trees for food security: aciar inception workshop, 6 … draft ethiopia... · trees for food...

TREES FOR FOOD SECURITY:

ACIAR Inception Workshop, 6-7 August 2012,

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Workshop Report

“Trees for Food Security” ACIAR Inception Workshop Report for Ethiopia

ii

Executive Summary

This paper summarizes the inception workshop held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to launch the

“Trees for Food Security” project managed by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and

funded by the Australian International Centre for Agricultural Research (ACIAR). The project

will use EverGreen Agriculture to improve food security in the partner countries: Ethiopia,

Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, through research and scaling up adoption. EverGreen

Agriculture is trees integrated into intensive crop and livestock farming, for improved soil

fertility and livelihoods at a field, farm and landscape scales.

The workshop was attended by ICRAF, CIMMYT, CSIRO, World vision and Ethiopian partner

organizations which included RAB, Addis Ababa and Mekele University among others. These

proceedings provide a summary of the workshop presentations, participant discussions and

planning for project implementation; and a list of participants who took part in the workshop.

Participants were provided with a copy of the entire workshop presentations. A similar

workshop was held in Kigali, Rwanda, and attended by ICRAF and representatives of the

Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi project partners.

Key outcomes of the workshop included a renewed commitment from the Ethiopian

government and project partners to the project, and an improved understanding by the project

partners of their roles and key work areas in the project. There are five objectives to the

project (provided in this summary), and several workshops are planned in the near future to

progress work plans and design the characterization, targeting, monitoring and evaluation for

the project


iii

Table of contents

DAY 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

SESSION 1: Opening Remarks. ...........................................................................................................1

1.1 Dr Solomon Assefa, Director General, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research .......1

1.2 Dr. Tony Bartlett, Forestry Research Program Manager, Australian Centre for International

Agricultural Research (ACIAR) .......................................................................................................1

1.3 Prof. August Temu, Deputy Director General, World Agroforestry Centre ............................2

1.4 Official opening of the workshop: Mr. Sileshi Getahun, State Minister, Ministry of

Agriculture .....................................................................................................................................2

SESSION 2: Background Context and Project Overview. ...................................................................3

2.1 Food Security Update in Ethiopia: Mr. Berhanu W/Michael, Food Security Directorate

Director ..........................................................................................................................................3

2.2 ACIAR's Forestry Program (Dr. Tony Bartlett, Australian Centre for International

Agricultural Research (ACIAR) .......................................................................................................4

2.3 Overview of the Project (Prof. Catherine Muthuri, World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi) .....7

SESSION 3: Overview of partner roles and work packages 1 and 2. Chair: Wubalem Tadesse ....10

3.1 CIMMYTs’ role in the ACIAR project and the link between ACIAR AND SIMLESA (Dr. Fred

Kanampiu, CIMMYT) ....................................................................................................................10

3.2 CSIRO’s role in the project (Dr. Philip Smethurst, CSIRO) .....................................................11

3.4 World Vision’s role in the ACIAR project (Mr. Assefa Tofu, World Vision Ethiopia) ............12

3.5 Gradient and analogs- where we are working (Dr. Ermias Betemariam, ICRAF) ..................13

3.6 Best fits for species and management systems (Dr. Fergus Sinclair, ICRAF).........................14

DAY 2 : ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

SESSION 4: Project management, characterization and participatory design. ................................16

4.1 Introduction to teams and organization of work (Prof Catherine Muthuri, ICRAF) .............16

4.2 Characterization (Dr. Miyuki Iiyama, ICRAF) ........................................................................19


iv

4.3 Participatory design and modeling (Dr Fergus Sinclair, ICRAF) ............................................21

SESSION 5: Extension, Monitoring, Evaluation and Capacity Building. ...........................................22

5.1 Extension methods and scaling approaches (Dr Evelyn Kiptot, ICRAF) .................................22

5.2 Monitoring & evaluation (Mr. Sid Mohan, ICRAF) ................................................................25

5.3 Capacity Building (Dr Yitebetu Moges, EIAR) .......................................................................26

SESSION 6 – Work package planning. Chair: Dr. Fergus Sinclair ..................................................29

Workshop conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 38

List of Participants ............................................................................................................................................................. 39

Workshop Programme ..................................................................................................................................................... 43


v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Discussions on Ethiopia’s Food Security Program and ACIAR's Forestry program ... 6

Table 2: Discussions on the Overall Project ..................................................................................................... 8

Table 3: Discussions on CIMMYTs’ role in the ACIAR project and the link between ACIAR AND

SIMLESA and CSIRO’s role in the project ...................................................................................................... 11

Table 4: Discussions on the impact of farmland enclosures on soil quality and sustainability of

conservation structures; and World Vision’s role in the ACIAR project ......................................... 12

Table 5: Discussions on Gradient and analogs; and Best fits for species and management

systems ........................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Table 6: Discussions on project management, characterization and participatory design ... 17

Table 7: Discussions on characterization ....................................................................................................... 20

Table 8: Discussions on participatory design and modeling ................................................................ 21

Table 9: Discussions on extension methods and scaling approaches .............................................. 25

Table 10: Discussions on Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................. 26

Table 11: DiscussionS on capacity building .................................................................................................. 27

Table 12: Discussions on Characterization and targeting ...................................................................... 31

Table 13: Discussions on participatory trials and modeling work plan ......................................... 32

Table 14: Discussions on Extension and scaling out and up ................................................................. 33

Table 15: Discussions on extension and scaling up work plan ............................................................ 37


vi

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural research

AAU Addis Ababa University

CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization

EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research

ICRAF The World Agroforestry Centre (International Centre for Research in

Agroforestry)

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

MU Mekelle University

NARS National Agricultural Research System

NGO Non-governmental Organization

RRC Rural Resource Centre

WFP World Food Program

WV World vision


1

DAY 1

SESSION 1: Opening Remarks.

Chair: Dr. Jeremias Mowo; Chief Rapporteur: Dr. Abayneh Derero

Session rapporteurs: Drs. Kiros Hadgu, Miyuki IIYAMA and Evelyn Kiptot

1.1 Dr Solomon Assefa, Director General, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research

Dr Assefa first welcomed the workshop participants warmly. He then elaborated on the

multiple benefits of forests to humanity, stating that forestry research is one of the core

research directorates in the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR). The major

research programs in EIAR are plantation and agroforestry, natural forest, nontimber

forest products and forest products utilization. Since 1995 EIAR has enjoyed collaboration

with ICRAF through the African Highland Initiative. EIAR has also collaborated with the

Australian Centre for International Research (CIMMYT and ICRAF are international

research partners) in sustainable intensification of maize-legume cropping systems for

food security in Eastern and Southern Africa project (SIMLESA). The new ACIAR project

whose focus is on improving sustainable productivity in farming systems and enhancing

livelihoods through adoption of evergreen agriculture in eastern Africa will strengthen the

existing research activities in the country. EIAR is also delighted to learn of ICRAF's new

office in Ethiopia and expects great contributions to improving the livelihood of the rural

poor.

1.2 Dr. Tony Bartlett, Forestry Research Program Manager, Australian Centre for

International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)

Dr. Tony began by noting that ACIAR recently celebrated its 30th anniversary, and

expressed the commitment of ACIAR to work on food security issues in Africa. Through a

recent commitment from the Australian government, ACIAR has established the Australian

International Food Security Centre. The current project ‘Trees for Food Security’ is the first

project to be financed by the Food Security Centre. Dennis Garrity came to ACIAR at the

right time and made an impressive talk. It only took 5 months to develop the project and

get it approved, which was a very quick process. He noted that the project is the biggest

project in the ACIAR forestry program.


2

1.3 Prof. August Temu, Deputy Director General, World Agroforestry Centre

Prof. Temu took the participants though a one minute video to show the rate of expansion

of cropland on the planet. He said that Dennis Garrity had shared with him the need for

opening an agroforestry program in Ethiopia in 2006. He stated that although the previous

efforts were not successful, there are four milestones that will guarantee success for the

new initiative: the Ethiopian Government's move on long term land certification, its strong

commitment to plant trees e.g. 100 million Faidherbia albida seedlings, the climate resilient

green economy strategy and the most recent efforts involving preparation of an

agroforestry strategy for Ethiopia. Agroforestry today has become a mechanism for system

transformation; an affordable system for smallholder farmers. There are three areas we

want to excel in the ACIAR project: (1) build individual and institutional capacity (2) share

knowledge (3) acquire improved germplasm. ICRAF has finished all the preparation to

open its office in Ethiopia.

1.4 Official opening of the workshop: Mr. Sileshi Getahun, State Minister, Ministry of

Agriculture

Mr. Sileshi noted that during the visit of the then DG of ICRAF (Dennis Garrity) in 2009 to

Ethiopia, the government requested the presence of ICRAF in Ethiopia. As a follow up to

this request, ICRAF is opening an office in Ethiopia soon. Ethiopia's economy and the well-

being of the majority of its people is dependent on agriculture and use of natural resources.

The rural development policies and strategies of the country signifies the importance of its

natural resources including soils, water, forests and in particular agroforestry. Taking into

consideration the generation's global challenges, the Government of Ethiopia has launched

innovative approaches that include a Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy. In

addition, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi declared at the Durban Climate Change Convention

that the government will plant 100 million Faidherbia albida seedlings on cereal croplands

in four years. The government also has a plan to reforest 15 million hectares of land,

including the regeneration of tree cover on croplands. Mr. Sileshi observed that new project

being launched on improving sustainable productivity in farming systems and enhanced

livelihoods through adoption of Evergreen Agriculture in Eastern Africa is very much in

line with the Ethiopian Government's food security as well as rural development strategies.

Hence, the government’s support to the project, and its success will mean a lot to ensuring

food security; the government is also pleased to learn of the new ICRAF office in the

country. He concluded by stating that agroforestry is the best option we have for the

heavily degraded and highly populated highlands of Ethiopia.


3

SESSION 2: Background Context and Project Overview.

Chair: Dr. Solomon Assefa Dr Miyuki Iiyama

2.1 Food Security Update in Ethiopia: Mr. Berhanu W/Michael, Food Security

Directorate Director

In the past 2-3 decades, food insecurity has been a chronic problem. Food security refers to

availability of sufficient food to all people at all times to enable them have an active and

healthy life. Ethiopia has problems from all the aspects with 29.2% total poverty head

count, and the causes include drought, environmental degradation, population pressure,

limitations in technology, lack of product diversification and market integration, limited

capacity in planning and implementation and limited access to credit. The Food Security

Program has been implemented since 2003 and now covers 319 chronically food insecure

districts. The food security program has the following four components:

1. Resettlement program (RSP) –key program in the last 9 years, aims at attaining

food security through improved access to land

2. Productive safety net program (PSNP) – designed to prevent asset depletion at

the household level, create asset at the community level, and is a multi-donor

funded program.

3. Household asset building program (HABP)

4. Complementary Community Investment (CCI) – intervention designed to create

community assets and complement HH investment through creating enabling

environment, implemented mainly in pastoral and agro-pastoral areas.

1. RSP is implemented strictly on a voluntary basis, and participating people receive up to

2 ha of land and essential agricultural inputs. In addition they have access to water and

health services, and other essential supports.

2. PSNP is designed to fill the food gaps, which occur for 3 to 4 months in a year. The

program is development oriented and has shifted from an emergency approach to the PSNP

approach. Program beneficiaries receive support through public works such as soil and

water conservation, water harvesting, small-scale irrigation, afforestation and rural

infrastructure development. More than 7 million people have received PSNP transfers.

PSNP resources include cash and food; it follows a cash first principle, preference of

beneficiaries, with a transfer size at a wage rate equivalent to 3 kg of grain per day/person

for 5 days a month, for 6 months/year. The program has avoided death of people due to

hunger, transformed the lives of many households, played a critical role in responding to

crisis, and productive community assets are created. As a result, natural resources are

rehabilitated, household food security has been improved, and there has been a

measurable impact on beneficiary’s livelihood as measured by income and assets.


4

“Graduation” is the ultimate target of the food security program.; Up to now about 2 million

PSNP beneficiary households have received credit from different sources, and more than

496,300 household heads have graduated and have become food self-sufficient.

3. HABP: households packages delivered have been agricultural packages based on

agroecological realities, moisture problems, fodder availability, and environmental risks.

Different combinations are employed: some involve a single activity, while others are

diversified. Credit provision to the program beneficiaries are from the governments’ annual

food security budget, as well as from World Bank, CIDA, and others. The size of credit

varies depending on the nature and size of the package. Up to June 2012, about 1.99

million beneficiaries have received household credit from the government allocated budget

and from the World Bank supported project and other non-government organizations

(NGOs). As a result, households have been able to earn additional income, build assets and

increasingly cover their own consumption needs from own resources.

2.2 ACIAR's Forestry Program (Dr. Tony Bartlett, Australian Centre for International

Agricultural Research (ACIAR)

ACIAR’s mission is to achieve more productive and sustainable agricultural systems for the

benefit of developing countries and Australia, through international agricultural research

partnerships. Agriculture includes forestry and fisheries; the main focus is on research

related to food security, livelihoods, smallholders and sustainable systems. ACIAR was

established in 1982, and conducts research for development.

The Australian International Food Security Centre (AIFSC) was announced in October 2011

($33 m Australian Dollar) at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM).

AIFSC is located within ACIAR, and its initial focus is on advancing food security in sub

Saharan Africa. A 10 year strategy for the AIFC identifies where activities should focus to

most effectively deliver greatest impacts for food security. In addition, ACIAR’s forestry

program aims to enhance sustainable forestry contributions to economic development and

rural livelihoods and build capacity. The focus of its research is on smallholder livelihoods,

plantation productivity, genetic improvement, agroforestry, value adding processing and

non-timber products. The new project in Africa on Evergreen Agriculture, is about the role

that trees play in enhancing food security via improved soil productivity.

ACIAR’s Forestry Research Program themes are:

Theme 1: tree growing – germplasm improvement & distribution, plantation

productivity and management, AF and smallholder livelihoods, forest health


5

Theme 2: sustainable forest management – community forestry, sustainable forest

management systems (inventory and yield regulations, certification), environmental

services

Theme 3: efficient and sustainable forest industries - value chains for wood and non-

timber forest products, chain of custody systems, value-adding processing and

product manufacturing

Theme 4: climate change mitigation and adaptation, reducing deforestation and

forest degradation (REDD+), resilience of trees and forest systems, management of

fires, wood-based bioenergy.

ACIAR forestry program’s interest in East Africa is because it has high levels of poverty and

food insecurity, and trees/forests have a role in addressing food security and enhancing

livelihoods. While agroforestry systems are well established, evergreen agriculture has

great potential for expansion. Good local institutions exist such as ICRAF and partners, and

there are opportunities to demonstrate the very positive roles trees can provide in

enhancing food security. Research plays an important role in enhancing outcomes and

influencing policies.

The ACIAR Evergreen Agriculture project (FSC/2012/014) “Trees for Food Security” aims

to enhance food security for resource-poor rural people in eastern Africa through research

that underpins national programs to scale up the use of trees within farming systems in

Ethiopia and Rwanda and then scale out successes to relevant agro-ecological zones in

Uganda and Burundi. Expected outputs from the projects include establish/strengthen

partnerships in Ethiopia and Rwanda, plus Uganda and Burundi, undertake some

collaborative research, build capacity, produce and disseminate research outputs, achieve

significant scaling out, and demonstrate contributions to improved food security in partner

countries. The project is a 4 year project led by World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) with

$ 5.4 million (Australian Dollar) funding from ACIAR and with over $1.6 million (Australian

Dollar) in partner contributions (ICRAF, CIMMYT, CSIRO, World Vision and Partner

Governments)

Dr Bartlett concluded his talk with the following key messages: the project is well designed

with strong commitment from all partners. However, complexity of research activities and

number of partnership means good leadership and co-ordination is essential. It is a

research and development (R & D) project with a strong focus on scaling out of research.

Outputs will be relevant to global and national agendas on food security and the role of

trees, and lead to real benefits for smallholder farmers.


6

Table 1: Discussions on Ethiopia’s Food Security Program and ACIAR's Forestry

program

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Responses/ Answers Dennis Garrity: What is the ability of FSP/PNSN program to integrate agroforestry into the program as investment plans? What are the experiences with credits for water harvesting?

Mr. Berhanu W/michael: Agroforestry is already integrated in the program. One of the public works is soil and water conservation on degraded land, usually going to livestock management. No credit is involved in getting seedlings; only public work is involved.

Woldeyohanes Fantu: What are the challenges for PSNP implementation? How are farmers recruited to this program; who is responsible in the household? If there is little or no monitoring on the use of the credit by farmers for the objectives of the project, how is the money returned?

Mr. Berhanu W/michael: Ten years data on emergency food aid receiving farmers was used for targeting beneficiaries; we have developed targeting guidelines. The targeting is done at two levels: at community and at administration levels. At community level, the community themselves recruit the beneficiaries, and this is endorsed at district/village administration level. The challenges in the implementation of the program include coordination among stakeholders (10 development partners are involved in financing the program, they have different conditionality, so harmonizing them was critical) and hence producing a single program document was a challenge and staff capacity and shortage was another challenge

Ermias Beteremariam: Is there any mechanism to ensure resettled people do not degrade the land? Yitebitu Moges: where is resettlement program being implemented? -Is it in forest areas-which will contradict our green strategy?

Mr. Berhanu W/michael: Before making resettlement, the program raises awareness of the people, efforts are made to minimize deforestation.

August Temu: For credit facilities extended to smallholders a major cost is the first few years, as farmers can't pay back immediately. What is the time required for farmers practicing tree planting to start repaying the credit?

Mr. Berhanu W/michael: Concerning handling of credits, there is a credit guideline, training is given to the partners, and M&E systems are in place, biannually with the development partners. We track the list of beneficiaries and review before disbursing, and identified with training needs, the money is released to the community as a revolving fund.


7

August Temu: What are the possibilities for enrolling the students of African universities with the capacity building mechanisms?

Tony Bartlett: ACIAR rules are that scholarships should be given to both African students to study in Australian Universities, as well as ensure Australia benefits as well. There are some countries which cannot meet the criteria of Australian Universities, for example English language, so the ACIAR model may be externally reviewed in future as countries and levels of funding in operation expand. Rosemary Lott added that in her experience, Australian university courses offer a flexible framework including critical analytical skills, while case studies can be done in the countries of project operation.

2.3 Overview of the Project (Prof. Catherine Muthuri, World Agroforestry Centre,

Nairobi)

Professor Muthuri started by urging the partners to own the project jointly! She requested

project participants to go through/digest the proposal to understand what we committed

to do, especially the national partners as the owners and the implementers of the projects.

The project is a regional project on food security, a big investment in scaling up in Ethiopia

and Rwanda, and scaling out to Burundi and Uganda.

Challenges to food security include high (and rapidly increasing) population density,

fragmentation of already small holdings and cultivation of fragile margins on steep slopes,

land degradation and deforestation, high poverty levels, increased demand for tree

products and services, degreasing soil fertility and water scarcity, uncertain climate,

variability and change.

Trees can make difference on average yields – in the case of maize, slightly over 2 times

under Faidherbia tree canopy – but this is dependent on crops, species, and different

conditions.

Areas of project work and rationale: the study will be carried out in two agroecological

zones in Ethiopia and Rwanda. The project aims to scale up the adoption of farm trees in

Ethiopia and Rwanda and scale out successes from these countries to Uganda and Burundi

under similar agroecological zones. Suggested areas in Ethiopia are Melkasa, Bako, and


8

Tigray, building on the role of partners and experiences of CIMMYT and others in SIMLESA.

The key research questions are designed to address how to transform site-specific

examples of how trees improve farm productivity into scalable results that deliver

productivity gains across large agroecological zones.

Aim: to enhance food security for resource-poor rural people in eastern Africa through

research that underpins national programs to scale up the use of trees within farming

systems. The project’s specific objectives are:

(1) to characterise target farming landscapes and systems, and develop tools for

matching species and management options to sites and circumstances,

(2) to generalize predictions of impacts of tree species and management on crop

productivity, water resources and nutrients at field, farm and landscape scales to

inform scaling up to improve food security and reduce climate-change risks

(3) to develop effective methods and enabling environments for scaling up and out

the adoption of trees on farms,

(4) to develop databases and tools for monitoring and evaluation of the impact of

scaling up and out the adoption of trees on farms

(5) to enhance capacity and connectivity of national partner institutions (including

farmer groups) in developing and promoting locally appropriate options for

adoption of farm trees.

National universities must be also proactive. The linkages in the conceptual framework

need to be internalized. Each team has important roles to play!! Works on the ground need

to be led by the Ethiopian partner. A project webpage is already developed for placing

workshop brochures, and updates on the progress of the project, to assist good

communication and visibility. Event news and photos are welcome.

Table 2: Discussions on the Overall Project

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers Prof. Catherine sought clarification on the extension system in Ethiopia

The session chair, Dr Solomon Assefa, explained the status of the extension system in Ethiopia: the extension system belongs to Ministry of Agriculture, which has a highly organized structure, with 68,000 development agents to reach grassroots. In each village, there are three development


9

agents (DAs) responsible for crops, livestock and natural resources management. The DAs provide knowledge and services to farmers, and they can be utilized for successful scaling up and out.

Prof Temu: How are the farmers' training centers (FTCs) coming into the project? Capacity building should be clearly targeted.

Dr Solomon Assefa; FTCs are available in each village; about 9000 are active centres whereas there are potential 17,000 centres. Baselines are also needed to assess the capacity needs of development agents for scaling up and out. Prof Catherine Muthuri: there is a need for capacity gap assessment in all education, extension and research institutions.

Dr. Woldeyohanes Fantu: So many partners are involved in the project in Ethiopia, but there should be one main institution responsible for the coordination

Prof Catherine Muthuri: EIAR is the lead institute in Ethiopia; ICRAF Ethiopia office will discuss the modalities for disbursement of the funds.

Dr. Yitebitu Moges: Could you clarify the selection criteria of the sites, or otherwise can this forum come to agree?

Prof Catherine Muthuri: During the proposal development workshop, partners suggested sites, but for this proposal, we are taking the agroecological zone approach. When we say Bako, it refers to the agroecological zone represented by Bako. Tigray and Melkessa are more semi-arid, and Bako is more semi-humid. Tony Bartlett: there will be more participatory site selection for scaling up and out. The project design was done very quickly especially from the modeling perspective, so we needed to leverage on the existing sites, for example SIMLESA.

Jeremias Mowo: ICRAF Ethiopia office is not foreign; should be regarded as a local institution

Dr. Solomon Assefa – this project is very much aligned with Ethiopia government’s policies and strategies with a focus on food security and livelihoods, so we expect huge impacts from scaling up and out. The

Dr August Temu – expressed appreciation of the commitments expressed by Dr Solomon Assefa of EIAR.


10

locations criteria suggested by Catherine and Tony, i.e. capitalizing on SIMLESA, more on agro-ecological zones rather than specific locations is the right approach. As EIAR leading institution, EIAR will ensure transparent and consultative partnerships for success of the project. We want ICRAF's presence felt in Ethiopia like it is our own ICRAF at Ethiopia. We are working with some African nations in EAAP project, Ethiopia also committed to disseminate successes to other African countries.

SESSION 3: Overview of partner roles and work packages 1 and 2. Chair: Wubalem

Tadesse

3.1 CIMMYTs’ role in the ACIAR project and the link between ACIAR AND SIMLESA

(Dr. Fred Kanampiu, CIMMYT)

The challenges facing food security include water scarcity, nutrient scarcity, climate change,

pests and diseases, energy scarcity. Given these, a challenge is how to increase efficiency of

production? Only 10-30% of water is used by crop, and 20-50% of nitrogen (N) fertilizer

applied is used by cereal crops. Precision agriculture is about when, where and how to

apply practices.

Problems to address in increasing water availability are high water loss through runoff,

evaporation, deep drainage and shallow root distribution by annuals. Problems with N

fixation and recycling are that production of N fertilizers is dependent on fossil fuels and

the high mobility of the nutrient. Problems in phosphorus (P) mobilization and acquisition

are that P is a poorly mobile nutrient and mainly occurs in non-available forms in the soil.

Minimizing competition is possible through tree species selection (phenology, pattern of

root activity, plasticity of the root system) and management (spacing, supply of limiting

factors, shoot pruning and tillage)

The CIMMYT contribution will be answering practical questions for maize farmers, such as:

What happens near trees? What to plant near trees? What management is needed near

trees? What to measure near and away from the crops?

SIMLESA Link. The project will link with SIMLESA since the two areas selected for the

project are SIMLESA sites and so some of the baselines may be useful for the ACIAR

projects.


11

3.2 CSIRO’s role in the project (Dr. Philip Smethurst, CSIRO)

CSIRO will bring the APSIM modeling framework to the project especially the tree

component. The model was developed to simulate biophysical processes in farming

systems and has been applied in Australia, Asia and smallholder farming systems in Africa.

It has a library of plant growth models for a wide range of crops. The maize module is well

developed and has wide applicability. APSIM has good crop models, and for this project, a

likely starting point is F. albida and maize. Further work will consider to what extent we

need to include nutrients and build in other species.

APSIM also has an agroforestry module, which will be developed during the ACIAR project.

Some examples of tree-crop competition were provided to demonstrate the model’s

capacity to predict cost-returns of planting trees. The example was based on Australian

data with windbreaks of Eucalyptus and one adjacent crop, in low rainfall, poor soil

situations where tree-crop competition is high and there is no commercial product for

young eucalypts. This differs financially from many situations in eastern Africa, but

demonstrates that APSIM can include:

Climate data in scenario analysis

Cost/returns of planting trees

Annual cash flow

APSIM has a lot of useful models available for a wide range of systems, and field data

can be extended to farm scale level.

Table 3: Discussions on CIMMYTs’ role in the ACIAR project and the link between

ACIAR AND SIMLESA and CSIRO’s role in the project

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers Dr. Ermias: Regarding the soil component, Fred mentioned measuring N, P and why not carbon as one of the parameters?

Dr. Fred Kanampiu: As the project is implemented, we need to develop the protocols together to avoid duplication and save on the expenses. Planning together is important.

Prof. August Temu: Modeling of complex systems-traditional AF systems are complex, the most successful systems are the more complex systems. Not modeling at the landscape level leaves us with little information in understanding these systems.

Philip Smethurst: Complexity can be thought about in different ways. Can simulate one plant species or can look at complexity at the landscape level. Comment is well taken.


12

3.3 The impact of farmland enclosures on soil quality and sustainability of

conservation structures: The case of Hadegulele Initiative, Adama Woreda. (Mrs

Aynalem Mamo, Addis Ababa University)

Organic matter and cation exchange are significantly higher in the enclosed farmlands due

to the presence of agroforestry. Most of the enclosures are still intact. The management

practices in the study area include integration of trees in the farmlands, and use of manure

and composting. Application of fertilizers is widely practiced in the enclosed farmlands.

Conclusions: Organic matter and cation exchange are higher in the enclosed farmlands, and

enclosures are therefore useful in improving soil and crop productivity.

3.4 World Vision’s role in the ACIAR project (Mr. Assefa Tofu, World Vision Ethiopia)

World Vision Ethiopia (WVE) has been working on agroforestry with Cornell University,

and has a regional and national structure, operating at the grass roots level via area

development programs (ADP). World Vision operates in 9 countries in East Africa. In

Ethiopia WVE covers 81 districts supporting more than 12 million people in the country.

Child well-being is World Vision’s priority and the 'Secure the future initiative' focuses on

the root causes of vulnerability.

Beating famine through farmer managed natural regeneration (FMNR) is a model where

desired stumps are selected and cared for to encourage regeneration. FMNR is supported

by WV Australia (financial and technical). Antsokia, a district, used to be a valley of death

but now it is a valley of change. Agroforestry has been one of the key intervention areas of

WVE. In Tigray WVE has 7 ADPs and around Melkassa we have Adama ADP.

Factors for success in the changes include involvement of the community, use of

community based technical program (CBTP), and ownership of the intervention by the

community.

WVE can contribute to the ACIAR project database, M&E and in scaling up and out of

technology components of the project.

Table 4: Discussions on the impact of farmland enclosures on soil quality and

sustainability of conservation structures; and World Vision’s role in the ACIAR

project


13

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers Rosemary Lott: is WVE working alongside the government effectively?

Assefa Tofu: WVE is working with the district offices; joint evaluation takes place every three years and budget use is transparent.

Dennis Garrity: though there are mature trees on Faidherbia farmlands, in some places the natural regeneration is being grazed down to bush sizes and as scaling up are going to be based on community management of grazing, how is the involvement of communities in FMNR? Could you comment on how scaling up is going to be undertaken in the midst of challenges of grazing?

Assefa Tofu: Definitely, the challenges of grazing can be overcome since (1) the value of livestock is getting higher, and people are now focusing on quality and not on quantity of cows, (2) the attention given to ecosystem protection is high, about 6 million hectare under rehabilitation this year, (3) people are also getting higher return from crop produces, agriculture is becoming a business, and the policy is also very conducive (4) costs for fertilizer are higher, hence there is room for trees.

3.5 Gradient and analogs- where we are working (Dr. Ermias Betemariam, ICRAF)

This presentation showed how climate analogs and vegetation gradients can be used in site

selection for the ACIAR project.

Climate analogues can be used to:

Show similar climatic conditions, or somewhat similar. E.g. where similar species

and practices might apply.

Point to sites, where future-adapted land use options can be tested.

Provide an impression about the impacts of climate change e.g. What will happen in

20 years? (Projecting climate change impact requires models.)

Identify locations, from which climate change adaptation measures could be

obtained

Show locations from which information could be collected for making climate-proof

system models.

Vegetation maps can help us in site selection. For example: Databases on species

composition can be used for site selection

VECEA: a higher resolution map for 7 countries in eastern Africa

The project will also map tree cover and dieback use a modeling approach to inform

site selection and identifying where are we going to upscale.

These data can help identify where are we going to upscale.


14

3.6 Best fits for species and management systems (Dr. Fergus Sinclair, ICRAF)

We should use the term best fits for species and management systems, rather than best

bets, in customizing species and management options to sites and farmer circumstances

The challenge is that we have fine grained variation in soils, climate, farming practices,

household characteristics, market opportunities/ development of markets (access to

markets change and we can affect) social capital (social structures to enable collective

action), policy to implementation (how is policy implemented on the ground, what is the

perception). We need an appropriate enabling environment for the interventions to work.

The right species for the right circumstances (both biophysical and socio-economic) need

to be selected. What is good for one farmer in one altitude is different to another farmer in

another altitude.

The approach is characterization, to match the knowledge we have to the variation, identify

strengths and weaknesses (knowledge gaps), and design scaling up so that promising

options are tested across sufficient ranges. We need to establish a participatory approach,

eco-efficiency (most options that increase productivity also increase risks), measure

performance of options, establish participatory research trials with farmers, and build on

what we have, learn from options from other parts of Africa. Options vary according to

different farmer circumstances.

Forms of intervention

Intervention = target practice + associated practices + enabling environment

E.g. trees for crop fields, controlled grazing, trees on other farm niches, social capital,

secure land and tree tenure, quality seed/seedlings supply or encouragement of FMNR.

In summary, for best fit species and management systems:

Embed research within development

Provide the data that drives development

Action required now but knowledge is imperfect

Build on what we already have

Use an iterative /structured learning approach

Deliver results as methods, tools and approaches.


15

Table 5: Discussions on Gradient and analogs; and Best fits for species and

management systems

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers Prof. Temu: It is very interesting analysis, Dr. Fergus. Farmers need options- a broad analysis is important. They may have their own choices, mix of species. They are intelligent and know what they want.

Dr. Fergus Sinclair: Multiple factors and market opportunities contribute to selection of species diversity. Dr. Philip Smethurst: Documenting a number of successful cases where trees have had an impact and communicating these case studies to other people may be important. Dr. Fergus Sinclair: Philip's comment on case studies is valid, they are important for communication, but there is also a need for rigorous study. The interest in this project is to effectively change the lives of farmers in scaling up effort, and that is a real challenge.


16

DAY 2 :

SESSION 4: Project management, characterization and participatory

design. Chair: Dr Philip Smethurst; Chief rapporteur: Mr. Sid Mohan

Session rapporteurs: Drs. Rosemary Lott, Ermias Betermariam, Mr. Fred Kanampiu

4.1 Introduction to teams and organization of work (Prof Catherine Muthuri, ICRAF)

Proposed steering committee:

Chair – Dr. Mowo (regional coordinator)

Project manager – Catherine Muthuri

ICRAF global research programs 2 & 3 – Fergus Sinclair and Steve Franzel

CIMMYT scientist involved in SIMLESA – likely to be Frederick Baudron

Four country coordinators (one scientist from each country’s main national partner

organization)

Roles

Steering committee:

o Oversight and advisory role on project

o Will meet bi-annually, rotate location amongst implementing countries

Project manager – overall oversight of project

Country coordinators – implement project in country and report to project manager

Work program leaders – responsibility for work package and liaise with country

coordinator for smooth running of activities within respective countries.

Meetings

Virtual monthly meetings

Midterm review meeting for the project

Work packages leaders:

1. WP1 – Characterization and targeting – Miyuki Iiyama

2. WP2 – Participatory trials and modeling – Eike with CSIRO and CIMMYT

3. WP3 – Scaling up methods and enabling environment – Evelyn Kiptot, with strong

coordination with country coordinators and partners

4. WP4 – Monitoring and assessment of impacts – Frank Place with country

coordinators


17

5. WP5 – Capacity strengthening and connectivity of national institutions – ICRAF with

country coordinators –led by Catherine Muthuri. Note this is capacity strengthening

according to the needs of the project.

Scheduled workshops and dates

1. Baseline survey design – 28-30 August 2012 (Nairobi) – coordination by Miyuki

(sampling, tools, analysis, data management, focus on same households, nesting,

extension methods/ systems)

2. Measurement and modeling – early to mid-October 2012 (Addis Ababa) –

coordination by Eike and CSIRO. For scientists from CSIRO, CIMMYT, country and

ICRAF.

3. Participatory trial design and monitoring and evaluation – March 2013 –

coordinated by ICRAF, and includes other country scientists, CIMMYT and World

Vision

Table 6: Discussions on project management, characterization and participatory

design

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers Evergreen a large and complex project – ACIAR requires bi-annual report

Discussion of role of the steering committee SC has oversight and advisory roles on project, and not intended to comprise representative from each supporting institution (i.e. SC a functional rather than political role)

ILRI and World Vision each $100,000 contribution to project – they will use funds for on ground implementation rather than committee costs

Need mechanisms for partners to provide and receive feedback from SC

SC advisory role to project includes: to advise on project and

coordination issues which arise (e.g. resource issues, things go wrong, inadequate communication)

review progress reports before submitted to ACIAR (especially in first year), and

advise if a contract variation is


18

required, and verify with project partners that all are happy with the change

More detailed roles to be prepared soon – clarify role of project manager and

steering committee need Terms of Reference for host

country coordinator implementation Discussion of the size of the steering committee:

SC proposed above is large – drawing on experience from SIMLESA, CIMMYT and other large integrated projects:

need smaller committee for immediate project decisions and oversight

Agreed management committee for day to day advice on project – comprising first 5 reps on SC list above

To reduce size of steering committee – the five work package leaders attend steering committee by invitation only. Work program leaders (focal scientists) will report to project manager, who can represent them at the SC meetings.

Uganda and Burundi not required to attend first 18 months of meetings, while project is focused on Ethiopia and Rwanda – bring in as project lessons relevant to them are achieved

depending on purpose of meeting, some members could attend electronically

further consideration of the SC meeting and reporting structure needed – to help define roles and process for consultation with country coordinators and work package coordinators

The project needs to maintain flexibility to adapt to issues that arise.

Communication is critical to success of the project

3 way communication is required between project manager, country coordinators and work package


19

coordinators Project manager and project

management group to keep lines of communication open

Project manager will talk directly with the country coordinators during the project

Country coordinators need to link with director of organization in their country

Develop a common reporting structure/template to provide consistency across countries/work package areas and assist the project coordinator to collate reporting

Meetings within each country are needed to ensure communication between parties

Country coordinators will come from the host/lead institution - should be appointed based on experience and skills

4.2 Characterization of target land uses and systems (Dr. Miyuki Iiyama, ICRAF)

The objective (work package) 1 is to characterize target farming land uses and systems;

and to develop tools to match species and management options to sites and farming

circumstances. This will involve biophysical and socio economic information.

The research question is: What mix of trees, crops and management practices will work for

which sites and farmer circumstances across the target agro-ecological zones?

The presentation outlined a range of factors which affect food security and poverty in the

regions, and how the project, through agroforestry and natural resource management, aims

to improve these circumstances.

Baseline methods will comprise:

biophysical data/ surveys (managed by Ermias Betermariam)

Socio economic household surveys (led by Miyuki) Value chain analysis /local

knowledge survey /policy- institution studies

The project will also use existing monitoring data from project partners and other sources.

Contribution/ benefits of this work package:


20

The characterization will inform targeting and prioritization for species, sites and

management options. The baseline data is important to inform scaling up and out.

The baseline monitoring and evaluation will allow future detection of changes in

land, livelihood and adoption of practices.

Workshop and survey dates:

28-30 August, 2012 – baseline design workshop (Nairobi)

September 2012 – design of tools and pre-testing, prepare logistics

Oct-November 2012 – implement the survey

December 2012 – data entry and cleaning

Jan-May 2013 – data analysis and reporting

Table 7: Discussions on characterization of target land uses and systems

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers Dennis Garrity - Regarding the diagram of factors affecting production and food security in the presentation – suggest add a box to represent community management of grazing

How quickly can the survey and baseline data be incorporated into implementation?

The baseline data will be made available as fast as possible, in particular the participatory trials/participatory rural appraisal. The survey results are to be available by May 2013; this is as early as can provide the survey results (given the tight timeline).

Use of survey results The survey results are important – not just for publishing in journals – but to understand the degree of variation and this will inform sampling trials.

Survey length Need to design the survey to target key questions to assist scaling up and extension. The household survey could take 1-1.5 hours per household. The recent Australian “Drivers of practice change survey” took this long, with a similar range of questions on reasons for adoption of practices, and questions by the Australian Bureau of


21

Statistics on farm agricultural practices and financial data.

What incentive for farmers to answer the survey? Need to explain the purpose of the survey and then they will answer. The survey (and project) will provide community benefits.

Some baseline data already exists, for example World Vision monitoring data.

Yes, this can be used. However need the survey to be systematic so it forms a baseline.

For scaling up to be successful, country contributions are critical.

4.3 Participatory design and modeling (Dr Fergus Sinclair, ICRAF)

Participatory trials – these need enough different options across a sufficient range of

variation. This will give a large number of data points with shallow data – to be used for

regression models. Sampling needs to take care to avoid confirmatory bias, that is, only

testing and confirming what already believe. Need to build in randomness and a range of

scenarios into the design.

Simulation models – Can’t extrapolate using regression techniques – need simulation

measurements and modeling also.

A big gap is that many crop models can’t represent many natural resource management

interventions. For example, the CERES model can’t incorporate tree crops, mulching, can

only compare genotype variation for rice, crop models don’t allow for different soil layers

including depth to which tree roots grow. ICRAF models are good on interactions but don’t

have good measurements of crop yields. CSIRO APSIM model has a family of modules which

incorporate interactions. This project will therefore develop APSIM to analyse these

interactions.

Table 8: Discussions on participatory design and modeling


22

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers Will the participatory trials include livelihood data?

Yes, but through baseline monitoring and evaluation data.

What is the threshold tree cover? Historical tree cover may indicate the natural carrying capacity of sites. Remember agriculture modifies natural systems – e.g. can prune trees to manage cover. Crops vary in their water use and shade needs – need to measure and simulate this.

Trees can have offsite benefits which should be considered.

The farm scale modeling, if done right, can inform the design of the participatory trials. The project will be iterative – can refine or improve design each based on previous years’ results.

Will there be monitoring of old trees? Yes, but need to be careful in interpreting as we may not know history of their management. Can use to help parameterize the models.

Who will do the monitoring of the old trees and new trials established during the project.

At what point will work package 2 inform work package 3? Important as will use to test methods.

Need a combination of WP2 and 3 to evaluate different extension methods in different contexts. Participatory trials are the extension (i.e. research embedded in development)

Models of livelihood impacts are not due till year 4. Need preliminary data earlier.

SESSION 5: Extension, Monitoring, Evaluation and Capacity Building. Chair: Dr. Jeremias Mowo

5.1 Extension methods and scaling approaches (Dr Evelyn Kiptot, ICRAF)

Team composition:

Jonathan Muriuki, Judith Oduol, Joseph Tanui (ICRAF)

National partners, World Vision.


23

Research question: What are the most effective extension methods and seed/seedling

supply systems that will enhance adoption of Evergreen Agriculture?

Objective: Effective extension methods for scaling up/out

Access to germplasm, knowledge and enabling environments like markets, policy support

and strong institutions (community in managing enclosures, market etc.) are important

factors in improving productivity and livelihoods.

This objective has four sub-objectives

1. Develop efficient tree germplasm supply systems

2. Identify, test and promote effective extension methods

3. Engage stakeholders to create an enabling environment for adoption

4. Value chain analysis and development

Cross-cutting activities

1. Establishment of effective project communication strategy

2. Effective communication is essential to achieve scaling up/out

3. Develop communication materials for all the outputs within the project. ICRAF

Communication unit can be used.

The presentation provided further detail on activities for each of the sub-objectives. These

included:

3.1 Developing efficient tree germplasm supply systems

Supply of germplasm to farmers is crucial to the scaling up of agroforestry adoption.

National seed/seedling supply system: FRC can’t meet the seed demand especially

in quality and quantity.

One extension mechanism is the Rural Resource Centres (RRC) which is a facility

established by the community for production and dissemination of high quality

germplasm.

Demonstrations/field trials to demonstrate suitable species combinations and

effective management techniques.

3.2. Identify, test and promote effective extension methods

• We should identify best extension methods for different biophysical and socio-

economic circumstances.

• Customizing species and management options to sites and farmer circumstances


24

We need extension models that strengthen farmers’ capacities, improve farmers’ access to

information, knowledge/skills, and foster entrepreneurship and strengthen their capacities.

This is particularly a challenge for AF practices because they are knowledge-intensive and

require considerable skills that most farmers lack, such as raising seedlings in a nursery,

pruning trees and harvesting tree products.

Activities

• A rapid rural appraisal to identify existing extension models (strengths and

weaknesses)

• Test different scaling up approaches for their effectiveness in different contexts,

based on recommendations from participatory trials.

• Best fit approaches will be used for scaling up agroforestry practices

Some of the criteria for assessing effectiveness include the degree to which they:

• facilitate the flow of information and materials (e.g., seed) among farmers

• strengthen local capacities

• benefit women and the poor

• are sustainable.

3.3. Engage stakeholders to create an appropriate enabling environment

• Address barriers to adoption through national dialogue meetings, round table

discussion.

• Empower farmers to engage in collective action (control grazing and marketing)

• Strengthen the capacity of farmers in marketing (business skills, negotiation skills,

identifying market opportunities)

3.4. Value chain analysis and development

• What are key constraints and opportunities in selected agroforestry product value

chains and how can stakeholders (farmers, policy makers, the private sector and

facilitating organizations) address them?

• identify bottlenecks and opportunities in AF product value chain that require

intervention to enhance adoption

assess ways to expand smallholders' access to value chains for agroforestry

products and to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the chains so as to

improve farmer’s livelihoods.

Potential challenges

• The success of objective 3 depends on Objective 1 and 2 - need to plan and work as a

team right beginning.


25

• Testing of extension approaches is difficult, because both training and, establishing

nurseries/ trees takes time. We need to plan well to avoid delays, and implement on

time.

Table 9: Discussions on extension methods and scaling approaches

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers Dr Tony Bartlett: section 3.2.2. of your presentation was lost from the final version of the project document and should be included in the project and 6 month report.

We should identify the participants from national partners (e.g. World Vision)

5.2 Monitoring & evaluation (Mr. Sid Mohan, ICRAF)

The three components of the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) approach are:

1. Planning a monitoring system for project activities and outputs, including how we

should work with other working programs

2. Monitoring and regular assessments of project outcomes and impacts

3. Evaluation: to crosscheck and analyze the results obtained during the monitoring.

Overview of M&E approach

• Led by specialists from ICRAF and partner organizations (e.g. World Vision)

• Analysis of agronomic, economic, social, educational, and environmental indicators,

outcomes and impacts.

• Participatory M&E design and implementation

• Each work stream will be responsible for a set of indicators

• Regularly scheduled performance analysis meetings and reviews

• Creation of M&E repository to allow easy access of project data and findings

• Use of data and associated findings in making management decisions.

M&E next steps

• Engage partners to undertake preliminary planning of the project using appropriate

tools and methodologies

• Identify indicators for each work stream to assess progress and achievements. Here

the indicators will be standardized and defined

• Data collection and reporting procedures standards

• Data analysis quality control and coordination

• Identifying and tracking assumptions and data on externalities


26

• Formulating key evaluation questions, studies and surveys for each work package

• Planning monitoring meetings & reporting schedules

• Developing capacity for M&E amongst partner organizations and project

participants (farmers to institutions).

Table 10: Discussions on Monitoring and Evaluation

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers Dr Tony Bartlett: The purpose of M&E is to:

• demonstrate to donors and users what has been done

• Understand what works and does not work in the project and to provide a reflection on this in the annual project reports.

• M&E is not about the data we are collecting, rather, we need M&E through the whole process to inform the project.

5.3 Capacity Building (Dr Yitebetu Moges, EIAR)

In this project, the capacity building objective encompasses:

1. Research institutions: existing human capacity

2. Farmer advisory service- the extension system

3. Government- we need to evaluate the policy document to understand the context

that we are working

4. Educational institutions: Addis Ababa University and Mekelle University may

introduce agroforestry in their curriculum.

Dr Yitebu Moges outlined Ethiopian capacity building needs with a focus on strengthening

the capacity of research institutions. Needs included:

Equipment

• Scientific equipment - Forest equipment

• Vehicles

• Basic laboratory for soil and plant material analyses

Training:


27

• Short term training (Research methodology, proposal and scientific report writing,

GIS/remote sensing techniques, modeling, etc)

• Postgraduate fellowships (MSc, PhD, Postdoc)

• Participation in Training of Trainers.

Strengthening capacity of farmer advisory services:

• Training in tree propagation, community tree nurseries for farmers, business skills

Training on agroforestry technologies, workable extension methods/approaches for

DAs

• Long-term training (masters, PhD)

• guidelines, manuals (preferably in local languages)

• exchange visits of experts

• Support in developing knowledge management tools on best agroforestry practices

Mapping Faidherbia sites and seed sources in Ethiopia

• Germplasm supply (ICRAF, CISRO)

Governance dialogue/advisory to government

• Establishing functional institutions, programs for effective implementation of

forestry and agroforestry programs in Ethiopia recognizing their distinct role

alongside crop/agriculture sectors

• Issue of open grazing

• Investment in NRM (incentives)

• Job availability for NRM graduates

Strengthening capacity on agroforestry in educational institutions

• Curriculum development

• Postgraduate training

• Research facilities)

• Access to information.

Table 11: Discussions on capacity building

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers Prof. Catherine Muthuri commented that some of the capacity building issues raised are beyond the scope of the project but it is good to note them. We should focus on what is indicated in the project document and we should not promise what we can’t deliver. We do not have PhD and MSc packages within the project and we should use the


28

budgeted labour and researchers’ time of the various national partners in implementing the project. The director of the Forest Research Centre (FRC) raised the issue of hiring other researchers, as his staff might be busy with other research activities.

Dr Jeremias Mowo: responded by quoting the promises given by DG that he will release his staff to be fully engage in the project. He also mentioned that if more projects are coming to Ethiopia then recruiting may be required. Dr Wubalem Tadesse (EIAR) happy to know that the project will have vehicles, as this is the main constraint in doing forest research in Ethiopia.

Dr Mekuria Argaw (Addis Ababa University): How are we, the higher education institutions, going to engage ourselves in the project without having PhD/MSc students involved in the project?

Dr Tony Bartlett: explained that ACIAR cannot pay stipends to students through its research projects. The project budget is only for technical research, other agreed research-related activities and information services. However the project budget for labour/technical work could be used to employ students providing the work is consistent with the project, and the students could then use the income or data to support their studies. University fees or a stipend would need to be found outside the project. The project sites may also be useful as research project sites for African university students. However from 2013 onwards there could be opportunities through ACIAR’s scholarship program for postgraduate study in Australian universities. Dr Dennis Garrity: Attaching students in the project is very important and something that each working packages should consider. Dr Fergus Sinclair: We may pay their logistics but not university fees. Dr Mekuria: We are asking for research cost (logistics) not for stipend or university fees because we would like to engage our staff


29

Dr Jeremias Mowo: Still students could apply for grants from Australia.

Dr Fergus Sinclair: asked Tony if there is any possibility that ACIAR could support applicants who are part of the project.

Dr Tony Bartlett: In the first 6-month report you can raise this concern that you can send the list of students and their qualifications to ACIAR. Passing the English test and having a good proposal are requirements to qualify for the scholarship.

Dr Fred Kanampiu raised the following two points:

1. We have a tree nursery at Melkas - species are identified – that you shouldn’t wait for WP 1 and 2

2. Can we develop a commercial business plan for the community nurseries?

Dr Evelyn Kiptot: the points are noted and we will build on existing knowledge.

Dr Abayneh Derero: The rural resource centers found elsewhere in Africa play a similar role that the farmers training centers (FTS) in Ethiopia have been doing.

Dr Evelyn Kiptot: Rural resource centers look similar to the farmers training centers. We will consider if the FTCs of Ethiopia could serve as RRCs that we have in other African countries.

Dr Jeremias Mowo: It is difficult to control spillover of technology that we should rather encourage it to bring a wider impact.

Dr Evelyn Kiptot: Spillover can’t control it but the objective is to test extension models that we should control the effect of other extension systems. We are working with the research method team of ICRAF to come up with a robust sampling strategy.

Dr. Jeremias Mowo: asked if there is a possibility of blending the indigenous communication system into the extension programs.

Dr Dennis Garrity: Free grazing is a serious challenge for the survival of seedlings. He emphasized the need to have a national dialogue on free grazing and come up with a national strategy.

SESSION 6 – Work package planning. Chair: Dr. Fergus Sinclair

This session comprised group work on work packages 1-3 (planning for packages 4 and 5

will occur over the next several weeks). Provided below are the reports from each group


30

discussion followed by feedback from the workshop participants. The workshop concluded

with summary comments from Dr Fergus Sinclair and closing remarks from Dr Wubalem

Tadesse.

Work package 1 (Characterization and targeting)

Baseline should be completed by year end for other work packages It will have a 2 tier structure –

o Participatory survey o biophysical survey

Baseline workshop will be held from Aug 28 - 30 at ICRAF, Nairobi o Two representatives from Ethiopia will attend from

University, World Vision, EIAR o Expect to have all scientists from ICRAF o Resource methodology group will give more explanations about baseline o Get experiences from different partners o Comparative sampling methodology

Have different sampling sites based on biophysical conditions o Each group will discuss research questions and try to answer hypotheses

brought up Data collection will be handled by EIAR and partners

o Roeland Kindt has extensive maps for Ethiopia and Rwanda Design questionnaires for household survey, biophysical survey, etc. based on some

of the already existing samples Develop protocols for implementing baseline, data collection Baseline timetable as agreed by the group

o By September 30 - Refined findings of the workshop and pre-testing conducted

o October and early November - Data collection o December - Data cleaning and entering o January to May - Rigorous data analysis o End of May – final report o Need inputs from Judith on how much can be done by when

For each site, 320 soil samples will be collected – 10 sq. km landscape with 160 points based on the AFSIS protocol to help e.g. characterize variability in agroecological zones?

Approximate cost of sampling per site will run between $12,000 to $15,000, including analysis

Next steps Each working package should forward their requirements and timetable to us so

that we can manage expectations A draft questionnaire will be prepared before the workshop and forwarded to the

partners before workshop


31

A management plan should be developed for the work plan – allocating resources, management etc.

A vehicle for the project cannot be purchased by October – we must talk to DG of EIAR to borrow a vehicle from them

Miyuki and all will travel to Ethiopia for training and initiate the baseline work Rely on partners for vehicles, enumerators Jeremias - Make sure to use resources from within Ethiopia

o Make sure data collection and protocols are uniform o We’ll have a national team of experts here

Ermias – Roeland may have his own way for vegetation o I need to spend at least 5 days with field team to set standards o Some of the techniques we use are a little complicated o We’ll be working with national team

Involving students – will they be ready when we need them? Both locations here have experience with projects – plenty of human resources to

undertake the baseline and related activities World Vision - can use existing models that WV have if they are present in the two

areas Quality issue can be a big one with baseline Whoever is developing questions should be able to provide quality control back up

for the area National office and or WV can recheck the data after collection People answer questions differently – structure should be important In Ethiopia, can’t do more than 4 or 5 questionnaires per day

o Need good supervision to ensure that there are no shortcuts Miyuki will send a list of who will do what by 17th Aug Need to clearly define the boundaries of the project Define what is expected and what data is to be collected Already budgeted one socioeconomic and one biophysical technician in ICRAF

o Can we have a national staff instead working with the country reps? o East African Dairy Development project has technicians in Rwanda and

Uganda etc.

Table 12: Discussions on Characterization and targeting

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers How will the project capture farm dynamics

This will be done through continuous M & E.

Given baseline survey need to start really soon, when will the questionnaires be ready?

ICRAF will develop the instruments and avail this as soon as possible.

Work package 2 (participatory trials and modeling)

Comment [M1]: Sid - the issue of quality control can be partially addressed by getting the questioner to provide quality standards regarding the data to be collected i.e. what form of data or answers is acceptable.

Comment [R2]: Clarify meaning

Comment [MC(3]: Needs clarification from the raporteuer


32

• It was clarified that the participatory trials are actually the extension activity and

funded by the Ethiopian government. There will be no separate participatory

research. Instead the participatory research will be to suggest and augment options

for extension, including the agroforestry methods and the statistical design to be

used.

• Farm Research Extension Groups of the Ethiopian government will be an ideal

method of scaling out propagation methods and silvicultural options.

• Eucalypts will not be used in this project. They are not allowed on cropland, but

little encouragement is needed to get farmers to plant them in woodlots.

• Wind protection alone can be a considerable benefit in erosion-prone areas where,

for example, men of 40 years of age can be of low productivity due to partial

blindness caused by dust.

• The Africa Rising project would be a good place to look for the first draft of best fit

for species and management options

• Two main agro-ecologies are envisaged, i.e. humid and semi-arid, but this needs

confirming or refining by WP1.

• Three types of controlled experiments are envisaged:

o (1) Long-term, generic, which will be essential for new plantings of slow-

growing species, e.g. Faidherbia in many areas that will probably induce little

or no change during this project. Such experiments will be a valuable

contribution to longer term research.

o (2) Short-term, which will allow expected changes to be measured during

this project.

o (3) Existing planted or farmer managed natural regeneration.

• Controlled experiments will be located at Melkassa and Bako research stations, as

this capitalizes on CIMMYT and SIMLESA synergies and should keep travel and

several other operational expenses to a minimum.

• Dr Alamie Mekelle University, Tigray, is 20% funded by the project and has very

relevant capability (APSIM, soil and water management). Although controlled

experiments at Mekelle have not been funded in the project, we will look for

opportunities to include Dr. Amalie in a meaningful way.

• Further details of the modeling work plan will be decided at the October workshop.

Table 13: Discussions on participatory trials and modeling work plan

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers Issue of site choice was revisited There are arguments the northern zone

which is cereal based has no trees. This area is more prone to degradation, erosion, etc and hence more deserving than the current


33

selected sites. More impact can be made in this region and future projects should focus in this area. Selected sites (Melkassa and Bako already have natural and established agroforestry systems. The sites chosen for the detailed trials were chosen to build on existing SIMLESA and CIMMYT experience

What scope is there to do trials in Tigray area?

It was emphasized participatory trials and baseline surveys will be done in Tigray area. In this project, detailed experiments will not take place there. However, efforts are being made to look for extra funds. These funds will enable detailed studies to be conducted in Mekelle University and exploit the already existing infrastructure for these activities.

Work package 3 (Extension and scaling out and up)

This group focused on discussing who would be the responsible organization and person

for each sub-objective and activity in work package 3. The results of this discussion are

presented as a table. This is a draft and will be confirmed by the participating organizations.

Table 14: Discussions on Extension and scaling out and up

No. Activity Outputs/

Milestones

Lead agency Collaborators

3.1 Develop

efficient tree

germplasm

supply

systems

3.1.1 National seed and seedling subsectors analysed from characterisation data and stakeholder workshops (see 1.1.2 above) and reports produced

FRC WV Ethiopia (Hailu Tefera)

(note – address national systems and also regional; build on current work through Africa Rising? Project & WVE)


34

3.1.2 Establishment of Rural Resource Centres (analyse appropriate models and existing centres – assess future needs)

FRC (Kaleb Kelemu; socio economics unit)

WVE, MERIT, Tigray Relief Society, MA FTC (note 9000 centres), PSNP, SLM

Need to consider structural lead (convening power or influence) and functional (existing skills and experience)

3.1.3 Designs and business models for alternative seed/seedling supply systems for use in national scaling programmes including rural resource centres, satellite nurseries, genebanks and motherblocks prepared and implemented

TBA – business

school

Seed/ling specialist

3.1.4 Protocols for participatory provenance and propagation trials for target species produced; trials established and journal papers produced later

FRC + Mekelle

University (Dr

Emiru)

Note existing

provenance trials – long

term eucalypt trials &

indigenous species

(Juniperus procera,

Cordia, Ajera)

3.1.5. Report on developing efficient germplasm support systems for partner government


35

3.2 Identify, test

and promote

effective

extension

methods for

reaching

farmers in

different

contexts

3.2.1 Report on

different extension

methods and their

suitability for

different contexts,

materials and

messages in the

evergreen

agriculture domain.

Mekelle University ICRAF (Evelyn Kiptot)

3.2.2 Testing

approaches

Mekelle University

[follow up to

determine who]

Agriculture Ministry &

other groups

3.2.3 Community of

practice with

network of users

applying and

evaluating

approaches to scaling

up established and a

communication

strategy developed

WVE HOARec

(note ATA newly

established to support

the Ministry of

Agriculture - role is

implementation and to

support

implementation)

3.3 Engage

stakeholders

to create

appropriate

enabling

environment

3.3.1 Dialogue with policy makers to remove barriers to and encourage adoption of farm trees for food security

ICRAF & ILRI


36

s for

adoption of

farm trees

for food

security

3.3.2

Trainers of farmers trained to impart training in negotiation skills and in identifying market opportunities;

Training manuals and training event reports produced

Mekelle University delivering to Ministry of Agriculture

3.3.3 Analysis of

models for

strengthened rural

institutions for

enhanced collective

action to, where

appropriate, control

livestock grazing and

develop quality tree

germplasm supply

systems

Dr Mukuri’s group, Addis Ababa

Note this activity is

Analysis of models and

information on different

options for collective

action

3.3.4 Report on

lessons learnt from

rural institutions

As above – do together with 3.3.3


37

3.3.5 Guidelines on

the appropriate

balance of

community and

private sector

engagement in

different contexts

that is required along

the tree-crop

intensification value

chain for farmers to

gain market access

FRC (Kaleb Kelemu) + marketing specialist (University?)

Note – a) this is broader

than germplasm supply.

It links with 3.3.6 (value

chain enhancement). b)

there is an existing

project (Molinga?) in

FRC on value chain for

non-timber products

3.3.6 Report on

outcomes from

enhancement of

value chain to ensure

sustained market

access for the

agroforestry

products

As above – do

together with 3.3.6

3.4 Establish

effective

project

communicati

ons

3.4.1 Prepare project

communication

strategy

3.4. 2. Development

of Communication

materials for all the

outputs

ICRAF

Communications

unit

EIAR, Ministry of

Agriculture, WVE,

HoaRec

Note: links to 3.1.3

business models

germplasm and 3.2.3

which will distribute

material within Ethiopia

Table 15: Discussions on extension and scaling up work plan

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers Clarification made that scaling up and out will be done by Extension agents. These structures are in place and effectively


38

working. Seed systems and seed supply will be conducted by Forestry Research Institute who are mandate and the required knowledge.

Workshop conclusion The workshop was officially closed by Dr Wubalem Tadesse, who thanked all participants

for their time and commitment to the project.


39

List of Participants

NAME AND DESIGNATION ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTION

AREA OF SPECIALIZATION

CONTACT DETAILS

1. JEREMIAS GASPER MOWO-REGIONAL COORDINATOR EA

ICRAF SOIL SCIENCE Tel:+254715813856 Email:[email protected] Skype:jgmowo

2. FERGUS SINCLAIR-GLOBAL RESEARCH LEADER 2

ICRAF PRODUCTION ECOLOGY

Tel:+254729680079 Email:[email protected]

3. CATHERINE MUTHURI

ICRAF PLANT ECO-HYSIOLOGIST

Tel: +254710272109 Email:[email protected]

4. MIYUKI IIYAMA ICRAF SOCIO ECONOMIST Tel:+254712292656 Email:[email protected]

5. ERMIAS BETEMARIAM-LAND HEALTH SPECIALIST

ICRAF LANDSCAPE ECOLOGIST

Tel:+254732470020 Email:e.betemariam@cgiar .org Skype:ermias_ba

6. KIROS MELES HADGU-PROFESSOR

MEKELLE UNIVERSITY

AGROFORESTRY Tel:+251-914-700467 Email:[email protected]

7. TONY BARTLETT-FORESTRY RESEARCH PROGRAM MANAGER

ACIAR RESEARCH MANAGEMENT

Tel:+612 62170549 Email:[email protected] Skype:tony.bartlettact

8. ROSE ONYANGO-REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

ICRAF-EA ADMINISTRATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Tel:+254-719867040 Email:[email protected] Skype:rose.onyango

9. ROSEMARY LOTT-VISITING FELLOW

ICRAF FOREST ECOLOGY,SILVICULTURE,POLICY AND

Tel:+254-0729177748 Email:Rosemary.L


40

AGROFORESTRY RESEARCH MANAGEMENT

[email protected]

10. FRED KANAMPIU-SCIENTIST

CIMMYT AGRONOMY Tel:+254 -20-7224605 Email:[email protected] Skype:fred.kanampiu

11. MESERET NEGASH-CENTER DIRECTOR

OROMIYA AGRIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE/BAKO AGRIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE

AGRIC/PLANT PATHOLOGY

+251-911798905/924317677 Email:[email protected]

12. ASSEFA TOFU -FOOD SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

WORLD VISION- ETHIOPIA

AGRIC AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Tel:+251-911345057 Email:[email protected] Skype:assefat

13. AYANA SALEHU-NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CASE TEAM LEADER

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

FORESTRY Tel:+251-913225630 Email:[email protected]

14. DAISY OUYA-COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST

ICRAF Tel:+254 20 7224254 Email:[email protected]

15. HAILU TEFERA WORLD VISION LAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Tel:+251-911059112 Email:[email protected] Skype:Hailu_Tefera

16. EYASU ABRAHA-DIRECTOR GENERAL-TARI

TIGRAY AGRIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE

PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY

Tel:+2510914381999 Email:[email protected]

17. DR.WOLDEYOHANES FAUFU-CENTER DIRECTOR

EIAR FOREST BIOMASS MODELLING

Tel:+251 911 156981 Email:[email protected]

18. AYNALEM MAMO-LECTURER

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

Tel:+251 913 104946 Email:ayniareg@y


41

ahoo.com 19. YITEBITU MOGES-

NATIONAL AGROFORESTRY RESEARCH COORDINATOR

EIAR AGROFORESTRY Tel:+251 912865584 Email:[email protected]

20. PHILIP SMETHURST CSIRO TREE CROP MODELING EXPERT

Tel:+61 409 242677 Email:[email protected]

21. ABAYNEH DERERO EIAR FOREST GENETICS Tel:+251-913439808 Email:[email protected]

22. MULUGETA DEMISS-SENIOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANT

ATA SOIL SCIENCE Tel:+251 911367005 Email:[email protected],mulugeta [email protected]

23. EVELYNE KIPTOT-SOCIAL SCIENTIST

ICRAF EXTENSION Tel:+254722607693 Email:[email protected] Skype:evelynekiptot

24. WUBALEM TADESSE-DIRECTOR EIAR

EIAR FORESTRY Tel:+251-912132303 Email:[email protected] Skype:wubalem.tadesse

25. BERHANN W MICHAEL -DIRECTOR,FOOD SECURITY COORDINATION DIRECTORATE

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIST

Tel:+251-0913544631 Email:[email protected]

26. GETACHEW AYANA-CENTER DIRECTOR

EIAR-MELKASSA PLANT PATHOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Tel:+251-911362118 Email:[email protected] Skype:Getachew Ayana


42

27. SID MOHAN-CONSULTANT

ICRAF Tel:+254 0708252371 Email:[email protected] Skype:sid.vish

28. MEKURIA ARGAW-ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

ECOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Tel:+251 911191568 Email:[email protected] Skype:mekuria.argaw


43

Workshop Programme DAY 1: 6

th August, 2012

VENUE: HILTON HOTEL

Session 1 Chair Jeremias Mowo Rapporteur Dr Kiros Hadgu

Time Activity Presenter / moderator

8.30 am - 8.45 am Registration

8.45 am - 9.00 am Participants introduction and welcoming remarks

Dr Jeremias Mowo RC

ICRAF EA

9.00 am – 10.30 am Welcome remarks:

EIAR Director General Dr Solomon Assefa

ICRAF Ag Director General

Australian International Food Security Centre-

ACIAR

Dr Tony Bartlett

Prof August Temu, DDG –

P&I

H.E. State Minister Sileshi Getahun

10.30 am -11.00 am Health break / Group photo Rose Onyango

Session 2 Chair DG EIAR Rapporteur Dr Miyuki Iiyama

11.00 am -11.30 am Food security update in the country Mr. Berhanu W/Michael,

Food Security Directorate

Director

11.30 am -12.00 noon Presentation from ACIAR Dr Tony Bartlett

12.00 pm -12.40 pm Overview of the project Prof. Catherine Muthuri

12.40 pm -1.00 pm Discussion on the overall project Dr Jeremias Mowo

1.00 pm - 2.00 pm Lunch Rose Onyango

Session 3 Chair Dr Fergus Sinclair Rapporteur Dr Evelyn Kiptot

2.00 pm – 2.30pm CIMMYTs’ role in ACIAR project and link of ACIAR to SIMLESA

CIMMYT- Dr Fred

Kanampiu

2.30 pm - 3.00pm CSIROs’ role in project Dr Philip Smethurst

3.00 pm- 3.30 pm Presentation by a national key stakeholder Mrs. Aynalem Mamo

3.30 pm - 4.00 pm World vision role in the project Mr. Assefa Tofu

4.00 pm - 4.30 pm Gradient and analogs – where we are working Dr Ermias Betemariam

4.30 pm - 5.00 pm Best bets (species, management systems) Dr Fergus Sinclair

5 pm Tea break Rose Onyango

Chief Rapporteur for the day 1 Dr Abayneh

DAY 2: 7th

August, 2012


44

VENUE: DESALEGN HOTEL

Chair Dr Phillip Smethurst Rapporteur Dr. Rosemary Lott

Time Activity Presenter / moderator

8.30 am - 9.00 am Introduction to teams and organisation of work Prof Catherine Muthuri

9.00 am - 9.20 am Presentation on characterisation Dr Miyuki Iiyama

9.20 am - 10.40 am Presentation on Participatory design and

modeling

Drs Fergus / Philip /

Frederic

10.40 am - 11.00 am Health Break Rose Onyango

Chair Dr Jeremias Mowo Rapporteur Dr Ermias Betemariam

11.00 am - 11.20 am Presentation on Extension methods and scaling

approaches

Dr Evelyn Kiptot

11.20 am - 11.40 am Presentation on Monitoring & Evaluation Mr. Sid Mohan

11.40 am - 12.00 noon Capacity building Prof. Catherine Muthuri

12.00 pm - 12.45 pm Discussions on work programs presentations Dr Kiros Hadgu

12.45 pm - 2.00 pm Lunch Rose Onyango

Chair Dr Fergus Sinclair Rapporteur Fred Kanampiu

2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Group work on each work package work plan Dr Jeremias Mowo

3.00 pm – 4.15 pm Reports on group work and discussions Prof Catherine/ Dr

Miyuki

4.15 pm – 4.30 pm Way forward Dr Fergus Sinclair

4.30 pm - 4.45 pm Closing remarks Dr. Wubalem Tadesse

4.45 pm Tea break Rose Onyango

Chief Rapporteur for the day 2 Mr. Sid Mohan

trees for food security: aciar inception workshop, 6 … draft ethiopia... · trees for food...

Documents