Final version of Tropical Legumes II Project Report for Phase 1 - icrisat

More documents

Recommendations

Info

single lingering bottleneck on which there was only modest headway, remains the initial production of Foundation Seed. This critical initial foundation seed production step remains undiversified and is mainly in NARS (government) hands. The following briefly highlights in separate sections approaches tested, results, lessons learned, select monitoring and evaluation issues and training. Approaches tested In terms of production and delivery, approaches tested under Phase I included: four foundation seed production models, four models of decentralized seed production and seven seed delivery models (Table 6-5). Table 6-5: TL II bean seed systems: approaches tested under TL II Foundation/certified seed production • Direct production- NARS • Direct production- NARS seed unit with contract farmers • Private seed companies • Farmer cooperatives Decentralized seed production • District/government officers supporting individual farmers • NGOs supporting individual farmers • Farmer Cooperatives/ Unions • Community-based seed production Delivery approaches • Small pack sales: open markets • Small pack sales: country stores • Small pack sales agro-dealers • Small pack sales: seed/grain traders • Exchanged through seed loans • Direct farmer to farmer diffusion • (GOK seed relief) Results Partnerships Diverse and complementary partners have been the cornerstone of this work. Some 106 partners were involved in TL II bean seed systems in Phase I, including NARS, private sector companies, specialized seed producers, governmental and non-governmental organizations, community- and faithbased organizations and grain traders (Table 6-6). Partners developed joint work plans for project research and implementation, and agreed upon roles and responsibilities. Many of the partners also signed formal Memoranda of Understanding and several incorporated TL II work plans in their own organizational yearly program plans (examples in Kenya include Self Help Africa in Nakuru, several Catholic Dioceses, and NGO Nangina). Such transparent and formal commitments help to promote the sustainability of the intervention beyond the project cycle. The challenge now is to scale down partners so as to reduce transaction costs while maximizing reach. In Kenya, the main set of ‘successful partners’ has been the NGOs with strong local bases (e.g. Nangina and the Dioceses). In Ethiopia, farmer cooperatives have been identified as the most effective and sustainable seed production and delivery partners. 122 Engaging Smallholder Farmers | Tropical Legumes II Project
Table 6-6: TL II common bean seed systems: partners engaged, by country Country NARS Specialized Seed Producers GOs -NGOs Kenya Ethiopia Seed production KARI-Katumani KARI- Kisii KARI-Njoro EIAR SARI ARARI AREKA Haramaya University Hawassa University Leldet Dryland Lambwe Seed Growers Ethiopian Seed Enterprise Dawro + Shebedino MAP Private Cooperative ELFORA Agro-Industry Ltd Haile Waqo Private Seed Farm FO-CBOs- Faithbased groups Grain traders 23 12 2 46 19 4 Seed production of various types of seed was monitored throughout the project cycle. NARS kept careful records of initial foundation/certified seed produced and distributed to partners, while select partners in decentralized zones kept records of farmer multipliers, farmers receiving seed, and multiplication rates by region. Monitoring with individual farmers also provided data on how the individual harvest was used (e.g. whether eaten, stored, saved as seed, exchanged, and sold as seed or grain). Table 6-7 shows the overall seed multiplied and compares it with the original milestones set. Annex 6-2 (parts (a) and (b)) shows in more detail how the calculations for decentralized seed multiplication were made, along with the guiding assumptions, using the example of Ethiopia. (Note that the assumptions, that is, process variables based on actual field data, are different for Kenya). Table 6-7: TL II common bean seed systems: seed production (MT) in Phase 1 Country Foundation/Certified seed production Decentralized seed production Target Actual* Target Actual** Kenya 35.00 34.02 740.00 1,249.90 Ethiopia 93.00 174.50 1,130.00 7,779.90 Total 128.00 208.50 1,870.00 9,029.80 *More partners added; **Includes seed in small packs Going more in-depth on the seed production process, in Kenya, monitoring of seed multipliers between 2008 and 2009 showed that between 61.1% and 80.3% of the seed producers were women (no comparable figures are available for Ethiopia) and that even small-scale seed producers are able to reserve between 42% and 46% of their harvest for use (and sale as seed specifically). Varietal diversity was also being encouraged in seed production efforts: in Kenya four varieties were diffused for droughtprone zones; in Ethiopia, the figure was 10 varieties (including food and export-canning types). Seed delivery mechanisms: small packs and seed loans Small packs The use of small packs is based on the field insights that farmers want access to new varieties, and that some also are willing to pay for certified seed per se. Seed simply has to be marketed in affordable sizes, in places which are easily accessible to farmers, and from vendors that farmers trust (or who may be held accountable to buyers). Available M+E data show that 81,654 packs were sold across the two countries (with this count representing the minimum packs sold, as a number of partners did not report back specific sales figures). Progress of Phase 1 123
Page 1 and 2:
Tropical Legumes II Project TROPICA
Page 3:
TROPICAL LEGUMES II Tropical Legume
Page 6 and 7:
Seed Production and Delivery System
Page 8 and 9:
Seed production and delivery system
Page 10 and 11:
NARES NASFAM NASSPA NPT NSC NSO NSS
Page 12 and 13:
TL II was implemented in 10 target
Page 14 and 15:
country governments in agricultural
Page 16 and 17:
Table 1-2: continued Variety code (
Page 18 and 19:
Table 1-3: Seed production and deli
Page 20 and 21:
As stated earlier in this chapter,
Page 22 and 23:
Table 1-5: Graduate degree students
Page 24 and 25:
Ndjeunga J, Ibro A, Cisse Y, Ben Ah
Page 26 and 27:
Project background Groundnut is one
Page 28 and 29:
Table 2-2: Performance of ICGV 0035
Page 30 and 31:
Table 2-6: Performance of ICGV 9111
Page 32 and 33:
Table 2-11: Results of 255 paired c
Page 34 and 35:
Table 2-16: Groundnut seed of vario
Page 36 and 37:
Infrastructure facilities For effic
Page 38 and 39:
Project sites Tamil Nadu The presen
Page 40 and 41:
In Karnataka, the PDKV model was pr
Page 42 and 43:
Training course A total of four tra
Page 44 and 45:
Background The yield of groundnut i
Page 46 and 47:
Table 3-2: Groundnut production tre
Page 48 and 49:
In order of importance, the largest
Page 50 and 51:
Table 3-5: Results of pair-wise com
Page 52 and 53:
Finally, the variety choices are co
Page 54 and 55:
hybridization techniques, design of
Page 56 and 57:
Figure 3-2: The Malawi model of the
Page 58 and 59:
Tanzania TL II has contributed to t
Page 60 and 61:
Annex 3-2: Performance of Virginia
Page 62 and 63:
Annex 3-4: Regional elite groundnut
Page 64 and 65:
54 Engaging Smallholder Farmers | T
Page 66 and 67:
The European Union still remains th
Page 68 and 69:
Table 4-2: Proportion of households
Page 70 and 71:
Table 4-4: Amount requested, amount
Page 72 and 73:
Table 4-6. Comparison of groundnut
Page 74 and 75:
The use of other inputs (credit, in
Page 76 and 77:
A PVS evaluation was launched in pi
Page 78 and 79:
Table 4-10: Locations and contact f
Page 80 and 81:
Table 4-11: Mean pod yield (kg per
Page 82 and 83: 99511 (Table 4-12). Most important
Page 84 and 85: Table 4-15: Evaluation of groundnut
Page 86 and 87: A 10-day intensive training worksho
Page 88 and 89: Seed production of all classes A to
Page 90 and 91: Testing seed marketing strategies A
Page 92 and 93: Area Global trends in area under co
Page 94 and 95: Figure 5-3 shows that Nigeria made
Page 96 and 97: much greater deficits. Under this s
Page 98 and 99: and other inputs. • Popular varie
Page 100 and 101: Mozambique Soybean seed multiplicat
Page 102 and 103: dry savanna regions, where the bulk
Page 104 and 105: Number of demonstration plots in ea
Page 106 and 107: Mozambique Many farmers have shown
Page 108 and 109: Table 5-7: Number of days to flower
Page 110 and 111: most efficient and IT99K-7-21-2-2 w
Page 112 and 113: Table 5-11: Ten SNPs converted and
Page 114 and 115: Strengthening capacity of national
Page 116 and 117: Infrastructure development at NARS
Page 118 and 119: in Mali, 107.3 MT in Mozambique, an
Page 120 and 121: produced over the first phase of th
Page 122 and 123: Lessons learned TL II cowpea seed s
Page 124 and 125: Phase I Social Sciences research in
Page 126 and 127: The consequences are that the impro
Page 128 and 129: about half of area share of land al
Page 130 and 131: Figure 6-3: Average area (ha) per h
Page 134 and 135: In Kenya, the small seed pack appro
Page 136 and 137: Summary, process gains and people r
Page 138 and 139: Fast-Tracking and Technology Genera
Page 140 and 141: Figure 6-6: Distribution of PVS sit
Page 142 and 143: Table 6-12: Yields of fast track bu
Page 144 and 145: Table 6-15: Farmer evaluation of in
Page 146 and 147: While the fast track entries were r
Page 148 and 149: Technology generation Mechanistic s
Page 150 and 151: 60 50 Rainfall Pan evaporation Maxi
Page 152 and 153: 16, and the advantage of some ALB l
Page 154 and 155: Number of degree training students
Page 156 and 157: Number of NARS technicians trained
Page 158 and 159: Rain-out shelter in CIAT-Colombia T
Page 160 and 161: Impact assessment and enhancement P
Page 162 and 163: Annex 6-2: TL IIEthiopia: decentral
Page 164 and 165: 154 Engaging Smallholder Farmers |
Page 166 and 167: farmers for enhancing their awarene
Page 168 and 169: • Designing, testing and implemen
Page 170 and 171: Andhra Pradesh The overall sample s
Page 172 and 173: Prakasam district: Crops grown in P
Page 174 and 175: Constraints in adoption of chickpea
Page 176 and 177: Cost-benefit analysis for chickpea
Page 178 and 179: Identification of farmer-and-market
Page 180 and 181: Table 7-6: Breeder Seed of differen
Page 182 and 183:
Capacity building Knowledge empower
Page 184 and 185:
Table 7-15: Training of local seed
Page 186 and 187:
• In addition to yield, maturity
Page 188 and 189:
Introduction Chickpea is grown in E
Page 190 and 191:
Chickpea seed access The first majo
Page 192 and 193:
Grades and standards About 75% of t
Page 194 and 195:
Table 8-6: Varieties used in PVS tr
Page 196 and 197:
private sector lacks the incentive
Page 198 and 199:
• LZARDI-Ukiriguru: Land along wi
Page 200 and 201:
• Establishing functional legume
Page 202 and 203:
Table 9-1: Farmers’ preferred var
Page 204 and 205:
Table 9-3: Baby trials conducted in
Page 206 and 207:
Table 9-5: Reaction of pigeonpea li
Page 208 and 209:
TL II focuses on farmer-participato
Page 210 and 211:
Production of Breeder, Foundation,
Page 212 and 213:
Mahaboobnagar and Ranga Reddy distr
Page 214 and 215:
(Table 9-9 Continued) Particular To
Page 216 and 217:
Chichewa) and Tanzania (Swahili). O
Page 218 and 219:
Available technologies Although imp
Page 220 and 221:
and Chitedze in Malawi showed that
Page 222 and 223:
Table 10-6: Various classes of qual
Page 224 and 225:
Awareness activities Farmers’ fie
Page 226 and 227:
Annex 10-1: Target locations for pi
Page 228 and 229:
Adoption studies Adoption studies f
Page 230 and 231:
3.5 Yields (Tonnes/hectare) 3.0 2.5
Page 232 and 233:
Supply of important traits by the i
Page 234 and 235:
and marketing organization in Malaw
Page 236 and 237:
Table 11-3: Grain and fodder yields
Page 238 and 239:
Table 11-9: Communities and famers
Page 240 and 241:
Table 11-14 Average performance of
Page 242 and 243:
232 Engaging Smallholder Farmers |
Page 244 and 245:
Table 11-16: Soybean Breeder’s Se
Page 246 and 247:
Table 11-19: Grain yield (kg per ha
Page 248 and 249:
Table 11-23: F3 Segregating populat
Page 250 and 251:
At TSBF-CIAT in Kenya, a study was
Page 252 and 253:
Number of NARS scientists trained T
Page 254 and 255:
Improved access to markets Improved
Page 256 and 257:
Total 107.3 259.0 609.0 975.3 246 E
Page 258 and 259:
utilization and marketing. In Niger
Page 260 and 261:
Annex 11-2: Tobit Model estimate of
Page 262:
252 Engaging Smallholder Farmers |
show all

Final version of Tropical Legumes II Project Report for Phase 1 - icrisat

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?