while others are still awaiting funding.
ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT AND ACTUAL OUTPUTS
Following the contract signed between FANRPAN and SCCI, in October 2010
project activities have been carried out
Some outputs have been achieved
STRENGTHENING OF COMMUNITY SEED ENTERPRIZE
FARMER MOBILIZATION
• Kapiri Mposhi district was selected – to build on the previous initiative
• A total number of 50 farmers were recruited from 5 camps (areas) in the district.
• The composition was 50% of each sex
• The activity was conducted in December 2010 through the District Agricultural
Coordinator’s Office (DACO)
• A report on farmer profiles which included gender, age, experience in seed
production etc, was submitted to FANRPAN
PROCUREMENT OF INPUTS
• Procurement of inputs was done simultaneously with the preparation for the training
workshop. Therefore, the inputs were ready for distribution immediately after the
training.
50
• The inputs procured for the farmers were basal dressing fertilizer, top dressing
fertilizer and parent seed for groundnut and maize.
• Each farmer was supplied with the following:
i. 1x50kg of D compound fertilizer
ii. 1x50kg of Urea fertilizer
iii. 5kg of maize seed
iv. 15kg of groundnut seed
• A report on procurement and distribution of inputs was submitted to FANRPAN
REGISTRATION OF SEED GROWERS
• All the 50 farmers were registered with the seed certifying authority in Zambia (SCCI)
to facilitate seed certification of the two crops which the famers were growing.
• Each farmer was registered to cultivate 0.2 hectares and 0.25 hectares of groundnuts
and maize respectively.
A report on crop establishment detailing crops, varieties, plot sizes and agronomic conditions
was submitted to FANRPAN.
CAPACITY BUILDING OF FARMERS
COMMUNITY SEED WORKSHOP
• A training workshop in seed production was organized for the 50 farmers in
December 2010 in Kapiri Mposhi.
• The training was conducted by officers from SCCI
• It was also attended by 3 personnel from the DACO’s office and 8 camp extension
officers from the camps and blocks involved.
• A report on the training including materials covered was submitted to FANRPAN
FIELD DAY
• The field day was held on 20th April 2011 in Likumbi Camp, Kapiri Mposhi. The field
day was held at a farmer’s field by the name of Evaness Kapembwa Munsanje.
• In addition to the 50 farmers being supported, the field day was attended by the
representative from FANRPAN, PACO- Central Province, the District Commissioner
– Kapiri, Zambia Agriculture Research Institute (ZARI) – Kabwe, DACO – Kapiri,
51
Senior Officer from SCCI, Officer from ACF, village chief and farmers from within and
surrounding the camp.
• The total number of people in attendance was 167 people.
• The event was covered by the National Agriculture Information Services (NAIS). The
guest of honor was the District Commissioner – Kapiri Mposhi District.
MONITORING OF SEED GROWERS
• Seed growers were monitored
• at various stages of seed growth
• The visits acted as a capacity building exercise too.
FIELD INSPECTIONS
• Two rounds of field inspections and general monitoring were conducted in January
and March/April 2011.
• The inspections were done by the seed inspectors and plant health inspector for
purposes of seed certification and phytosanitary requirements.
• All the farmers visited had successfully planted their seed crops. One field of maize
was removed from certification due to failure in meeting seed standards (isolation
distance). Other seed fields ranged in condition from fair to very good.
• Farmers were also capacitated during these visits
• A project was bought at the end of August
– It is strengthening project implementation
– The vehicle will help improve project execution in year 2
SEED SAMPLING AND TESTING
• Seed sampling was conducted in August and a total of 18,470kg of seed was
sampled. This was composed of 3,405kg of groundnuts and 15,065kg of maize seed.
• The samples were submitted to the laboratory for seed testing and out of the
18,470kg, 18,070kg of seed was certified.
• This translates to USD 36 000
• Farmers were also capacitated during these visits
CAPACITY BUILDING OF COMMUNITIES
52
SOURCING QUOTATIONS FOR SEED PROCESING AND STORAGE EQUIPMENT
• Quotations were sourced for procurement of seed processing and storage
equipment. These were for the following:
(i) Drums – for seed dressing
(ii) Transport – for transporting drums from supplier (Lusaka) to farmers in Kapiri
Mposhi
(iii) Contractor – for construction of seed storage shed
• The agreed position on custody of equipment (drums) was with the individual farmers
There was delay in receiving money for the above and when it was time to process
payments, there was change of plans on the construction of the shed and the supplier of
drums had run out of the product.
CROP PROCESSING
• Crop processing has been partly done by the farmers.
• Processing activities done include drying, threshing, cleaning and temporal
packaging. These were done to facilitate sampling
• Seed storage has been a challenge
• Project has also facilitated Seed dressing, packaging and selling
– Selling is improving as we draw near to planting
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT
• To date the project has addressed all the 10 main activities outlined in the contract
• A significant milestone of having seed produced by the farmers has been reached
which is a good indicator that the project is progressing well despite some few
difficulties such as late commencement and delayed funding.
MAIN CHALLENGES
• It has been a challenge to executive activities within the confines of the budget
ceilings for each activity.
• At times institutional resources and public transport have been used in order to
achieve desired results.
– The new project vehicle is helping in strengthening operations
53
• It is a challenge monitoring farmers due to their distant locations. This resulted in
extended working hours and increased costs in some cases.
• Delayed funding for processing activities may affect seed marketing.
LESSONS LEARNT
• Project activities should start early so that farmers yield high.
– Late planting last year has affected seed yield of farmers
– Farmers should plant preferable in November
– Contracts for year 2 not yet done
• It appears Year 2 may be late again
• Farmer selection has to be considered very carefully because it may lead to
difficulties in monitoring the project if resources are limited – not wide spreading.
54
Annex 12: Zimbabwe Community Seed Enterprise
By Nelson Munyaka, 8-10 November 2011, Ezwulini , Swaziland
Establishment of association
The country has formed an association of seed producers.
A constitution and regulations for running the association have been put in place
Registration for certifying agency in progress
Quite a big process as incorporation is also a requirement for the association.
12 wards now involved with the association
Structure of association
To be composed of ward committees which feed into a whole district apex
management committee.
The committee will then have specialisation in managing various aspects of the
business such as: i) marketing ii) Operations iii) Production and security
Each department to be supported and trained in its roles in the seed association
Capacity building of farmers
A total of 7 trainings were conducted during the season
The areas of focus were:
Leadership training
Groundnut seed production
Bean seed production
Rules and regulations for a seed company
Constitution making for a community seed company
Harvesting and grading training
The training were done in conjunction with PQS, Seed Services, CBI and ARC
Proposed direction
55
The farmers elected committees from each ward to be involved in a TOT and
congress to elect a secretariat running the association.
The elected management committee or secretariat to undergo further capacity
building
The management committee is supported financially and technically until the end of
the project
Linkages with research to be a priority
Achievements
Increased knowledge on seed production by farmers
Increased access to groundnut and bean seed in the area
Increased income through introduction of higher yielding germplasm
Community involvement and ownership of the project
Linkage with private sector partners increasing farmers’ income
Processing Equipment
Two companies supplied a range of equipment for seed processing after submission
of qoutations
Two companies fabricated the seed treaters, shellers, bagging machines, sewing and
heat sealing units for the projects.
The total order is now complete and awaits delivery to the plant site.
The warehouses needs renovation to meet the seed regulations of the country
Lessons learnt
Contracts between farmers and private sector have to be water tight as there is
mistrust.
Farmer monitoring by field staff should be constant to allow accurate records of
production and qiuck response to any mishaps like diseases.
Training of farmers on pricing models is essential as most of them use retail prices at
farm gates
Challenges
56
Lack of sincerity by parties i.e farmers and the private sector.( Cheating on seed
produced and late payment respectively
Liquidity crunch in the country where access to finance for farmers and companies is
affecting operations
Signing of contracts ahead of season not done in time
Delayed disbursements for implementation funds
Lack staff budget allocation
Poor knowledge base on seed production by farmers and extensionists
Lack of alternative sources of income resulting on total dependence on the seed
community project as a source of livelihood
Fears on literacy levels and expectations of running a seed assocaition
Foundation seed is not adequate as most countries depend on pvt companies who
are not willing to have foundation seed in the public domain.
It is tortuous process in Zim to register an association and a company.
The cost of getting the registration is too high and not clearly laid out for someone to
follow.
Financing issues
Contracted crops need to have time frames for purchasing from farmers
The association will need stop gap financing to keep farmers going while the seed is
being processed and sold.
Suggestions: credit or project support with a revolving fund.
Towards achievement
A relationship between research and the seed association has to be planned such
foundation seed needs for each coming year are projected and grown the preceding
year.
Foundation seed sourcing has been done now awaits payment
Training of farmers and selection is in progress
Registration of the community seed growers company to be finalised
Renovation needs finalisation needs to be done to start equipment installation and
processing
57
KHIALIBONGA
ZIKOMO MAGURACHINTO
TATENDA
THANK YOU
HIKESILE NKOFU
SIYABONGA
58
Annex 13: Programme/project logic (goal to impact pathway)
By Gregory Chanda Chilufya
Purpose of the session.
Upon completion of the session Participants should be able to:
1. Outline the Programme/project logic (goal to impact pathway)
Contents of the session.
The session has three sub-sections;
a. The concept of project design;
b. The Logical Framework Approach; and
c. Results based budgeting
Group Work
• If given an additional $40,000 for HaSSP activities, specify what you would do in
order to utilise it?
Concept of project design.
What is a Project?
• A set of coordinated activities designed to achieve pre-designed aims and objectives.
It is limited in time, scope, and budget.
What is project design?
• Project design is the systematic identification and prioritization of problems and
opportunities and the planning of solutions.
• Project design requires a lot of creativity.
Why undertake project design?
• Careful preparation of project ideas is an essential prerequisite for quality projects.
Monitoring and evaluation component definitions – Source; Gregory Chanda Chilufya
M&E presentations.
59
Figure 1: Hierarchical Nature of Project Components
b. The Logical Framework Approach
An analytical, presentational, and management tool that involves problem analysis,
stakeholder analysis, developing a hierarchy of objectives and selecting a preferred
implementation strategy. It helps to identify the external assumptions, inputs, outputs,
purpose, and goal, their causal relationships. Facilitates planning, execution, and evaluation
of a project.
60
Operationalising the logframe
• Where are we now?
• Where do we want to be?
• How do we get there?, and
• How do we measure our progress?
BRINGING PROGRAMMES TO LIFE
Traditional budgeting Neelan S. Kumar
Results based budgeting Framework Neelan S. Kumar
The End
61
Annex 14: Introduction to Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E)
Presentation by Tshilidzi Madzivhandila; FANRPAN M&E coordinator
Outline
• Session learning outcomes
• Monitoring and evaluation concepts
• Overview of Participation
• Participatory Monitoring
• Participatory Evaluation
• Results-based M&E
Session learning outcomes
By the end of the session the participants should be able to:
• Understanding of monitoring and evaluation
• Understanding of PM&E
• Choose how to practice PM&E
Setting the Scene
• Group work (10 minutes)
– Question per Table
• Thoughts about M&E
– What do we mean by monitoring, evaluation
– What do you think is the difference between monitoring and evaluation?
– Positive and negative thoughts regarding monitoring and evaluation?
– What are the major reasons for conducting Monitoring and Evaluation
M&E as a Concept
Monitoring and Evaluation
62
www.fanrpan.org
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring is the
routine process of data
collection and
measurement of
progress toward
program objectives.
• What is happening as a
progress?
Evaluation is the use of specific study designs and special studies to measure the extent to which changes in desired outcomes are attributableto a program’s interventions.
• What happened and why?
OutcomeInterventions
Difference between M&E
Item Monitoring Evaluation
Frequency Continuous, regular Episodic
Main action Keeping track / oversight Assessment about achievements
Basic Purpose Improve efficiency, adjust
work plan, accountability
Improve effectiveness, impact, future
programming
Focus Input, output, process, work
plans
Effectiveness, relevance, impact, cost
effectiveness
Answers The question “what” The question “why”
Undertaken by Traditionally undertaken by
those responsible for
implementing the
programme or project
Traditionally undertaken by people
external to the project
63
Participatory M&E
Overview of participation
Definition of participation;
• Participation is the process through which stakeholders influence and share control
over priority setting, policy-making, resource allocations and access to public goods
and services.
64
www.fanrpan.org
Participation Continuum: M&E
Participation can have a wide
range of meanings:
People can participate
without sharing responsibility
or ownership.
People can participate where
the process is led by others.
Participation can be passive.
Participation, at its worst, can
mean manipulation.
Low
The degree of participation in an M&E
activity can vary along a continuum
from low to high based on what key
steps or activities stakeholders are
involved in — some steps are more
pivotal than others in shaping results
— and what role stakeholders have in
each case.
High
Participatory planning, monitoring
and evaluation implies higher
levels of participation:
People are helped to define
their own problems and
solutions.
There is a high degree of
ownership.
People have active rather
than passive roles.
The process is empowering.
Participatory Monitoring
• Participatory monitoring is the systematic recording and periodic analysis of
information that has been chosen and recorded by beneficiaries with the help of
programme implementors.
Participatory Evaluation
• Participatory evaluation is an opportunity for programme implementors and
beneficiaries to stop and reflect on the past in order to make decisions about the
future.
Participatory M&E
Refers to the process of M&E where all project partners – beneficiaries and project staff —
are involved.
Principles
• Negotiation: Stakeholders negotiate what will be monitored and evaluated, when
and how
• Learning: Participation and negotiation lead to collective learning and corrective
action
• Flexibility: To lead to on-going change and adaptation, flexibility is essential.
65
• Involvement of stakeholders: Multiple stakeholders work together to develop
indicators
Group Work #2
1. Using a scale of 1( ) to 5 ( ) rate the current participatory level of HaSSP
M&E
2. Motivate your low or high score
3. What can be done to make HaSSP M&E more participatory
10 minutes
Differences between Traditional and Participatory M and E
Conventional M and E PM&E
Who plans and manages the process
Senior Manager or outside expert
Local people, project staff, manager s and outside stakeholders often helped by a facilitator
Role of primary stakeholders and intended beneficiaries
Provide information only Design and adopt the methodology, collect and analyse data, share findings and link them into action
How success is measured Externally defined, mainly quantitative
Internally defined indicators, including more qualitative judgment
Approach Pre-determined Adaptive
Defining terms of reference Largely donors and managers Stakeholders including beneficiaries
Decision makers Largely donors and managers Stakeholders
Evaluator/Evaluation team Mostly outsiders Mix of outsiders and beneficiaries
Process Linear with little or no feedback Two way flow of information
Purpose Management accountability requirement
Build capacity of stakeholders + management and accountability
Need for participation
• Stakeholder participation in projects and programs can be key for ensuring their long-
term sustainability.
• Promoting participation helps build ownership and enhances transparency and
accountability, and
66
• In doing so enhances effectiveness of development projects and policies.
Participatory Methodology
Challenges to PM&E
There are three main challenges in PM&E;
• Bringing together people's different ways of looking at the world challenges
established notions of what constitutes rigorous data collection and analysis.
• There is need to accept new less rigid standards of credibility of information and
appreciation that information is good enough for the task at hand – rather than
perfect.
• Scaling up the process into project and programs that are themselves not
participatory.
• Start small and create opportunities for PM&E.
PLENARY
• Personally what do you think you will do differently in light of the new Participatory
Monitoring and Evaluation knowledge you gained?”
– Role
• 10 minutes
Emerging issues:
• Results based planning, monitoring and evaluation
67
My question is: Are we making an impact?
Context
My question is: Are we making an impact?
Results-based M&E
• Results based M&E focuses on the goal and purpose levels that are changes at the
beneficiary levels.
– i.e., chain of results: outcomes and impact.
– Less emphasis at the input, activity and output levels that are process issues
and are within the control of the project management.
Key Features
• Monitoring progress regularly and adjusting activities to ensure results are achieved
• Evaluating, documenting and incorporating lessons learned into next planning phase;
• Reporting on the results achieved and their contribution to achieving goals;
68
www.fanrpan.org
SIAP 2007 29
Key Terms
Inputs
Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact
How?
What we want? Why?
Immediate
results
End-of-project/
programme
results
A long-term
result as a
logical
consequence
of the outcomes
Brain Teaser
30
Input? Activity? Output? Outcome? Impact?
Splash
(cause)
Ripple
(effect)
Key Techniques
• Start with the results
• Determine indicators to measure progress towards achieving each result
69
• Define explicit targets for each indicator to judge achievement
• Collect information to verify/monitor the achievement/progress
• Review, analysis and report actual results
Group Work
• Identify how participatory monitoring and evaluation can be applied to your HASSP
work; and
• How can the learning from monitoring and evaluating the HASSP activities be
mainstreamed into your regular organisational work.
• 20 minutes
Thank You
1
Annex 15: Malawi data collection matrix
Malawi Phytosanitary outcomes and their indicators
Narrative Indicator Data source Frequency Responsibility for data collection
Reporting Presentation format
GOAL: To contribute to improved seed security of smallholder farmers in the SADC region through increased availability of and access to improved seed
Number of food secure House holds Volume of improved seed varieties Improved livelihood
Survey reports Annually MoAI&WD MVAC/FEWSNET
Annually Published
Outcomes
Realigned phytosanitary policies
Amended plant protection Act
Gazette Annually NPPO Annually Gazette
Safe movement of seed in the region
No. of notifications NPPO Annually NPPO/NNA Annually Archives/reports
Reduced transactions time when importing and exporting seed
Time taken to import and export seed
Customs/NPPO/ Annually NPPO/customs Annually Reports
Availability of quality seed in SADC improved
Range of seed variety Reduced priced of seed
SSU/STAM STAM/AGRO dealers
Annually Annually
SSU/STAM STAM/Agro-dealers
Annually Annually
Reports Reports
Draft seed certification act Amended seed certification act
Gazette Annually SSU/DARS Annually Gazette
Outputs
Realigned phytosanitary policies
Draft reviewed plant protection Act
NPPO Annually NPPO/DARS Annually Draft reviewed plant protection
New phytosanitary guidelines adopted
Reviewed guidelines/regulations pest list
NPPO Annually NPPO/DARS Annually Copies of regulations
Draft seed certification act Draft reviewed seed certification act
SSU/DARS Annually SSU/DARS Annually Reviewed seed certification Act
New seed certification guidelines issued
Approved seed certification guidelines
SSU/DARS Annually SSU/DARS Annually Copies of regulations
2
Malawi Capacity building outcomes and their indicators
Narrative Indicator Data source Frequency Responsibility for data collection
Reporting Presentation format
GOAL: To contribute to improved seed security of smallholder farmers in the SADC region through increased availability of and access to improved seed
Number of food secure House holds Volume of improved seed varieties Improved livelihood
Survey reports Annually MoAI&WD MVAC/FEWSNET
Annually Published
Outcomes
Capacity in seed production and phytosanitary measures built in all stakeholders
No. of notifications ASSMAG/SSU/NPPO Annually ASSMAG/SSU/NPPO Annually Report
Outputs
Seed growers trained No. of Seed growers trained
ASSMAG/SSU annually ASSMAG/SSU Annually Report
Seed inspector trained No. of Seed inspector trained
SSU annually SSU Annually Report
Plant Health Inspector trained
No. of Plant Health Inspector trained
NPPO/DARS Annually NPPO/DARS Annually Report
Trained Immigration and customs officer trained
No. of trained Immigration and customs officer trained
NPPO annually NPPO Annually Report
Seed analysts trained No. of Seed analysts trained
SSU Annually SSU Annually Report
frontline diagnostic equipment procured
Number of equipment procured
NPPO Annual NPPO/DARS Annually Report
Communication between border posts and head office improved
Number of ITC equipment (Computers) procured and installed at border posts
NPPO Annually NPPO/DARS Annually Report
3
Seed samplers trained No. of Seed samplers trained
SSU Annually SSU Annually Reports
Plant breeders trained No. of Plant breeders trained
DARS Annually DARS Annually Reports
4
Malawi Alignment of seed certification policies
Narrative Indicator Data source Frequency Responsibility for data collection
reporting Presentation format
GOAL: To contribute to improved seed security of smallholder farmers in the SADC region through increased availability of and access to improved seed
Number of food secure House holds Volume of improved seed varieties Improved livelihood
Survey reports Annually MoAI&WD MVAC/FEWSNET
Annually Published
Outcomes
Realigned seed certification policies
A harmonised seed policy
SSU/DARS Annually SSU/DARS Annually Policy document
High quality improved certified seed produced
Kg or tonnes of seed ASSMAG/SSU annually ASSMAG/SSU annually Reports
Increased productivity in food crops
Kg or tonnes harvested per hector
ASSMAG/SSU annually ASSMAG/SSU annually Report
Outputs
Draft harmonised seed certification policy
A copy of the Draft harmonised seed certification policy
SSU/DARS Annually SSu/DARS Annually Draft harmonised seed certification policy
Reviewed seed certification standards operating procedures
A copy of the Reviewed seed certification standards operating procedures
SSU/DARS Annually SSu/DARS Annually Reviewed seed certification standards operating procedures
Malawi Community seed project
Narrative Indicator Data source Frequency Responsibility for reporting Presentation
5
data collection format
GOAL: To contribute to improved seed security of smallholder farmers in the SADC region through increased availability of and access to improved seed
Number of food secure House holds Volume of improved seed varieties Improved livelihood
Survey reports Annually MoAI&WD MVAC/FEWSNET
Annually Published
Outcomes
Increased adoption of improved seed production practices for increased quality seed production
No of farmers producing improved seed
ASSMAG/SSU Annually ASSMAG/SSU Annually Report
Increased income of small scale seed farmers through improved access to quality seed
Amount of hectares under improved seed production
ASSMAG/SSU Annually ASSMAG/SSU Annually Report
Improved productivity of small scale farmers through improved access to improved seed
Kg or tonnes harvested per hector
ASSMAG/DAES Annually ASSMAG/DAES Annually Report
Outputs
Trained seed growers No of seed growers trained
ASSMAG/SSU/DAES Annually ASSMAG/SSU/DAES Annually Reports
Seed production farmers registered
No of farmers registered
ASSMAG/SSU Annually ASSMAG/SSU Annually Reports
Quantities of foundation seed acquired and distributed
Kg of foundation seed acquired and distributed
ASSMAG Annually ASSMAG Annually Report
6
Hectarage of seed certified
No of hectors planted
SSU/ASSMAG Annually SSU/ASSMAG Annually Reports
7
Annex 16: Swaziland data collection matrix
Impact (overall goal) Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Means of verification
Data source Frequency of data collection
Responsibility for data collection
Data collection method Frequency of reporting
How the reports are presented
To contribute to improved food security of smallholder farmers in the SADC region through increased availability of and access to improved seed
Percentage increase in production of major staple crops, which include maize and legumes
Increased varieties of seeds in Swaziland
Reduced percentage of people on food aid
MOA’s report
VAC report
WFP reports
NDMA reports
Annually MOA staff
Vulnerability assessment committee – DPM’s office
WFP
NDMA
Annual reports Annually Hard copies
Soft copies
Media
Stakeholders’ briefing sessions
Outcome Outcome indicators
SADC Harmonised Seed Regulatory System domesticated in Swaziland -
Aligned “Seeds and Plant Varieties Regulations” to SADC Protocol
Plant Health Protection Act in place and aligned
Harmonized quarantine pest list adopted
Final policy documents
Parliamentary Acts
Parliamentary reports
Survey of seed companies importing seed
Monthly SQCS staff
NPPO staff
Administrative reports
Project progress reports
Monthly Hard copies presented at staff meetings, project steering committee meetings and FANRPAN Node
Soft copies
Outputs (project results/deliverables)
Output indicators
Variety Release
1. Draft variety release regulation aligned to SADC
No. of draft variety release regulations aligned to SADC
Variety release regulations draft
Monthly SQCS Staff Project progress reports
Monthly
Quaterly
Hard and soft copies
8
protocols protocols Biannual
2. Trained personnel on variety release regulations
No. of personnel trained in variety release regulations
Training report Monthly SQCS Staff Training reports
Progress reports
Quaterly Hard copies
Soft copies
Phytosanitary
1. Draft standardised phytosanitary measures
No. of standardised draft phytosanitary measures
Standardized phytosaniraty measures draft
2. Trained personnel on phytosanitary measures
No. of personnel trained in phytosanitary regulations
Training report
Certification
1. Draft harmonised certification standards
No. of draft harmonised certification standards
Harmonized certification standards draft
2. Capacitated personnel on certification regulations
No. of personnel trained in certification regulations
Training report
3. Equipment purchased No and types of equipment purchased
Purchased equipment
Informal seed
Improved service delivery Trained extension staff
No. of extension staff trained
Training report
Improved storage facilities
Improved cribs for drying the seeds
No. of improved cribs Progress reports
Improved communal seed storage tanks /silos
No. of improved communal seed storage tanks /silos
Progress reports
Increased seed production ha.
Hectares committed to seed production
No. of hectarage planted with seed
Progress reports
Farmers producing seed No. of farmers producing seed
Progress reports
9
Improved processing marketing and distribution
Increased shops selling seeds
No. of shops selling seeds Progress reports
Processing equipment purchased
No. of processing equipment purchased
Purchase order and delivery notes
Increased communication on seed production knowledge
No. of promotions and advertisements of locally produced seed
Promotional material and adverts
Quality declared seed
Extension officers available for seed production advisory services
No. of extension officers trained in seed production in place
Training report
Farmers trained in quality declared seed approach
No. of farmers trained in quality declared seed approach
Training report
Increased visits by seed inspectors
No. of visits by seed inspectors
Inspection reports and Progress reports
Capacity Strengthening
Certification
Increased knowledge on seed production, processing and handling of seed by farmers, laboratory staff and seed dealers
% change in available improved quality seed
Reports
Phytosanitary
Improved application of phytosanitary measures by all inspectors
% change in access to disease free seed
Reports
Increased knowledge of % of seed inspectors Reports
10
phytosanitary measures by seed inspectors
reporting change in knowledge of phytosanitary measures
Variety release
Increased knowledge of DUS, VCU and plant breeders rights by agronomists, seed registrar and seed inspectors
% of agronomists, seed registrar and seed inspectors knowledgeable of DUS, VCU and plant breeders rights
Improved market strategies by smallscale seed producers
Number of marketing strategies used by small scale seed producers
Outputs
Certification
Trained extension staff No. of trained extension staff
Trained seed producers No. of trained seed producers
Trained laboratory staff No. of trained laboratory staff
Phytosanitary
Trained seed inspectors No. of trained seed inspectors
Variety release `
Trained agronomists, seed registrar and seed inspectors
No. of trained agronomists, seed registrar and seed inspectors
Marketing
Trained seed producers in seed marketing
No. of trained seed producers in seed marketing
11
Annex 17: Zambia data collection matrix
Table 1: Phytosanitary, seed certification and variety release
Narrative Indicator Data source Frequency of data collection
Responsibility for data collection
Data collection method
Frequency of Reporting
Presentation format
GOAL: To
contribute to
improved
food security
of
smallholder
farmers in the
SADC region
through
increased
availability of
and access to
improved
seed
Quantity of food produced per household (HH) Income level per HH Quality of food produced Diversity??
Survey reports Annually MACO Early Warning Unit/CSO
Survey Annually Publication
OUTCOME
1.0 Increased availability and affordability of quality seed
No. of outlets for seed
Seed seller’s register
Annually
SCCI
Licensing Annually Register
Quantity of quality seed available
SCCI Annual Reports
Annually SCCI Reporting Annually Registers
Number of farmers using
SCCI Annual Reports
Annually SCCI Reporting Annually Registers
12
Narrative Indicator Data source Frequency of data collection
Responsibility for data collection
Data collection method
Frequency of Reporting
Presentation format
quality seed (proxy for price)
2.0 Increased diversification of seed varieties and crops due to domestication of SADC protocol on seed variety release
No. of crop varieties grown at HH level
SCCI Annual Reports
Annually SCCI Reporting Annually Registers
Type of crops cultivated per HH
Survey Report Annually MACO Early Warning Unit/CSO
Surveys Annually Surveys
3.0 Increased availability of pest free and quality seed
Quantity of pest free seed Quantity of quality seed Quantity of imported and exported seed
SCCI/ZARI Annual Reports
Annually SCCI/ZARI Reporting Annually Registers
4.0 SADC protocol domesticated
Phytosanitary Statutory Instrument (SI) published in Government Gazette
Government Gazette
Monthly ZARI Formulating Quarterly Publication
Seed certification SI published in Government Gazette
Government Gazette
Monthly SCCI Formulating Quarterly Publication
13
Narrative Indicator Data source Frequency of data collection
Responsibility for data collection
Data collection method
Frequency of Reporting
Presentation format
Variety release SI published in Government Gazette
Government Gazette
Monthly SCCI Formulating Quarterly Publication
No. of Zambian crop varieties on SADC catalogue
SADC catalogue
Annually SADC Seed Centre
Registration Annually Publication
No. of Zambian certified seedlots traded in SADC
SADC reports Annually SADC Seed Centre
Reporting Annually Publication
No. SADC certified seedlots traded in Zambia
SADC reports Annually SADC Seed Centre
Reporting Annually Publication
OUTPUTS
Outputs for Outcome 1: Increased availability and affordability of quality seed
Quality seed available to farmers
Quantity of quality seed available
Seed testing data base
Annual SCCI Registration Annually Register
No. of seed lots certified
Seed testing data base
Annually SCCI Registration Annually Register
No. of varieties released
Variety register annually SCCI Registration Annually Variety list
No. of varieties registered under SADC
SADC Catalogue
annually SADC Seed Centre
Registration Annually Publication
No. of seed varieties utilised by
SCCI Reports Annually SCCI Reporting Annually Annual Report
14
Narrative Indicator Data source Frequency of data collection
Responsibility for data collection
Data collection method
Frequency of Reporting
Presentation format
farmers
No. of plant import permits issued
ZARI Reports Annually ZARI Reporting Annually Annual Report
No. of pest risk analysis done
ZARI Reports Annually ZARI Reporting Annually Annual Report
Quantity of quality seed exported
SCCI Reports Annually SCCI Reporting Annually Annual Report
Quantity of quality seed imported
SCCI Reports Annually SCCI Reporting Annually Annual Report
Quantity of quality seed produced
SCCI Reports Annually SCCI Reporting Annually Annual Report
Competitive pricing of quality seed on the market Seed lots certified
Changes in quality seed prices
Agribusiness/ZARI Reports
Annually Agribusiness/ZARI Reporting Annually Annual Report
15
Annex 18: Zimbabwe Malawi collection matrix
Zimbabwe National M & E Framework of Phytosanitary policies
Impact( Overall
Goal)
Objectively Verifiable
Indicator
Means of verification
Data Source Frequency of data collection
Responsibility for data collection
Data collection method
Frequency of reporting
How are the reports presented
Assumptions
Goal: To contribute to improved seed security of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe through increased availability of and access to improved seed
% of under 5 cases at household level
Clinics/ Hospital CSO
Twice a year
Min of Agriculture Agritex Zaka
Review of records
Half yearly Hard and Soft copies
Political will and stability
Balanced diet all year round at household level in Zimbabwe
Clinics/ Hospital CSO
Twice per year
Min of Agriculture Agritex Zaka
Review of records
Half yearly Hard and Soft copies
Seasons remain normal
Outcome: Amended regulations of the Plant pest and disease Act
Gazetted Plant Pest and Disease Regulations
PQS printflow/ National archives
Once a year
PQS/PPRI Surveys/ Literature review
Once a year
Hard copy PDF
Stakeholder willingness
Availability of disease-free seed
Change in amount of certified seed on the market
Suppliers, wholesaler, Seed Services, Agro dealers and Farmers
Once a year
Seed services and Agritex
Seed surveys Once a year
Hard and soft copies
Enough staff
Adoption of standard phytosanitary practices in the seed value chain
Number of stakeholders using standard phytosanitary practices
PQS/Agritex Seed houses
Once PQS; Agritex Surveys & Desk study
Once year Hard and soft copies
Willingness by stakeholders and enough staff. Business availability
Outputs
Draft regulations Printed draft regulations PQS Once PQS officers Review of records
Once during project period
Hard and soft copies
Political will and stakeholder demand
16
Availability of pest and disease free seed
Change in number of field inspections/ advisory and laboratory analysis reports./ Change in incidence of disease in sampled seed
PQS/PPRI Weekly PQS Staff inspectors
Sample collection Sample analysis Pest identification
Monthly Hard and soft copies
Resources and manpower available
Trained seed stakeholders
Number of trained seed stakeholders
PQS /PPRI After every training/ once a year
PQS/PPRI Workshop register
Twice Brochure/hard copies soft copies of workshop reports
Resources and personnel
Zimbabwe National M & E Framework of Seed Certification and Variety Testing
Impact (Overall
Goal) Objectively Verifiable
Indicator
Means of verification Assumptions
Data source Frequency of data collection
Responsibility for data collection
Data Collection method
Frequency of Reporting
How are reports presented
Goal: To contribute to improved seed security of smallholder farmers in the Zimbabwe on through increased availability of and access to improved seed
% change in yields at the household level
Questionnaires ZIMVAC reports
Twice a year
Consortium members (FAO, Agritex and Seed Services )
HH survey Annually Reports/Hard copies electronic copies
Availability of resources and staff
% of households that no longer depend on food aid
Questionnaires ZIMVAC reports
Twice a year
Consortium members (FAO, Agritex
HH survey Annually Reports/Hard copies electronic copies
Availability of resources and staff
Outcomes
More seed varieties in the country
No. of new seed varieties registered per year
Variety registers/Seed services
Annually Seed services Desk analysis Annually Soft and hard copies
Willingness of stakeholders
A harmonised seed
No. of farmers using certified seed
PQS and Seed Services Import
Monthly PQS, Seed Services,
Analysis of documents
Quarterly Soft and hard copies
-
17
certification system
and export documents
Economics and Marketing Services
(permits)
Outputs
User friendly variety release guidelines
Change in number of varieties being released
Variety Release Committee
Twice a year
Seed Services Consultative dialogue
Yearly soft and hard copies of publications
Stakeholders compliance to guidelines
A fully functional variety release committee
Change of time from application to release
Variety Release Application forms Seed Services minutes
yearly Seed Services /Farmer organisations /Agritex
Survey of Certifying Agencies and breeders
Yearly soft and hard copies of publications
Resources and manpower availability
Amended Seed Certification Scheme
Published and printed document
Seed Services As required questionnaire
Seed Services Data analysis As per requirement
Soft and hard copies of publication
Availability of resources and manpower
18
Annex 19: HasSSP 2012 Regional Workplan
By Dr. Bellah Mpofu
2012: Output 1
Activities Yr 2 (2011) Yr 3 (2012)
PBR Workshop 46 200 -
Consultancy fees to assist member states that do not have
seed regulatory frameworks to develop them including PBR.
50 000 22 500
Consultancy travel fees 7 000 5 800
Consultancy fees -Knowledge sharing support 6 600 6 600
National workshops 10 000 6 400
Output 2
Phyto measures Yr 2 Yr 3
Consultancy to provide technical support to key national
stakeholders to align national seed policies to SADC protocol
6 400
Consultancy travel 6 600
Consultancy support to develop SOPs 5 500 5 500
Consultancy fees to provide agro-dealer training. 33 000 -
Action Research 80 000 60 000
Community workshops 30 000 28 000
Agro-dealer training workshop 105 600 -
National workshop 8 800 8 800
19
Output 3
Seed certification Yr 2 Yr 3
Provide technical support to key stakeholders to develop quality
assurance procedures
50 000 32 500
Consultancy travel 20 000 13 000
Consultancy fees to provide technical support to key national
stakeholders to ensure common procedures, seals, labels etc.
8 500 -
Consultancy fees knowledge sharing support 4 600 3 300
National Workshops 10 000 -
Output 4
Capacity building Yr 2 Yr 3
Consultancy fees for training needs assessment 4 200
Consultancy travel 14 800 2 800
Consultancy fees to develop training curricula 19 800 -
Consultancy fees knowledge sharing support 8 800 -
Seed certification training workshops - 105 600
20
Output 5
Seed certification facilities strengthened Yr 2 Yr 3
Consultancy fees for training needs assessment: policy processes 33 000 -
Consultancy travel 3 686 -
Consultancy fees training on operation and asset management 22 000 22 000
Consultancy fees knowledge sharing support 4 600 3 300
Cross-cutting Issues
Activity Yr 2 Yr 3
Country co-ordination Reports awaited to release funds 33 000
Steering committee-national Teas
Honoraria to Seed Elders and
participation at regional dialogue.
16 500
Steering committee-regional Participation of project partners at
regional dialogue.
8 250
Monitoring and Evaluation - 55 000
Capital Expenditure
Country Cost of vehicle in CHF Remainder after purchase of vehicles
Malawi 47 368.60 7 631.40
Swaziland 48 726.68 6 273.32
Zambia 41 810.70 13 189.30
Zimbabwe 40 305.76 14 694.24
21
Capital Expenditure
• Funds under capital expenditure (CHF 220 000.00) were allocated to strengthen
seed certification facilities.
• The remaining funds (CHF 41 788.27) are available for purchasing laboratory
equipment.
• Please submit quotations for purchase of required laboratory equipment (within the
available budget) to FANRPAN.
Issues
• Most of the budget is allocated to consultancies to provide technical support to
national stakeholders and consultancy travel.
• Funding available for national workshops available for direct support to national
stakeholders.
National workshops
0UTPUT Year 1 Year 2 Total – Mal +
Zambia
Swaziland + Zambia
1(Mal & Zim) 10 000 6 400 - 8 200
2 8 800 8 800 4 400 4 400
3 10 000 2 500 2 500
Per country 7 200 3 800 6 900 15 100
National workshops
• FANRPAN requirements to access the national workshop funds:
List of participants
Workshop program
Proposed venue and quotation
Total budget for the activity - within available funds.
22
• The additional funding to Swaziland and Zimbabwe will facilitate capacity building of
variety release committees and other stakeholders with regards to the SADC seed
regulatory system.
Issues
• Funds are available for consultancy studies for TNAs, curriculum development, and
consultancy fees for trainers but there is inadequate provision for facilitating training
workshops.
• Initially the project had 6 outputs, but the 6th output and its budget has now been
moved to SADC FANR to facilitate data base activities at the SADC Seed Centre.
• There was under-expenditure because of cash flow issues at FANRPAN during part
of 2011.
Proposed process for Legislation Review
• In an attempt to be creative within the limitations posed by the budget the following is
proposed:
Formation of teams consisting of national subject matter expert(s) + legal expert to draft
amendments and statutory instruments (also SOPs) :
Requirements
• TORs for each team member;
• CVs
• Technical proposal on how the team intends to proceed with the assignment.
Participation of a Regional consultant to ensure harmony.
• Drafts to be presented to national project team (using HaSSP steering committee
platform)
• Could then conduct a national meeting for review/ approval/ information
• Alternatively or in addition:
Technical sub –committee : to consider drafts and other technical issues
Lessons learnt and issues raised by SDC and FANRPAN on Community Seed
Enterprises
• Deliberate move away from maize seed production because a mid-term review of
SDC funded projects noted that there is an over-emphasis on maize seed.
23
• Selection of crops where there is a ready market – there is a perceived high demand
for legume seed in the region.
• Gender concerns – a) emphasis on crops perceived as “women crops”.
b) Deliberate bias towards women farmers instead of paying lip service to gender
mainstreaming (SDC gender workshop in South Africa this week).
• Deliberate selection of farmers who can practice seed production as a business.
• In farmer selection there should be a deliberate move to select farmers who are not
at subsistence level – this is not a humanitarian activity.
• Apart from criticising SDC on the seed storage issue there is need to demonstrate
how the different country programs are entrenching sustainability in their programs
(as in Malawi and Zimbabwe)
Mid-term Review
• A mid-term review of the project will be commissioned by the SDC during the early
part of next year.
• This could provide an opportunity to review some of the budget lines and ground
truth them in view of the current reality.
www.fanrpan.org
THANK YOU
24
Annex 20: Evaluations - Preparing one or preparing to be evaluated.
Presented to the HASSP Monitoring and Evaluation Workshop in Manzini, Swaziland
8-10 November 2011 by Gregory Chanda Chilufya
Purpose of the session.
Upon completion of the session Participants should be able to:
1. Outline how they can prepare an evaluation or prepare to be evaluated; and
2. Define the place of evaluation in the monitoring evaluation continuum.
Contents of the session.
The session has two sub-sections;
a. Revisit of the definition of goal outcomes, outputs and activities;
b. Outline of evaluation questions – OECD based;
c. Lessons learnt; and
d. Utilisation of lessons learnt.
Monitoring and evaluation component definitions
25
Relevance - OECD
• Relevance is the extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are
consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, global priorities and
partners’ and donors’ policies.
Relevance Questions – OECD
1. To what extent are the objectives of the programme still valid?
2. Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the overall goal and
the attainment of its objectives?
3. Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the intended impacts
and effects?
Impact - Goal
Positive and negative, primary and secondary
long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or
unintended.
Impact questions
1. What has happened as a result of the programme or project?
2. What real difference has the activity made to the beneficiaries?
3. How many people have been affected?
Sustainability – Goal
The continuation of benefits from a development intervention after major development
assistance has been completed.
The probability of continued long-term benefits.
The resilience to risk of the net benefit flows over time.
Sustainability
1. To what extent did the benefits of a programme or project continue after donor
funding ceased?
2. What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non achievement
of the sustainability of the programme or project?
Effectiveness – Outcome
The extent to which the development intervention’s objectives were achieved, or are
expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance.
26
Effectiveness questions
1. To what extent were the objectives achieved / are likely to be achieved?
2. What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the
objectives?
Efficiency – Output & Activity
A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted
to results.
Efficiency questions
1. Were the activities cost efficient?
2. Were the activities achieved on time?
3. Was the programme/project achieved in the most efficient way compared to
alternatives?
Attribution
The ascription of a causal link between observed (or expected to be observed) changes and
a specific intervention.
Note: Attribution refers to that which is to be credited for the observed changes or results
achieved. It represents the extent to which observed development effects can be attributed
to a specific intervention or to the performance of one or more partner taking account of
other interventions, (anticipated or unanticipated) confounding factors, or external shocks.
Triangulation
The use of three or more theories, sources or types of information, or types of analysis to
verify and substantiate an assessment.
Note: by combining multiple data sources, methods, analyses or theories, evaluators seek to
overcome the bias that comes from single informants, single methods, single observer or
single theory studies.
Lessons learned
A lesson learned is “knowledge gained through experience, which if shared, would benefit
the work of others”. Lessons learned are sometimes referred to as “good practices”,
“promising practices” or “useful practices”.
Lessons learnt Vs. best practices
• Lessons learnt are different from best practices.
• A best practice is a superior method or innovative practice that contributes to the
improved performance of an organization, usually recognized as "best" by other peer
organizations. It implies accumulating and applying knowledge about what is working
and not working in different situations and contexts, including lessons learned and
27
the continuing process of learning, feedback, reflection and analysis (what works,
how, when and why).
Utilising lesson learn and best practice
• A lesson learnt is only a lesson learnt if it informs planning of new interventions.
Results based budgeting (Planning) Framework Neelan S. Kumar
Thank you