Upload
makana
View
53
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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. Sustainable Intensification of Farming Systems: M&E Goals, Implementation Strategy, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Carlo Azzarri, Melanie Bacou, Ali Bittinger, Zhe Guo, Dave Hodson, Jawoo Koo, An Notenbaert,
Ria Tenorio, Pierre Sibiry Traore, Stanley Wood
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
Sustainable Intensification of Farming Systems:M&E Goals, Implementation Strategy,
and Data & Analysis Platform
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” IndicatorsResults
Framework Title Indicator Level Freq. Type DisaggregationSustainably Reduce Global Poverty and Hunger
1 Prevalence of underweight children (<5years)
Nat., PZoI
Bienn. DHS (5yrs) IM Sex: M, F
2 Prevalence of poverty Nat., PZoI Bienn. IM FNM/MNF/M&F
Inclusive Agricutural Sector Growth
3 Per capita expenditure (income proxy)
Nat.,PZoI Bienn. OC FNM/MNF/M&F
4 Percentage change in agricultural GDP Nat. Ann. IM -
5 Women's empowerment in agricultural index PZoI Bienn. IM TBD
Improved Nutritional Status, (especially of women and children)
6 Prevalence of stunted children (<5 yrs)
Nat., PZoI
Bienn. DHS (5yrs) IM Sex: M, F
7 Prevalence of wasted children (<5 yrs)
Nat., PZoI
Bienn. DHS (5yrs) IM Sex: M, F
8 Prevalence of underweight women
Nat. , PZoI
Bienn. DHS (5yrs) IM -
FtF USAID “Required if Applicable” IndicatorsResults
Framework Title Indicator Level Freq. Type DisaggregationIncreased Employment in Targeted Value Chains
1 # jobs attributed to FTF support
PZoI, Targeted beneficiaries
Ann. OC 1. Sex: Male, Female2. New vs. Continuing3. Urban vs. Rural
Improved Agricultural Productivity(adequate for SI productivity?)
2 Gross margin per unit land, kg., or animal (selected product varies by country)
PZoI, Targeted commodities, Fisheries, Livestock
Ann. OC 1. Targeted product (crop/animal)
2. Rainfed vs. Irrigated 3. Gendered hh type: FNM, MNF, M&F
Increased Public Sector Investment
3 Share of national budget invested in agriculture
National Ann. OC -
Enhanced Technology Development, Dissemination, Management and Innovation
4 # hectares under improved technologies or man. practices
PZoI, Targeted ha
Ann. OC 1. New vs. Continuing; 2. Technology Type: (11 Categories)
Results Framework
Title Indicator Level Freq. Type Disaggregation
Enhanced Capacity for Increasing
Agricultural Sector
Productivity
5 # farmers and others applying new technologies or management practices
PZoI, Targeted beneficiaries
Ann. OC 1. Sex: Male, Female 2. Livelihood type (farmer,
processor, extension, etc)3. New vs. Continuing
6 # individuals receiving short-term training in ag. sector productivity or food security training
PZoI, Targeted beneficiaries
Ann. OP 1. Sex: Male, Female 2. Livelihood type (farmer,
processor, extension, etc)3. New vs. Continuing
7 # groups (private enterprises, producer, water user, women‘s and trade associations and CBOs) receiving USG assistance
PZoI, Targeted beneficiaries
Ann. OP 1. Organization type (private, producers, women)
2. New vs. Continuing
8 # groups applying new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance
PZoI, Targeted beneficiaries
Ann. OC 1. Organization type (private, producers, women)
2. New vs. Continuing
FtF USAID “Required if Applicable” Indicators
Results Framework
Title Indicator Level Freq. Type Disaggregation
Expanding Markets and Trade
9 Value of incremental sales (collected at farm-level) attributed to FtF implementation
PZoI, targeted beneficiaries & commodities
Ann. OC Commodity/Product
10 Percent change in value of intra-regional trade In targeted agricultural commodities
National/Regional level
Ann. OC 1. Exporting Country2. Commodity/ Product
Improved Access to Business Development & Financial and Risk Management Services
11 Value of Agricultural and Rural Loans
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 Freq. Type Disaggregation
Increased Investment in Agriculture and Nutrition-related Activities
12 Value of new private sector investment in the ag. sector or food chain leveraged
PZoI Ann. OC -
13 # Firms or CSOs in agricultural and food security manufacturing and services operating more profitably
PZoI, Targeted firms/CSOs
Ann. OC Firms: by profitability classCSOs: by operational and financial self-sufficiency
Enhanced Technology Development, Dissemination, Management and Innovation
14 # Hectares of ag. land (fields, rangeland. agro-forests) showing improved biophysical conditions
PZoI Bienn. (req.) Ann. (rec.)
OC Management practices: no/low till, perm. soil cover, integration of perennials, water harvesting etc.
FtF USAID “Required if Applicable” Indicators
Eastern & Southern Africa Maize-based SystemsSudano-Sahelian Zone
Ethiopian Highlands
Systems
Sub-Systems
+
+ +++
+
ActionSites
SI Monitoring and Reporting Levels
Fostering Spillover by Design
1. Implementation sites to local sub-systems
2. Implementation to non-implementation sub-systems
3. Sub-systems to (sub-) systems
4. Systems to systems5. Sites to sites
& Spillovers
Source: Dixon el al. 2001
Targeting, Priorities, Hypotheses & Sites
POVERTY (1000 people)FS_NAME E S W Total Cum %
Cereal-root crop mixed 2,764 11,811 30,570 45,145 15.5Maize mixed 28,065 16,277 9 44,352 30.7Root crop 14,219 2,451 27,644 44,314 45.9Agro-pastoral millet/sorghum 384 1,868 24,729 26,981 55.1Forest based 20,365 87 3,535 23,988 63.3Highland perennial 23,278 23,278 71.3Tree crop 1,569 541 17,199 19,308 77.9
MAIZE AREA (1000 ha) FS_NAME E S W Total Maize mixed 2,860 3,197 0 6,057 24.2Cereal-root crop mixed 128 1,214 2,718 4,059 40.4Large commercial_smalholder 3,440 3,440 54.1Root crop 711 329 2,228 3,268 67.2Tree crop 145 4 1,647 1,796 74.3
HIGH PHOSPHORUS FIXATION (SHARE OF GRID CELL AREA, %) E S W Total
Highland perennial 34.0 34.0Forest based 14.0 26.0 15.0 16.0Tree crop 13.0 37.0 9.0 12.0Highland temperate mixed 13.0 11.0 8.0 11.0Maize mixed 17.0 6.0 6.0 11.0
TRAVEL TIME TO CLOSEST PORT (hours)FS_NAME E S W Total
Coastal artisanal fishing 15 22 15 15Large commercial_smalholder 19 19Tree crop 17 16 20 19Highland temperate mixed 26 18 19 21Rice-Tree crop 26 26
Source: Zhe Guo (HarvestChoice 2011)
Targeting, Priorities, Hypotheses & Sites
Source: Ethiopian Highlands SI Concept Note 2012
Targeting, Priorities, Hypotheses & Sites
West Africa: Conceptual Framework for Site Selection, Technology Screening and Deployment
Sub-system Anthropization(Market Access, Population Density)
Site/HH Specific Attributes(Topography, Endowment)Household Typologies
NEXTSpatial analysis to provide geographic definition and characterization of such “representative” sub-systems domains
Sub-systemResource Potential
(Land, Rainfall)
+
+
Upper West RegionBougouni
Upper East RegionKoutiala
HH Crop Enterprise Diversification0
15,0
0030
,000
# of
hou
seho
lds
maize,s
orghu
m,peas
maize,b
eans
maize,s
orghu
m,bean
s
maize,p
eppe
r
teff,m
aize,s
orghu
mteff
maize,w
heat,
pepp
er
sorgh
um
teff,m
aize
bean
s
teff,b
eans
maize,s
orghu
mmaiz
e
rural Ethiopia# of households growing
Note: to be included in each farming system, the minimum land size of each crop is .02 ha
Region OROMIAZone (All)
Seed UsePesticide Use Local Seed Improved Seed Grand TotalNo 63.79% 2.91% 66.70%0.00 - 0.06 Hectares 13.43% 0.38% 13.81%0.14 - 0.27 Hectares 16.58% 0.71% 17.29%0.06 - 0.14 Hectares 13.79% 0.50% 14.30%0.27 - 1.3 Hectares 19.99% 1.31% 21.30%
Yes 31.56% 1.74% 33.30%0.00 - 0.06 Hectares 1.72% 0.02% 1.74%0.14 - 0.27 Hectares 8.62% 0.50% 9.13%0.06 - 0.14 Hectares 4.79% 0.26% 5.05%0.27 - 1.3 Hectares 16.44% 0.95% 17.39%
Grand Total 95.36% 4.64% 100.00%
Intensification of Wheat Production (HH Scale Characterization)
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
RAIN
FED
WHE
AT1.
Agr
o-cl
imati
c su
itabi
lity
RecommendedFertilizer Rate
No Fertilizer
2.Yi
eld
resp
onse
s to
ferti
lizer
High : 8000
Low : 1
Mean Yield (kg/ha)
4000
3.M
odel
ing
of fa
rm-g
ate
pric
es
Transport cost: Port toFarm-gate
Transport cost: Capital to Farm-gate
Wheat farming enterprise data
050
100150200250300350400450
Whe
at p
rice
(US$
/ton
)
Nominal world wheat price Real world wheat price
International wheat and fertilizer prices
4.Pr
ofita
bilit
y an
alys
is
Profitability Sensitivity AnalysisTool (Excel)
Variety: Digelu Variety: Veery
Keny
a
Et
hiop
ia
Yield Yield
No fert.
100% Rec. Fert.
No fert.
100% Rec. Fert.
Net Economic Return and Potential Production
Country Net economic return (US $/ Ha) Incremental net economic return (% )
T0 T1 T2 T0 to T1 T0to T2 T1 to T2
Angola -198.60 -85.75 -22.11 56.82 88.87 74.22Burundi 753.11 1096.98 1362.42 45.66 80.91 24.20Ethiopia 59.62 173.80 233.87 191.51 292.27 34.56Kenya 741.03 976.46 1160.50 31.77 56.61 18.85Madagascar 161.46 239.31 267.92 48.22 65.94 11.96Mozambique -46.94 29.15 39.20 162.10 183.51 34.48Rwanda 1131.30 1377.55 1566.96 21.77 38.51 13.75Tanzania 379.00 554.67 658.47 46.35 73.74 18.71DRC 171.67 347.30 454.33 102.31 164.65 30.82Uganda 639.29 903.64 1103.94 41.35 72.68 22.17Zambia 67.72 310.20 449.48 358.06 563.73 44.90Zimbabwe -25.72 236.49 400.16 1019.48 1655.83 69.21
Source: CIMMYT – HarvestChoice “Wheat Potential for Africa “ (2011)
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?)
3-9 Months
9-12 Months
Year 1 Timeline
✔1-3
Months
Site Selection/Characterization
ComponentInventory
Activity -> Indicator List
Survey Design
Baseline Survey
Component DB
Potential Impact Evaluation: Scaling Out & Projection
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?