Scaling up icraf


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Scaling up icraf

  1. 1. ICR02ShangwaZW1 ICR02NgazimbiZW2 Selection of putative cultivars of Uapaca ICR02BaynesHopeFarmZW3 ICR02GrinokFarmZW4 for fresh fruit and product market ideotypes: Zimbabwe ICR02ChadengaZW6 ICR02ChimaniZW8 Fresh w eight (g) ICR02ChimaniZW9 60 ICR02ChimaniZW10 ICR02ChikwatiZW11 ICR02M apangaZW12 ICR02ChadengaZW7 50 ICR02M ugwisiZW18 ICR02M ugwisiZW20 ICR02ChikumeZW23 40 ICR02ChikumeZW25 ICR02UrandaZW26 ICR02UrandaZW28 30 ICR02UrandaZW29 ICR02UrandaZW30 ICR02Uranda ZW31 20 ICR03NyavaZW32 Shell w eight (g) TSS(% brix) ICR03NyavaZW35 ICR03NyavaZW36 ICR03NyavaZW37 10 ICR03NyavaZW38 6 ICR03NyavaZW39 ICR03NyavaZW41 0 ICR03M afaZW40 ICR03M afaZW42 ICR03M afaZW43 ICR03M afaZW44 ICR03M afaZW47 ICR03M afaZW51 ICR03M afaZW52 ICR03BingaguruZW53 ICR03BingaguruZW54 ICR03BingaguruZW55 ICR03BingaguruZW56 ICR03BingaguruZW57 ICR03BingaguruZW58 ICR03BingaguruZW59 ICR03BingaguruZW60 ICR03BingaguruZW61 Seed w eight (g) Pulp content % ICR03BingaguruZW62 ICR03BingaguruZW63 ICR03BingaguruZW64 ICR03BingaguruZW65 ICR03BingaguruZW66 T1 T2 S The Science of Scaling Up: An Agroforestry PerspectiveTony Simons, Sileshi Weldesemayat, Zac Tchoundjeu, Jianchu Xu, Meine van Noordwijk, Beria Leimona, Anne Degrande and Steve Franzel World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) October 2011
  2. 2. The Science of Scaling Up Science (noun) – to know, knowledgeScaling up – to bring more benefits to morepeople, more quickly and more lastingly√ Multiplying and disseminating a new maize variety?? Payment for environmental services?? Agroecosystems improvement approach?? Climate Smart Agriculture
  3. 3. Google ScholarExtension - 3,810,000 urlsDissemination - 992,000 urlsTechnology transfer - 522,000 urlsScaling up - 148,000 urlsScience of scaling up - 15 urls
  4. 4. Impact Pathway Paradigm Development (application of knowledge)Research(building of knowledge) Time (years)
  5. 5. New Impact Pathway Paradigm Development (proof of application & application of knowledge)Research(building of knowledge) Time (years)
  6. 6. Scaling up defined ExpandNet defines scaling up as "deliberate efforts to increase the impact of health innovations tested in pilot or experimental projects so as to benefit more people and to foster policy and program development on a lasting basis." This definition ishealth professionalsthan when ExpandNet is a global network of public more specific and scientists seeking to advancegeneral sense to mean broadening the term is used in a the practice and science of scaling up successful health service innovations tested in experimental, pilot and the impact projects. demonstration of existing or new practices.
  7. 7. Extension, Scaling Up Research DimensionWhy ??????What ?????Where ????When ???HOW X Best Bet, Good Practice, Guideline
  8. 8. Why not use Principles for Research in Scaling Up? 1. Problem based (utility, not pure curiousity) 2. Testing a hypothesis, construct, paradigm 3. Systematic/experimental approach 4. Observations (repeated) 5. Independent thinking, deductive reasoning 6. Documented and shared 7. Undergoes critical peer review (credible) 8. Validated, revalidated (robustness) 9. Unplanned serendipity 10.Progressive, building on base of knowledge, zero fraud
  9. 9. Case Study on Fodder TreesLow-protein feed a critical constraint for East Africa’s 2 million dairy farmers• Milk demand is rising rapidly• Smallholders rely on cut and carry dairy systems• Commercial dairy meal is the main protein source• Fodder shrubs meet a critical farmer need: a protein source that can be grown at home at low cost
  10. 10. The Scaling Up Problem• Early 2000s: Rapid adoption around research stations but little spread to new areas• Why? – Fodder shrubs are “knowledge-intensive” practices, they require new knowledge and skills – Lack of seed – Extension staff lacked training• So we tested 5 key extension approaches to an experimental sample of 200,000 farmers (10% of total dairy popn)
  11. 11. Five key extension approaches 1. Extension facilitators •ICRAF and National Research Institutes recruited Extension Facilitators to backstop extension services promoting fodder shrubs •One facilitator, over a 3 year period, assisted •22 government, NGO and private sector partners,• 180 farmer groups and• 3,200 farmers to establish• 250 nurseries.
  12. 12. Western Central Kenya Projects/NGOs Government Kenya ICRAF Small Dairy Farmers Seed Dealers/ Producers Projects/NGOs Problems: 1. Seed producers not linked to final demand Small Seed 2. Little seed produc- Small Dairy Producers tion in area of demand Farmers 3. Free seed a disincentive to market seed2. Linking seed supply to demand: market chain for calliandra seed
  13. 13. Western Projects/NGOs Central Kenya Kenya KEFRI ICRAF Sold 3.8 t seed in 2007, Small sufficient for Dairy Farmers>100,000 farmers to Seed plant Dealers Small Seed Projects/NGOs Producers/ Dairy firms Vendors Dairy societiesSmall Seed Seed stockists Small Dairy Producers Farmers Market Chain for calliandra seed (present)
  14. 14. 3. Partnerships• After ICRAF-NARS research, over 224 organizations across 4 East African countries were promoting fodder shrubs• 5 large NGOs helped about 60,000 farmers to plant fodder shrubs in East Africa – Strong extension staff – Usually worked with farmer groups
  15. 15. 4. Farmer-to-farmer dissemination• Survey of 94 adopters 3 years after planting,• 53% of adopters gave seed, seedlings, or wildings to other farmers• To how many farmers? On average 6.3• ‘Master disseminators’ dominate the process:• 5% of farmers accounted for 66% of dissemination• Master disseminators are community members motivated by wish to – Help others (90%) – Improve social status (33%) – Earn cash (13%)
  16. 16. Fig 1: Results of a survey of fodder shrub adopters to assess overlap between experts, innovators, and disseminators (n=126)Experts (48) Disseminators (44) 12 6 14 17 5 9 Finding: 15 40% of experts are not good disseminators Innovators 46
  17. 17. 5. Volunteer farmer trainers: the example of the East Africa Dairy Development Program: Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda•Over 1000 volunteer farmertrainers training farmers inimproved feed systems for dairycows, including fodder shrubs•Over 40% are women•Trainers receive training andhost a demo plot•They are not paid and receive nomaterial support, aside from abag and a t-shirt
  18. 18. Case Study 2: Irish Aid Funded AFSP in MalawiFour million Euro (2007-2010), 200,000 farmersFacilitation of a consortium of partners (DAES, DARS, LRCD, DALH, FD,NASFAM, MZUNI, UNIMA & NGOs)ICRAF’s Role: Knowledge broker, planning & coordination, facilitatetraining, ensure quality germplasm, M&E, reporting.Outputs: capacity built, lessons (IPGs)Outcome: change in adoption, knowledge and skills, World Agroforestry Centre
  19. 19. Financial profitability of maize over a five-year cycle in ZambiaProduction system Net profit Benefit Return to (US$/ha) Cost ratio Labour ($/person day)Unfertilized maize 130 2.01 1.10Fertilized 349 1.77 2.53Gliricidia intercropping) 269 2.91 2.51Sesbania improved fallow 309 3.13 2.49Tephrosia improved 233 2.77 1.91fallow
  20. 20. New Cultivar Development for Masuku (Uapaca kirkiana) A superior cultivar (fruited after 4 yrs.)Variations Earlier fruiting, bigger fruits, heavy fruit loads, smaller trees and uniform quality
  21. 21. Fertilizer trees promoted based on suitability in the maize-mixed farming system Tephrosia Gliricidia Sesbania Pigeon pea
  22. 22. The activities are implemented by a number of partners in Malawi Land ‘o’ UNIMA IDEAA MDFA, COOPI Lakes CREMPA SHMPA FUM MZUNI CWW NASFAMCRS CU DCP SSLPP LRCD DAES ICRAF Livingstonia synod DP DAHLD OSEDCADECOM FD DARS FAIR SHA Irish Aid ICRISAT
  23. 23. Researching Scale Up in Malawi AF1. Control + treatment farms, groups, villages, districts2. Monitor covariance for location, farm traits, gender3. Fodder, fertiliser, fruit, fuelwood trees as technologies4. Test different partners5. Test different group approaches of beneficiaries (nurseries)
  24. 24. Key innovations and use by beneficiariesTree type Innovation Species # Beneficiaries Target farming in Malawi systemFertilizer Under-sowing, Cajanus, Tephrosia, 166,156 Maize-mixed rotational fallow Sesbania Intercropping Gliricidia 14,314 Dispersed plan Faidherbia 36,357Fruit Dispersed or Mango, citrus, guava, 10,543 Non-specific block planting indigenous spFodder Contour, block Leucaena, Caliandra 22,111 Agro-pastoralWoodlot Firewood Senna, Acacia 14,524 Non-specific Timber Khaya 208 REDD = Reducing emissions from deforestation
  25. 25. Beneficiaries of AFSP (According to ICRAF report) 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total# of farmers reached 42,419 65,522 91,022 37,656 184,463Seed distributed (kg) 24,000 54,000 17,500 9,600 105,100 According to external evaluation by the Centre for Independent Evaluation (CIE), the AFSP has covered 92% of the targeted beneficiaries. “From our sample, nearly 70% of the beneficiaries had received training” (CIE report)
  26. 26. The external evaluation team (CIE) concluded that the AFSP has  Improved household food security, nutrition and dietary diversity Maize yield Number of food secure months AFSP beneficiary Non-beneficiary 3.0 2.5Maize yield (t/ha) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Mzimba Dedza Thyolo Mulanje Salima All data and figures from household survey by CIE
  27. 27. The external evaluation team (CIE) concluded that the AFSP has Improved household food security, nutrition and dietary diversity Food availability Nutrition: Dietary diversity score 100 AFSP beneficiary Percent respondents who perceive food Non-beneficiary 80 availability has increased 60 40 20 0 Mzimba Dedza Thyolo Mulanje Salima All data and figures from household survey by CIE
  28. 28. IFAD RUPES SITES IN ASIA covering 12 sites in 8 countriesBac Kan
  29. 29. Conservation Contract Soil  Sediment pits: 300 per hectare, standard conservation dimensions size: 100x150x40 cm evenly activities distributed  Ridging: 50 percent of plot  Vegetation strips: surrounding pits and ridging  Maintaining all the land conservation structure above for a year. Payment 50 percent at inception; 50 percent at one year schedule contingent on performance Duration and One year with monitoring every three months; monitoring termination if 50% contracted activities not completed by midterm monitoring date  Cancellation or non-compliance results in:  ineligibility for second payment installation  friction and conflict among community members  indication of corruption Force majeur provision for contract terms in the event of natural disasters
  30. 30. Supply curve resulting from reverseauction Jack, Leimona and Ferraro (2008)
  31. 31. Results• Total participants from 2 villages: 82 farmers bidding on 70 hectares• Participants received contracts for soil conservation: 34 farmers on 25 hectares• Average price of contract: USD 171.70 per hectare yearly – labor requirements of contract based on wages approximately USD 300 – Past investment for soil conservation activities from survey USD 225
  32. 32. Final auction outcomes from 2 pilot sitesAuction Outcomes Site 1 Site 2 Pooled Pooled (without outlier)Number of participants 48 34 82Number of winners 19 15 34Number of hectares 10.75 14.25 25contractedContract price per 172 161 166 hectare (USD)Median bid 215 161 176Mean bid 301 260 284 255Minimum bid 97 65 65 65Maximum bid 2,688 753 2,688 1,075Std deviation bid 405 195 334 199
  33. 33. What are factors induced a high Discussion accomplishment rate?• The rate of accomplishment at the final monitoring was moderate. – lack of leadership and coordination among farmer group members, – difficulty in finding grass seedlings to accomplish the contract, and – coincidence with coffee harvesting time.• In this specific case, private contract tends to be more successful compared to collective contract when leadership is lacking or “champion” among the community members does not exist. – Institutional aspects and contract flexibility might influence the accomplishment of conservation efforts. – Analysis showed that there were no significant differences in level of understanding, complexity, and competitiveness and conservation awareness between compliant and non-compliant farmers.
  34. 34. How to make it work?• A limitation of this study is that all units of the pilot site were treated as homogeneous, with respect to their contribution to erosion and downstream sedimentation.• For a larger scale allocation auction, modifications such as using supply curve information resulting from this procurement auction would be more appropriate. – a reasonable platform for designing a scaled up fixed payment scheme, including differential rates and eligibility rules necessary for targeting participants.
  35. 35. How to make it work? The design of an experimental auction should fit the purpose of overall objectives of a conservation program. In this case, the challenge was to design and administer a fair auction for farmers with low formal education, prone to social conflicts, and influenced by power structures within their community.
  36. 36. Case Study: Cocoa RehabilitationPalopo Cocoa Centre, Sulawesi
  37. 37. Cocoa Yields are too low 0.5 MT/haNumber of plots surveyed 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0-100 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-1300 1300-1400 1400-1500 1900-2000 1800-1900 1500-1600 1600-1700 1700-1800 Yield classification (kg/ha)Source: Etude sur les revenus et les investissements des producteurs de café et de cacao en Côted’Ivoire, Agrisystems Consortium, 2008
  38. 38. Cacao Sector Value Chain Volume-Based Opportunities Opportunities Exist To Increase the Yields of Cacao Farms Three-Fold Through Productivity Improvements 1600 New Productivity – 1521 Kg/Ha 1400 351 1200 Step 3 1000Volume (Kg) / Hectare >3X 585 800 600 135 Step 2 400 Step 1 200 450 0 Current Knowledge / Germplasm Fertilizer Pesticides Potential Impact of Volume-Based Gains on Farm Productivity (Gains in kg/ha) 40
  39. 39. 1 2 3 4 5 ~40 identified QTLs cir120 0.0 cir184 0.0 cir252 0.0 2.1 cir150 cir153 0.0 1.5 cir242 cir234 0.0 0.3 WRKY-10 cir111 in cacao 5.1 cir19 3.8 cir198 3.8 cir241 1.3 cir232 5.4 TIR2 5.1 cir233 2.1 cir119 9.2 cir240 9.6 cir146 5.2 shrs3711.6 cir161 9.4 Tce195 cir118 16.0 cir3 10.7 cir21 11.2 cir117 7.4 shrs1215.7 cf974239 20.9 Tce089 10.9 cir192 14.5 cir33 7.6 shrs11 23.4 cir129 11.6 cir62 14.8 cir237 13.5 cir148 shrs21 12.3 cir40 20.6 cir95 18.2 shrs22 23.8 shrs6 13.9 cir247 21.5 cir10 cir143 32.3 ca797995 17.0 cir204 23.3 26.2 shrs33 cir32 26.1 Tce030 Witches’ Broom28.9 cir159 cir196 37.4 cir268 19.5 21.6 Tce380A cir180 32.0 cir43 26.8 cir123 Resistance cir152 34.2 cir12 38.5 shrs13 31.4 cir175 27.7 cir42 39.4 cir102 31.5 cir169 45.0 WRKY-14 39.6 cir280 cir149 Frosty Pod 46.5 cir29 48.5 cir60 40.6 cir289 39.851.0 cf972885 50.1 cir139 42.0 cir78 cir213 cir256 Resistance cir165 45.4 cir263 48.6 40.7 cir170 53.3 cir249 51.3 shrs2 cir206 47.7 shrs19 54.7 shrs3 48.0 cir219 57.7 cir162 63.6 cir254 48.8 cir245 Pod Weight 60.4 cir244 cir69 61.1 shrs23 63.9 cir135 59.4 Tce380 49.1 64.1 cir128 WRKY-11 62.7 cir246 52.3 TIR4 65.8 cir273 66.4 cir140 52.6 TIR3 70.5 cir48 70.1 shrs7 Pod Number 68.4 cir286 63.7 shrs4 69.0 shrs34 70.4 shrs5 67.6 cir87 cir226 73.0 cir80 70.8 cir131 75.3 cir115 80.1 Tce574 85.4 cir230 71.4 cir202 cir109 Trunk Circumference 86.1 cir228 72.1 cir144 84.9 cir101 88.0 WRKY-03 73.0 ca798018 85.3 cir27487.7 cir275 cir68 79.5 cir81 989.9 cir264 93.5 cir26193.5 cir22 cir73 91.6 ca795469 Jorquette Height 100.5 0.0 cir7997.0 RGH11 cir269 3.4 cir85 10 cir194 0.0 cir37 Bean Length 4.7 cir223 11.2 RGH7 Pod Number & Wet 6 7 8 24.0 cir64 13.4 RGH8 cir98 Bean Weight 0.0 cir6 0.0 ca972846 0.0 cir103 24.8 cir283 1.5 cir136 1.7 cir186 3.0 cir134 23.3 cir61 5.4 cir277 32.8 cir212 3.2 5.4 cir189 RGH2 Frosty Pod Resistance 10.5 cir53 cir116 36.4 cir58 4.4 cir179 13.5 Tce487 40.6 cir104 & Wet Bean Weight 5.7 cir177 16.8 cir26 45.0 cir8 41.3 cir155 8.0 cir147 47.5 cir178 10.2 cir55 23.0 cir200 32.2 cir71 12.4 cir56 55.2 cir160 34.3 cir276 58.0 cir157 57.8 cir229 Black Pod 34.7 cir46 cir211 16.6 33.3 60.5 cir35 37.4 cir25 cir181 shrs20 22.8 RGH4 35.2 cir225 67.0 cf972909 26.1 RGH5 68.5 cir24 54.3 cir209 33.1 cir13 73.3 74.1 cir251 cir30 Bean Weight, Bean Thickness, 37.4 RGH1 45.1 cir282 57.9 cir9 43.7 cir190 79.5 cir166 Pod Weight & Pod Length 59.9 cir291 51.1 cir1 83.2 cir250 44.1 cir141 86.0 cir126 88.1 cir108 Bean Length, Seed Weight,Ovule 88.6 cir266 94.6 cir72 Number, & Trunk Circumference cir287 95.4 cir243
  40. 40. Illustrative Impact Pathway – Tree Crop Development in Cocoa Research Outputs Development Outputs Research Outcomes Dev OutcomesIdentify higheryielding andpest resistant clones Improved planting Increased cultivation available of superiorCompatible cocoa varieties under betterdiversification practices, with increased yieldsoptions developed Germplasm multiplication blocksReliable method established Training andto multiply extension Healthier /more diversifiedcocoa clonally events held cocoa farms and Demonstrations adjacent landscapes establishedBest practicesfor cocoa system/treemanagement Progressive Extension Fair, transparent and cocoa profitable market chains materials certification operating at national produced operational and international levelsFarmer perspectives,effect on women,incentive measures Formation ofunderstood better producer Increased associations donor, regulator, national government Policy barriers and local authority investigated and Cocoa policies awareness, investment Policy dialogues options reformed and support formulated
  41. 41. CDC and associated demos (non-contiguous)- Side graft onto old tree- Chupon graft on old tree Farmer A with side graft old- seedling graft (new planting) Farmer B with side graft old seedling graft chupon graft old Farmer F with seedling graft CDC core Most farmers with no demos Farmer C with side graft old chupon graft old Farmer E with Farmer D with seedling graft chupon graft old chupon graft old
  42. 42. CDC Core on Community Land Satellite nursery model (banana leaves shade, etc) Storage Fermentation/drying demos Covered sheds Meeting Area Storage sheds Pruning, fertiliser demos Clonal trial Water storage- trials- hybrid seed orchard 1.5ha- budwood garden 1.5ha Nursery production
  43. 43. CDC on Community Land VCC VCC VCC VCC VCC VCC Satellite nursery model VCC (banana leaves shade, etc) VCC VCC Storage VCC Fermentation/drying demos sheds Covered Meeting Area Storage sheds Pruning, fertiliser demos Clonal trial VCC VCC Water storage Nursery production VCC VCC VCC VCC1 CDC supports 15-20 VCCs1 VCC serves 50-100 farmers VCC1 farmer having 200-1000 improved trees VCC VCC1 CDC for each 750-2000 farmers (av. 1200)1 CDC leads to 240,000 – 1,200,000 (av. 600,000)
  44. 44. On a single farm Say 40% are early adopters or testers Say 85% of farnersSecondexpansion test or adoptarea Third expansion First test area area Reach with info and germplasm Say 70% farmers Maximum final area TARGET AREA = 300,000 farmers in greater Soubre to new cocoa
  45. 45. Alpine Ecosystem is very Sensitive to Climate Change: Tibetan Plateau of ChinaSolar energy Summer Alpine meadow These processes areGrass vulnerable to climate change Spring Hay Milk Meat Dung Cheese Transitional camp Permanent settlement Winter
  46. 46. Rangeland Carbon Project:Qinghai Province, Zeku county Zeku county ICRAF did field research!Favorable context• institutions (landtenure, administration, herdersorganizations)• science and knowledge (baselineinformation, technical packages, strengthof national institutes)
  47. 47. Methodology for Sustainable Grassland Management (SGM)CAAS took leading role in standardization at nationallevel (increased ownership from Chinese government)
  48. 48. Potential Scale-up in Africa, Central Asia and Mongolia for Climate Smart Agriculture Potential scaling-up at regional level
  49. 49. Rural Resource Centres Transform Lives and Landscapes throughParticipatory Tree Domestication in West and Central Africa Degrande A, Bwama Meyi M, Caspa R, Dibwe D, Asaah E, Biloso A, Okwu C and Tchoundjeu Z World Agroforestry Centre (Cameroon, DRC, Nigeria), IFA- Yangambi (DRC), IRAD (Cameroon), INERA (DRC)
  50. 50. Conceptual framework for disseminating agroforestry Increased income of rural households; improved health & nutrition; etc. Policy Support for Dissemination of Tree Domestication Increased Institutional Development TD & Linkages uptakeGermplasm Knowledge & Human Information Capacities
  51. 51. Key services that TDRC provide Skills development in areas such as nursery practices, group dynamics and marketing Information and demonstration of new technologies and innovations Access to market information Links with market actors particularly from the private sector A forum for exchange of information among farmers and between farmers and other stakeholders Seed, seedlings and other inputs
  52. 52. Multiplier effect Satellite Farmer group nursery Farmer group 5-20 Farmer group Satellite nursery Farmer groupRRC Farmer group Satellite Farmer group nursery Small- Satellite Farmer group nursery Farmer group holder Farmer group Farmers Satellite Farmer group nursery Farmer groupRRC Satellite Farmer group nursery Farmer group Satellite Farmer group nursery
  53. 53. Spread 350 300 250 200Numbers Nigeria 150 DRC Cameroon 100 50 0 2009 2010 2009 2010 RC Smallholder nurseries
  54. 54. Smallholder nurseries havebecome genuine enterprises • 1/3 of adopters interviewed reported an increase in income, mainly from sales of plants (Tchoundjeu et al., 2010) • In 2010, sample survey of 15 nurseries in Cameroon generated on average 2,200 USD (ICRAF-WCA, 2010) • 10 out of 21 new tree nurseries in Nde division, West Cameroon generate at least 1000 USD per year • Smallholder nurseries win contracts for seedling supply to national reforestation programmes
  55. 55. Adjudicated Land Adjudicated under the Land Adjudication Act CAP 284 1968, intensive smallholder cultivation with clear freehold title
  56. 56. Unadjudicated Land Unadjudicated land, no firm legal title
  57. 57. Tenure and Investment in Woody Vegetation
  58. 58. Economic, Environmental and Social Tenure Unadjud FreeholdImpacts EffectNet returns to land ($ ha-1 y-1) $126 $288 2.28Woody crops, woodlots etc (ha km-2) 5.4 25.6 4.7Hedgerows (km km-2) 5.2 23.6 4.5Social cost from embedding -$40 $30 $70Social "tax" -32% +10%
  59. 59. International conference to take stock of currentpolicies, thinking and practice, successes and failures ofongoing and past reforms in extension and advisory servicesand build a coalition moving forward to specifically addressmeeting the future needs of small-holderfarmers, marginalized communities, women and youth in asustainable and cost effective manner.CTA, FARA, GFRAS, IFAD, FAO, AGRA, KARI, ICRAF and others
  60. 60. Caution:avoid Research on Scaling Upbecoming a pseudo scienceas Ben Goldacre warns inmedical science
  61. 61. Three Pillars of Sustainability
  62. 62. Why not use Principles for Research in Scaling Up? 1. Problem based (utility, not pure curiousity) 2. Testing a hypothesis, construct, paradigm 3. Systematic/experimental approach 4. Observations (repeated) 5. Independent thinking, deductive reasoning 6. Documented and shared 7. Undergoes critical peer review (credible) 8. Validated, revalidated (robustness) 9. Unplanned serendipity 10.Progressive, building on base of knowledge, zero fraud