Sustainable intensification of crop-livestock systems to improve food security and farm income diversification in the Ethiopian highlands ILRI-Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 30 Jan - 2 Feb2012 Carlo Azzarri, Melanie Bacou, Ali Bittinger, Zhe Guo, Dave Hodson, Jawoo Koo, An Notenbaert, Ria Tenorio, Pierre Sibiry Traore, Stanley Wood M&E Guiding Principles • FtF Compliance: Conform to the FtF (& GoE?) core indicators • Multi-scale, Multi-site reporting: Meet broad stakeholder needs and support multi-scale/multi-site M&E through; – – – – Action-site, sub-system and system reporting Country reports: Breakout of site reports to serve national stakeholder needs Regional Site-reports: for each of the three regional SI program sites SSA-reports: cross-system reporting and SI-wide “roll-up” of indicators across: Sudano-Sahelian zone, Ethiopian Highlands, Eastern and Southern Africa • Monitoring & projection: Provide monitoring reports and short-term projections (targets) of key M&E indicators for intervention sites in project “Zone of Influence”, updated annually • Scaling indicators up and out (spatial & temporal): Using a range of biophysical, bio-economic , market and welfare models to undertake ex ante analysis of output, outcome, and impact indicators. (Keywords: extrapolation, aggregation, trade-offs, spillover potential, sustainability, welfare and environmental goals) • Open-access data and analysis platform: Maintain a transparent, open-access M&E data management and analysis platform to serve the needs of SI stakeholders FtF USAID “Required” Indicators Results Framework Title Indicator Prevalence of underweight Sustainably 1 children (<5years) Reduce Global Poverty and 2 Prevalence of poverty Hunger Per capita expenditure 3 (income proxy) Inclusive Percentage change in Agricutural Sector 4 agricultural GDP Growth Women's empowerment in 5 agricultural index Prevalence of stunted 6 Improved children (<5 yrs) Nutritional Status, Prevalence of wasted (especially of 7 children (<5 yrs) women and Prevalence of underweight children) 8 women Level Nat., PZoI Nat., PZoI Nat., PZoI Freq. Bienn. DHS (5yrs) Type Disaggregation IM Sex: M, F Bienn. IM FNM/MNF/M&F Bienn. OC FNM/MNF/M&F Nat. Ann. IM - PZoI Bienn. IM TBD Nat., PZoI Nat., PZoI Nat. , PZoI Bienn. DHS (5yrs) Bienn. DHS (5yrs) Bienn. DHS (5yrs) IM Sex: M, F IM Sex: M, F IM - FtF USAID “Required if Applicable” Indicators Results Framework Title Indicator Increased 1 # jobs attributed to FTF Employment in support Targeted Value Chains Improved 2 Gross margin per unit land, Agricultural kg., or animal (selected Productivity product varies by country) (adequate for SI productivity?) Increased Public 3 Share of national budget Sector Investment invested in agriculture Enhanced Technology Development, Dissemination, Management and Innovation Level Freq. Type Disaggregation PZoI, Ann. OC 1. Sex: Male, Female Targeted 2. New vs. Continuing beneficiaries 3. Urban vs. Rural PZoI, Ann. Targeted commodities, Fisheries, Livestock National Ann. 4 # hectares under improved PZoI, technologies or man. Targeted ha practices Ann. OC 1. Targeted product (crop/animal) 2. Rainfed vs. Irrigated 3. Gendered hh type: FNM, MNF, M&F OC OC 1. New vs. Continuing; 2. Technology Type: (11 Categories) FtF USAID “Required if Applicable” Indicators Results Framework Title Indicator Level Freq. Type Disaggregation 5 # farmers and others PZoI, Targeted Ann. OC 1. Sex: Male, Female applying new technologies beneficiaries 2. Livelihood type (farmer, or management practices processor, extension, etc) 3. New vs. Continuing 6 # individuals receiving PZoI, Targeted Ann. OP 1. Sex: Male, Female short-term training in ag. beneficiaries 2. Livelihood type (farmer, Enhanced sector productivity or food processor, extension, etc) Capacity for security training 3. New vs. Continuing Increasing 7 # groups (private PZoI, Targeted Ann. OP 1. Organization type (private, Agricultural enterprises, producer, beneficiaries producers, women) Sector water user, women‘s and Productivity trade associations and 2. New vs. Continuing CBOs) receiving USG assistance 8 # groups applying new PZoI, Targeted Ann. OC 1. Organization type technologies or beneficiaries (private, producers, women) management practices as a result of USG assistance 2. New vs. Continuing FtF USAID “Required if Applicable” Indicators Results Framework Title Expanding Markets and Trade Improved Access to Business Development & Financial and Risk Management Services Indicator 9 Value of incremental sales (collected at farm-level) attributed to FtF implementation 10 Percent change in value of intra-regional trade In targeted agricultural commodities 11 Value of Agricultural and Rural Loans Level Freq. Type Disaggregation PZoI, targeted Ann. OC Commodity/ beneficiaries & Product commodities National/ Regional level Ann. OC 1. Exporting Country 2. Commodity/ Product Project-level, targeted beneficiaries with USG assistance Ann. OP 1. Type of loan recipient: (producers, traders, etc) 2. Sex of recipient person or organization FtF USAID “Required if Applicable” Indicators Results Framework Title Indicator Level 12 Value of new private sector PZoI Increased investment in the ag. sector Investment in or food chain leveraged Agriculture and 13 # Firms or CSOs in agricultural PZoI, Nutritionand food security Targeted related manufacturing and services firms/CSOs Activities operating more profitably Freq. Type Ann. OC - Enhanced Technology Development, Dissemination, Management and Innovation Bienn. OC (req.) Ann. (rec.) 14 # Hectares of ag. land (fields, PZoI rangeland. agro-forests) showing improved biophysical conditions Ann. OC Disaggregation Firms: by profitability class CSOs: by operational and financial selfsufficiency Management practices: no/low till, perm. soil cover, integration of perennials, water harvesting etc. SI Monitoring and Reporting Levels & Spillovers Eastern & Southern Africa Maize-based Systems Sudano-Sahelian Zone Ethiopian Highlands Fostering Spillover by Design Action Sites SubSystems + + + Systems + ++ 1. Implementation sites to local sub-systems 2. Implementation to nonimplementation subsystems 3. Sub-systems to (sub-) systems 4. Systems to systems 5. Sites to sites Targeting, Priorities, Hypotheses & Sites Source: Dixon el al. 2001 Targeting, Priorities, Hypotheses & Sites POVERTY (1000 people) FS_NAME Cereal-root crop mixed Maize mixed Root crop Agro-pastoral millet/sorghum Forest based Highland perennial Tree crop E 2,764 28,065 14,219 384 20,365 23,278 1,569 S 11,811 16,277 2,451 1,868 87 W 30,570 9 27,644 24,729 3,535 541 17,199 Total Cum % 45,145 15.5 44,352 30.7 44,314 45.9 26,981 55.1 23,988 63.3 23,278 71.3 19,308 77.9 MAIZE AREA (1000 ha) FS_NAME E S W Total Maize mixed 2,860 3,197 0 6,057 24.2 Cereal-root crop mixed 128 1,214 2,718 4,059 40.4 Large commercial_smalholder 3,440 3,440 54.1 Root crop 711 329 2,228 3,268 67.2 Tree crop 145 4 1,647 1,796 74.3 HIGH PHOSPHORUS FIXATION (SHARE OF GRID CELL AREA, %) E S W Total TRAVEL TIME TO CLOSEST PORT (hours) Highland perennial 34.0 34.0 FS_NAME E S W Total Forest based 14.0 26.0 15.0 16.0 Coastal artisanal fishing 15 22 15 15 Tree crop 13.0 37.0 9.0 12.0 Large commercial_smalholder 19 19 Highland temperate mixed 13.0 11.0 8.0 11.0 Tree crop 17 16 20 19 Maize mixed 17.0 6.0 6.0 11.0 Highland temperate mixed 26 18 19 21 Rice-Tree crop Source: Zhe Guo (HarvestChoice 2011) 26 26 Targeting, Priorities, Hypotheses & Sites Source: Ethiopian Highlands SI Concept Note 2012 West Africa: Conceptual Framework for Site Selection, Technology Screening and Deployment Sub-system Resource Potential (Land, Rainfall) NEXT Spatial analysis to provide geographic definition and characterization of such “representative” subsystems domains + Upper West Region Bougouni + Upper East Region Koutiala Sub-system Anthropization (Market Access, Population Density) Site/HH Specific Attributes (Topography, Endowment) Household Typologies te f f, m ai ze m so ai ze rg hu ,w m he at ,p ep pe r te ff, m ai te ze ff ,s or gh m um m ai ai ze ze ,p ,s ep or pe gh r um ,b ea m ns ai m z ai e, ze be ,s an or s gh um ,p ea s be an s m m ai ai ze ze ,s or gh um te f f, be an s 0 15,000 30,000 HH Crop Enterprise Diversification # of households growing rural Ethiopia Note: to be included in each farming system, the minimum land size of each crop is .02 ha Intensification of Wheat Production (HH Scale Characterization) Region Zone Pesticide Use No 0.00 - 0.06 Hectares 0.14 - 0.27 Hectares 0.06 - 0.14 Hectares 0.27 - 1.3 Hectares Yes 0.00 - 0.06 Hectares 0.14 - 0.27 Hectares 0.06 - 0.14 Hectares 0.27 - 1.3 Hectares Grand Total OROMIA (All) Seed Use Local Seed Improved Seed Grand Total 63.79% 2.91% 66.70% 13.43% 0.38% 13.81% 16.58% 0.71% 17.29% 13.79% 0.50% 14.30% 19.99% 1.31% 21.30% 31.56% 1.74% 33.30% 1.72% 0.02% 1.74% 8.62% 0.50% 9.13% 4.79% 0.26% 5.05% 16.44% 0.95% 17.39% 95.36% 4.64% 100.00% Intensification Metrics: SI index • Normalized index with weights based on the first principal component, the linear combination capturing the greatest variation among the set of variables: -input index* (imp. seed, org & inorg fert, pesticide, extension…) -land size -head’s education -[crop] farm land -[crop] production share -[crop] farm land share -[crop] yield 2. Yield responses to fertilizer High : 8000 Variety: Digelu 4000 Ethiopia No fert. 100% Rec. Fert. Low : 1 No Fertilizer Kenya No fert. 100% Rec. Fert. Recommended Yield Fertilizer Rate International wheat and fertilizer prices 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Nominal world wheat price Real world wheat price Source: CIMMYT – HarvestChoice “Wheat Potential for Africa “ (2011) 4. Profitability analysis Country Transport cost: Capital to Farm-gate Variety: Veery Yield Wheat farming enterprise data Wheat price (US$/ton) RAINFED WHEAT 1. Agro-climatic suitability 3. Modeling of farm-gate prices Transport cost: Port to Farm-gate Mean Yield (kg/ha) Net economic return (US $/Ha) T0 T1 T2 Angola -198.60 -85.75 -22.11 Burundi 753.11 1096.98 1362.42 Ethiopia 59.62 173.80 233.87 Kenya 741.03 976.46 Madagascar 161.46 Mozambique Incremental net economic return (%) T0 to T1 T0 to T2 T1 to T2 56.82 88.87 74.22 45.66 80.91 24.20 191.51 292.27 34.56 1160.50 31.77 56.61 18.85 239.31 267.92 48.22 65.94 11.96 -46.94 29.15 39.20 162.10 183.51 34.48 Rwanda 1131.30 1377.55 1566.96 21.77 38.51 13.75 Tanzania 379.00 554.67 658.47 46.35 73.74 18.71 DRC 171.67 347.30 454.33 164.65 30.82 Uganda 639.29 903.64 72.68 22.17 Zambia 67.72 310.20 563.73 44.90 Zimbabwe -25.72 236.49 1655.83 69.21 Profitability 102.31 1103.94Sensitivity 41.35 449.48 Analysis 358.06 400.16 Tool (Excel) 1019.48 Net Economic Return and Potential Production Some Key M&E Activities • Stratification of farming systems: Relies on the fusion of spatially-explicit agricultural production, environmental, and farm/household data, and hypotheses on SI evolution and impact pathways (linked to site selection & sampling design) • Map planned interventions into indicators: • Design & Conduct of Surveys: To provide periodic, robust estimates of agreed indicators for target populations in PZoI (and satisfy other analytical data needs) • Maintaining a Technology/Intervention Inventory: A characterized inventory of the farming system components whose integration, adoption and impact is being evaluated. Includes characterization of spillover potential. • Establishing a Linked System of Models: To support M&E reporting cycle (up/out-scaling and projections with and w/o SI interventions), of output, outcome and impact indicators • Attribution assessment: Beyond monitoring and modeling change in indicators is the need (with additional information/assumptions) to attribute changes to the extent required by donors (ex post studies?) M&E Implementation Strategy (to date) • Establish Core FtF Monitoring Obligations: Primarily with USAID Washington (e.g., agree required core indicators and reporting timelines) • Recruit M&E Coordinator: IFPRI to recruit SI M&E Coordinator (Senior International Research position) with support staff in addition to DC-based team. • Establish M&E Implementation Community: To contribute to and finalize project M&E design, as well as guide, participate in and review M&E work plans and deliverables (composition, e.g., M&E specialist/liaison from involved CG centers, donor and national and regional partners). • M&E Open-Access, Web-Based Platform: To host and make accessible SI M&E plans, documents, and annual reports, as well as background publications, underlying datasets and analytical tools. Promote and apply standards for farming system, technology and impact characterization. • Annual M&E Technical Meeting: Likely aligned with proposed Project-wide Annual meeting (Need for cross-site planning and review meetings?) Year 1 Timeline Site Selection/ Characterization Component Inventory Component DB Activity -> Indicator List Survey Design Baseline Survey Potential Impact Evaluation: Scaling Out & Projection ✔ 1-3 Months 3-9 Months 9-12 Months Site/Station (& R&D) Inventory • Station Location (if known, Lat:___ Long: ___) – Location Name: ________________________________ – District: _____________ Region: __________________ • Site/Station Full Name: ______________________ • Institution: ________________________________ • Technologies/Practices tested/demonstrated • Contact details Issues/Questions • Making an appropriate split of M&E resources between the M & the E? (e.g., strong interest in early assessments of outcomes and impact over time) • Process of selecting components? (responds to supply or demand?) • Likely cost of meeting donor’s minimum indicator needs? • Internal project management versus strategic M&E needs? • Establishing shared roles in data and tool development and application between implementation partners and M&E team (involve scientists in M&E team)? – e.g. obtaining appropriate cross-fertilization between M&E team and other teams in site selection, field data collection, annual reporting/analysis? Any feeling this should be “arms-length”? • What interest in being part of the M&E community (especially from national partners)? • Any likely candidates for M&E Coordinator?