User:Africa RISING ESAScience&RevImpact meeting
Africa RISING ESA Project Science Outcomes and Impacts Review Meeting
24-25 August 2022
Dodoma, Tanzania
Participants
- A. Kimaro, ICRAF
- B. Zemadim, ICRISAT
- C. Thierfelder, CIMMYT
- D. Mgalla, IITA
- E. Swai, TARI-Hombolo
- F. Kizito, IITA
- F. Muthoni, IITA
- G. Fischer, IITA
- J. Kihara, Bioversity-CIAT
- J. Manda, IITA
- J. Odhong, IITA
- L. Claessens, IITA
- M. Bekunda, IITA
- M. Mutenje, IITA (consultant)
- P. Okori, ICRISAT
- R. Chikowo, MSU
- E. Temu, ICRAF
- M. Mulundu, ZARI
- M. Shitindi, SUA
- H. Beliyou, IFPRI
- E. Temu, ICRAF
- j. Mwololo, ICRISAT-ZW
- Y. Muzila, SUA
- W. Mhango
- F. Michael, IITA
- E. Mwambo, IITA
- G. Wanjiku, ICRISAT-MW
Objective
- Present and critically assess the major research and development outputs and deliverables of the project.
- Explore opportunities for further scaling of project outputs and outcomes beyond Africa RISING
File:ESA ppt Antony Kimaro.pptx - Dr. Antony Kimaro (ICRAF)
- Day ONE [24 August 2022]
Welcome & Opening remarks
- B. Mateete.
- In his opening remarks, Mateete refers to the event as a reunion of the Africa RISING team at the end of the program. At the same time, looking forward to continuing benefits to farmers even after the project phases out.
- He explained the purpose of the meeting was to review the research work and achievements. The meeting output would contribute to developing the end of phase two final report.
- F. Kizito.Among the things that Kizito talked about during the opening remarks focused on the significance of the partnership; according to him, even though the project was ending, a partnership built along the way would ensure the sustainability of the good work done by the project.
- He, therefore, referred to the ending stages as a transition stage, whereby partners are taking over.
- Fred pointed out that more than 15 Africa RISING team members have been a part of the Africa RISING NAFAKA partnership. Through Africa NAFAKA, more than 20 thousand farmers in the Southern Highlands and Babati are reached.
- H. Irmgard
- In her opening remarks, Irmgard appreciated the work by the new Africa RISING management.
She expressed happiness in participating in the meeting and had a chance to meet with the team again. I am grateful to have the opportunity to meet you again because I felt sad when I left in December 2021 without meeting you again". Irmgard physically met the Africa RISING ESA team in March 2019. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, she has been meeting the program team virtually. According to her, virtual meetings missed the personal touch. Speaking about the progress of Africa RISING in 11 years, Irmgard noted that 11 years of the Africa RISING Program was possible through generosity by the donor long length of funding of the program." I don't know another program that has run for so long with such support from the donors marked Irmgard. She explained even with the up and downs, such as the financial crisis in 2017, the donor stretched for support and was highly engaged in overcoming the situation and ensuring the continuity of the program and referred to the support of Jerry Glover, the project activity leader from USAID. "This was proof of confidence in Africa RISING that something good is going on and something useful will be coming out of this program. This is what I am most grateful for during my leadership in Africa RISING. Also, having met nice colleagues and had good professional and personal interaction with everybody, explained Irmgard. According to her, the review meeting was significant since it provided an opportunity to review the project's results, achievements, and overall process. "The results from the meeting will contribute to developing the final report to the donor. The donor needs to learn lessons from the Africa RISING Program and get the assurance they have invested their money very well for so long in such initiatives, she noted. Irmgard explained that it was essential to take stock of what went well and what did not go so well and referred to the failures as lessons and would support other new initiatives in sustainable intensification. In a nutshell, she appreciated the efforts and commitment of the Africa RISING project team and scaling partners. She noted though there are some failures, the project team needs to understand that those failures are actual results, and nobody should have felt bad about it. "…it is not because we are personally failed. It is because maybe the technology did not work, and this is the role of science to find this out. "I am looking forward to this review, to refresh my memory and be able to reflect more critically and conclude that maybe in future how we could do it differently," she noted. "Thank you very much for coming to this meeting and having this opportunity to meet you all again and say bye in three days," concluded Irmgard while opening remarks on the first day of the Africa RISING ESA project science review meeting.
Timeline presentation of Africa RISING, specific focus on ESA – F. Kizito, Project Manager
- Please download the PPT slides from the Link below.
File:ESA Timeline ESA Fred.pdf -F. Kizito (IITA)
Discussion Dr. Fredy Kizito highlighted common threats that the project addressed while in phase one of the project; he explained that the donor (USAID) focus was to make a difference primarily to regions threatened with a high level of poor-quality seeds and degraded soils (high labor inputs on the work done), insufficient use of fertilizers and resources (water) and big knowledge gap. Kizito explained the approach used to address those farmers' pressing challenges was the sustainable intensification systems that focused on five domains, including productivity: social, human, economic, and environmental. Talking about opportunities to address the knowledge gap for farmers and various stakeholders, Kizito noted the need to empower different stakeholders so they could also empower farmers and take up the technologies that could improve productivity and livelihood and limit poverty and malnutrition. Other opportunities discussed focused on better agronomy, automated environmental monitoring, technological innovation ICT, and improved Postharvest handling. Kizito stated the project's footprints from phases one and two of the Africa RISING ESA project and elaborated on each step in detail. According to him, the marked footprints were simply because the Africa RISING project has been awarded a prosperous partnership from people on the ground. He noted that the Footprints of the project were made possible through partnerships with the agro-dealers, development partners, universities, extension agents, and private sectors. He noted the partnership approach built confidence and would assure continuity of research works by the project, even after the project exit, while referring to an example showing commitment and willingness TARI and SARI while the project was looking for partnership on the integrating soil fertility management in Babati district, Manyara region, in Tanzania. Kizito explained that the project flourished in identifying critical partnerships. Therefore, it was an opportunity to continue identifying potential areas to work with partners in Tanzania. "We heard about NAFAKA KILIMO and other government entities introducing themselves in Malawi and Tanzania. We have a good presence as much as this transition. Based on the success, we need to think what can we do together that will accelerate information delivery and dissemination, he said. Along the path to transformation change, a lot of work was done around conservation agriculture, farmer-declared seeds, Geospatial tools, board of knowledge built on the economics of sustainable intensifications. Through the project;
- Farmers' perception and knowledge of the use of fertilizers have positively changed. For example, farmers in Babati are now using fertilizers to improve cultivation and enhance soil fertility.
- Extension officers in Babati can now quickly and timely access agricultural information through communication messages via ICT platforms like Mwanga.
- Potential partnerships strengthened, for example, the Ile de Pax Island of Peace (IDP) and Africa RISING NAFAKA partnership projects. The partnership projects enabled the initiatives to benefit farmers outside the project's action areas.
Despite the well-done work by the project, strengthening the value chain from productivity to postharvest emerged as essential to farmers because it would ensure farmers with the market. Kizito noted that even though some of the initiatives were not intended for Tanzania, the tools, methods, and approaches developed in Tanzania could still gain traction in other countries, particularly Malawi. In Malawi, the project implemented a sustainable mixed farming system, whereas Tanzania was not part of the initial country. While describing the merits of Phase two of the project (2012-2022), Kizito highlighted the following.
- The ability of the program to close harmonize and work in different areas.
- Program learning events, Kizito pointed out the Tanzania country mission of Africa RISING NAFAKA partnership project. He acknowledged Madam Elizabeth Maeda, the ambassador, and advocate of the partnership project instrumental because her advice and guidance on what really farmers care about really streamlined and ensured the project was successful.
- USAID Commissioned an external review
- Virtual meetings organized during the COVID-19 pandemic were successfully implemented and valuable to track the progress of the ongoing research works.
Kizito also discussed Phase two of the program, which emphasized the sustainable intensification assessment framework focusing on five pillars; productivity, environment, social-human, and economical. The framework was launched in November 2017. According to Kizito, many stakeholders outside the Africa RISING project are using the sustainable intensification assessment framework; he then argued partners to take the SIAF forward. "The future of scaling for SIAF will lay on the nature of partnership we developed, also involving the theory of change because there will be challenges coming, and we need to adapt to the challenges to move forward, 'he said. In the end, Kizito appealed for support from the development partners in documenting and following up on where the opportunity for succession lies. He concludes by quotation. "To achieve the best results, the Africa RISING program has had to channel the wealth of experiences and lessons learned from Phase I and make them into successful implementation strategies and plans for the second phase.' Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon, 2016 ‘’ Kizito commented the project was successfully implemented. He explained that the focus on scaling has resulted from the partnership, which has allowed the project to reach one million households by 2021. "We have achieved a lot in terms of identifying best bit technologies in phase one of the project, and in phase two, more dynamic scaling approaches have been adopted. An example is reaching 20 thousand Southern highlands over twelve districts. This will allow us to get the technologies to the hand of millions of farmers, he said. "Now that we have made the promise for whatever has been done, I think it is time for us to transition to the question of how we deliver on the promises and how scaling helps us reach the targets. The most significant change to our work is not doing the research but looking at what has been done to accelerate information delivery and dissemination into the hands of people that need it, concludes Kizito.
What we promised at the start [the ESA project proposal] – M. Bekunda, Chief Scientist
- Download the PPT slide from the Link below
File:ESA Project Promised ESA Mateete.pdf -M.Bekunda (IITA)
Discussion
During his presentation, Mateete elaborated on the program guide, the project log frame guided by SIAF, out puts/outcomes, and the promised mainly; legacy materials, including publication as indicated in the program proposal. He explained the vital questions were to reflect on whether the team was paying attention to conducting the research activities and if the project has reached the promised according to our log frame. While discussing the implementation of research activities in line with the proposed five project outcomes and expected outputs, Mateete explained that the activities were to be written under outcomes, and scaling was to be under each outcome and not otherwise. And argues participants to be knee when writing proposals for future projects. Regarding legacy materials, Mateete acknowledges the project's tremendous work in producing publications, including journals, articles, book chapters, conference papers, technology labels, and others. "Because we did much research and the expectation was to have most of what we did, ESA has done very well in producing journals, and I believe at this time, we have more than a hundred publications. This is very good for a project like ours. The Sustainable Agricultural Intensification handbook is among the legacy publications of the project. According to Mateete, Betty Maeda (USAID) was one of the people who supported the idea of producing the handbook, and the project succussed in that. Follow-up action point raised while discussing the capacity-building aspect and legacy materials.
- The final reports should include all the abstracts of all the publications. Some of the abstracts have been shared with Jonathan. Therefore, those who have not submitted the publications/ abstract TO Jonathan should do so.
- To compile the abstracts of dissertations of the about 21 students
- Capacity-building feedback the numbers are essential to the donors as the targets
Market Place I: ESA Technologies applying genetic intensification as an entry point
- The market bus stops/places were stops that provided an opportunity for participants (referred to as customers) to shop for technologies/products and the output of the project research work. Most of the buyers were the national systems and colleagues who were part of other initiatives.
- Drought tolerant quality protein maize – Bright Jumbo
Please download the file poster from the link below
File:QPM Maize ESA Jumbo.pdf - Bright Jumbo (ICRISAT)
- High yielding disease resistant groundnut – Patrick Okori
- Please download the file poster from the link below
File:QPM Maize ESA Jumbo.pdf - Bright Jumbo (ICRISAT)
- The shelter effect was more compared with the main screen and maize crop underneath. There are not many cropping seasons by drought in terms of yield productivity, but there was comparative control in each of the shelters where there are no trees. The presence of trees will be checked by the monoculture with and without trees to understand if it would cause positive or negative effects on maize alone treatments and with other treatments.
- Christian. Okay, may you please elaborate on how long and time when you put the shelter?
- Antony. We introduced before the tackling, and overall, at 50% tackling, and this was the onset of active group period on each of the seasons. In terms of precisely the month, it was mid-March, about six to eight weeks.
- Mateete.Drought performing better than ambient, needs some more explanation?
- Antony.Thanks, Mateete. In 2020, it was the year of an evenly distributed large amount of rainfall from mid of October towards the end of April/mid-May. The drought created favorable conditions for the varieties adapted to semi-arid areas compared to the ambient. Therefore, I would associate it with better performance in the drought treatments in 2020 compared to the trying year of 2019.
- Fredy.Comment. Thank you, Antony, the increased productivity is excellent. It would be a good study if carried out for more than two years and assess yield stability in the context of resilience.
- Jumbo.Comment. The design of experiments in terms of center size is something you need to pay attention to because of how the study was designed. It might be challenging to explain if the control of other factors has not been well accounted for. So, just two seasons may not be enough. That is why it seems there are speculations on performance. Other external factors should be accounted for. We need another season to see the consistency of the results.
File:ESA ppt Elirehema Swai.pptx - Mr. Elirehema Swai (TARI-Hombolo)
- Download presentation from link in the title above.
Discussion
- Shitindi. Swai, was there control fertilizer use under baby trials?
- Swai.Yes, Shitindi. On the calories and protein production attribute to the water shortage. Both mother and baby trials have the same treatments at the same level. And all received the same amount of fertilizers at planting and before flowering.
- Shitindi. Thanks, Swai, how about the issue of moistures, the difference in crop performance substitute to terms of texture between mother plots with clay soils, and most baby plots with another type of soil. Under normal conditions, I expected the clay soil to have higher moisture retention than the other type of soil. If the two kinds of soil receive the same amount of rain, the expectation is that the clay soil would retain more moisture for crop use.
- Swai. We conducted the study across the season; it was impossible to obtain the data from a single event. During the experiment time, there was not enough soil moisture to allow the wetting of the soil under the clay. Where there is inadequate wetting, the impact of soil water impact would be difficult. Also, there was no water held between the replanting during the season, which would make the difference. But also, the experience from the semi-arid shows when there is limited soil moisture supply in the very wet season, farmers could get something under a semi clay soil compare to typical clay soil.
- Mulundu. In the two years that the study was undertaken, was the normal rainfall attended for the study site? If not, are there are possibilities of having extra rainfall in the season, for example, if the study site can attend something in a range of at least 600-700 mm, has it been a thought that probably if the rainfall were higher, in that case, the performance of the two treatments would have different performance?
- Swai. Thanks, Mulundu, We carried the study in a semi-arid area. Usually, there is an average rainfall of around 550-600 mm of rain per season. Because of the research and project time limit, it is difficult to conduct another study. Another study will require three seasons consequently to quantify the result.
- Mateete.Comment. The first season which is entirely wet, is a good blessing in the study and should show that the technologies do not work all the time and everywhere, this should be stressed in this reporting.
- Regis. Swai, during the introduction, you talked about the hardpan due to livestock tractors, etc. to reinforce the ideas under that aspect, it would be nice to show the existence of the hardpans through empirical data from the landscape, which would strengthen your arguments by reinforcing the paper with such kind of data.
- Swai. Thanks, Regis. It is unfortunate. We did not conduct such type of study.
- Regis. Noted, Swai. Also, there are concerns that there are limiting issues when it comes to infiltration, and sometimes it may lead to rainfall intensity above a certain threshold, and you turn to have a runoff. So probably we need to get data on how much moisture was infiltrated and how much was run off under certain rainfall conditions. I hope that kind of data is available.
- Swai. Well, Regis, my study was confined to cumulative infiltration as such. But, I will look at it if we can go further working on your idea. We had no automatic rain weather station that could follow in terms of rainfall intensity. Besides, we had only the standard ranges to measure the rainfall amount and other paraments. The rainfall intensity was not difficult to measure.
- Regis.Okay, How about the runoff? It would be essential to show because it is a proxy for infiltration if you could measure runoff. Do you have ideas about that, or was your study based on soil moisture only?
- Swai. In phase one of the Africa RISING, another study was undertaken in the Kongwa Kiteto district and involved many parameters (runoff, soil loss, soil water content). Also, there was rip tillage using the oxen-drawn implement. In that study, we measured the runoff, and the impact was very evident. The rip tillage compares to conventional farmer tillage has less runoff. Tied ridge had low runoff, and traditional tillage of farmers had high runoff.
