Technology Adoption and Impact Pathways for SIMLESA

Bekele Shiferaw

SIMLESA Session at WCCA

26 Sept, 2011

Brisbane, Australia

Targeted Countries and CropsCountry Targeted Farming systems

Ethiopia Maize-com bean system (Melkassa & Awassa)- mid-altitude dryland zone in the Rift Valley

Maize-soybean/com bean systems (Bako and Pawi) - mid-attitude sub-humid zone in western Ethiopia

Kenya Maize-com bean system (western Kenya, Kakamega)

Maize-com bean/p-pea system (central/eastern Kenya, Embu and Mbeere)

Tanzania Maize-pigeonpea system Northern zone – Mbulu and Karatu districts

Maize-Pigeonpea system Eastern zone – Kilosa, Mvomero district

Malawi Maize + Groundnuts, Maize + Beans, Maize + Soya bean (central)

Maize + pigeonpea (Southern)

Mozambique

Maize-pigeonpea system (Tete-region)

Maize-pigeonpea system (Manica-Climoio region)

Vision of Success● To increase maize and legume yields

by 30% for benefitting farmers – through improved maize and legume varieties

and associated management practices, – with adoption enabled and motivated through

the development of markets and value chains, from input supplies to output markets.

● To reduce downside yield risks by 30% (for downside risk of profits falling below the breakeven point).

● To benefit 500,000 farm households within 10 years.

Monitoring and Evaluation● Process monitoring and evaluation

– Aims to assess to what extent the project has been implemented as planned and to identify operational and strategic lessons for smooth implementation

– Requires careful description and monitoring of activities, milestones and outcomes of the project

– Drawing lessons and making timely corrective action to tackle problems and capitalize on new opportunities

● Adoption and impact monitoring and evaluation– Aims to measure the project’s success in achieving stated objectives

using a counterfactual– Requires measurement of progress using tangible indicators affected

by the program and how this differs from the situation without interventions

– Extensive data collection using standard instruments

Process monitoring and evaluation● By whom?

– Pro Steering Committee (PSC)

– Project Management Committee (PMC)

– Project Coordinator– Objective coordinators– National coordinators– Clearly defined roles

and responsibilities for accountability

– Performance contracts with all partners

Logframe and PMS by ASARECA

● How it is done? – Annual progress reports

from all partners by objective

– In-country planning and review meetings

– Annual regional evaluation and planning meetings

– PMC managerial action – PSC oversight and

recommendations– Informal/formal feedback

from farmers and partners– National M&E teams and

ASARECA

Monitoring the progress and attainment of:

AgreedActivities, Milestones, Outputs, Outcomes

Adoption and Impact MonitoringAim

– Measurement of progress using tangible indicators affected by the program and how this differs from the situation without interventions

● By whom? – Lead: Objective 1 – Participate: all other objectives

● How? Baseline and adoption studies– Joint visits for site selection– PRA for selecting villages and snapshot of the target areas– Baseline household (and market) surveys – year 1– Baseline study report – establishes existing conditions for

participating and non-participating groups– Adoption surveys (year 4) to monitor changes in selected impact

indicators– Estimating adoption and early impact of the project

Feedback process to facilitate adaptive learning and priority setting for impact

● Process monitoring and evaluation

Adoption, impact monitoring and evaluation

Program Evaluation and Planning Meetings

Greater Efficiency, Accelerated Outcomes and Impact of the

Project

PMC, PSC, PC, NC, OL

Objective 1 with inputs from Obj 2-5

Impact Pathway

Activity

Outputs

Outcomes

First order impacts

Second order impacts

How do we get there? Catalyzing change through the impact pathwayOutputs

SIMLESA Research

Investments

Outcomes

Next users

Impacts

Final users (Adopters)

Adopter-level changes

Objective 2

New germplasm (varieties and hybrids)

Objective 3

R&D infrastructure

New institutions, policies, tools

Breeder seed and foundation seed

Trained human resources

Improved knowledge management

Management practices and risk reducing innovations

NARS (Research) (Incl. private sector)

Seed companies

Project teams, Government agencies, and donors

Seed industry and farmer coops

Other development organizations (NGOs, farmer groups)

Government (Ministries, Departments)

Objective 1 and 4

Objective 4 and 5

Farmers (men and women)

Change yield and area

Change in costs and profits

Government agencies/departments (policy makers)

Change in profitability

Change in attitude, gender, innovation

Change in risk management

Change in (policies, regulations, laws)

Change in research capacity

Indirect economic impacts and multiplier effects

Change in environmental conditions: soil fertility, organic matter, agro-ecosystem health

Change in total production

Change in social conditions: gender equity, food security, and vulnerability

Changes in welfare:Income growth and poverty reduction

Change in supply response and market prices

Scaling up and scaling out of successful innovations

Local, national, regional

Change in economic conditions, income growth

Agrodealers and agribusinesses

NARS (Research) (Incl. private sector)

Selected Indicators of First and Second order Impacts

● Economic impacts – Farmers adopting the new varieties and improved

practices– Changes in area of the crop– Changes in yield of the crop– Changes in profits or net income from crops– Changes in marketed surplus of production– Farmers accessing inputs and services – Changes in household food security (consumption) –SO– Changes in total production – SO– Changes in market prices for commodities – SO– …..

Other social benefits and impacts● Social impacts

– Changes in risk and vulnerability to shocks -SO– Women farmers participating in PVS and accessing seed,

information and other services - SO– Changes in child malnutrition and health - SO– Changes in poverty profiles - SO

● Institutional impact (capacity strengthening)– Local capacity building – human capital, institutions, etc - FO– Level of government support and policy changes - SO– Shift in total demand for maize and legumes – SO

• Environmental and sustainability impacts– Improvements in soil organic matter, reduction in soil nutrient

mining, soil loss, etc

Impact targets  Maize Varieties

YearNo of communities

reachedNo of farmers

reached Adopters (67%)

1 38 7600  (?)

2 68 13680 5092

3 123 24624 9166

4 222 44,323 16,498

5 399 79,782 29,697

6 718 143,607 53,454

7 1,292 258,493 96,217

8 2,326 465287 173,190

9 4,188 837,517 311,742

10 7,538 1,507,531 561,136

Impact targets (cont.) Legume Varieties

YearNo of communities

reachedNo of farmers

reached Adopters (50%)

1 38 7,600   (?)

2 68 13,680 3,800

3 123 24,624 6,840

4 222 44,323 12,312

5 399 79,782 22,162

6 718 143,607 39,891

7 1,292 258,493 71,804

8 2,326 465,287 129,246

9 4,188 837,517 232,644

10 7,538 1,507,531 418,759

Impact targets (cont.)CA with fert and weed control

YearNo of communities

reachedNo of farmers

reached Adopters

1 38 7,600  

2 68 13,680 60

3 123 24,624 180

4 222 44,323 540

5 399 79,782 1,620

6 718 143,607 4,860

7 1,292 258,493 14,580

8 2,326 465,287 43,740

9 4,188 837,517 131,220

10 7,538 1,507,531 393,660

Impact targets by country and year

Technology adoption

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Year

Ethiopia

Kenya

Tanzania

Malawi

Moz

Seed Road Map for Country Y with variety XSeed Road Map 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Variety in DUS/VCU Trials  October, 2010: Provide 36 kg for Trials/Demos

Variety Release Meeting October 2011

Breeder  Seed Production - NARS seed farms

Pre-Basic and Basic Seed Production - NARS seed farms - Seed company

Certified Seed Production - NARS seed farms - Seed company

Variety Demonstrations - Research team - MOA - Seed company

Variety Promotion and Marketing - Seed company - Farmer coops

5000 leaflets10 Field days

10000 leaflets20 Field days

10000 leaflets20 Field days

Thank you!

Estimated economic rate of returns from the project

Estimated Impact of the Project r=5% r=10% r=15%

Total costs (PV), million USD 2128.15 936.11 458.33

Total benefits (PV),  million USD 4692.63 1994.89 926.91

Net present value(NPV), million USD 2564.48 1058.78 468.58

Benefit cost ratio 2.21 2.13 2.02

Outputs and output targets• Outputs are the products of research with a defined time line, contributing to reaching the vision of success by offering solutions to problems identified during the planning process.

• Output Targets are the annual deliverables, defined by quantity and type, expected in a specific year and contributing to achieving the Project Outputs. – materials,– policy strategies, – practices, – capacity, and – knowledge.

Output categories● Materials refer to all biological materials and knowledge that adds value to them; not to documents. 

● Policy strategies refer to analysis and information that is aimed to be used for policy decision making. 

● Practices include tools, methods and processes that intended for use in research, breeding, policy work, extension, demonstration, and evaluation in the field.

● Capacity strengthening includes training and other instruction aimed at enhancing individual capacity, training materials and resources, and interventions that are aimed at enhancing institutional capacity. 

● Knowledge include knowledge and data that are the deliverable research achievements and do not belong to any of the other categories.

Outcomes and Impact

OutcomeOutcome is the external use, adoption, or influence of output (s) (e.g. by partners, stakeholders, clients).

ImpactImpacts are the longer range social, environmental and economic benefits that are consistent with the vision of success for the project or program.