The Science of Scaling Up: An Agroforestry Perspective

Tony Simons, Sileshi Weldesemayat, Zac Tchoundjeu, Jianchu Xu, Meinevan Noordwijk, Beria Leimona, Anne Degrande and Steve Franzel

World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)October 2011

T1 T2S

Selection of putative cultivars of Uapacafor fresh fruit and product market ideotypes: Zimbabwe

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fresh w eight (g)

TSS(% brix)

Pulp content %Seed w eight (g)

Shell w eight (g)

ICR02ShangwaZW1ICR02NgazimbiZW2ICR02BaynesHopeFarmZW3ICR02GrinokFarmZW4ICR02ChadengaZW6ICR02ChimaniZW8ICR02ChimaniZW9ICR02ChimaniZW10ICR02ChikwatiZW11ICR02MapangaZW12ICR02ChadengaZW7ICR02MugwisiZW18ICR02MugwisiZW20ICR02ChikumeZW23ICR02ChikumeZW25ICR02UrandaZW26ICR02UrandaZW28ICR02UrandaZW29ICR02UrandaZW30ICR02Uranda ZW31ICR03NyavaZW32ICR03NyavaZW35ICR03NyavaZW36ICR03NyavaZW37ICR03NyavaZW38ICR03NyavaZW39ICR03NyavaZW41ICR03MafaZW40ICR03MafaZW42ICR03MafaZW43ICR03MafaZW44ICR03MafaZW47ICR03MafaZW51ICR03MafaZW52ICR03BingaguruZW53ICR03BingaguruZW54ICR03BingaguruZW55ICR03BingaguruZW56ICR03BingaguruZW57ICR03BingaguruZW58ICR03BingaguruZW59ICR03BingaguruZW60ICR03BingaguruZW61ICR03BingaguruZW62ICR03BingaguruZW63ICR03BingaguruZW64ICR03BingaguruZW65ICR03BingaguruZW66

6

The Science of Scaling UpScience (noun) – to know, knowledge

Scaling up – to bring more benefits to more people, more quickly and more lastingly √ Multiplying and disseminating a new maize variety

?? Payment for environmental services

?? Agroecosystems improvement approach

?? Climate Smart Agriculture

Google Scholar

Extension - 3,810,000 urls

Dissemination - 992,000 urls

Technology transfer - 522,000 urls

Scaling up - 148,000 urls

Science of scaling up - 15 urls

Time (years)

Research(building of knowledge)

Impact Pathway Paradigm

Development(application of knowledge)

Time (years)

Research(building of knowledge)

Development(proof of application &

application of knowledge)

New Impact Pathway Paradigm

http://www.expandnet.net/PDFs/ExpandNet-WHO%20Nine%20Step%20Guide%20published.pdf

ExpandNet is a global network of public health professionals and scientists seeking to advance the practice and science of scaling up successful health service innovations tested in experimental, pilot and demonstration projects.

Scaling up defined

ExpandNet defines scaling up as "deliberate efforts to increase the impact of health innovations tested in pilot or experimental projects so as to benefit more people and to foster policy and program development on a lasting basis." This definition is more specific than when the term is used in a general sense to mean broadening the impact of existing or new practices.

Research DimensionWhy ??????What ?????Where ????When ???HOW X

Extension, Scaling Up

Best Bet, Good Practice, Guideline

Why not use Principles for Research in Scaling Up?

1. Problem based (utility, not pure curiousity)

2. Testing a hypothesis, construct, paradigm

3. Systematic/experimental approach

4. Observations (repeated)

5. Independent thinking, deductive reasoning

6. Documented and shared

7. Undergoes critical peer review (credible)

8. Validated, revalidated (robustness)

9. Unplanned serendipity

10.Progressive, building on base of knowledge, zero fraud

Low-protein feed a critical constraint for East Africa’s 2 million dairy farmers

• Milk demand is rising rapidly

• Smallholders rely on cut and carry dairy systems

• Commercial dairy meal is the main protein source

• Fodder shrubs meet a critical farmer need: a protein source that can be grown at home at low cost

Case Study on Fodder Trees

The Scaling Up Problem

• Early 2000s: Rapid adoption around research stations but little spread to new areas

• Why?– Fodder shrubs are “knowledge-intensive” practices, they

require new knowledge and skills – Lack of seed– Extension staff lacked training

• So we tested 5 key extension approaches to an experimental sample of 200,000 farmers (10% of total dairy popn)

Five key extension approaches1. Extension facilitators

•ICRAF and National Research Institutes recruited Extension Facilitators to backstop extension services promoting fodder shrubs•One facilitator, over a 3 year period, assisted •22 government, NGO and private sector partners,

• 180 farmer groups and• 3,200 farmers to establish • 250 nurseries.

Projects/NGOs Government

ICRAF

Small DairyFarmers

Projects/NGOs

Small DairyFarmers

Small Seed Producers

Seed Dealers/

Producers

WesternKenya

Central Kenya

2. Linking seed supply to demand: market chain for calliandra seed

Problems: 1. Seed producers notlinked to final demand

2. Little seed produc-tion in area of demand3. Free seed a disincentiveto market seed

Projects/NGOs KEFRIICRAF

Small DairyFarmers

Projects/NGOs

Small DairyFarmers

Small Seed Producers

Seed Dealers

WesternKenya

Central Kenya

Dairy firmsDairy societiesSeed stockists

Small Seed Producers/

Vendors

Market Chain for calliandra seed (present)

Sold 3.8 t seed in 2007,

sufficient for >100,000

farmers to plant

3. Partnerships

• After ICRAF-NARS research, over 224 organizations across 4 East African countries were promoting fodder shrubs

• 5 large NGOs helped about 60,000 farmers to plant fodder shrubs in East Africa – Strong extension staff– Usually worked with

farmer groups

4. Farmer-to-farmer dissemination

• Survey of 94 adopters 3 years after planting, • 53% of adopters gave seed, seedlings, or wildings to other

farmers• To how many farmers? On average 6.3• ‘Master disseminators’ dominate the process:• 5% of farmers accounted for 66% of dissemination

• Master disseminators are community members motivated by wish to

– Help others (90%)– Improve social status (33%)– Earn cash (13%)

Fig 1: Results of a survey of fodder shrub adopters to assess overlap between experts,

innovators, and disseminators (n=126)

Experts (48) Disseminators (44)

Innovators 46

14

17 5 15

12 6 9

Finding: 40% of expertsare not gooddisseminators

5. Volunteer farmer trainers: the example of the East Africa Dairy Development Program: Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda

•Over 1000 volunteer farmer trainers training farmers in improved feed systems for dairy cows, including fodder shrubs•Over 40% are women•Trainers receive training and host a demo plot•They are not paid and receive no material support, aside from a bag and a t-shirt

World Agroforestry Centre

Case Study 2: Irish Aid Funded AFSP in Malawi

Four million Euro (2007-2010), 200,000 farmers Facilitation of a consortium of partners (DAES, DARS, LRCD, DALH, FD, NASFAM, MZUNI, UNIMA & NGOs)ICRAF’s Role: Knowledge broker, planning & coordination, facilitate training, ensure quality germplasm, M&E, reporting. Outputs: capacity built, lessons (IPGs)Outcome: change in adoption, knowledge and skills,

Financial profitability of maize over a five-year

cycle in ZambiaProduction system Net

profit(US$/ha)

Benefit Cost ratio

Return to Labour ($/person day)

Unfertilized maize 130 2.01 1.10

Fertilized 349 1.77 2.53

Gliricidia intercropping)

269 2.91 2.51

Sesbania improved fallow

309 3.13 2.49

Tephrosia improved fallow

233 2.77 1.91

New Cultivar Development for Masuku (Uapaca kirkiana)

Earlier fruiting, bigger fruits, heavy fruit loads, smaller trees and uniform quality

A superior cultivar (fruited after 4 yrs.)

Variations

Fertilizer trees promoted based on suitability in the maize-mixed farming system

Tephrosia SesbaniaGliricidia Pigeon pea

The activities are implemented by a number of partners in Malawi

DAES

MZUNI

DARS FD

NASFAMCWW

DAHLD

UNIMA

ICRAF

LRCDSSLPP

Land ‘o’ Lakes

OSED

SHA

FAIR

COOPI

Irish Aid

MDFA, CREMPA SHMPA

Livingstoniasynod DP

CU

IDEAA

FUM

CRS

CADECOM

DCP

ICRISAT

1. Control + treatment farms, groups, villages, districts

2. Monitor covariance for location, farm traits, gender

3. Fodder, fertiliser, fruit, fuelwood trees as technologies

4. Test different partners

5. Test different group approaches of beneficiaries (nurseries)

Researching Scale Up in Malawi AF

Key innovations and use by beneficiaries

Tree type Innovation Species # Beneficiaries in Malawi

Target farming system

Fertilizer Under-sowing, rotational fallow

Cajanus, Tephrosia, Sesbania

166,156 Maize-mixed

Intercropping Gliricidia 14,314Dispersed plan Faidherbia 36,357

Fruit Dispersed or block planting

Mango, citrus, guava, indigenous sp

10,543 Non-specific

Fodder Contour, block Leucaena, Caliandra 22,111 Agro-pastoral

Woodlot Firewood Senna, Acacia 14,524 Non-specific

Timber Khaya 208

REDD = Reducing emissions from deforestation

Beneficiaries of AFSP (According to ICRAF report)

2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

# of farmers reached 42,419 65,522 91,022 37,656 184,463

Seed distributed (kg) 24,000 54,000 17,500 9,600 105,100

According to external evaluation by the Centre for Independent Evaluation (CIE), the AFSP has covered 92% of the targeted beneficiaries.

“From our sample, nearly 70% of the beneficiaries had received training” (CIE report)

The external evaluation team (CIE) concluded that the AFSP has

Improved household food security, nutrition and dietary diversity

Mzimba Dedza Thyolo Mulanje Salima0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

AFSP beneficiaryNon-beneficiary

Mai

ze y

ield

(t/h

a)

Maize yield Number of food secure months

All data and figures from household survey by CIE

The external evaluation team (CIE) concluded that the AFSP has

Improved household food security, nutrition and dietary diversityNutrition: Dietary diversity score

All data and figures from household survey by CIE

Food availability

Mzimba Dedza Thyolo Mulanje Salima0

20

40

60

80

100AFSP beneficiaryNon-beneficiary

Perc

ent r

espo

nden

ts w

ho p

erce

ive

food

av

aila

bilit

y ha

s in

crea

sed

Bac Kan

IFAD RUPES SITES IN ASIA

covering 12 sites in 8 countries

Soil conservation activities

Sediment pits: 300 per hectare, standard dimensions size: 100x150x40 cm evenly distributed

Ridging: 50 percent of plot Vegetation strips: surrounding pits and

ridging Maintaining all the land conservation

structure above for a year.

Payment schedule

50 percent at inception; 50 percent at one year contingent on performance

Duration and monitoring

One year with monitoring every three months; termination if 50% contracted activities not completed by midterm monitoring date

Cancellation or non-compliance results in: ineligibility for second payment installation friction and conflict among community members indication of corruption

Force majeur provision for contract terms in the event of natural disasters

Conservation Contract

Supply curve resulting from reverse auction

Jack, Leimona and Ferraro (2008)

Results

• Total participants from 2 villages: 82 farmers bidding on 70 hectares

• Participants received contracts for soil conservation: 34 farmers on 25 hectares

• Average price of contract: USD 171.70 per hectare yearly – labor requirements of contract based on

wages approximately USD 300 – Past investment for soil conservation

activities from survey USD 225

Auction Outcomes Site 1 Site 2 Pooled Pooled (without

outlier)Number of

participants48 34 82

Number of winners 19 15 34

Number of hectares contracted

10.75 14.25 25

Contract price per hectare (USD)

172 161 166

Median bid 215 161 176

Mean bid 301 260 284 255

Minimum bid 97 65 65 65

Maximum bid 2,688 753 2,688 1,075

Std deviation bid 405 195 334 199

Final auction outcomes from 2 pilot sites

Discussion• The rate of accomplishment at the final

monitoring was moderate. – lack of leadership and coordination among farmer

group members, – difficulty in finding grass seedlings to accomplish

the contract, and – coincidence with coffee harvesting time.

• In this specific case, private contract tends to be more successful compared to collective contract when leadership is lacking or “champion” among the community members does not exist.

– Institutional aspects and contract flexibility might influence the accomplishment of conservation efforts.

– Analysis showed that there were no significant differences in level of understanding, complexity, and competitiveness and conservation awareness between compliant and non‑compliant farmers.

What are factors induced a high accomplishment rate?

• A limitation of this study is that all units of the pilot site were treated as homogeneous, with respect to their contribution to erosion and downstream sedimentation.

• For a larger scale allocation auction, modifications such as using supply curve information resulting from this procurement auction would be more appropriate.

– a reasonable platform for designing a scaled up fixed payment scheme, including differential rates and eligibility rules necessary for targeting participants.

How to make it work?

The design of an experimental auction should fit the purpose of overall objectives of a conservation program.

In this case, the challenge was to design and administer a fair auction for farmers with low formal education, prone to social conflicts, and influenced by power structures within their community.

How to make it work?

Palopo Cocoa Centre, Sulawesi

Case Study: Cocoa Rehabilitation

Cocoa Yields are too low

Source: Etude sur les revenus et les investissements des producteurs de café et de cacao en Côte d’Ivoire, Agrisystems Consortium, 2008

010203040506070

0-10

0

100-

200

200-

300

300-

400

400-

500

500-

600

600-

700

700-

800

800-

900

900-

1000

1000

-110

0

1100

-120

0

1200

-130

0

1300

-140

0

1400

-150

0

1500

-160

0

1600

-170

0

1700

-180

0

1800

-190

0

1900

-200

0

Yield classification (kg/ha)

Num

ber o

f plo

ts s

urve

yed

0.5 MT/ha

40

Cacao Sector Value Chain Volume-Based OpportunitiesVo

lum

e (K

g) /

Hec

tare

450

135

585

351

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Current Knowledge /Pesticides

Germplasm Fertilizer

Potential Impact of Volume-Based Gains on Farm Productivity

(Gains in kg/ha)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

New Productivity – 1521 Kg/Ha

>3X

Opportunities Exist To Increase the Yields of Cacao Farms Three-Fold Through Productivity Improvements

cir2520.0cir195.1cir2409.2

cir316.0Tce08920.9cir12923.4shrs21shrs623.8ca79799532.3cir268cir15237.4shrs1338.5

cir6048.5cir139cir16550.1shrs251.3cir16257.7

cir4870.5

cir23085.4cir22886.1WRKY-0388.0cir68cir26193.5cir73cir269100.5

2cir1840.0

cir161cir11811.6cf97423915.7

cir143cir15928.9

cir10239.4WRKY-1445.0cir2946.5cf97288551.0

cir24953.3shrs354.7cir24460.4shrs2361.1cir24662.7cir27365.8cir28668.4shrs3469.0

Tce57480.1

cir27587.7cir26489.9cir2293.5RGH11cir19497.0

1cir2420.0cir2341.5cir2413.8cir2335.1Tce1959.4cir11711.2cir3314.5cir23714.8cir9520.6shrs3323.3cir3226.2cir4332.0cir1234.2

cir213cir20648.6

Tce38059.4

cir11575.3

4cir120cir1500.0cir1532.1cir1983.8TIR25.4cir1469.6cir2110.7cir19210.9cir6211.6cir4012.3cir24713.9cir20417.0Tce380A19.5cir18021.6cir17531.4cir28039.6cir28940.6cir7842.0cir26345.4cir21948.0cir25463.6cir13563.9cir12864.1cir14066.4shrs770.1shrs5cir22670.4cir13170.8cir20271.4cir14472.1ca79801873.0cir8179.5ca79546991.6

3WRKY-100.0cir1110.3cir2321.3cir1192.1shrs375.2shrs127.4shrs117.6cir14813.5shrs2218.2cir1021.5Tce03026.1cir196cir12326.8cir4227.7cir16931.5cir149cir25639.8cir17040.7shrs1947.7cir24548.8cir69WRKY-1149.1TIR452.3TIR352.6shrs463.7cir8767.6cir8073.0

cir109cir10184.9cir27485.3

5

cir1030.0cir1343.0cir1895.4

Tce48713.5cir2616.8

cir20023.0

cir211shrs2033.3cir22535.2

cir28245.1

cir151.1

8ca9728460.0cir1861.7cir277cir1163.2cir1794.4cir1775.7cir1478.0cir5510.2cir5612.4cir46cir18116.6

RGH422.8RGH526.1cir1333.1RGH137.4cir19043.7cir14144.1

7

cir790.0cir853.4

cir64cir9824.0cir28324.8

cir21232.8RGH2cir5836.4

cir845.0cir17847.5

cir16055.2cir15758.0cir3560.5cf97290967.0

cir2468.5cir25173.3cir3074.1cir16679.5cir25083.2cir12686.0cir10888.1cir26688.6cir72cir28794.6cir24395.4

9

cir60.0cir1361.5

5.4cir5310.5

cir7132.2cir27634.3

34.7cir2537.4

cir20954.3cir957.9cir29159.9

6

cir370.0cir2234.7RGH711.2RGH813.4

cir6123.3

cir10440.6cir15541.3

cir22957.8

10

Pod Number

Trunk Circumference

Pod Number & Wet Bean Weight

Witches’ Broom Resistance

Pod Weight

Frosty Pod Resistance & Wet Bean Weight

Bean Length

Jorquette Height

Frosty Pod Resistance

Bean Length, Seed Weight,Ovule Number, & Trunk Circumference

Black Pod

Bean Weight, Bean Thickness, Pod Weight & Pod Length

~40 identified QTLsin cacao

Illustrative Impact Pathway – Tree Crop Development in Cocoa

Compatible cocoadiversificationoptions developed

Reliable method to multiply cocoa clonally

Best practices for cocoa system/tree management

Demonstrations established

Extension materials produced

Training and extension events held

Cocoa policiesreformed

Progressive cocoa certification operational

Formation ofbetter producerassociations

Research Outcomes Dev OutcomesDevelopment OutputsResearch Outputs

Improved planting available

Germplasm multiplication blocks established

Policy barriersinvestigated and optionsformulated

Farmer perspectives,effect on women, incentive measuresunderstood Increased donor, regulator,

national government and local authority

awareness, investment and support

Fair, transparent and profitable market chains

operating at national and international levels

Policy dialogues

Increased cultivation of superior

varieties under better practices, with increased yields

Healthier /more diversified cocoa farms and

adjacent landscapes

Identify higher yielding andpest resistant clones

Farmer A withside graft old

Farmer B withside graft oldseedling graftchupon graft old

Farmer C withside graft oldchupon graft old

Farmer D withchupon graft old

Farmer E withseedling graftchupon graft old

Farmer F withseedling graft

Most farmers with no demos

CDCcore

CDC and associated demos (non-contiguous)- Side graft onto old tree- Chupon graft on old tree

- seedling graft (new planting)

CDC Core on Community Land

- trials- hybrid seed orchard 1.5ha

- budwood garden 1.5ha

Nursery production

Satellite nursery model(banana leaves shade, etc)

Water storage

Covered Meeting

Area

Storage sheds

Storage sheds

Fermentation/drying demos

Pruning, fertiliser demos

Clonal trial

Nursery production

Satellite nursery model(banana leaves shade, etc)

Water storage

Covered Meeting

Area

Storage sheds

Storage sheds

Fermentation/drying demos

Pruning, fertiliser demos

Clonal trial

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

VCC

CDC on Community Land

1 CDC supports 15-20 VCCs

1 VCC serves 50-100 farmers

1 farmer having 200-1000 improved trees

1 CDC for each 750-2000 farmers (av. 1200)

1 CDC leads to 240,000 – 1,200,000 (av. 600,000)

VCC

TARGET AREA = 300,000 farmers in greater Soubre

Reach with info and germplasmSay 70% farmers

Say 85% of farners test or adopt

Say 40% are early adopters ortesters

On a single farm

Maximumfinal areato new cocoa

First testarea

Secondexpansionarea Third

expansion area

Solar energy

Grass

Milk Cheese

Hay

Summer

Winter

These processes are vulnerable to climate

change

Alpine meadow

Permanent settlement

Transitional camp

Spring

Meat

Alpine Ecosystem is very Sensitive to Climate Change: Tibetan Plateau of China

Dung

Rangeland Carbon Project:Qinghai Province, Zeku county

Zeku county

Favorable context• institutions (land tenure, administration, herders organizations) • science and knowledge (baseline information, technical packages, strength of national institutes)

ICRAF did field research!

Methodology for Sustainable Grassland Management (SGM)

CAAS took leading role in standardization at national level (increased ownership from Chinese government)

Potential Scale-up in Africa, Central Asia and Mongolia for Climate Smart Agriculture

Semi-arid region in Africa, Central Asia, Mongolia & China

Potential scaling-up at regional level

Degrande A, Bwama Meyi M, Caspa R, Dibwe D, Asaah E, Biloso A, Okwu C and Tchoundjeu Z

World Agroforestry Centre (Cameroon, DRC, Nigeria), IFA-Yangambi (DRC), IRAD (Cameroon), INERA (DRC)

Rural Resource Centres Transform Lives and Landscapes through Participatory Tree

Domestication in West and Central Africa

Conceptual framework for disseminating agroforestry

Policy Support for Dissemination of

Tree Domestication

Institutional Development & Linkages

Increased TD uptake

Increased income of

rural households;

improved health &

nutrition; etc.

Germplasm

Knowledge &

Information

Human Capacitie

s

Skills development in areas such as nursery practices, group dynamics and marketing

Information and demonstration of new technologies and innovations

Access to market information

Links with market actors particularly from the private sector

A forum for exchange of information among farmers and between farmers and other stakeholders

Seed, seedlings and other inputs

Key services that TDRC provide

Multiplier effect

RRC

RRC

Satellite nursery

Satellite nursery

Satellite nursery

Satellite nursery

Satellite nursery

Satellite nursery

Satellite nursery

Farmer groupFarmer group

Farmer group

Farmer groupFarmer group

Farmer group

Farmer groupFarmer group

Farmer groupFarmer group

Farmer group

Farmer groupFarmer group

Farmer group

Small-holder

Farmers

5-20

Spread20

09

2010

2009

2010

RC Smallholder nurseries

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Nigeria DRC Cameroon N

umbe

rs

Smallholder nurseries have become genuine enterprises

• 1/3 of adopters interviewed reported an increase in income, mainly from sales of plants (Tchoundjeu et al., 2010)

• In 2010, sample survey of 15 nurseries in Cameroon generated on average 2,200 USD (ICRAF-WCA, 2010)

• 10 out of 21 new tree nurseries in Nde division, West Cameroon generate at least 1000 USD per year

• Smallholder nurseries win contracts for seedling supply to national reforestation programmes

Adjudicated Land

Adjudicated under the Land Adjudication Act CAP 284 1968, intensive smallholder cultivation with clear freehold title

Unadjudicated Land

Unadjudicated land, no firm legal title

Tenure and Investment in Woody Vegetation

Economic, Environmental and Social Impacts

Unadjud Freehold Tenure Effect

Net returns to land ($ ha-1 y-1) $126 $288 2.28 Woody crops, woodlots etc (ha km-2) 5.4 25.6 4.7 Hedgerows (km km-2) 5.2 23.6 4.5 Social cost from embedding -$40 $30 $70 Social "tax" -32% +10%

International conference to take stock of current policies, thinking and practice, successes and failures of ongoing and past reforms in extension and advisory services and build a coalition moving forward to specifically address meeting the future needs of small-holder farmers, marginalized communities, women and youth in a sustainable and cost effective manner.

http://extensionconference2011.cta.int/

CTA, FARA, GFRAS, IFAD, FAO, AGRA, KARI, ICRAF and others

Caution:

avoid Research on Scaling Upbecoming a pseudo scienceas Ben Goldacre warns inmedical science

Three Pillars of Sustainability

Why not use Principles for Research in Scaling Up?

1. Problem based (utility, not pure curiousity)

2. Testing a hypothesis, construct, paradigm

3. Systematic/experimental approach

4. Observations (repeated)

5. Independent thinking, deductive reasoning

6. Documented and shared

7. Undergoes critical peer review (credible)

8. Validated, revalidated (robustness)

9. Unplanned serendipity

10.Progressive, building on base of knowledge, zero fraud