Purpose
Provide pathways out of hunger and poverty for small holder families through sustainably intensified farming systems that sufficiently improve food, nutrition, and income security, particularly for women and children, and conserve or enhance the natural resource base. /
- Per capita food consumption and availability in the target areas increases at household level[IHZ1]
- The proportion of household income due to agricultural activities increases
- Proportion of children below 5 years havingadequate nutrition and with normal growth indicators increases
- Number of hectares under improved SI technologies increases
- Program ex-post evaluation report by IFPRI
- Poverty monitoring surveys by local governments[IHZ2]
- Household expenditure surveys in project action sites by local governments
- Partner countries continue to invest in agriculture in a way that compliments program activities
- Feed the Future priority countries and investments remain consistent with project
- Political stability in countries with intervention sites
Project Outputs
Administrative output: ESA project effectively coordinated and managed / i) A functional ESA project secretariat established by October 2012 in Arushaii) Sufficient and appropriate personnel appointed by IITA
iii) Required research and development partners contracted and funds disbursed /
- Contracts with partner institutionsStaff contracts and staff ToR
- lease agreement for project office
- Feed the Future priority countries and investments remain consistent with project
ii) Annual learning and planning workshops held for knowledge sharing and project development /
- Workshop reports on the wiki
- ESA annual and progress reports
- ESA partner annual and progress reports
iii) Regular compliance monitoring visits and meetings conducted /
- ESA field visits reports on the wiki
- PI reports on the wiki
Research Output 1:
Output 1: Intervention sites identified at an appropriate level, and characterized. / 1.1 By December 2012, eleven action villages identified in Tanzania, and 4 Extension Planning Areas in Malawi; xx villages for Zambia by yy / Spatial maps with recommendation domains inESAproject sites produced by IFPRI / Relevant data will be made available from different sources upon request
Site selection country reports[IHZ3]
1.2 Agricultural land use potential identified by project implementing institutions by??? / Site maps of natural resources potential and degradation produced by partners[IHZ4]
Output 2: Farm households characterized and typologies in intervention sites determined / 2.1 Documented over-arching community constraints/challenges by??? / Research entry point suggestions by WUR[IHZ5] / Relevant data will be made available from different sources upon request
2.2 Operational farm typologies identified for the research action areas in Zambia, Malawi and Tanzania by June 2014 / Farm typology reports generated by IFPRI and WUR
Output 3: Potential impact of various SI technologies in different developmentstages assessed / 3.1 Inventory of available potential technologies by??? All scientists should do this! / Database (both electronic and print) with project coordination and implementing partners
3.2Inventory of promising technology options for enhanced system productivity derived from Ex ante and ex post evaluation and simulation modeling / Impact assessment reports by IFPRI, WUR and Africa RISING/IITA economist
3.3Assessment of the links between field and farm-scale sustainable intensification (SI) interventions and climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation in Zambia / Inventory and assessment report of available datasets by MSU
3.4 Recommendations to inform the design of integrated programs involving agriculture and environmental conservation in Zambia and other regions / Report on recommendations for integrated programming for USAID by MSU
Output 4: R4D and Innovation platforms influencing stakeholder practices established / 4.1 At least 1 R4D or Innovation Platform constituted in all ESA Action Sites by December 2014 / Platform constitution reports / Supportive environment for implementation of AR activities
4.2Agreed Platform action plans by all stakeholders / Platform Action Plan document
Minutes of platform meetings
Research Output 2:
Output 5: Innovations that increase resilience and productivity of farming systems deployed / 5.1 Inventory of new crops and new varieties grown by farmers per intervention site by Sept. 2016
5.2 % of farmers growing at least one new variety or type of crop in each intervention site by Sept. 2016
5.3 Acreage under new ecologically and economically sound practices per intervention site by Sept. 2016 / Baseline and end-line M&E reports, scientific publications, technical and non-technical reports, partner reports, project database / Farmers are willing to provide land for experiments for required period of time
5.4Inventory of new livestock breeds and types reared by farmers where???by Sept. 2016
5.5% of farmers using ecologically and economically sound livestock husbandry practices where, by???
5.6. Inventory of ecologically and economically livestock husbandry practices used by farmers where, by when??? / [same as above] / Weather variables conducive to experimentation
Output 6: Crop-nutrition and water efficient innovations introduced, evaluated and adapted / 6.1 % of farmers using external nutrient resources (organic/inorganic[IHZ6][I7])efficiently by Sept. 2016 / Baseline - and end-line M&E reports, scientific publications, technical and non-technical reports, partner reports, project database / Farmers are willing to provide land for experiments for required period of time
6.2 Inventory of improved land and water conservation practices used by farmersper action site at the end of the project phase
6.3 Acreage under crop-nutrient and water efficient practices in each action site by end of the project phase / [same as above] / Weather variables conducive to experimentation
Output 7: Innovations that increase availability and consumption of safe and nutritious food products deployed / 7.1 % of farmers using new/improved postharvest technologies to store produce and reduce pest infestation and losses in Tanzania by ??? / Baseline - and end-line M&E reports, scientific publications technical and non-technical reports, partner reports, project database / Farmers are willing to provide land for experiments for required period of time
7.2 Inventory of mycotoxins mitigation technologies used by farmers in Tanzania by Sept. 2016 / [same as above] / Weather variables conducive to experimentation
7.3 % of farmers growing new vegetable varieties/types
7.4 List of new vegetable varieties and types grown by farmers in the Tanzanian intervention sites by Sept. 2016 / [same as above] / Functional marketing institutions committed to project actions
7.5
% of farmers growing QPMper intervention site by Sept. 2016
Acreage under QPM in Kongwa/Kiteto, Babati and Eastern Province of Zambia by end of the project
% of households with increased vegetable and QPM consumption per intervention site / [same as above]
Output 8: Innovations that address emerging agricultural production challenges deployed / 8.1 Mitigation technologies and practices used by the farmers (indicator depends on the emerging challenge and innovations deployed).
PROVIDE AN INDICATOR FOR THE MLND? / [same as above] / Technologies to address the emerging issue available at short term
Research Output 3:
Output 9: Scaling approaches for targeted integrated innovations identified and piloted / 9.1 List of scalable innovations with their appropriate areas of application
Number of farmers and area under prioritized innovations in the zones of influence of each development partner / GIS maps, scientific publications, technical and non-technical reports, development partner reports / Development partners using and adapting Africa RISING technologies and technology scaling approaches
Activities / Milestones / Timeline / Lead Responsibility
Administrative
i.i). Establish the ESA secretariat with its associated infrastructure and human resources / i.i.i). A functional ESA project secretariat established / Oct 2012 / ESA secretariat
ii.i). Hold annual planning and review meetings on a country rotational basis / ii.i.i ). At least one ESA annual review and planning workshop held
ii.i.ii).At least one sub-project planning meeting held by each project team annually / Annually / ESA secretariat and project teams
ii.ii). Facilitate research site cross learning activities / ii.ii.i). At least one cross learning visit by researchers in ESA conducted annually / Annually / ESA secretariat
iii.i). Conduct field monitoring visits with project implementing partners and PIs / iii.i.i). Compliance monitoring visits and meetings conducted by ESA project Chief Scientist annually
iii.i.ii). Compliance monitoring visits and meetings conducted by sub-project Chief Scientist annually / Annually / ESA secretariat and project teams
iv.i). Establish strategic partnerships with other partners / iv.i.i). At least one meeting with strategic partners held annually to support R4D by the ESA project Chief Scientist
iv.i.ii). At least one meeting with strategic partners held by project teams to support R4D annually -
iv.i.iii). Increased capacity of development partners to take and use research products / Annually / ESA secretariat and project teams
v.i). Human Capacity building / v.i.i). Relevant stakeholders (graduate students, extension, policy makers, researchers and farmers) trained/mentored[IHZ8] / Continuous / ESA secretariat and project teams
1.1.1). Define development domains based on biophysical and socio-economic variables / 1.1.1.1). Development domain guidelines established for location of action sites / Jun 2012 / IFPRI
1.1.2). Conduct mega site stratification studies / 1.1.2.1). Mapped development domains used to guide location of action sites / Sept 2012 / IFPRI
1.1.3). Ground-truthing to identify the actual action and counterfactual sites / 1.1.3.1). Maps of Action and Counterfactual Sites / Sept 2012 / IFPRI, IITA, MSU, SIMLEZA
1.2.1). Soils, agronomic, livestock, food and feed surveys in key sentinel sites to identify biophysical constraints / 1.2.1.1). Maps of geographical hotspots and susceptible components of maize food and feed value chains for mycotoxin contamination
1.2.1.2). Baseline on production and market constraints of vegetables within maize-based cropping systems
1.2.1.3). Area maps showing biophysical and socioeconomic factors contributing to land degradation processes
1.2.1.4). Intervention maps that scale to landscape level
1.2.1.5). Baseline on level and sources of post harvest losses and food safety/contamination
1.2.1.6). Area maps showing fodder/feed utilization practices / Dec 2014
Dec 2014
Dec 2013
Dec 2015
Dec 2013
Dec 2014 / CIAT, IITA, AVRDC, MSU, ICRISAT, SIMLEZA, ILRI
2.1.1). Community analysis / 2.1.1.1). Baseline report for community and commodity value chains…
2.1.1.2). Participatory ranked constraints / Sept 2013 / Research Teams
2.2.1). Rapid characterization of households for functional typologies / 2.2.1.1). Report on typology information and the general nature of critical entry points / Mar 2014 / WUR
2.2.2). Detailed characterization of a sub-set representative households for farm diagnosis / 2.2.2.1). Report on typology and component-specific scenarios for guiding system intensification research designs / Mar 2014 / WUR
3.1.1). Literature review on past research outputs and expert consultations / 3.1.1.1). Potential SI interventions relevant different agroecologies identified / Sept 2013 / Research Teams
3.2.1). Apply models for ex-ante analysis and determination of decision support tools / 3.2.1.1). Documented ex-ante exploration scenarios of input-output relationships at the farm scale / Mar 2014 / WUR
4.1.1). Engage partners at appropriate levels / 4.1.1.1). Inaugurated and functional R4D and Innovation Platforms
4.1.1.2). Conduct tailored workshops for capacity building of R4D actors / Sept 2014 / Research teams
4.1.2). Co-planning and learning workshops / 4.1.2.1). Annual reporting and planning workshop; Annual Learning event / Sept 2014 / ESA secretariat and research teams
5.1.1). Introduce and evaluate new improved crop and crop varieties for use in study sites / 5.1.1.1). Multi-purpose crop varieties evaluated and recommended for integration
5.1.1.2). Food and feed crop arrangements using introduced material evaluated / Sept 2014 / ICRISAT, ICRAF, CIMMYT, MSU, LUANAR
5.2.1). Introduce and evaluate new livestock breeds and management practices / 5.2.1.1). New livestock breeds (including poultry) introduced, evaluated and recommended for integration
5.2.1.2). Feeding regimes for livestock that integrates crop production evaluated
5.2.1.3). Protocols for improved feed quality based on stover pulverization
5.2.1.4). Manure from livestock production efficiently used in crop and vegetable production / Sept 2015
Continuous from 2014 / ILRI, ICRAF, UDOM and Pasture Research Centre Kongwa, MSU, AVRDC
6.1.1). Test ecologically and economically sound integrated nutrient management practices for enhanced productivity without detrimental effects on the environment / 6.1.1.1). Field protocols in water and nutrient management at farm and landscape scales
6.1.1.2). Efficient organic -inorganic nutrient combinations developed
- Rotations/legume residual assessments
- Combinations of promising complementary technologies (see 5.2.1 and explanatory notes)
- e.g. crop residue management + fertilizers
- Rotations + improved varieties + reduced fertilizer applications
- Doubled-up legume technology + tied ridges
- Guidelines for efficient fertilizer and manure and application practices
- Guidelines for manure storage and composting
Sept 2014
Sept 2015 and beyond / Research teams
6.2.1). Test ecologically and economically sound integrated land and water management practices for enhanced productivity without detrimental effects on the environment / 6.2.1.1). Calibrated functional models that showcase water and nutrient processes from farm scale to landscape
6.2.1.2). Validated options for integration of soil and water conservation practices in cropping systems.
- Agroforestry options (for reducing wind erosion in Kongwa/Kiteto)
- In-situ water harvesting and erosion control (tied-ridges, ripping, etc)
- combinations of promising complementary technologies (see 5.1.1 and explanatory notes)
- e.g. crop residue management + fertilizers + in-situ water harvesting
- rotations + improved varieties + reduced fertilizer applications +tillage options
- doubled-up legume technology + tied ridges + ratooning +....
- climbing beans +'fertilizer trees' for staking material +
- agroforestry technologies for soil health and livestock feed
Sept 2014
Sept 2014
Beyond Sept 2014 / Research teams
7.1.1). Evaluate post-harvest approaches that minimize product losses and enhance quality / 7.1.1.1). New storage processing equipment and protocols for their use Introduced
7.1.1.2). Stakeholders trained on the use of improved storage facilities to support scaling
(postharvest includes livestock products) / Sept 2014
Sept 2014
Continuous starting from Jun 14 / IITA/ICRISAT, ILRI
7.2.1). Mycotoxins mitigation technologies evaluated and promoted / 7.2.1.1). Incidence and severity of mycotoxin problems mapped
7.2.1.2). Protocols for intervention measures for prevention of post-harvest mycotoxin contamination developed
7.2.1.3. Mitigation measures at household level targeting women, children and vulnerable groups evaluated
7.2.1.4). Stakeholders trained on the use of improved storage facilities to support scaling / Sept 2014
Sept 2014
Starting Oct 2014 and continuous
Sept 2014 / IITA, ICRISAT, ILRI, SUA
7.3.1) Introduce and evaluate new vegetable varieties / 7.3.1.1) New nutritious and high value vegetable materials evaluated and recommended for integration / Sept 2014 and beyond / AVRDC, Hort-Tengeru
7.4.1) Improve and diversify household nutrition products / 7.4.1.1). Adapted quality protein maize (QPM) varieties identified for scaling
7.4.1.2). Culinary properties of introduced maize and bean varieties identified for scaling and report produced / Sept 2014
Staring Sept 2014 and continuous / CIMMYT
IITA
7.5.1). Identify market oriented approaches / 7.5.1.1). Cost-benefit analysis for promising technologies report produced
7.5.1.2). Costed templates for scaling by development partners developed / Continuous / ESA economist and research teams
8.1.1). Technologies addressing emerging challenges evaluated and promoted / 8.1.1.1). Incidence and severity of emerging issue (starting with MLND) mapped
8.1.1.2). Mitigation measures evaluated (e.g. testing resistance/tolerance of varieties to MLND) / Continuous / Research Teams
9.1.1). Analyze and map constraints to, and scalability of innovations / 9.1.1.1). Spatial maps for suitable scaling domains generated
9.1.1.2). Report on (gender-disaggregated) adoption patterns and contract farming / Start 2015 / ESA economist
9.1.2 Establish long-term monitoring sites for system resilience, and sustainability / 9.1.1.2).Resilience and sustainability assessment reports / Starting 2013 Continuous / Research teams
9.2 Train/back up development partners in use of technological innovations / Agreements with development partners
[IHZ1]Can you state by how much these indicators will increase? Is the project successful if only one hh increases food consumption or income increases by 1cent?
I am inclined not to give a value alone. I propose we agree a value at the September Meeting.
[IHZ2]What if local governments do not do these surveys?
In relation to the above, the purpose level is sort of at a broader level than Africa RISING and it is post-ante. We know that governments conduct surveys and censuses for planning purposes, and this is countered by the “investment” assumption.
[IHZ3]Do you have them? Or IFPRI?
What I have are not official; IFPRI should have the official ones
[IHZ4]Who has these maps? CIAT, you?
This was based on the CIAT’s AfSIS-type of activities; parts and pieces show up in our annual reporting, but I am going to emphasize an output during our writeshop.
[IHZ5]Better to specify the WUR report in which the suggest these entry points
I consider that this draft should be circulated to all the PIs for their comments. May be WUR might have a better wording.
[IHZ6]This is an outcome. Indicators have to be measurable
The measurable indicator is “% farmers” using resources efficiently. There are a number of ways of measuring efficient use, eg change in yield per unit of input.
[I7]It is still an outcome=behaviour change
[IHZ8]Are these people contributing to effective management and coordination of the ESA project? They contribute to the effective implementation of the project. Therefore scientific capacity building should be part of each output.
This is milestone level and indeed it would refer to all/each output.