1. A total of 82 farmers from 2 villages participated in bidding for soil conservation contracts on 70 hectares of land. 2. 34 farmers were awarded contracts to implement soil conservation activities on 25 hectares of land. 3. The average price of the contracts awarded was $171.70 per hectare yearly, with payments made in two installments contingent on performance.

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 Perspective
Tony Simons, Sileshi Weldesemayat, Zac Tchoundjeu, Jianchu Xu, Meine
van Noordwijk, Beria Leimona, Anne Degrande and Steve Franzel
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
October 2011

2. The Science of Scaling Up
Science (noun) – to know, knowledge
Scaling up – to bring more benefits to more
people, more quickly and more lastingly
√ Multiplying and disseminating a new maize variety
?? Payment for environmental services
?? Agroecosystems improvement approach
?? Climate Smart Agriculture

3. Google Scholar
Extension - 3,810,000 urls
Dissemination - 992,000 urls
Technology transfer - 522,000 urls
Scaling up - 148,000 urls
Science of scaling up - 15 urls

4. Impact Pathway Paradigm
Development
(application of knowledge)
Research
(building of knowledge)
Time (years)

5. New Impact Pathway Paradigm
Development
(proof of application &
application of knowledge)
Research
(building of knowledge)
Time (years)

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.
http://www.expandnet.net/PDFs/ExpandNet-WHO%20Nine%20Step%20Guide%20published.pdf

8. Extension, Scaling Up
Research Dimension
Why ??????
What ?????
Where ????
When ???
HOW X
Best Bet, Good Practice, Guideline

10. 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

11. Case Study on Fodder Trees
Low-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

12. 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)

13. 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.

14. 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 seed
2. Linking seed supply to demand: market chain for calliandra seed

15. 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 societies
Small Seed
Seed stockists Small Dairy
Producers
Farmers
Market Chain for calliandra seed (present)

16. 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

17. 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%)

18. 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

19. 5. Volunteer farmer trainers: the example of the East Africa
Dairy Development Program: Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda
•Over 1000 volunteer farmer
trainers training farmers in
improved feed systems for dairy
cows, including fodder shrubs
•Over 40% are women
•Trainers receive training and
host a demo plot
•They are not paid and receive no
material support, aside from a
bag and a t-shirt

20. Case Study 2: Irish Aid Funded AFSP in Malawi
Four million Euro (2007-2010), 200,000 farmers
Facilitation of a consortium of partners (DAES, DARS, LRCD, DALH, FD,
NASFAM, MZUNI, UNIMA & NGOs)
ICRAF’s Role: Knowledge broker, planning & coordination, facilitate
training, ensure quality germplasm, M&E, reporting.
Outputs: capacity built, lessons (IPGs)
Outcome: change in adoption, knowledge and skills,
World Agroforestry Centre

21. Financial profitability of maize over a five-year
cycle in Zambia
Production system Net profit Benefit Return to
(US$/ha) Cost ratio Labour
($/person
day)
Unfertilized maize 130 2.01 1.10
Fertilized 349 1.77 2.53
Gliricidia intercropping) 269 2.91 2.51
Sesbania improved fallow 309 3.13 2.49
Tephrosia improved 233 2.77 1.91
fallow

22. 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

23. Fertilizer trees promoted based on suitability in the maize-mixed farming system
Tephrosia Gliricidia Sesbania Pigeon pea

24. The activities are implemented by a number of partners in Malawi
Land ‘o’ UNIMA IDEAA
MDFA, COOPI
Lakes
CREMPA
SHMPA
FUM
MZUNI
CWW
NASFAM
CRS CU
DCP
SSLPP
LRCD
DAES
ICRAF
Livingstonia
synod DP
DAHLD
OSED
CADECOM
FD
DARS
FAIR
SHA Irish Aid
ICRISAT

25. Researching Scale Up in Malawi AF
1. Control + treatment farms, groups, villages, districts
2. Monitor covariance for location, farm traits, gender
3. Fodder, fertiliser, fruit, fuelwood trees as technologies
4. Test different partners
5. Test different group approaches of beneficiaries (nurseries)

26. Key innovations and use by beneficiaries
Tree type Innovation Species # Beneficiaries Target farming
in Malawi system
Fertilizer Under-sowing, Cajanus, Tephrosia, 166,156 Maize-mixed
rotational fallow Sesbania
Intercropping Gliricidia 14,314
Dispersed plan Faidherbia 36,357
Fruit Dispersed or Mango, citrus, guava, 10,543 Non-specific
block planting indigenous sp
Fodder Contour, block Leucaena, Caliandra 22,111 Agro-pastoral
Woodlot Firewood Senna, Acacia 14,524 Non-specific
Timber Khaya 208
REDD = Reducing emissions from deforestation

27. Beneficiaries of AFSP (According to ICRAF report)
2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
# of farmers reached 42,419 65,522 91,022 37,656 184,463
Seed 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)

28. 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
2.5
Maize 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

29. 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

30. IFAD RUPES SITES IN ASIA
covering 12 sites in 8
countries
Bac Kan

31. 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

32. Supply curve resulting from reverse
auction
Jack, Leimona and Ferraro (2008)

33. 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

34. Final auction outcomes from 2 pilot sites
Auction Outcomes Site 1 Site 2 Pooled Pooled
(without
outlier)
Number of participants 48 34 82
Number of winners 19 15 34
Number of hectares 10.75 14.25 25
contracted
Contract price per 172 161 166
hectare (USD)
Median bid 215 161 176
Mean bid 301 260 284 255
Minimum bid 97 65 65 65
Maximum bid 2,688 753 2,688 1,075
Std deviation bid 405 195 334 199

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. Case Study: Cocoa Rehabilitation
Palopo Cocoa Centre, Sulawesi

39. Cocoa Yields are too low
0.5 MT/ha
Number 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 Côte
d’Ivoire, Agrisystems Consortium, 2008

40. 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
1000
Volume (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

41. 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 shrs37
11.6 cir161 9.4 Tce195
cir118 16.0 cir3 10.7 cir21 11.2 cir117 7.4 shrs12
15.7 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’ Broom
28.9 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 39.8
51.0 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 cir274
87.7 cir275 cir68 79.5 cir81 9
89.9 cir264 93.5 cir261
93.5 cir22 cir73
91.6 ca795469 Jorquette Height
100.5 0.0 cir79
97.0 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

42. Illustrative Impact Pathway – Tree Crop Development in Cocoa
Research Outputs Development Outputs Research Outcomes Dev Outcomes
Identify higher
yielding and
pest resistant clones Improved planting Increased cultivation
available of superior
Compatible cocoa varieties under better
diversification practices, with increased yields
options developed Germplasm
multiplication
blocks
Reliable method established Training and
to multiply extension
Healthier /more diversified
cocoa clonally events held
cocoa farms and
Demonstrations adjacent landscapes
established
Best practices
for cocoa system/tree
management Progressive
Extension Fair, transparent and
cocoa profitable market chains
materials
certification operating at national
produced
operational and international levels
Farmer perspectives,
effect on women,
incentive measures Formation of
understood 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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 VCC
1 CDC supports 15-20 VCCs
1 VCC serves 50-100 farmers VCC
1 farmer having 200-1000 improved trees
VCC VCC
1 CDC for each 750-2000 farmers (av. 1200)
1 CDC leads to 240,000 – 1,200,000 (av. 600,000)

46. On a single farm
Say 40% are early
adopters or
testers
Say 85% of farners
Second
expansion test or adopt
area
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

47. Alpine Ecosystem is very Sensitive to
Climate Change: Tibetan Plateau of China
Solar energy
Summer
Alpine meadow
These processes are
Grass vulnerable to climate change
Spring
Hay Milk Meat Dung Cheese Transitional camp
Permanent settlement
Winter

48. Rangeland Carbon Project:
Qinghai Province, Zeku county
Zeku
county
ICRAF did field research!
Favorable context
• institutions (land
tenure, administration, herders
organizations)
• science and knowledge (baseline
information, technical packages, strength
of national institutes)

49. Methodology for Sustainable
Grassland Management (SGM)
CAAS took leading role in standardization at national
level (increased ownership from Chinese government)

50. Potential Scale-up in Africa, Central Asia and Mongolia for
Climate Smart Agriculture
Potential scaling-up at regional level

51. Rural Resource Centres Transform
Lives and Landscapes through
Participatory 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)

52. 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 uptake
Germplasm Knowledge & Human
Information Capacities

53. 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

54. Multiplier effect
Satellite Farmer group
nursery Farmer group
5-20 Farmer group
Satellite
nursery Farmer group
RRC Farmer group
Satellite Farmer group
nursery
Small-
Satellite Farmer group
nursery Farmer group
holder
Farmer group Farmers
Satellite Farmer group
nursery Farmer group
RRC
Satellite Farmer group
nursery Farmer group
Satellite Farmer group
nursery

55. Spread
350
300
250
200
Numbers
Nigeria
150 DRC
Cameroon
100
50
0
2009 2010 2009 2010
RC Smallholder nurseries

56. Smallholder nurseries have
become 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

57. Adjudicated Land
Adjudicated
under the Land
Adjudication Act
CAP 284
1968, intensive
smallholder
cultivation with
clear freehold title

58. Unadjudicated Land
Unadjudicated
land, no firm legal
title

61. Tenure and Investment in Woody Vegetation

62. Economic, Environmental and Social Tenure
Unadjud Freehold
Impacts Effect
Net returns to land ($ ha-1 y-1) $126 $288 2.28
Woody crops, woodlots etc (ha km-2) 5.4 25.6 4.7
Hedgerows (km km-2) 5.2 23.6 4.5
Social cost from embedding -$40 $30 $70
Social "tax" -32% +10%

63. International conference to take stock of current
policies, thinking and practice, successes and failures of
ongoing and past reforms in extension and advisory services
and build a coalition moving forward to specifically address
meeting the future needs of small-holder
farmers, marginalized communities, women and youth in a
sustainable and cost effective manner.
CTA, FARA, GFRAS, IFAD, FAO, AGRA, KARI, ICRAF and others
http://extensionconference2011.cta.int/

64. Caution:
avoid Research on Scaling Up
becoming a pseudo science
as Ben Goldacre warns in
medical science

65. Three Pillars of Sustainability

66. 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