ASARECA Napier Diseases Project

– the outcomes report

Nyangaga, J., M. Mulaa, B Pallangyo, J Kabirizi, and J Proud

July, 2010

Notes:

1. In this report ‘Napier grass diseases’ will refer to Napier smut and/or Napier stunt diseases. In

some cases the abbreviation NSD may appear and has mainly been used for Napier Stunt Disease

in Uganda and Tanzania where the disease is relatively more rampant.

2. The three terms – types, varieties and clones – of Napier have been used interchangeably with

little attention paid to actual definitions. All are meant to imply the types of Napier grass

encountered, collected and tested.

3. The project did not find any Napier types that were proven resistant to the diseases. The most

promising clones are merely more tolerant, succumbing to disease after some time. However,

both terms – ‘resistance’ and tolerant’ – appear in the report, sometimes interchangeably.

Contents

Acronyms....................................................................................................................................1

1. Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................2

2. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................4

3. Background and justification ................................................................................................4

4. Methodology ........................................................................................................................7

5. Findings – outcome challenges, strategies and progress made ............................................7

Farmers and farmer groups 9

Extension and media agents 10

Researchers and research agencies 11

Policy-makers and regulatory agents 13

The country teams’ organizational learning and growth 14

6. Discussion ...........................................................................................................................16

7. Conclusion and recommendations .....................................................................................20

8. References ..........................................................................................................................22

Appendix I. A brief explanation of outcome mapping concepts and terms ..............................26

Appendix II. Boundary partners, outcomes, strategies applied and progress made ................27

Appendix III. The implementing teams’ organizational learning and growth ...........................31

1

Acronyms

ARI Agricultural Research Institute

ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa

BCAS Biological Control Agents Subcommittee

CBO(s) Community based organization(s)

CRAC Centre Research Advisory Committee

DANIDA Danish International Development Agency

DASIP District Agricultural Sector Improvement Programme

DATIC District Agricultural Information and Training Centre (in Uganda)

DADP(s) District Agricultural Development Plan(s)

HH, HHs Household(s)

HIP Heifer International Project

HQ Headquarters

KAPP Kenya Agricultural Productivity Programme

KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Station

KEPHIS Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Station (or Centre)

M & E Monitoring and evaluation

MP(s) Member(s) of Parliament

NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services (in Uganda)

NALEP National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Program (in Kenya)

NaLIRRI National Livestock Resources Research Institute (in Uganda)

NARO National Agricultural Research Organization (in Uganda)

NARS National Agricultural Research Stations (or Centres)

NGO(s) Non-government organization(s)

NPPAC National Plant Protection Advisory Committee

NSD Napier stunt disease

OM Outcome Mapping

PADEP Participatory Agricultural Development and Empowerment Project

R & D Research and Development

USD US dollars

2

1. Executive Summary

This report is a case study analysis on how OM was applied by the project team leaders in Kenya,

Tanzania and Uganda, and how this impacted on planned and achieved changes. The project was an

interaction between researchers, farmers, extension agencies and other stakeholders to find solutions

to Napier grass diseases threatening the East African region’s dairy industry. The project, funded by

Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA), aimed at

assessing Napier grass genetic diversity in order to identify Napier types resistant to Smut and Stunt

diseases and make information available to users. The Country teams used the Outcome Mapping

approach to support and monitor societal responses to the use of emerging information while keeping

track with the progress being observed in boundary partners during the project’s lifetime.

At the start of the project the research team leaders were introduced to the OM concepts. Thereafter,

through individual country visits for interviews and focus group discussions and in periodic project

review meetings, the OM frameworks was developed, examined and populated with emerging

information. This entailed how the process was being applied and the resulting changes recorded.

The goal articulated in the project’s log frame formed the vision; specifically ‘farmers and related

stakeholders adopt superior (resistant) clones and forage management practices that will mitigate the

spread of the diseases, leading to increases in productivity and sustainability’. The mission was the

project’s research and dissemination of emerging knowledge. Separately the three countries identified

the same boundary partners – farmers, extension and media agents, policy makers and researchers – all

sharing a part of the vision in identifying, developing and disseminating resistant materials where

required. The development was to be supported by innovative dissemination of knowledge and

information from the project’s activities.

By the end of the project, there were challenges (progress markers) yet to be met including farmers

continuously search for, test and bulk disease-resistant Napier materials, institutionalized country-wide

monitoring of the diseases by extension offices, longer-term and larger budgets by policy-structures to

address the issue while putting in place more effective regulation to manage the movement of the

forage planting material. The research team supported these developments by sharing information,

limiting their approaches to persuasive and supportive strategies. This limitation may have contributed

to the un-achieved progress markers. The teams were more successful with their research colleagues

given the ease with they could interacting and sharing information.

3

For the project’s organizational practices for their learning and growth reportedly led to the team’s

being more cooperative or collaborative. However, evidence for this institutional transformation is not

concrete as part of a long term way of doing things.

Recommendations for OM application include better elaboration of the vision statements, which would

include transformation related to a wider range of boundary partners. The teams could also do well to

consider a more diverse range of supporting strategies to achieve the vision. More work needs to be

done to find out how different R & D teams apply OM in different contexts, how they manage similar or

different gaps and the effect this has on the effectiveness of OM as a monitoring and evaluation

process.

Key words:

*************

4

2. Introduction

Researchers from local and international institutions worked with farmers, extension agencies and other

stakeholders to find solutions to Napier grass diseases threatening the region’s dairy industry through a

project funded by Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa

(ASARECA). This project’s main aim was to assess genetic diversity to identify sources of resistance to

smut and stunt in Napier grass in East Africa and make information available to users.

The project was carried out in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Ethiopia based on the hypothesis that

genetic resistance to smut and stunt disease exists in Napier and could be exploited to enhance the

forage’s production. There were four main objectives – to map the existence of the disease in selected

affected areas and collect clones for diversity, develop a diagnostic probe and disease screening

protocols for use by NARS, and to share resulting information with stakeholders.

The Country teams used the Outcome Mapping approach1 to support and monitor societal responses to

emerging information that would be used to underpin mitigation against the diseases, while keeping

track with the progress being achieved in during the project’s three-year lifetime. Outcome mapping is

an M & E approach that focuses on the social changes an initiative intends to bring about through key

stakeholders (boundary partners), by clarifying the changes expected and providing requisite support.

The results of the approach are the observed transformation in the actors’ attitudes and actions.

Outcome Mapping (OM) has been used by a wide range of program implementers in Africa, Latin

America and Asia to help researchers consider how their outputs will be used, by whom and for what

purposes2.

This report is a case study analysis on how OM was applied by the research team leaders in Kenya,

Tanzania and Uganda, and how this impacted on the societal changes planned for and achieved, with

lessons drawn for applications of the methodology. The project’s work on Ethiopia was relatively more

internal and related to the analysis of germplasm diversity and the development of the diagnostic and

screening tools.

3. Background and justification

Dairy farming is a sector on which the East Africa region’s rural communities and the livelihoods of

millions of poor people depend for economic wellbeing and as a way out of poverty. Napier grass forms

a large component of the forage supplying the region’s dairy herd3. The primary goal of the Napier grass

5

diseases project was to develop solutions to the disease challenge increasingly affecting large portions

of crop plots in various parts of the region4.

While the first three key objectives of the program focussed on technological solutions to the disease

challenge the fourth focused on communication of information in ways that would engender community

and institutional responses that would address the problem. Outcome Mapping was used as an

approach to plan for the desired changes, implementing supportive strategies and observing progress.

As mentioned earlier OM is a process through which R & D team get to strategically plan for desired

transformation in a society, develop innovative supporting activities and demonstrate progress

achieved. An OM framework is used to monitor changes observed and how far towards the ideal intent

the team is able to get.

For changes sought at community and farm levels, the project targeted three countries – Kenya,

Tanzania and Uganda. Although the three countries are affected the disease situation was not similar. In

Uganda, Napier Stunt is the most prevalent disease and has spread to a large part of the country5, 6,7.

Even before the project various efforts were addressing the problem through several research activities 8. In Kenya, the Napier grass is affected by both Napier Smut – largely in the central highlands of the

country9 and Stunt – the western districts 10. There have been minor reports of the signs of the two

diseases being observed at the same plots in both regions with the researchers indicating need for more

studies to confirm this. In Tanzania, signs of the Napier stunt disease had only been reported along the

borders to Kenya and Uganda 11 possibly resulting from un-regulated movement of planting material

across the borders. The project did not explore the presence of the diseases in other parts of the

country.

The Research teams collected data and clones from both regions for on-station analysis. The research

teams also teams sought information on better management of both diseases at farm and community

level. This information was packaged and shared in order to reduce the effects of the problems for farms

in all the three countries.

.

The project’s fourth objective was explicit focus on information sharing and it is the result of this activity

that is at the centre of this analysis – societal changes that resulted from the project’s progress and

emerging knowledge shared. The links between the key Project results, outputs and outcomes and

impacts are shown in the outcome and analysis framework shown in Figure 1.

6

Figure 1. The key project results, outputs and outcomes and impacts analysis framework (Source: Project proposal12)

The Project lasted three years (2007 – 2010) and may not have had significant developmental impact

level by closure of that phase, though there was potential through adoption of materials found tolerant

or recommended mitigation practices. Thus this report focuses on the societal outcomes that were

achieved by the research teams of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda in supporting behavioural

transformation. Given the varying disease situations in the three countries, it logical that there were

some differences in how the country teams developed their target goals (vision), who they sought to

support, the strategies they employed and what changes they monitored and achieved.

The possible difference in the application of and results of the OM frameworks across the three

countries and the implications of the final changes achieved is the basis of this case study. This includes

how the country’s intentional designs were developed and implemented and the resulting observations.

The differences are likely to be found in the country teams’ visions, missions, targeted boundary

partners, their outcome challenges and progress markers (or indicators), the strategies the teams

applied and what was then achieved. It is also possible that there differences in how the teams learnt

and grew from feedback and analysis resulting from their own organizational practices. These concepts

of OM are explained in detail in Appendix 1. The situations in the three countries may be unique leading

Outputs: Number of clones collected, analyzed (genotype, phenotype, nutrition, disease tolerance), screened, ‘challenged’. Documentation and recommendation of mitigation measures. Information sharing activities.

Impacts: Changes in farms or household nutritional, health and economic status; Changes in the environment (if any).

Result 1: Disease in Napier grass in selected disease affected areas of East Africa mapped and clones collected and evaluated for diversity

Result 2: Diagnostic probe for smut and screening protocols and tools for (the diseases) detection developed and available for use by NARS project partners

Result 3: Smut and stunt resistant Napier clones identified

Result 4: Information on genetic diversity and sources of resistance to smut and stunt available to stakeholders

Outcomes: Community participation in project activities, Local capacity to manage disease conditions, seeking and sharing tolerant varieties; Stakeholder response to information shared; Resulting forage productivity and dairy production.

7

to their respective varying observations and the objective of this study was to note these differences

and develop lessons for future application of the process to similar or related programs.

4. Methodology

At the start of the project the country team leaders were introduced to the OM concepts. Thereafter,

through individual country visits for interviews and focus group discussions and in periodic project

review meetings, the OM frameworks developed examined and populated with emerging information,

which entailed how the process was being applied and the resulting changes observed.

The analysis that follows is a three site comparison of the information gathered is confined to the teams’

visions, mission, selected boundary partners and their outcome challenges, the research teams’

strategies to support these outcomes, and indicators of progress expected and observed (progress

markers). There is a section developed for the teams’ organizational practices and associated learning

and growth. The other key elements of OM application – journalizing the method’s implementation and

progress – have not been covered because the journal tools were not developed and used.

The analysis is carried out by comparing contents developed for the three country teams and their

respective sites. Conclusions and recommendations are based on what seemed to work better in each

country, or what seemed more effective when compared across the three countries. These contents are

presented as findings in various tables in the following section followed by an analysis under each

section.

5. Findings – outcome challenges, strategies and progress made

The immediate outputs coming from the four result areas for the three countries are summarized in

Table 1 with details in separate technical report 13. Stunt was found in all the selected sites in Uganda

and Tanzania, but only in the western districts of Kenya. Smut disease was observed at severe levels in

the central districts of Kenya. Farmers in Tanzania reported signs of Smut disease but this was not

observed by the Research team during the survey.

The four Results areas were implemented concurrently and their progress monitored at the same time.

Table 1. Immediate Project Outputs resulting from Results 1 to 4 in the three Countries (Source: Final Technical Report13)

8

Kenya Tanzania Uganda Result 1: Disease in Napier grass in selected disease affected areas of East Africa mapped and clones collected and evaluated for diversity Surveys conducted in 3 agro ecological zones including to determine distribution, diversity, disease incidence and severity

550 HHs visited: Lake side (76 HHs) Highlands (388 HHs) Lowlands (86 HHs).

259 HHs visited: Lake side (60 HHs) Highlands (100 HHs) Lowlands (99 HHs).

298 HHs visited: Lake side (120 HHs) Highlands (120 HHs) Lowlands (58 HHs).

Napier varieties collected tested: subjected to analysis: phenotypic (morphologic), genetic diversity and nutritional value (biomass, nutrition, farmer preference)

400 Clones collected from survey districts; bulked in the nursery at Alupe and 180 clones bulked in Muguga 120 clones clean clones from the nursery in Alupe planted in a replicated trial. All subjected to biomass and nutritional value analysis across seasons and progressive harvests.

210 clones collected from survey districts; bulked in Kibaha ARI nursery. 30 clean clones subjected to biomass and nutritional value analysis14.

77 clones collected from survey districts; bulked in the NaCRRI nursery. 56 clean clones subjected to biomass and nutritional value analysis.

Result 2: Diagnostic probe for smut and screening protocols and tools for (the diseases) detection developed and available for use by NARS project partners Result 3: Stunt and Smut resistant Napier clones identified. The clones collected were examined and tested for resistance (or tolerance) to Stunt. Resistance to Smut was not carried out

80 clones with no disease signs challenged by exposure to Stunt. By end of the project (June 2010), 41 clones were found tolerant. All others succumbed following 3rd cut. Project team compiled mitigation practices that reduce disease effects

30 clones with no disease signs challenged by exposure to Stunt. By end of the project (June 2010), 7 clones found tolerant. Project team compiled mitigation practices that reduce disease effects

All clones succumbed to Stunt by 8th week after the first harvest. Project team compiled mitigation practices that reduce disease effects

Result 4: Information on genetic diversity and sources of resistance to smut and stunt available to stakeholders 1. Information needs assessment activities and reports

2. Information sharing processes and materials

Result 4 forms the basis of this report’s analysis, starting with assessing the needs by communities and

relevant stakeholders and developing information products, channels and processes to satisfy those

needs.

Since the intention of information-sharing was to elicit transformation in knowledge, attitudes and

practices that would minimise the diseases’ impacts, the OM framework developed (using project

documents and information shared at the meetings) into a vision (or goal) for each of the countries,

their mission and (from a brainstormed list of stakeholders) the boundary partners they would work

with or support to achieve their vision. The results are shown in Table 2.

9

Table 2. The vision, mission, stakeholders and boundary partners developed by the countries’ project teams

Kenya Tanzania Uganda Intentional Design Principle:

Vision: (Goal of the project): ... Farmers and related stakeholders adopt superior (resistant) clones and crop management practices that will mitigate the spread of smut and stunt, leading to increases in system productivity and sustainability

Mission: (From the project proposal; Result 4): ... sharing new information and knowledge to support practices

that will prevent the diseases’ spread, and allow farmers to make informed choices Boundary Partners: Farmers and farmer groups Farmers and farmer groups Farmers and farmer groups

Policy-makers and the relevant regulatory agent

Policy makers and Plant Quarantine & Phytosanitary services under MAFSC

Policy makers (MPs) and Local authorities

NGOs, Extension and media Extension agents, media and other government offices

Extension agents and media agencies

Researchers Kibaha Research Station and other national researchers

National researchers (NaLIRRI), Universities and schools National Livestock Research Laboratories Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institutes (ZARIDIs)

Donors Local Government Authorities and farmers training centres

District Agricultural and Training Centres (Kamenyamiggi & Kyembogo)

It is worth noting that from a brainstormed list of stakeholders each of the three country teams

identified a similar set of boundary partners – farmers, policy-makers, extension agents (or similar

function agencies), and researchers. Kenya added donors and Uganda had the District Agricultural and

Training Centres and Seed Companies. The teams then develop the outcome challenges for each of the

boundary partners and the strategies that could be applied to support these challenges and progress

indicators15. Together with the strategies applied and progress made with each of the boundary

partners listed these details are contained in Appendix 1, and here is a narrative of progress made with

each boundary partner.

Farmers and farmer groups

The three country teams sought a situation in which farmers were adopting resistant materials and

disease management practices, disseminating this information and any material found tolerant to other

farmers as well as the research station for tests and trials. The farmers would participate in monitoring

and reporting the extent of disease incidence in their farms and communities. In addition, the farmers

would participate in monitoring and reporting the extent of disease incidence in their farms and

communities.

10

In Kenya and Uganda, the Project Team leaders had already met and interacted with affected farmers

through previous related projects. Forums for developing their information needs were organized in

each of the countries. Information about the disease was shared16, 17, 18, and farmers enquired about

the availability of resistant varieties of Napier grass or alternative forages that could provide the same

feeding qualities. Information materials have been developed and distributed19, 20, 21.

The pervasive extent of Stunt disease in Uganda indicates that the majority of farmers are aware of the

problem and applying mitigation practices advised by the researchers and extension agents. They have

stepped up demands for alternatives to Napier as forage for the livestock 22. Through various

information channels, the Uganda team reported control measures increased by over 60%, reducing the

disease incidences by 20 – 40% and an improvement of 25% fodder yield23, 24.

In Kenya there are reports that farmers where the project has been active have used public forums (e.g.

Chief’s barazasA and field days) to raise awareness among themselves25. As a result of the advocated

management practices, the farmers report decreased incidence of forage disease on and a subsequent

increase in milk production (by 20%)26. In Kakamega (a district in western Kenya) groups of farmers are

participating in then evaluation of management strategies against Stunt disease and the ranking of

tolerant Napier varieties for possible multiplication and distribution27.

In Tanzania farmers are cooperating with extension personnel in a program of routine inspection to

identify and remove diseased plants from their plots28. Awareness on cultural management of NSD has

been created in all affected districts. More than 90% of farmers have adopted the recommended NSD

management practices leading to a decline of NSD incidences in previously affected areas28.

Extension and media agents

The desired outcome from this group of actors (‘knowledge communicators’) – was that they create

enhance awareness of the problem and the project’s intentions at regional and community levels. The

project team expected them to organize forums where the disease challenge would be discussed and

solutions debated for adoption of appropriate measures. The extension agents were expected to

support communities in setting up systems of continued monitoring and collections of tolerant materials

for onward delivery to researchers for screening, multiplication and community-based bulking and

A Baraza = administrative gatherings organized at community level

11

distribution. In Tanzania the extension staff are expected to share this information with administrative,

agricultural and livestock specialists and other stakeholders, while in Uganda, the Team worked to

support extension agents and media agencies in reporting incidences of the diseases to relevant

authorities, disseminate research results to stakeholders and media agencies give balanced reports on

project activities.

In all the three countries, support strategies for the extension agents consisted of distributing

information on diseases and management strategies to extension agents and media personnel of

affected districts. The teams also shared information through various visits and sharing of information

and implementation plans in meetings29.

The teams report varied progress made with the ‘knowledge communicators. In Uganda extension

agents (now largely privatized under the NAADS program30) and media agencies routinely sensitize

farmers on stunt disease control methods. The media houses are constantly seeking requesting for

information from the Research Teams on any progress that has been made by the project.

In Kenya the Project Team reports that extension agents in surveyed districts attend all their meetings

and have – in turn – used various other forums to share information from stakeholders. They also give

continuous feed back to research team in KARI by phone or during the CRAC meetings 31. Some have set

up a system of continued disease surveillance and advisory services (mobile clinics)32. In Kenya,

extension staff members have also linked the project team to existing CBO’s and farmer groups’ projects

and activities as reported during the project launch meetings in Kenya and Uganda33. The CABI Global

Plant ClinicA trained 35 plant ‘doctors’ to handle Napier diseases in markets and within communities. In

Tanzania Ward agricultural officers are now part of a monitoring system where there is regular farms

surveys to ensure that infected plants are uprooted.

The media using various methods (newspapers, radio and TV) has been involved in communicating

about the disease using information shared by members of the research team.

Researchers and research agencies

From the outset the Project Teams were looking to get researchers paying greater attention to the

Napier diseases problem with projects undertaken to document incidences and severity, conduct

surveys to map out the diseases’ distribution in different agro-ecological zones. The Teams also sought

A CABI Global Plant Clinics plant health clinics advise farmers on pests and diseases the way a health centre does for humans. Consultations take place once a week in public places, such as markets or the village place (central meeting area)

12

to support researchers in collecting and developing tolerant or resistant varieties, bulking clean and

high-yielding planting materials in disease free-sites. They would evaluate effectiveness of disease

mitigation management practices, the impacts of the diseases on fodder production and milk yield and

share all appropriate information with stakeholders. In Uganda the Project Team also envisioned

Universities and schools training students on smut and stunt control measures.

Being fellow professional colleagues the Project teams found it appropriate to share relevant

information and the project’s progress through their routine periodic meetings (monthly, annual,

quarterly, etc.). To start with, for Kenya and Uganda, the Napier diseases project is one of several that

has been and will continue to tackle the same challenge and presenting its launch could have been

made as a continuation of the same work. Specific forums used were the country launching sessions

where researchers had a chance to hear the project’s objectives and plans. In Tanzania the disease

challenge was introduced to researchers and other stakeholders during a key meeting discussing the

control of Striga weed34. In addition the NSD situation, challenge and possible management options

have been presented at BCAS and NPPAC meetings35, 36. The information was also shared through

project stakeholders’ workshop which involved senior officials from Ministries of Agriculture, Ministry of

Regional Planning and Local Government and Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries development. The

ministries allocated personnel to participate in baseline surveys, information dissemination and disease

monitoring.

Researchers in Kenya have been participants in surveys and workshops, field days organized to give

feedback to farmers. The team’s colleagues have taken part in the preparations of information material

distributed to farmers and extension personnel31. In the project areas, the researchers have conducted

surveys and workshops in 6 districts, covering 60 and 50 farmer groups in Kiambu and western Kenya,

respectively37. They have presented project findings in various forums38, 39, 40, 41 and developed

proposals to seek funds to boost or complement the project’s work42, 43. During the project’s

presentation in the Striga workshop in Tanzania 34, 44 researchers agreed to consider the Napier diseases

as threats to the Push-Pull Habitat Management technology for the weed’s management and activities

to address the problem were formulated and incorporated in a proposal presented to Kilimo Trust 45.

They also used the project’s trial opportunities to train farmers and extension staff46. In Uganda several

projects have been proposed, funded and are currently underway. Some are investigating or seek for a

greater understanding of NSD47, 48, some exploring more effective management strategies49, 50 for

tolerant varieties51 and their nutritional qualities52, 53, 54, while others are investigating alternatives to

Napier as a forage55, 56.

13

Policy-makers and regulatory agents

Across the three countries, the Project teams wished to elevate the Napier diseases challenge to policy

makers’ attention in order to obtain such endorsement and support. They expected the respective

sector Ministries (of Agriculture and Livestock) to formulate policies that would enforce containment of

the diseases and support resource provision for mitigation measures. The country teams also worked to

see the policy making organs playing a role in dissemination of the problem at their ‘high’ levels,

participate in sensitization campaigns to control the diseases. In Kenya, the country team expected the

country’s plant health regulatory agency – the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate (KEPHIS) to provide a

supportive and enabling environment for farmers to produce and share clean planting materials, while

in Uganda the team expected policy makers to step up quarantine measures that would control

movement of forage materials.

To support these developments, the Kenyan and Uganda teams involved high-level representatives

(Directors of Research institutions and respective heads of government departments) in the formal

launching events of the project33. In addition the Teams have continuously facilitated these

representatives’ participation in forums where they could better appreciate the problem and pass the

information on to other stakeholders. The team have organized arranged for field visits for key

stakeholders to observe on-going trials and experiments at various research centres (e.g. Kibaha ARI in

Tanzania and Anupe KARI in Kenya and NaLIRRI, Kyembogo DATIC and NaCRRI in Uganda). In Uganda

policy briefs were developed by a researcher working with Ministry representatives and presented

during a stakeholder meeting.

As a result of those strategies Government extension departments in affected areas of Kenya now urge

their staff to include disease management in trainings and meetings57. In Kenya KARI has provided funds

through KAPP to support the research team to evaluate other management interventions58. The

Tanzanian Government allocated funds for the Push Pull Habitat Management technology in Mkinga and

Muheza district under DADPs, and Tarime district under DASIP59. The Project team reports that the Plant

Quarantine and Phytosanitary offices deployed at border posts have been alerted about possible

movement of affected plants and asked to enforce related plant protection regulations60. The Tanzanian

government through Ministry of Agriculture Food Security and Cooperatives (MAFSC ) also supports

(funds) department’s quarterly technical meetings and monthly meetings that are held in each district to

share the project’s information.

In Uganda the Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries set up a Napier grass stunt control

strategy task force in 2008 headed by the Commissioner, Crop Protection in the Ministry of Agriculture,

Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) comprising members from the MAAIF itself, Makerere University,

14

extension staff, farmer representatives and researchers from NARO to tackle the challenge posed by

the Napier Stunt disease61. The committee developed a proposal and has now been allocated a budget

of USD 3,000 starting from the last quarter of 2007 given through NaLIRRI per quarter funded through

Emergency Issues62. The Ministry of Finance also approved USD 10,000 for work on the Napier Stunt

Disease to NaLIRRI63. The Ugandan Government also released USD 10,000 under emerging issues for

research activities on Napier stunt disease at Kyembogo DATIC 64.

The country teams’ organizational learning and growth

In the Outcome mapping framework, transformation of the implementing entity is monitored and

captured as a valuable of the program’s outcome. The transformation is essentially through learning and

change or growth informed through specific program practices referred to as organizational practices

where information about the need to follow certain direction comes from. Table 3 summarises

information given by the three country Project teams on their progress as learning organizations. The

first column uses the framework of eight organizational practices listed in the OM manual which serve

as sources of information and direction that supports implementing organizations’ learning and growth.

Table 3. Organizational practices and how they were implemented by the Country teams

Organizational practice How implemented by country teams Prospecting for new ideas, opportunities, and resources

The teams report attendance in forums where other stakeholders participate as sources of new ideas and opportunities. In Kenya meetings organized by or involving ASARECA, KARI CRAC, as well as farming communities. Through links with other development projects: National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme (NALEP), Njaa Marufuku (a national food security program). In Tanzania links with various programmes undertaking research related to Napier diseases. Also interacting with extension staff such as DADPs, PADEP and HIP. In Uganda, the research team organized meetings involving, representatives of Director general, NARO; policy makers, NaLIRRI Management Committee, extension staff and farmers

Seeking feedback from key informants

For all teams: through constantly interaction with farmers, farmer groups and extension agents. Following up through farm visits, telephone/e mail communication to assess the status of NSD and information needs of stakeholders. In Uganda: leads to a meeting with University staff (breeders) to develop idea for a project on breeding Napier grass for tolerance to Napier stunt disease

Obtaining support of next highest power

In Kenya: the team closely interacted with KARI HQs and research partners In Tanzania: When raising the importance of NDS to the national Striga technical meeting In Uganda such communication led to sourcing additional funding from government

Assessing and (re)designing products, services, systems and procedures

For all teams, a review of the progress made through collection of materials for tolerance, and refocusing on management practices that minimise disease effects. In Tanzania, scarcity of resources led to collaborative arrangements with another organization to undertake biomass and nutritive quality analyses. In Uganda, the team constantly re-designed information materials

Checking up on those In Kenya by interacting with other organizations to identify and fill research gaps, e.g

15

Organizational practice How implemented by country teams served to add value University of Nairobi for analyses of suggested botanical control. In Tanzania through

regular meetings and communications with key stakeholders65. In Uganda, the team interacted with researchers from the NaCRRI to fill research gaps.

Sharing (your) best wisdom with the world

For all teams publications, presentations at conferences66 and articles and sessions in mass media67.In Uganda, information placed in various newspapers 68, 69 as well as the New Vision paper website. The team also used the local radio and TV stations to share information with the community.

Experimenting to remain innovative

For all teams: on-farm and field trials experimenting on a diverse range of fodder management practices. In addition the use of innovative ways to disseminate information e.g. by use of mobile plant clinics in Kenya.

Engaging in organizational reflection

Attending the project annual planning meetings and sharing information on project progress, constraints and plans.

In summary, the country teams learned to closely heed farmers’ information needs but also

appreciate ways in which they were managing the diseases. They also enhanced interactions

with other stakeholders to develop solutions that served their information needs and package

combinations of resulting products in formats and channels that satisfied as many as possible.

In Tanzania the team is now part of the monitoring system where extension staff survey farms

for the diseases. Teams also related more effectively with the project’s lead investigators and

national research and policy structures. The teams learnt the value of constant updating the

high power structures to obtain support (resources, working facilities) and endorsement (when

seeking additional funds). Also the need to ensure they are following or adhering to assigned

broad mandates and reporting lines to enhance the provided.

16

6. Discussion

The program’s goal as articulated in the project logframe remained the same throughout the project.

The statement reads: Diversity of Napier grass contributes to enhanced productivity and sustainability of

small holder livestock systems. None of the team developed a comprehensive OM-type vision with

details on target changes in cultural or institutional behaviours. Demands expressed during the early

stakeholder introductory and planning workshops could have been used to develop the vision and

mission. It is possible the country teams did not appreciate the value of extensive vision and mission

statements since the log frame contents were clear on the outputs expected.

To begin with, the teams had a similar set of boundary partners to work with, mainly farmers, extension

agents, researchers and policy-development agents. Even though they were mentioned during the

indicator’s development sessions, there was absence of specific community CBOs (especially particular

farming groups), local government offices, and private sector actors. In Kenya and Uganda there are

dairy farming (or zero-grazing) groups scattered across the country where the diseases occur. The local

government system in some of the countries plays a role in supporting community agriculture, and

could have been listed contributing by allocating land for trials and bulking of disease resistant

germplasm. It is possible that the research teams were looking for Boundary partners that they routinely

interact with, rather than those that could have made effective progression towards the project goal.

Given the listed stakeholders and boundary partners and indicators of progress expressed in various

meetings, vision statements could have included the following outcome challenges (or ideal outcomes):

- Farmers constantly seeking resistant Napier types, testing their susceptibility, bulking and

sharing tolerant varieties, monitoring and regulating of forage movements among themselves,

lobbying policy-makers and resource providers for support in addressing the challenge.

- Extension agents supporting the search for collection and testing of tolerant varieties,

establishing institutionalized country-wide monitoring disease occurrence and severity in farms,

and collecting data on effect of disease and mitigation measures on forage productivity,

developing and sharing information on effective measures.

- Researchers would step up there search for solutions, developing high-capital programs and

seeking resources to address the problem, including the searching and testing for disease

resistance, testing management practices, analysing the economic importance of the diseases

and sharing resulting information with stakeholders.

- Policy-makers would promote the disease challenge to enhance support for related programs

and urge regulatory agents to play a more effective role in managing the movement of planting

materials.

17

In order to provide support to realize the project’s vision or partners’ outcome challenges it appears as

though, the country teams considered their main contribution limited to information sharing. It is as

though once the information was shared, recipient actors would see the need to undertake or undergo

through certain transformation to realize details of change entrenched in the project’s ultimate goal.

This assumption fails to demonstrate different ways an implementing team can work with various actors

using a range of approaches to support transformations necessary to realize such a target goal. The

strategy matrix guide that appears in OM manuals was not fully exploited.

The teams’ efforts were confined to organizing and/or taking part in stakeholder forums to share

information, developing and distributing information materials. These two approaches fall under

persuasive and supportive categories, and were directed at both the specific boundary partners as well

as the environments in which they operated. It may appear that the teams exploited the range of

options they could afford to, given the capacity and timeline available and it is rather hard to consider

what else they could have used. By working with more specific stakeholders (for example dairy farming

groups, local government offices, specific policy actors, more innovative approaches for influencing

change could have been more noticeable.

As for progress made it can be argued that in the absence of resistant materials for adoption by farmers

and any drastic organizational changes, the most significant progress the project has made is increasing

awareness of the diseases’ threat and mitigation practices that address the problem in the sites where

the project operated. Progress markers for these qualitative changes were observed and noted as

reported in the OM frameworks. What would have been valuable to this observation are quantified

indicators of this progression. The project did not arrange for surveys during the course of the program

through teams would have observed and analyse the numbers of farmers (or the extent of such)

planting resistant materials, adopting the mitigation practices and the effects of these practices on

forage harvested. Reduced incidences of diseases, increased production of Napier and possible related

milk production should be quantified. The teams were aware that extension agents routinely developed

and shared status reports on agriculture and livestock farming in their respective areas but little effort

was made by the project teams to have the agents include the effect of Napier diseases or any recovery

efforts.

It is possible that through the media channels and other extension channels that this information has

gone on to other parts of the countries where Napier is important but this was not explored. The teams

have target outcome farmers and extension agents as the development of deliberate monitoring

programs, with routine reports on the extent and effect on forage production and subsequent

productivity. What has been achieved may have been localized to just the affected areas but given the

18

importance of the diseases and potential spread across the rest of countries, there is no indication of an

institutionalization of such practice. A routine monitoring and reporting system is mentioned by the

Tanzanian team working with extension e agents, this practice appears only confined to the project

areas. Similar system has been established in Napier growing districts in Eastern and Northern zones;

including Mkinga, Rombo and Moshi districts. This outcome could have been achieved nation-wide if the

teams had interacted more effectively with policy-makers, local governing structures, and heads of

Ministry departments. In Kenya the regulation agent KEPHIS has not been involved but have attended

some field days and Agricultural demonstration fairs without translating to any institutional changes.

This is an example of the need for the need to be more innovative with certain stakeholders if their

support is required.

In Uganda Napier stunt disease already affects a large (over 90%) area of the country and the awareness

of its danger and threat was relatively less of an issue. There were reports that dairy farmers were now

demanding for alternative forages to Napier grass, especially during stakeholder forums. However, this

demand does not expressly appear or its proof is weak in evidence documents procured – a classic case

where it is easy to miss evidence for particular qualitative indicator of change if it is articulated in

forums where there is little or no written recording of proceedings.

In Kenya and Uganda, the media is listed as a boundary partner alongside the extension agencies, with

the target outcome being that they make balanced reporting of information shared by the project

teams. Apart from the Project team being available to provide answers to enquiries and providing the

media houses with information materials no other strategy is applied to change them into the

mentioned outcome challenge. The media are actually used to extend project information to various

stakeholders and the public at large, which may be the greater value of working with them rather than

transforming them into something else. This demonstrates the need to be clear about what a team

requires of a boundary partner and the strategies required to support that objective. In many cases,

media channels are strategic partners who help transformation in other boundary partners, especially

through the effect they can have on the targeted stakeholders’ environment.

The country teams were relatively successful with researchers than the other partners mentioned. There

are reports of research colleagues supporting project teams in implementing various activities,

developing proposals to procure funds and implementing parallel research activities in line with the

project goals. It is possible that these outcomes were easy to achieve given that the target actor(s) are

colleagues hence easily interacting and sharing information with respective project teams. However,

one would question the extent to which the country teams are influencing other researchers, i.e.

separating progress made by the project researchers from what the other researchers in the country are

19

doing and progress being made with them. In Kenya and Uganda, the project team recruited other

researchers, making part of the implementing team and it was not easy to discern the boundary

between implementer and boundary partner. This then can have a distorting effect on progress made by

both actors.

Given the importance of the dairy industry in the three countries, supporting the economic welfare of a

large number of smallholder farms, and the role of Napier grass as a large part of feed input outcomes

achieved at policy level seem rather inadequate. There are one-time indicators which appear aimed only

at specific areas. There is fund allocation to the project intentions in all the three countries and, apart

from Uganda where there appears to be a regularized budgetary allocation, there is little evidence of

nation-wide and longer-term policy supported developments. In the same country a committee was

established to address the program but, besides being the recipient of the funds allocated, we do not

have evidence of how far the committee had gone to carry out their objective. The funding indicated by

government structures appears to be quite minimal, hardly adequate to manage a nation-wide

campaign for much a longer time, given the value of nation-wide monitoring of disease incidence,

severity and effect on dairy production. In addition, it is only in Tanzania where the regulatory agencies

appear to have taken distinct steps to train border personnel on the Napier grass disease dangers, cross-

border travelling as a possible source of disease in the country. In the other countries, they participate

but not much progress has been made with them. This may then place the question on the adequacy of

strategies applied by the project teams to impact on policies. Was the involvement of senior policy

officials in events enough?

And finally in regard to the teams learning and growth, the three country teams report similar lessons as

a result of different organizational practices, and we see the practices as sources of feedback to guide

similar or different transformation. Learning to be more cooperative or collaborative is mentioned being

a result of two, three or more of the organizational practices. In addition, the teams did not adequately

capture or document the transformation they underwent, especially by providing concrete information

documents or reports. For example it was not easy to demonstrate what was meant by ‘learning to pay

greater attention to stakeholders needs’; this is a standard practice – even without OM – but if teams

actually underwent this change as a result they did not demonstrate what actually happened, hence

what respective learning and growth took place.

20

7. Conclusion and recommendations

The conclusions and recommendation indicated here follow the district concepts of outcome mapping

for the project’s implementation (especially if there is going to be a subsequent phase) and add

knowledge to the application of outcome mapping as a monitoring and evaluation methodology.

1. On vision and mission.

Teams should not undermine the value of detailed statements, since it is in such content that one is able

to identify boundary partners and the transformation sought more distinctly. In the next phase of the

project, the vision and mission statements should be developed beyond the very brief lines of the

ultimate goal mentioned in log-frames, with implementing teams helping in identifying who or what

needs to change and how.

For OM application it is clear that the ultimate goal statement in the logframe cannot be adequate as

something to target and it requires being broken into greater detail to derive an OM vision.

2. Boundary partners and their outcome challenges.

Teams may develop stakeholder lists through brainstorming but the selection of boundary partners

requires a careful analysis to demonstrate who exactly the project team wants to work with and what

kind of change demonstrates that the targeted vision is being strived for. There are various ways of

analysing stakeholders, including categorizing who teams will find easier to work with and the power or

capacity they have to influence various aspects of a project’s goal.

3. Boundary partners progress markers

Qualitative indicators of change should, where possible, be accompanied by quantifiable indicators. In

addition, teams need to develop systems of capturing evidence that demonstrates any such changes,

especially documentation of proceedings of sessions, even if no arrangements are made for such

activities. This will help in pinning down actual change realized through such interactions. In addition,

most organizational and institutional change is supported by documents (policy, regulations, operating

procedures, memos, directives) and monitoring teams need to make arrangements to obtain copies of

such documents.

When developing progress markers, teams may have to recognize what collectible evidence should

accompany what change, and arrange to procure such evidence.

21

4. Implementing teams supporting strategies

In this project, the primary supporting strategy was information sharing and teams fully applied this,

innovating on various approaches to achieve this objective. In project implementation it will be useful

for teams to explore if a strategy clearly stated in a log frame suffices in delivering the ultimate goal or

vision status. Other approaches may be necessary in order to be more effective with various

stakeholders, and this may have to be included in greater detail in a log-frame format. In addition, it will

be useful to indicate the verifier of this strategy.

5. Organizational learning and growth

Project teams do not easily describe and capture lessons from routine organization practices and the

subsequent growth undergone as a result. Just like the challenge of capturing progress markers realized,

teams should arrange for the observation of such transformation and capturing of any evidence that

demonstrates such change.

Even more significant in this is that some of the eight organizational practices listed in the OM manual

are easily translated into relatively similar meanings, making it difficult to discern how each may be

affecting the team. In some cases (such as this project), teams may consider collapsing some of the

practices if the lessons observed and transformation undergone are similar.

6. Further investigation for OM application

More work needs to be done to find out how teams apply OM in different contexts, how they manage

similar or different gaps and the effect this has on OM as a monitoring and evaluation approach.

*************

22

8. References

Ref Number

Document, Authors, and Title; Event of information source Details

1 Earl S., Carden F. and Smutylo T. (2001) Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. Published by IDRC (International Development Research Centre) 120 pp. ISBN 0-88936-959-3.

2 Jones, Harry. Making Outcome Mapping work: Evolving experiences from around the world. Summaries of community discussions, January - December 2006. Compiled and Edited by Harry Jones, January 2007.

A compilation of OM application and experiences world-wide. Available at http://www.outcomemapping.ca/

3 Bayer, W. (1990) Napier grass- a promising fodder for smallholder livestock production in the tropics. Plant research development 31 103- 111

4 Kenya District Agricultural Office Annual Reports, 2004. Showing smut disease affects crop across about 23,298 km2, in Western Kenya and the Rift Valley provinces

Periodic reports (Monthly, Quarterly and Annual) made by field offices showing spread and severity of disease across farms

5 Nielsen, S. L., C. Ebong,, J. Kabirizi,, and M. Nicolaisen. First report of a 16SRX1 Group Phytoplasma (Candidatus Phytoplamsa oryzae) associated with Napier grass stunt disease in Uganda. New diseases Reports, 14 Jan 2007.

6 Kabirizi et. al. 2008. Napier Stunt and Smut resistance survey report (April 2008) 7 Kabirizi et. al. 2010. Napier Stunt Disease Spread and

Management in Uganda. Poster presented during FARA conference

8 Developing control strategies for Napier grass stunting disease. A project (funded by Kilimo Trust) that seeks to search for ways to control Napier Stunt Disease by identifying its vectors, establishing a germplasm screening facility to be used in exploring for resistant grass varieties.

9 Farrel, G. 1998. Towards the management of Ustilago kameruniensis, a smut pathogen of Napier grass in Kenya. PhD thesis University of Greenwich.

10 Mulaa M. A. and Ajanga S. (2005). A survey to collect and identify potential vectors of Napier grass stunting disease associated with phytoplasma in Western Kenya.

Report of a survey conducted 25th-29th November 2005.

11 Beatrice P., C. Maeda and E. Nsami. Report developed following a survey for Napier stunt disease in the eastern, northern and lake zones of Tanzania. 2010.

A report on monitoring survey that was conducted in March to April, 2010

12 Project proposal submitted to ASARECA. Project Number: 06/RC01-FC-2-02 13 Proud J, et al 2010. Napier Grass Smut and Stunt Resistance Project. Project Number 06/RC01-FC-2-02. Final

technical draft 14 Namazzi et. al. 2010. On-station evaluation of selected grasses for

biomass yield and nutritive value. Poster presented during FARA conference

15 Meetings held involving key stakeholders to develop indicators for the project. Reports available. 16 Scientists shared information at a Workshop: “Improving feed resource availability: impact of Napier stunt disease” in

Nangabo, Wakiso district, Uganda 17 Kabirizi et. al. 2010. Napier grass stunt severity and incidence in

Uganda. A Poster presentation.

18 Kabirizi et. al. 2010. Constraints to Napier grass production. A Poster presentation. 19 Beware of Napier Stunt Disease

MAFSC/ILRI/ASARECA Poster: Awareness on occurrence of NSD and management options was creation through posters to at least 500 dairy stakeholders

20 Facts about Napier Stunt disease MAFSC/ILRI/ASARECA

Leaflet: Information dissemination material distributed to at least 1000 dairy sector stakeholders

21 Napier stunt disease threatens livestock industry in Uganda 4000 copies of a brochure produced and distributed

22 Ref project reports following meetings with stakeholders 23 Kabirizi J. Napier Stunt and Smut Resistance Project: Achievements and Outcomes in Uganda. 2009.

23

Ref Number

Document, Authors, and Title; Event of information source Details

24 Kabirizi et. al. 2010. Napier grass and smut resistance project Quarterly and Annual reports (2007-2010) 25 Reports on stakeholders meetings held at KARI Kakamega on 8

July 2008, 8/10/2008 in Kiambu Document sent to Project Coordinator ILRI Ethiopia. Records of Letters of invitation and Participants lists at Bungoma, Matungu, Mumias and Kiambu Districts

26 KARI Kitale Quarterly Progress Reports (2008 to 2009) and Back to office Reports

Farmer records participating in the trials on Management of stunting disease in Mumias and Bungoma. The same information is included in the Center Research Advisory Committee meetings Reports of 2009

27 M. Mulaa et al. Developing Management strategies of Napier stunting Disease in western Kenya. Paper presented during the African Crop Science Conference in Cape Town (October, 2009)

28 Pallangyo B.(2009) Report on follow up on status of NSD in Muheza, Mkinga, Korogwe, Rombo, Moshi, Hai, Meru and Tarime districts

Report made after visits to Napier-suspect or affected areas and discussions held with DALDOs and farmers to confirm the reported status of NSD

29 Presentation on Implementation work plan for Napier Smut and Stunt Resistance Project year 2009. Minutes of Key stakeholders meeting held at SRI Kibaha on 25th April 09

Through the meeting, solutions to address constraints in implementing planned activities were identified

30 The National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) program in Uganda. http://www.naads.or.ug/framework.php

NAADS is a government program in Uganda to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of agricultural extension service through a semi-autonomous body

31 Kenya KARI CRAC Meetings reports 32 Boa E., Jeffery Bentley, Rob Reeder, Paula Kelly and Phil Jones. A Means to an End: The Global Plant Clinic and

Primary Plant Healthcare. A presentation on an approach that links farmers directly with experts in farms and villages to share information on plant health and management. Made at the International Plant Diagnostics Network Meeting IITA, Cotonou, Benin September 2006. CABI.

33 Proceedings of the launch activities in Kenya and Uganda, 2007 34 Draft Stakeholders meeting to develop Striga Control Programme

in Tanzania held at MAFSC Dar es Salaam 5 – 6th June 2009 The project proposal was refined and submitted to KILIMO trust in June 2009. Among outputs of the study was to develop an Integrated management for Napier stunt disease

35 Pallangyo B, Maeda C, Mkonyi S (2008) Napier grass Pennisetum purpurium (Schumach) (Poaceae) diversity and diseases in Eastern, Northern and Lake zones of Tanzania: Preliminary findings.

Document of 13th BCAS meeting held at SRI Kibaha on 15th September 2009. Participants at the BCAS meeting were informed about the occurrence of Napier smut and stunt diseases in Tanzania

36 Maeda C, Pallangyo B, Mkonyi S (2008) Napier smut and stunt disease distribution, incidence and severity in Eastern, Northern and lake zones of Tanzania.

Document of 1st NPPAC Ad hoc meeting held at SRI Kibaha on 19th September 2009. Status of Napier smut and stunt diseases and management strategies were discussed in NPPAC meeting

37 Mulaa et al. Project technical and Annual Reports for 2008 and 2009 38 Mulaa M, C. Lusweti, F. Muyekho and D. Miano (2009). Developing management strategies for Napier stunting

Disease in Western Kenya. Paper presented during the 9th African crop science conference, Cape Town South Africa 39 Kabirizi et. al. 2010. Napier grass stunt severity and incidence in Uganda 40 Napier stunt and smut resistance in Uganda Poster presented during the Uganda National

Council for Science and Technology Science week in Sept 2009

41 Kabirizi et. al. 2010. Mitigating the effects of Napier grass stunt A brochure produced in August 2010

24

Ref Number

Document, Authors, and Title; Event of information source Details

and stun diseases in Uganda: Key achievements. 42 Contributing to the Basic Understanding and Management of

Napier Stunt Disease in Uganda A research proposal submitted June 2008 by NaIRRI researchers to Uganda National Council of Science and Technology and the Millennium Science Initiative to study Napier grass diseases

43 Developing Management Strategies for Napier stunting disease in Western Kenya in KARI Kitale Center Research Advisory Committee (CRAC) Meeting Report 2009

Another proposal jointly written with current collaborators, led by a team from Canada submitted to SIDA in April 2010

44 Pallangyo B, Maeda C, Mkonyi S (2008) Napier grass Pennisetum purpurium (Schumach) (Poaceae) diversity and diseases in Eastern, Northern and Lake zones of Tanzania: Preliminary findings.

Document of 13th BCAS meeting held at SRI Kibaha on 15th September 2009. Participants at the BCAS meeting were informed about the occurrence of Napier smut and stunt diseases in Tanzania

45 Proposal entitled: “Unlocking Cereal production potential in East Africa by Eliminating the Striga threat”

Proposal in which some of the activities will be investigating NSD and its management

35 Investigation of Striga weed and stem-borer in maize based farming systems and recommendations for its control in Mkinga district. Contract NO MKG/DC/DADPS/02/07/08

On-farm plots were established to demonstrate the push-pull management technology. 50 farmers and 20 extension officers were trained on identification and management of NSD

46 Maeda C, Pallangyo B, Mkonyi S (2008) Napier smut and stunt disease distribution, incidence and severity in Eastern, Northern and lake zones of Tanzania.

Document of 1st NPPAC Ad hoc meeting held at SRI Kibaha on 19th September 2009. Status of Napier smut and stunt diseases and management strategies were discussed in NPPAC meeting

47 Graduate research 1 PhD and 2 MSc: Contributing to basic understanding and control of NSD in Uganda (UNCST/MSI). USD 249,000

48 Crop-livestock integration for sustainable management of natural resources and building livestock resilience in ECA region. ASARECA. USD 460,000. Study sites: Kumi, Jinja and Masaka

49 Proposal: Strengthening capacity to control Napier grass stunt disease in Uganda.

Proposal developed by NaCRRI/NaLIRRI/, Uganda, and submitted to FAO

50 Proposal: Development and dissemination of Napier stunt control technologies.

Proposal developed by NaCRRI/NaLIRRI/MAAIF/NAADS and submitted to Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)

51 Mukiibi, E. 2010. Evaluation of Napier grass clones for herbage biomass and morphological characterisation.

A Poster presentation

52 Evaluation of Napier grass clones for genetic diversity, herbage dry matter yield and nutritive quality

An MSc student project funded by Uganda Government /NaLIRRI. USD 3,000

53 Evaluation of Napier grass varieties resistant to Napier grass disease. EAPP/World Bank. USD 120,000 54 Development of Napier grass varieties tolerant to Napier stunt

disease. An MSc student project to be funded by EAAP/World Bank.

55 Evaluation and utilization of sorghum varieties and Tithonia diversifolia as alternative feed resources for smallholder cattle and goat farmers. ARTO, USD 150,000. Study sites: Soroti and Gulu.

56 Evaluation of Brachiaria mulato as an alternative fodder in intensive dairy cattle systems

An MSc student research funded by DANIDA/World bank/Uganda Government

57 Developing Management Strategies for Napier stunting disease in Western Kenya in KARI Kitale CRAC Meeting Report 2009

57 Second quarter extension research liaison report for western province 2009/10 (Ref: EDUCATION/23/25)

Kenya: Report plus email communications

58 Developing Management Strategies for Napier stunting disease in Western Kenya in KARI Kitale Center Research Advisory

The Document can be found at the KARI Kitale Library and the KARI HQ Library, it can also

25

Ref Number

Document, Authors, and Title; Event of information source Details

Committee (CRAC) Meeting Report 2009 be found in the KARI Kitale Annual Reports of 2008 and 2009, both in KARI Kitale Library

59 Tz government allocating funds to Push-Pull management Project in Mkinga and Muheza 60 Vetting for declaration and control of Striga rules made pursuant

to the Plant Protection Act (Cap 133 of R.E 2002). Document of 16th NPPAC meeting held at MAFSC Dar es Salaam on 3rd December 09

Draft order submitted to the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs on 26th August 09

61 Napier grass stunt disease control task force (Uganda) 62 Uganda government allocation of USD 3,000 63 Uganda government allocation of USD 10,000 64 Uganda Govt allocation of funds for research at Kyembogo DATIC 65 Nsami E, Pallangyo B, Mkonyi S (2008) Implementation of push-

pull habitat management strategies in Muheza districts and challenges in scaling up the technology in other striga infected areas. Document of 13th BCAS meeting held at SRI Kibaha on 15th September 2009.

Discussion on challenges for scaling up Push Pull Habitat Management technology in Striga infested regions of Tanzania.

66 Developing Management Strategies for Napier stunting disease in Western Kenya

Kenya: Paper presented at the African Crop science conference in Cape Town, October 2009.

67 Senelwa, Kennedy. Napier grass diseases a threat to diary sector, stunt and smut diseases spell hardship for diary industry. Article in Sunday Nation newspaper, 15 May 2010.

68 Michael J. Ssali. “Elephant grass diseases threatens milk production”. Under the Farmers’ Diary Column, Monitor News Paper, Uganda, 12th August 2009, page 26

69 “ASARECA boosts research on elephant grass stunt and head smut diseases in Uganda” (New Vision Paper, Uganda 22nd January 2009)

26

Appendix I. A brief explanation of outcome mapping concepts and terms

Vision A description of the large-scale ultimate development changes (economic, political, social or

environmental) to which the program hopes to contribute, including the ideal behaviours among

the key boundary partners.

Mission A description of how the programme intends to support achievement of the vision. It states the

broad areas (sectors, disciplines, approaches) in which it will work, without listing in detail the

activities it will initiate or engage in.

Boundary partners Those individuals, groups or organizations with whom the program interacts directly and with

whom the program can anticipate opportunities for influence.

Outcome challenge Captures how the actor would be behaving and relating to others if the program achieved its full

potential as a facilitator of change

Progress markers Information that the program can gather in order to monitor achievements toward the desired

outcome. A set of graduated ‘change’ indicators in partners that advance in degree from the

minimum one would expect to see as an early response to the programs basic activities, to what it

will be expected if the program were having a profound influence or was extremely successful.

Strategies Strategies (Causal, Persuasive and Supportive) used by the program to contribute to the

achievement of an outcome, aimed either at the boundary partners directly or at the environment

in which the boundary partner operates.

Organizational

Practices

Program management activities that are used to obtain information about the program’s

performance, progress and emerging environment as a basis for learning and growth in order to

remain relevant in the innovation equation and the goal (or vision) being aimed at.

27

Appendix II. Boundary partners, outcomes, strategies applied and progress made

Table 4. Farmers (and farmer groups) as Boundary Partners, their outcome challenge strategies applied, progress made and remaining gaps

Kenya Tanzania Uganda Outcome Challenges

Farmers adopt improved disease freed Napier grass planting materials. … disseminate information to fellow farmers. … report incidences of disease to relevant authorities. …. adopt management aimed at improving yield and decreasing disease incidence and record such improvements on fodder yield … monitor project activities. … support M & E plans, during the project lifetime but also beyond.

Farmers and farmer groups are aware of the occurrence and the threat of disease on productivity … have the capacity to manage the disease. … immediately report any such signs of incidences through the monitoring system that has been set up using Ward agricultural officers.

Farmers adopt improved disease freed Napier grass planting materials. … disseminate information to fellow farmers. … report incidences of disease to relevant authorities. …. adopt management aimed at improving yield and decreasing disease incidence and record such improvements on fodder yield … monitor project activities. … support M & E plans, during the project lifetime but also beyond.

Strategies applied

Project team alerted farmers to the disease threats through posters and leaflets distributed during field days and in other forums. … Team used stakeholder meetings to raise awareness of Napier grass diseases. … Team supported Napier demonstration and bulking sites (by 17 farmers) in Kiambu district to investigate for resistant varieties.

Project team alerted farmers to the disease threats through posters and leaflets distributed during field days and in other forums. ... Team sent posters and leaflets to DALDOs to help alert farmers to the problem. ... Team used other stakeholder meetings to raise awareness of Napier grass diseases ... Team mobilized Ward agricultural officers in affected areas to monitor farms and share information on status with others2.

Project team prepared and distributed posters and leaflets.

Progress made

Farmers have used forums (e.g. Chief’s “barazas” and field days to raise awareness … They have reported decreased incidence of forage disease on and increase in milk production (by 20%) due to management practices … Farmers evaluated management strategies and ranked Napier varieties

Farmers are using recommended cultural practices … Together with WAEOs, they are conducting regular inspection of trial plots to identify and remove diseased plants.

Farmers are now aware of stunt and taking the necessary measures to control the disease (observed in follow up field visits in Kabarole and Soroti districts)

28

Table 5. Extension agents, community support NGOs, and media as Boundary Partners, their outcome challenge strategies applied, progr

Kenya Tanzania Uganda Outcome Challenges

Extension and media agents: … … Create awareness of the problem and the project interventions. … Support the communities in continued identification of diseases and resistant materials, for screening, multiplication and distribution. … Assist in the identification of stakeholders to assist in awareness and monitoring and evaluation during and beyond the project

Extension agents disseminate information on diseases to farmers. WAEOs monitor NSD status through their routine activities and give feedback to DALDOs. DALDO share the information with district administrative, agricultural and livestock specialists and other stakeholders DED/DALDO and other staff share related information with politicians, researchers and farmers

Extension agents and media agencies: ….. Report incidences of the diseases to relevant authorities... Disseminate research results to stakeholders. Media agencies give balanced reports on project activities.

Strategies applied

Project team identified key stakeholders early and involved them in a participatory manner Video coverage of workshops and sharing of information

Project Team distributed information on diseases and management strategies to DALDOs of affected districts. Team also shared information through various meetings, including a technical meeting held in Dar es Salaam for Striga control program.

The team distributed information on Napier grass stunt disease control to faarmes, researchers, extension staff, policy makers and ASARECA headquarters

Progress made

Extension staff in districts surveyed attend all meetings and used various forums to sharing information from stakeholders meetings ... They give continuous feed back to KARI by Phone or during the CRAC1 meetings ... Some have set up a system of continued disease surveillance and advisory services (mobile clinics) They have also linked the project team to existing CBO’s and farmer groups

Ward agricultural officers are involved in a monitoring system where there is regular monitoring and ensuring that the infected plants are uprooted They are regularly monitoring and no new areas have been found infected.

Extension staff are sensitizing farmers on stunt disease control methodsMedia staff are constantly requesting for information on progress made by the project.

1 CRAC = Centre Research Advisory Committee

29

Table 6. Researchers as Boundary Partners, their outcome challenge strategies applied, progress made and remaining gaps

Kenya Tanzania Uganda Outcome Challenges

Researchers … Collect, screen and identify tolerant varieties and develop resistant varieties to the diseases. … Conduct surveys and map out the distribution of disease incidence and severity in different agro-ecological zones. … Bulk clean, high yielding disease tolerant planting materials in disease free sites. … Provide information on management strategies of stunt and smut.

Researchers: … ….Document distribution, incidence and severity of NSD in different agro ecological zones … Publicize the occurrence of disease. …..Identify high yielding and NSD tolerant Napier clones … Develop and share technical information … Develop and share appropriate information with stakeholders

Researchers: ...... Develop tolerant varieties. ... Document incidence and severity of the diseases in different agro... Provide feedback on survey results.... Establish multiplication sites.... Assess impact of diseases on fodder production and milk yield.... Report on project progress.Universities train students on smut and stunt control measures. .. Source for funds and incorporate Napier grass issues in the University curriculum.... Assess impact of diseases on fodder production and milk yield.Schools train the young farmers of tomorrow.

Strategies applied

Team and extension staff involved farmer group leaders in the collection and screening of Napier clones Several scientists and extension staff involved in the surveys

Researchers were involved in baseline survey, identification of high yielding and disease tolerant clones and information packaging and sharing. Scientific reports were shared through various meetings including the National Striga meeting whereby the project leader was involved in refinement of project proposal. NSD was considered as a threat in application of Push Pull Habitat Management technology for management of striga weed. Activities to address those needs were formulated and incorporated in a project proposal titled “Unlocking Cereal production potential in East Africa by Eliminating the Striga threat” to be funded by KILIMO Trust6.

The Team presented Project outputs in the various events The Team leader also met various scientists at the the Aberystwyth University; agreed to develiop a joint project on “Breeding for tolerance to Napier stunt disease”. A new project ” Onevaluation of promising Napier grass varieties tolerant to Napier stunt disease”approved under the “East African Agricultural Productivity Programme.

Progress made

Researchers have conducted surveys and workshops, field days to give feedback to

Researchers have submitted proposals to expand the work on raising awareness of the diseases and their

Scientists working on other Napier stuntrelated activities are now working together with

30

farmers ... 600 clones have been established, and replicated trials set up. .. They have prepared and distributed leaflet and posters to stakeholders.

management and finding long term solutions. Feedback from surveys indicated that regular monitoring for disease is ongoing and no new areas have disease reports

a major objective of reducing disease incidence and developing strategies to control the disease.

Table 7. Policy makers as Boundary Partners, their outcome challenge strategies applied, progress made and remaining gaps

Kenya Tanzania Uganda Outcome Challenges

Ministries of Agriculture/Livestock, Research Institutions and Provincial Administration: ... Formulate policies to enforce containment of the disease, support mitigation activities .. Are involved in the monitoring and evaluation and feedback on progress given. ... Strategically influence donors to fund disease projects and build capacity of scientists in lacking such KEPHIS provides a supportive and enabling environment for farmers to produce clean planting materials

Policy makers formulate and enforce structures and systems relevant in promoting the use of Napier grass are formulated and enforced

Policy makers (MPs): …… Develop and implement policies aimed at reducing disease incidence.... Allocate budgetary resources for the control of stunt and smut diseases.... Participate in sensitization campaigns to control the diseases.... Enforce quarantine.... Provide favourable working environment.

Strategies applied

The Team involved the Directors of KARI and Min of Livestock, and Departmental Heads in the official launch of the project. The Team has continuously facilitated the participation of representatives from the same Ministries and departments in forums where they could better appreciate the problem and pass the information on to other stakeholders

The Team organized meetings with representatives from policy-making sections for awareness on the threat of NSD1 on cereal and dairy productivity. The Team organized field visits for key stakeholders to on station trials and experiments at Kibaha ARI2.

The Team presented Project outputs in the various events:NARO Scientific meetingsScientific conferences and workshopsStakeholders’ meetings

Progress made

Departmental heads urge their staff to include disease management in trainings and meetings. Provincial administration is using their forums and field days to raise awareness in their area. KARI HQ has provided funds through KAPP1 to evaluate other management interventions.

The ministry of Regional Planning and Local Government (MRPLG) through LGAs allocated funds for application of Push Pull Habitat Management technology in Mkinga and Muheza district under DADPS2, and Tarime district under DASIP3.

The governmwork on the Napier Stunt Disease research activities for student MSc and other activities related to Napier Stunt disease research

1 NSD = Napier Smut Disease 2 Kibaha ARI = Kibaha Agricultural Research Institute

31

Kenya Tanzania Uganda KARI has also identified other sources of funding for work on the stunting disease

The government through MAFSC supports (funds) department’s technical meetings. In each district, meetings funded by DADPs are conducted monthly to share project information.

Appendix III. The implementing teams’ organizational learning and growth

Table 8. Organizational Learning and Change

Aspect of OL & C Kenya Tanzania Uganda1. Prospecting for new ideas, opportunities, and resources

What was done: Meetings attended at various fora Stakeholders identified at community level and linkages established with ongoing projects (NALEP4). Linking to Government administrative support and extension programmes will ensure sustainability of activities beyond project’s life. Lessons learnt: The challenge is far bigger than the project can address and there are not enough resources available to do this. Project Learning and growth: Not to focus on resistant materials; also explore management to minimize disease effects.

What was done: Linkages established with various programmes undertaking research related to Napier diseases to ensure the sustainability of activities beyond project’s life. Lessons learnt and transformation undergone: Solutions to observed problems were better/more effectively tackled by multiple teams to enhance performance and sustainability beyond the current phase. As a result the research team established and strengthened links with various Ministries and Research organizations (MLDF, MRPLG, CVL, ARIs, ILRI, KARI, NARO and IITA) to help address long term solutions.

What was done:New projects developed and funded. Information packaged and distributed to farmers. Lessons learnt: There is opportunity to develop tolerant varieties. Project Learning and growth:Linkages with international University in Wales, UKLinks with KARI and institutes in Uganda

2. Seeking feedback from key

What was done: Interact with farmers, farmer groups and

What was done: The research team has been making follow-ups

What was done:Meeting with University staff (breeders) to

1 KAPP = the Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project 2 DADPs = District Agricultural Development Plans

3 DASIP = District Agricultural Sector Improvement Programme 4 NALEP = National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme.

32

Aspect of OL & C Kenya Tanzania Ugandainformants extension agents. Making follow-ups visits

and calls to assess disease status and information needs of stakeholders. Lessons learnt: Problem requires a multi-faceted approach. Farmers willing to invest resources and time to help. Farmers have forage management options found and need verified through experimentation. Project Learning and growth: Working closely with farmers to solve the problem. Negotiating with some administration staff at community level to monitor and give feedback.

through visits, telephone/e mail communication to assess the status of NSD and information needs of project stakeholders. Lessons learnt and transformation undergone: The LGAs extension system is effective for project information dissemination and feedback. Current fodder management practices not adequate in severely affected areas. Inadequate information on sources of disease inoculums, vectors and mode of disease spread. There is demand for Napier resistant clones. As a result ... the project team initiated screening experiments to identify disease tolerant Napier varieties for multiplication and distribution.

develop idea for a project on breeding Napier grass for tolerance to Napier stunt disease. Lessons learnt: Project Learning and growth:

3. Obtaining support of next highest power

What was done: Interacting closely with KARI HQs and research partners, sharing project progress and challenges faced. Involving Research Directors in planning meetings, field days and consultations. Volunteering to assist others in dissemination and getting support from superiors. Lessons learnt: Involving the Head Offices enhances administrative and resource support. Project Learning and growth: Share project reports with the HQs and related regular forums21

What was done: Policy has been formulated to declare striga weed as a threat to cereal production in Tanzania. The project leader interacted continuously with Regional project leader and Assistant Director of Plant health services (AD PHS) The former facilitated technical matters while the later facilitated administrative/ policy issues. Lessons learnt and transformation undergone: Government supports the project through policy formulation and information dissemination using existing extension services. Through the involvement of policy makers, project activities were discussed in MAFSC meetings which enabled sourcing of funds for extension of project activities in other Napier growing regions. the project initiated screening experiments to identify disease tolerant Napier clones for multiplication and distribution. A proposal has been submitted to KILIMO TRUST for research funds

What was done:Sourced additional funding from government. Lessons learnt: Policy makers need to be sensitised on the threat Napier stunt disease has oto approve for more funds Project Learning and growth:Government promised to allocate funds during the 2009/2010 budget.

4. Assessing and (re)designing products, services, systems and

What was done: Survey for resistant materials has yielded some for testing on farm. Farmers have been involved in the trials. Lessons learnt: Farmers keen to evaluate and

What was done: Meeting at Kibaha SRI to discuss lack of funds for confirmatory surveys, equipment and capacity building.

What was done:Revised the Napier stunt brochure. Lessons learnt:

33

Aspect of OL & C Kenya Tanzania Ugandaprocedures select varieties disease tolerant materials with

desirable traits and suitable for their zones and farming systems Project Learning and growth: Increased surveillance on coping practices. Communicating to all stakeholders using mass media channels22. Involving farmers from different communities.

Lessons learnt and transformation undergone: Stakeholders meetings allowed for experience sharing and identification of relevant collaborators. Oven for drying samples, grinding facility for biomass and nutritive quality samples were provided by project partners in ILRI and Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MLDF) which enabled timely accomplishment of screening experiment. Through meetings, linkages established between the project and stakeholders were strengthened. Knowledge gained from various partners can be applied the institute in conducting research to address other crop production constraints

There is a need for continuous costakeholders to assess their information needs Project Learning and growth:

5. Checking up on those served to add value

What was done: Were constantly in touch with farmers and other stakeholders. Have links with other institutions to cover research gaps. Lessons learnt: Stakeholders rely on researchers for longer term answers. Multidisciplinary interactions and teamwork important when searching for solutions. People have good ideas which we have to tap and verify Project Learning and growth: Sharing information immediately learnt or received.

What was done: Regular meetings and communication with key stakeholders to share information and follow up on project activities9. Lessons learnt and transformation undergone: Effective communication allows for timely correction of observed mistakes and ensure timely excursion of project activities. As a result various stakeholders roles were implemented according to the workplan leading to achievement of expected outputs.

What was done: Lessons lear Project Learning and growth:

6. Sharing the program’s emerging wisdom with the world

What was done: Presented in conference(s)24. Published paper(s). Wrote an article in mass media25., etc. Lessons learnt: Knowledge about the disease not quite widespread Project Learning and growth: Continually creating a awareness on the importance of the disease locally, regionally and internationally

What was done: Publicity of project activities through mass media (TV,. and farmers education programme under TBC radio, presentations in Zonal research meeting which took place in Kibaha in June 2010, MAFSC quarterly meetings, project stakeholders meetings/workshops Lessons learnt and transformation undergone: Publicity through media allows for rapid dissemination

What was done:Scientific presentations in conferences and workshops (alrea(poster and leaflet). Information published on New Vision paper website Lessons learnt:

34

Aspect of OL & C Kenya Tanzania Ugandaand wide coverage. Feedback from stakeholders enabled identification of potential areas for the project expansion including the Southern highland zone where zero grazing is famous.

Project Learning and growth:

7. Experimenting to remain innovative

What was done: On-farm and field trials experimentation on fodder management. Attempted artificial challenge using vectors to transmit the disease. Included management to manage disease vectors. Sought more advise from farmers and other stakeholders. Used innovative ways of disseminating the information Lessons learnt: Use of tolerant varieties should be combined with other management strategies for better disease management. Involving farmers and other stakeholders in all project activities planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation). Project Learning and growth: The team consults farmers and other stakeholders before implementing most decisions Involving farmers and other stakeholders in all project stages (planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation) increases farmers commitment in the management of the disease

What was done: Team continues with experiments to identify resistant clones for multiplication and distribution. Lessons learnt and transformation undergone: Resources required to enable achieve objective. Protocols by project partners useful tools in standardizing research methodologies. Through continuous interaction with experienced researchers/ Research skills were built which enabled identification of high yielding and disease tolerant cultivars. The skills can be applied in addressing other research gaps including impact of NSD on forage yield and identification of alternative forages.

Lessons learnt

8. Engaging in organizational reflection

What was done: Attending the project annual planning meetings and sharing information on project plans and progress made Lessons learnt: Different countries have different ways of interacting with stakeholders, including the presence of different germ plasm diversity and ways of sharing. Project Learning and growth: Resources are necessary for the multiplication and distribution of identified tolerant clones. Protocols developed by project partners useful

35

Aspect of OL & C Kenya Tanzania Ugandain standardizing research methodologies among partner countries