Integrating technological components into SI systems confers more benefits to smallholder farmers than single components.Integrating technological components into SI systems stimulates more adoption compared to single components.Targeting better tailored interventions that suit the context specific environments and the diverse local conditions in smallholder farms/households will lower environmental damageThe adoption of innovations that lead to SI is affected by the sequence in which the component technologies, practices, and knowledge are integrated and applied
Activities under this output aim at ensuring that best-bet or best-fit interventions are aligned to priority constraintsActivities under this output will test, validate, and adapt specific interventions aiming at farming system improvements
4.5.2(2): Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance (RIA) (WOG)4.5.2(5): Number of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance (RIA) (WOG)4.5.2(7): Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training (RIA) (WOG)4.5.2(11): Number of food security private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG assistance (RIA) (WOG)4.5.2(12): Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of FTF assistance (S)4.5.2(27): Number of members of producer organizations and community based organizations receiving USG assistance (S)4.5.2(39): Number of new technologies or management practices in one of the following phases of development: (Phase I/II/III) (S)4.5.2(42): (4.5.2-28) Number of private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied new technologies or management practicies as a result of USG assistance (RIA) (WOG)
Overview of Africa research in sustainable intensification for the next generation (Africa RISING) and its monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
Overview of Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next
Generation (Africa RISING) and its Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
Beliyou Haile, IFPRI
Africa RISING–CSISA Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Meeting,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 11-13 November 2013
Overview of Africa RISING Program
A 5-year R4D program with 3 projects, an M&E and communications
• Cereal-based farming systems in the Guinea Savannah Zone of WA
• Cereal-based farming systems in ESA
• Crop-livestock systems of the Ethiopian Highlands
Create opportunities for smallholder farm households to move out of
hunger and poverty through sustainable intensification(SI)
• Identify and evaluate demand-driven options for SI
• Evaluate/document/share innovative approaches for delivering and
integrating innovations for SI
• Create opportunities for program participants to move out of
poverty and improve their nutrition
• Facilitate partner-led dissemination of integrated innovations for SI
Hypotheses • Integration, adoption, trade-off, scalability, sequencing
Overview of Africa RISING Program
• Sustainably production and productivity
• understanding of ecosystem stability at a landscape level
• Dissemination of integrated innovations beyond AR action sites
Integrated systems improvement
Scaling and delivery of integrated innovation
Integrated M&E system
• Improved livelihood through agricultural output, diversified
income, vulnerability, and improved nutrition
• Innovative approaches feeding into new development programs
M&E of Africa RISING Program
Support effective project management
Fulfill reporting requirements
Generate knowledge on what works
Data/analytical components of the M&E system
Delineation and characterization of target
Inventory of technologies
Ex ante evaluations
Mega-site stratification by drivers of SI and creation
of “development domains”
Identification of representative action research and
Open access M&E data management platform
Reporting on FtF indicators
Household and community surveys
Site visits and focus groups
Meetings (survey design, project review & planning)
Some M&E Challenges
Sustainability and its dimensions: indicators and
Compiling and verifying data on FtF indicators
Sequencing: selection of action sites before
setting up of specific research activities
Engagement and communication (delays in
recruitment of local M&E coordinators
Delays in baseline surveys
Impact Evaluation (IE)
Did the program contribute to program goal/objectives?
Did it increase agricultural productivity?
Are the program’s approaches replicable/scalable?
Did farmers adopt new/improved technology(s)/practices?
What are the tradeoffs among different impacts?
How does impact vary across different domains, geographies,
household types, and gender?
Are the program-induced improvements sustainable?
Did the program demonstrate implementation methods that
other projects can use?
IE Design (for Malawi)
IE in Tanzania – RCT Design
How does access to agricultural inputs impact
How does training impact adoption?
Is there complementarity between input and training?
Are there any distributional effects? What explains the
Thus far: training, coupons, input distribution
Monitoring and household survey to follow
Some IE Challenges
Practicality of and approaches to attribution of
cause and effect for an R4D program
Selection of action sites and/or subjects
Attribution with small N (action sites, beneficiary
households) – generalizability of results
Impact of a “bundle of interventions”