Zambia Project Inception Workshop Report incepti… · Livestock, Copperbelt University, Zambia Agricultural Research Institute, and Center for international Forestry Research (CIFOR)

VIP4FS inception, Zambia

Zambia Project Inception Workshop Report

Developing Value Chain Innovation Platforms to

Improve Food Security in East and Southern Africa (VIP4FS-FST/2014/093)

Held at Cresta Golfview Hotel, Lusaka, Zambia

16th July 2015

Report compiled by Gillian Kabwe, Patricia Masikati, Clinton Muller and Prossy Isubikalu

ii

Table of content

Table of content ........................................................................................................................ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1

2.0 SETTING THE SCENE: WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS ..................................2

2.1 Welcome remarks from Southern Africa ICRAF Nodal leader, Isaac Nyoka ................... 2

2.2 Welcome remarks from ICRAF, Fergus Sinclair ................................................................. 2

2.3 Remarks from ACIAR – Tony Bartlett .................................................................................. 3

2.4 Remarks from DG Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI) ................................... 4

2.5 Remarks from Permanent Secretary Ministry of Agriculture – Guest of Honor ............... 5

3.0 INPUT PRESENTATIONS ...............................................................................................8

3.1 Smallholder involvement in market development in Zambia ............................................. 8

3.2 Presentation from ACIAR (Tony Barlett) ........................................................................... 12

3.3 Overview of the VIP4FS project (Joseph Tanui) .............................................................. 14

4.0 PARTNER EXPECTATIONS IN THE VIP4FS PROJECT ..............................................18

4.1 Expectations of ZARI and Copperbelt University ............................................................. 18

4.2 Expectations of Landcare International ............................................................................. 18

5.0 KEY HIGHLIGHTS ON WORK PACKAGES..................................................................20

5.1 Characterization of institutional arrangements ................................................................. 20

5.2 Value Chain Development Strategies and market information delivery systems .......... 23

5.3 Development approaches for promoting value chain IPs ................................................ 25

6.0 IDENTIFYING FEASIBLE INTERVENTIONS SUITABLE FOR SOLWEZI ....................28

6.1 Identifying the feasible intervention areas in Solwezi ....................................................... 28

6.2 A reflection on the steps in the expected deliverables of the project .............................. 31

7.0 VIP4FS PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ..........................................37

7.1 Overall project organization and management structure and the terms/roles ............... 37

7.2 Leadership arrangement and selection of project coordinator for Zambia ..................... 38

8.0 INCEPTION MEETING CLOSING REMARKS ...............................................................39

9.0 Appendices ...................................................................................................................40

9.1 List of inception meeting participants................................................................................. 40

9.2 Brief of the Solwezi field trip ............................................................................................... 41


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Smallholder farmers are responsible for most agricultural production in sub-Saharan

Africa. However, majority of them remain poor and marginalized. A decade of economic

growth throughout the East and Southern Africa region is reshaping food value chains

as income, urbanization and demographics impact agricultural markets, but the

opportunities for many smallholders, especially women, to benefit from these value

chains remain elusive. One reason relates to failures of traditional approaches to

innovation in agriculture, especially the top down, linear design of extension systems.

In a bid to identify principles and drivers that support scalable establishment of effective

and equitable innovation platforms that enhance food security among smallholder

farmers, the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) secured funding from the Australian

Government through the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

(ACIAR). The four-year (2015-2019) research project will be implemented in Uganda

and Zambia, with the private sector being a key player in the project. This project was

officially launched in Zambia during the inception workshop held on July 16th 2015, at

Cresta Golfview Hotel, Lusaka.

This report provides a record of the proceedings of the Project inception workshop and

notes on the field visit to Solwezi. The workshop drew about 30 participants from

development partners (ACIAR), representatives from Landcare International,

government ministries, local government officials from Solwezi, project leaders from

Makerere University, Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI), Copperbelt

University and ICRAF, the civil society and different media houses.


2

2.0 SETTING THE SCENE: WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS

This session was chaired by Royd Vinya and repportuered by Gillian Kabwe. Royd drew

attention of the participants so as to start off the meeting. He welcomed the participants

to the one day’s meeting and introduced the chair and rapporteur of the session. The

VIP4FS project inception workshop was aimed at enhancing a clear understanding of

the partners about the project as well as verifying the most feasible activities that would

promote smooth implementation of the project in Zambia. Clear understanding of the

project required free and open discussions and interactions among the participants.

This required the participants to know themselves, a reason why the chair requested

participants to introduce themselves by name and organization they work with/for in the

interest of time. The participants were largely from the ministry of Agriculture and

Livestock, Copperbelt University, Zambia Agricultural Research Institute, and Center for

international Forestry Research (CIFOR) besides ICRAF and ACIAR (Appendix 7.1).

The introduction session gave a picture of who was in the workshop. The one day

inception workshop was then followed by a field visit to the proposed project site

Solwezi (Appendix 7.2) for the partners to get insights about what actually happens in

the district.

2.1 Welcome remarks from Southern Africa ICRAF Nodal leader, Isaac Nyoka

Isaac welcomed all participants in their capacities (with all protocol observed) and

thanked them for honoring the invitation. In his remarks, Isaac mentioned that ICRAF

had been in Zambia, particularly in the Eastern part of the country for some time.

However, in the recent past, activities and engagements with/in Zambia have scaled

down mainly due to financial challenges. Through this project, ICRAF is now re-

engaging with Zambia. We are happy to be back and look forward to increased

presence and more partnerships in Zambia.

2.2 Welcome remarks from ICRAF, Fergus Sinclair

Fergus represented the Director General of ICRAF who was unable to be part of the

inception workshop due to unavoidable circumstances; there were other pressing

business that needed DG’s attention. The CGIAR system is generally undergoing

restructuring and the process is keeping people busy. Programs are also changing. This

VIP4FS project funded by the Australian Center for International Agricultural research

(ACIAR) is invested from the CGIAR system mainly from Forestry systems and Agro-

forestry unit that Fergus coordinates.


3

The day of the inception workshop was exactly 32 years since Fergus last arrived in

Zambia. It is a pleasure that ICRAF is now working around value chains. If we are to

improve small holder farmers we need to help them figure out how best to generate

income and value for their products. There are risks in this - as you move from

production, selling and buying, you enter the value chain. Trade should benefit the

people and society. Fergus reminded the participants of what Smith wrote. Smith wrote

about the theory of moral sentiments, which makes it clear that people don’t do things

out of just self-interest but because they derive benefits. He was very skeptical about

political tendencies that sway business. Regulation is needed for business to thrive and

benefit the small holder farmers. In closing his welcome remarks, Fergus passed on

apologies and regards from two project team members (Evelyne and Catherine) who

played an important role in the birth of the VIP4FS project but were unable to be in the

workshop due to medical reasons. Evelyne was not well and was undergoing medical

treatment. Catherine returned back to Kenya to attend to her daughter who was

involved in a car accident at the time when the inception meeting was being held in

Uganda. It is an exciting moment for ICRAF to be launching this project.

We have great hopes in Zambia. There has been huge development in Lusaka, almost

unrecognizable since I was last here! What we need is to see how the 5% GDP from the

mining sector trickles to the farming communities. Value chain serves as a better

conduit for such resources. This however requires lots of innovation. The dimension is

more on women and youth – the men migrated more to the mining sector. I hope this

makes a period of ICRAF’s relationship with Zambia meaningful. I will be back here

again in late August (2015) to work on the project. It is important that the project will

have made an improvement in the lives of the 75%. Important that we take the message

you have given and integrate it in the implementation of the project

On behalf of the ICRAF DG, Fergus once again gladly welcomed everyone to the

launch of the project and indicated how pleased ICRAF is with the project. It is the hope

of ICRAF that this project will lead to expanded partnership and improvement of small

holder farmers’ lives.

2.3 Remarks from ACIAR – Tony Bartlett

Tony Bartlett represented ACIAR. He had not been to Zambia before and that was his

very first time. In his own words he said, “I am happy to be here as part of the inception

workshop”. We have a number of Australian funded programs in Africa but the numbers

and sizes of the programs have been decreasing in Africa due to financial constraints. It

is good to have a project like this. It is an opportunity to spread the footprints of my

program and have the ability to fund such project in East and Southern Africa. This

project is related to the Trees for Food Security (T4FS); it is the T4FS project that led to

the birth of this one – VIP4FS.


4

It is important to have this project actually take off. We will apply lessons from other

projects to this one. We will work in a collaborative way to give good outcomes to all

actors. Before we started off, I saw innovation platforms (IP) in literature but did not

have a real picture of what IP was exactly. I see IP as community working together and

linking with the private sector to improve on their ways and food security. It is linking

farmers to markets, and to develop/strengthen institutions among farmers. We have a

new partner – university of Adelaide who will be part of the project. We bring people

together, each learn from the other and also bring experiences to share for a good

product.

Lots of farmers grow different crops for different reasons. As countries develop there

are opportunities of moving more into market economies. We want to link farmers to the

emerging market opportunities. It is good Makerere is here (we have 2 sites in Uganda

and one in Zambia). The results from each country are useful in informing the process.

It has been a process to have an idea developed into a project that we are now

launching. It is similar to a baby. Happy to be part of this

We use a model of collaboration, which is quite unique. This model was developed

about 30 years ago. We in ACIAR do not want a situation where we get experts

elsewhere (Australia) to come and do the work alone. We involve the right local partners

to ensure capacity is built. It is a research for development (R4D) initiative. We cannot

work in the whole country but will generate a model that can be used in the whole

country. We rely on ICRAF as our key external link partner and have also brought on

board the University of Adelaide. This is a 4 year project and it is my hope that we learn

a lot along the way. We make our choices of the local collaborators wisely. Important in

this is to demonstrate the benefits that come from this project to convince the policy

makers to give more support in the different ways. I am happy the government of

Zambia has support for this.

2.4 Remarks from DG Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI)

The remarks were made by the Deputy Director ZARI, Mr. Godfrey Mwila who

represented the DG ZARI. The DG was unable to be in the inception meeting due to

other responsibilities. He recognized all participants from the different organizations. He

welcomed all the participants especially those coming out of Zambia and particularly

those coming to Zambia for the first time. He asked them to feel at home.

ZARI is mandated to do agricultural related research for the country. It is the largest

research institute in Zambia. ZARI’s partnership with ICRAF is not starting today. ZARI

has been working together with ICRAF in the past as far as 20 years ago through some

other project that looked at restoration of soils, domestication of fruit trees and

dissemination of technologies. That past initiative led to beneficial outcomes to our


5

communities. In the eastern province where this project was running, farmers adopted

and are using the technologies like biomass transfer in their farms. We are happy to be

part of this inception meeting for a new project which is on value chains.

At first he wondered what innovation platforms were about and yet ICRAF is about

Forests! He is now able to see the link.

Efforts like this will contribute to changing and improving dissemination of technologies

as well as people realizing benefits that come from such projects. We hope this will be a

success story like we have had in the past. He thanked the Australian Government for

including Zambia in this venture and he reiterated that it will be beneficial. He requested

to be excused for the rest of the meeting. Since he had lost a relative and had to leave

early to travel and attend burial. He wished the participants all the best and fruitful

deliberations.

2.5 Remarks from Permanent Secretary Ministry of Agriculture – Guest of

Honor

The PS Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock was represented by the Director of

Agriculture; Mr. Peter Lungu as the Guest of honor. The speech is presented below

verbatim

Speech by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock on Official Launch of the project titled: Developing value chain innovation platforms to improve food security in East and Southern Africa (VIP4FS)

16th July 2015

The Deputy Director of Zambia Agriculture Research Institute, Mr Godfrey Mwila;

The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) - Research Programme Manager, Mr Tony Bartlett

ICRAF- Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Coordinator, Dr Jeremias Mowo

The Nodal Representative, ICRAF-Southern Africa, Dr. Isaac Nyoka

Copperbelt University, Head of Department for Plant and Environmental Sciences Dr Royd Vinya

The Provincial Agricultural Coordinator of the North Western Province, Mr Derrick Simukanze

The District Agricultural Coordinator of Solwezi, Mr Muyobo Shimabale

Senior Government officials here present

All Government Officials

Distinguished Guests


6

Ladies and Gentlemen, I feel honoured and privileged to preside over the official launch of this project on Developing Value Chain Innovation Platforms to improve food security in East and Southern Africa (VIP4FS). Please allow me to welcome all of you to this occasion. I know that you have other pressing matters in your work places, and your presence signifies the importance you attach to the subject of creating opportunities to improve food security. Ladies and gentlemen we do recognize that smallholder farmers are responsible for most agricultural production in sub-Saharan Africa; however the majority of them remain poor and marginalized. A decade of economic growth throughout the East and Southern Africa region is reshaping food value chains as income, urbanization and demographics impact agricultural markets, but the opportunities for many smallholders, especially women, to benefit from these value chains remain elusive. We do appreciate efforts by the Australian Government through the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) to fund research innovations that aim at addressing constraints faced by small holder farmers across the region. Some of the constraints are attributed to failures of the traditional approaches to innovating in agriculture, especially the top down, linear design of extension systems that have seen low adoption of technologies and continued low productivity. Ladies and gentlemen, to increase adoption and productivity, recent agricultural innovation programs have created what I can call ‘Coalitions of stakeholders’ to identify and address local agricultural development problems. These groupings of stakeholders form an innovation platform (IP): ‘a network of organizations, enterprises, and individuals focused on bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of organization into economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect their behavior and performance’. These innovations have been tested elsewhere and evaluations in other parts of Africa suggest that IPs that engage local producer knowledge in a collaborative framework with value chain partners are more successful than traditional research and extension systems. This research focuses on identifying what makes innovation platforms that incorporate value chain development strategies, successful in terms of institutional, technological, market and policy factors that determine IP performance and how the establishment of IPs can be most cost effectively scaled up across a range of contexts. I have been informed that the current project aims to identify principles and drivers that support scalable establishment of effective and equitable innovation platforms that enhance food security through greater engagement of smallholder farmers with markets. The project has a particular focus on enabling women and young people to improve their livelihoods. The project adopts the sustainable livelihoods framework to identify opportunities for value chain development to achieve balanced improvement of key livelihood assets (human, social, natural, physical and financial). Here in Zambia the project site is Solwezi and project managers will thrive to make collaborative efforts with farmer groups, community based organizations, NGOs, local government and research institutions to promote sustainable land management programs. The project


7

leverages ICRAF’s convening role to bring together key institutions in Zambia (Zambia Agricultural Research Institute and Copperbelt University) to work with local government to develop and test the scalability of establishing value-chain IPs. Scaling up within the case study districts is embedded in the project design and the mandate of project partners; this is anticipated to benefit about 400 farmer groups over four years. Ladies and Gentlemen, we do see that through such projects the Government of Australia is demonstrating great interest in improving food security and livelihoods of our people by fighting hunger and poverty in Zambia; through supporting the development of value chain innovation platforms that foster multi-stakeholders market oriented participatory research for sustainable food security and improved livelihoods. We in Zambia believe that for sustainable poverty reduction to take place we must address the issue of economic growth. In our country one of the major drivers of growth is the agriculture sector through which over 60% of the population derives its livelihood. I therefore wish to commend ACIAR and all you here present for recognizing this fact and for complementing government efforts to drive out hunger and poverty from our country. May you please join me in giving a round of applause to ACIAR and ICRAF for their partnership in realizing the VIP4FS project in Solwezi - Zambia. Before I conclude my speech, I would like to thank the Australian Government for its generous support to this project. I would also want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to address your meeting today and to reaffirm the Zambian Government’s commitment to support this VIP4FS as we seek to deliver on our collective commitment to fight global poverty and hunger. Lastly I wish you all productive deliberations and come up with workable resolutions. It is my pleasure, honor and duty to officially declare this inception workshop: Developing value chain innovation platforms to improve food security in East and Southern Africa (VIP4FS) officially open.


8

3.0 INPUT PRESENTATIONS

3.1 Smallholder involvement in market development in Zambia

This presentation was made by Mr. Kaunda Kapeputa from the Ministry of Agriculture

and Livestock, Agri-business and marketing section. The flow of the presentation was

as below

Outline

Recent Economic and Agricultural Performance

Major Sector Constraints

Strategies/Programs to Promote Smallholder Market Development

Possible Interventions under IPs

Agricultural Development goal - Reduce poverty through broad-based income growth

for those in the agricultural sector

Recent economic and agricultural performance

Real GDP growth >5%, 2002 – 2013

Poverty levels not falling as fast - rural poverty lies at 75% (2014, est.) and the

general poverty of the entire population lies at 60.5%


9

Agricultural growth is highly variable (weather dependent) and is dominated by

maize

There is a strong growth of food commodities e.g. maize, wheat, soybean,

poultry, pork and beef etc. in response to rise in disposable incomes

The government of Zambia has a goal to reduce poverty rates which have been

stubbornly stagnant at 70-80% of the total rural population. To sustainably reduce rural

poverty, economic growth issues have to be addressed, in the country. The agricultural

sector is one of the major drivers of economic growth as it is a major livelihood for over

60% of the total population. With recent positive economic growth trends in the country

rural poverty levels have decreased by about 5%. The agriculture sector is mainly

driven by maize and in the last three years the country has produced surpluses.

However there have been difficulties to sell the maize elsewhere in the region due to

high influx of cheap imported maize.

Duality issue in Zambia Agriculture

The agriculture sector is dominated by more than 800,000 small holder farmers

who are resource poor. They mainly produce maize, cassava, seed cotton,

sorghum, rice, millet, sunflower, groundnuts, cowpeas, sweet potatoes, bambara

nuts, paprika and beans

Less than 1,000 Large Scale Farmers with access to modern technologies,

finance and better linked to markets who dominate production of tobacco, Irish

potatoes, wheat and soya beans

The government is trying to promote agriculture in smallholder farming systems through

input support projects. The aim is to graduate as many smallholder farmers to medium

scale and eventually to commercial scale. However the challenge is how to undertake

this task? The government though, is optimistic that in the next 10 years or so they

should have graduated some farmers.

Major sector constraints

Low productivity and production

Poor agronomic practices

Low level of mechanization

Inadequate processing facilities as well as lack of quality standards

Weak PPP engagement and ineffective coordination

Fragmented and uncoordinated markets

Limited access to financial services


10

There are a number of constraints that the government is currently facing within the

agricultural sector i.e. low productivity, high dependency on rainfall, low diversity, ageing

farming population, poor markets and infrastructure among others. To address some of

these challenges such as markets the government is trying to have smallholder farmers

organized in some ways so they can be linked to markets. There are also existing

projects which have seen farmers organized and selling products to local and regional

markets, examples are the poultry and pork industries. This has seen farmers managing

to raise disposable income and improvement of livelihoods. They are also promoting

out-grower schemes, contract farming,

Gap yield: the case of rice

Strategies adopted to develop smallholder market development

Diversification away from maize and promoting other food crops, oil horticulture,

fiber, tobacco, livestock and aquaculture. There are existing projects such as the

FISP which are being used to broaden the crop packages available to different

farmers.

Promoting out-grower/Contract Farming. This has been challenging as farmers or

producer groups have been developed under different projects and these groups

quickly dissipate when projects end. The approach, however, has worked well

with cotton producers.

Promoting Pluralistic Extension Services. The government has also realized that

they need other stakeholders in overcoming the challenges, important of all is to

involve the private sector.

Reform of FISP and scale-back FRA operations to provide space for private

agro-dealers and buyers


11

Suggested interventions

Demand-driven research and development

Enhancing capacities of Producer Organizations and Cooperatives to be effective

agri-business services brokers for their members through FFS or FBS, Study

Circles

Support district, regional national forums for networking among smallholders,

traders, processors, wholesalers and retailers

Suggested interventions under IP

Demand-driven research and development

Enhancing capacities of Producer Organizations and Cooperatives to be effective

agri-business services brokers for their members thru FFS or FBS, Study Circles.

The above interventions can be achieved if we manage to have farmer organized

groups. Zambia is vast and therefore needs strong farmer associations to

consistently produce and supply the required quantities and quality of the

different commodities. Groupings such as farmer field schools (FFS) can feed

into innovation platforms/value chain innovation platforms as suggested by the

ICRAF project. This is something we have been trying to do and it has not taken

off the ground very well and hope that the current project can address some of

these issues and also to develop associations and lessons we can learn from.

There are a number of projects in the country that are value chain oriented and

the ministry have also embraced the VC approach however there is need for

harmonization

Support district, regional national forums for networking among smallholders,

traders, processors, wholesalers and retailers

.Discussion/Reactions from the audience following the presentation

Is land a limiting factor for Zambia?

Response: Not quite. Within our context, a small holder is someone who can

access and use land up to 5 hectares. Most of them have user rights. In Solwezi,

with growing urbanization, there is bound to be competition.

Government seems to have some initiatives of linking farmers to the market.

Value chain is the new concept. Zambia prioritizes some crops e.g. beans –

some types can even be tinned. We have projects running in this line – there is

small holder agribusiness program

Any efforts on the quality of the products as government?


12

Response: Our quality starts with the planting materials. There is a challenge of

producing certified seed due to low supply of foundation seed. How can we get

the product into supermarkets like Shoprite? We who buy define the quality we

want to buy. Terms of payment from the supermarket crushes the cash flow of

the small holders. Apart from quality, there is need for quantity to be supplied at a

regular interval. To have the supply sustainable, attention too has to be put into

the inputs of production e.g. moisture or irrigation. Bulking of produce is helpful.

Farmers can produce in small groups/associations where farmers work together.

That is where the role of government (local and central) becomes critical in

organizing storage facilities for the farmers. Government is so much dependent

on projects and less on programs. There is an issue of aggregation and linking to

market.

3.2 Presentation from ACIAR (Tony Barlett)

Australian AID policies – June 2014

Sharper geographic focus – 90% investment in Indo - Pacific region

Poverty alleviation through economic development (aid for trade)

Emphasis on supporting innovative approaches to development

Promoting stronger role for private sector

Empowering women and girls

A new aid framework and performance measures (10 high level targets)

Research that works for developing countries

ACIAR’s mission - To achieve more productive and sustainable agricultural

systems, for the benefit of developing countries and Australia, through

international agricultural research partnerships.

Agriculture – includes forestry and fisheries

Main focus is on research related to food security, livelihoods, smallholders, and

sustainable systems

Australian center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)

ACIAR was established in 1982 – 30 years

It is part of Australian bilateral Aid,

ACIAR conducts Research for Development, not large scale development

projects

Identify problems and opportunities with a defined research question – develop

appropriate knowledge, systems and policies


13

Collaborative research linking Australian +/- International institutions and

overseas partners

Strengthen capacity and promote adoption of project outcomes

Australian International Food Security Center

AIFSC is part of ACIAR, since 2011

Aims at addressing food security by bridging gap between agricultural

innovations and their adoption by smallholder farmers

Focus is about accelerating delivery and adoption of research innovations

Makes partnerships with people and institutions

Funding the “Trees for Food Security” project in Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda and

Burundi

ACIAR’s Forestry Program

Enhance sustainable forestry contributions to economic development and rural

livelihoods

Build forestry research capacity in partner organizations

Operates in 14 countries – about 25 projects

Main focus of research is on small holder livelihoods, plantation productivity,

genetic improvement, agroforestry, value-adding processing, and non-timber

forest products

Now has two projects in Africa (operating in 5 countries overall)

ACIAR’s Forestry Program interest in Africa

Africa still has high levels of poverty & food insecurity, but market opportunities

are growing

Opportunities to demonstrate the positive roles trees can provide in enhancing

food security, improving livelihoods and improving land management

Landcare has a good presence in many countries

Good local research institutions exist – ICRAF and local partners

Influencing appropriate local policies on the basis of strong research to help

enhance desired outcomes

Innovation Platforms project (FST/2014/093): The aim of this project is to identify

principles and drivers that support scalable establishment of effective and equitable

innovation platforms to engage farmers with markets in Uganda & Zambia. VIP4FS is a

4-year (Jun 2015 to May 2019) led by World Agroforestry Centre. The project is worth


14

3.0 million Australian dollars funding from ACIAR, with over $1.2 million in partner

contributions (ICRAF, University of Adelaide and Partner Governments).

People, agricultural and tree products, markets; “Innovation Platforms”: This

project is to operate at 3 sites in Uganda and Zambia. The major focus will be on

agribusiness value chains, community institutions and linkages via private sector to new

markets. ICRAF and Australian scientists will work with NaFORRI, ZARI and local

universities to enhance local capacity. The big question we want to have a response to

at the end of the day is, “Can innovation platforms be scaled out”?

Role of ACIAR RPM during life of the project

Major effort goes into design and approval of project which is then handed to

project leader

Attend Inception and some Steering Committee meetings (support from ACIAR

regional office)

RPM monitors progress against planned activities and outputs – via project

reports

Input to Mid Term and End of Project Reviews

Liaison with Project Leader and Partners

Facilitating communications opportunities

Liz Ogutu is ACIAR’s link in Africa

Key messages from ACIAR

Project is well designed. There were some initial delays but we are now on track

to achieve significant impacts.

This is a Research for Development project trying to understand how Innovation

Platforms might be scaled out

There is a need to focus on progressing the planned activities in the first year

Need for good collaboration between partners and between countries

Project to evaluated against AIFSRC M&E Plan

Opportunities for ACIAR scholarships – John Allwright Fellowships – applications

close in July.

3.3 Overview of the VIP4FS project (Joseph Tanui)

Introduction: VIP for Food Security is a four year research and development project

scheduled for June 2015-May 2019. It is funded by the Australian Government through

the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and coordinated

by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in partnership with the governments of

Uganda and Zambia. It will be implemented through a multi-disciplinary partnership of


15

international (ICRAF, University of Adelaide, Landcare International) and national

institutions (NARO, Makerere university, KADLAC, ZARI and Copperbelt University).

Aim of VIP4FS is to identify principles and drivers that support scalable establishment of

effective and equitable innovation platforms that enhance food security through greater

engagement of smallholder farmers with markets. The project has a particular focus on

enabling women and young people to improve their livelihoods.

Objectives of the project

1. To assess smallholder livelihoods, institutional arrangements across scales, and

identify drivers that enable value chain IP development for sustainable

agricultural commercialization

2. To identify best fit value chain development strategies and market information

delivery systems, and examine their influence on the success of value chain

innovation platforms in enhancing rural enterprise development.

3. To develop and evaluate scalable approaches for promoting value chain

innovation platforms among smallholders and other stakeholders in ways that

generate inclusive and sustainable economic benefits.

4. To engage with and strengthen the capacity of key stakeholder groups to both

enhance the research process and promote the widespread scaling up of

approaches generated by the project.

5. To systematically monitor and review project implementation and evaluate its

outcomes and impacts.

Project outputs

Evidence and guidelines that will assist government agencies, international

donors and NGOs to invest in scaling up value chain innovation platforms.

Guidelines identifying best fit strategies for developing value chain IPs, including

insights on the role that market information delivery systems play in promoting

more effective, value chain IPs.

Recommendations on options for enhanced policy instruments, regulations and

investment incentives to support retail linkages with smallholders, especially

women and the younger generation of farmers.

Communication and outreach programs to enhance coordination and policy

engagement with value chain IPs

Enhanced capacity of partners in developing institutional arrangements, market

access and development of effective value chain IPs


16

Project sites: VIP4FS focuses on three action sites, Kapchorwa and Manafwa in

Uganda and Solwezi in Zambia, with contrasting market conditions and social capital.

Value chain IPs will be developed in the three sites building on the strong engagement

that ICRAF has with farmer networks at the sites, including a long-term collaboration

with Landcare IPs. These IPs will involve farmer groups, community based

organizations, NGOs, local government, research institutions and the private sector.

Research Strategy: The proposed research uses three contrasting initial scenarios to

address critical questions about how farmers can become better linked to markets

through value chain IPs.

Scientific impacts

Enable utilization of knowledge on how progressive institutional aggregation

amongst smallholder farmers confers benefits to people and market integration to

facilitate scaling up of the use of Innovation Platforms

Understanding the added benefit of combining market integration with

institutional development of farmer groups and the feasibility of achieving both

simultaneously as opposed to sequentially

Proof of concept of the use of novel methods to systematically test integrated

land management, market and institutional options for sustainable livelihood

improvement


17

Impact and adoption pathway

Economic impacts: These include higher income and food security for smallholders;

more profitable women producers, traders, processors and retailers; improved

productivity and quality products; more efficient and competitive value chains; more jobs

for rural landless wage earners from expanding local rural enterprises; higher daily

wages for rural workers; more diversified income sources for small producer

households; more spending in local communities, increasing the non-farm rural

economy.

Social impacts: Through working collectively in marketing their products, trainings and

cross-visits, the cohesiveness, skills, attitudes and behaviors of the communities in

project sites will be enhanced. Individual farmers and farmer groups will improve their

networking, and jointly advocate for resources to improve their livelihoods. The

enhanced social capital among women is expected to result in an increase in their

levels of empowerment in terms of decision-making, asset ownership, and control over

use of income from their agricultural activities.

Key actorsIntermediate

outcomes

Outcomes

(businesses & farmers)

Potential impacts for

smallholders

-Smallholder farmers

-Farmer

organizations

-Policy makers

-Extension officers

and managers

-Investors (eg mining

companies)

Service providers

(eg micro-credit

institutions, input

suppliers)

-Researchers

-Universities

-Non-governmental

organizations

Better informed farmers,

service providers and

NGOs

Better informed policy

makers and investors

-Strengthened businesses

-Increased demand

-Reduced costs

-Reduced risks

-New investments in Agroforestry (AF)

enterprises and producers

-Risk/benefit sharing

-New markets

-Access to inputs

-Strengthened farmer institutions and innovation platforms

-Increased quality of AF

products

-Improved participation in

markets

-Improved skills

-Improved capacity of

service providers

Institutional and policy

environment

-Higher net income

-Gender equity

-Improved resilience

-Reduced risk

-Environmental sustainability /improved

natural resource quality


18

Environmental impacts: Improved watershed management enabled by more profitable

farming; stronger agroforestry related environmental benefits due to collaboration with

Trees for Food Security project; improved soil nutrient and erosion outcomes linked to

requirements of higher value products; and improved on farm management practices

gained through farmer networking

4.0 PARTNER EXPECTATIONS IN THE VIP4FS PROJECT

Three partners shared their expectations: Zambia Agricultural Research Institute,

Copperbelt University and Landcare International. ZARI and Copperbelt University

chose to have one presentation that was made by C. Chama together with his

colleagues S. Bwembya, I. Jere, M. Lwaile, G. kabwe and R. Vinya

4.1 Expectations of ZARI and Copperbelt University

Value Chain Innovation Platforms which will address local Agricultural development

problems will be created

Development strategies that make Value Chain IPs successful in terms of

institutional technological, market and policy factors will be Identification

Technological needs and priorities of women farmers and utilization of local

knowledge systems in technology development will be addressed

The improvement in the livelihoods standards of rural people, including their food

and nutrition security

Sufficient opportunities for market expansion and integration, particularly into the

regional market will be created.

Capacity of stakeholders in the IPs is built and enhanced for accelerated

adoption of technologies

Best fit value chain innovation platforms identified

Participation in research and surveys

Expect students both at under graduate and post graduate level to participate

4.2 Expectations of Landcare International

What is Landcare? Landcare is an approach based on the notion of caring for your land

as a community. The model is based on the values of community empowerment and

collective action to develop and apply innovative solutions to natural resource

management (NRM) challenges, networking farmers with the broader community and

promoting sustainable land management practices. The on-ground is the key entry

point, but it’s the social dimension through collective action that sets Landcare apart

from just sustainable land management. It’s the platform to engage all representatives


19

of the community, including gender and youth in managing our natural resources, which

makes it not to be just a program, but also a movement and ethic.

Principles of Landcare (adapted from Prior and Holt, 2006)

Integrated Sustainable Natural Resource Management addressing primary

causes of natural resource decline

Community based and led natural resource management within a participatory

framework

The development of sustainable livelihoods for individuals, groups and

communities utilizing empowerment strategies

Government, community and individual capacity building through targeted

training, education, and support mechanisms

The development of active and true partnerships between governments,

Landcare groups and communities, non-government organizations, and industry.

The blending together of appropriate upper level policy processes with bottom up

feedback mechanisms

Decline in land productivity in Solwezi: Key challenges lie around the following: crop

practices/management, use

of recycled seed, high cost of

agricultural inputs, access to

support services, and

development activities

including clearing and

material sourcing for

timber/charcoal.

Community focused

solutions: Smallholder

farmers have worked

effectively on programs

through Zambian Ministry of

Agriculture but remain with

the concern of sustaining

practices when programs end. Multi-stakeholder sector partnership opportunities are

very much used in Landcare. There is evidence of collaboration between mining and

farming sector e.g. the Kansnashi mine small scale soil conservation project.


20

Landcare Expectations of/from the project

Further develop evidence base for the Landcare approach – both improved

market access and household food security

Broader recognition for the Landcare model and its application for community

mobilization for resource management

Improved and strengthened partnership and networks amongst partner

collaborators

Opportunities for knowledge sharing outcomes amongst broader Landcare

network

5.0 KEY HIGHLIGHTS ON WORK PACKAGES

5.1 Characterization of institutional arrangements

Work Package 1: Assess smallholder livelihoods, institutional arrangements across

scales, and identify drivers that enable value chain IP development for sustainable

agriculture commercialization.

What are the most effective mechanisms for rural institutional strengthening and how

does institutional structure affect benefit streams and opportunities for value chain

development?

Sites Collective action structures Data availability Groups Clusters IP Household Gender Group Assessments

G A F Capacity N/A

Group M/A

Solwezi ? ? ? ? X X X X Manafua ? X X ? X X Kapchorua

G: Farmer groups identified by gender composition A: Farmer groups identified by age groups F: Farmer groups identified by functionality


21

Activities Output Partner Input

1.1 Smallholder livelihood analysis

Baseline Survey All All

1.2 Comparative analysis of rural institutions across project sites

Systematic review of approaches to value chain IP development in Africa

2,3,

Variables for cross sites institutional analysis defined and report produced

3,4

Spatial correlation in household choices across levels of aggregation analyzed and maps produced

3

Report on social networks 2 2,3

1.3 Characterize rural institutional development across multiple scales

Drivers of institutional strengthening identified and characterized

2,3,4

Rural institutional capacity needs identified and developed strategies defined

2 2

Report on cost benefit analysis of institutional strengthening

3,4

1.4 Facilitate rural institutional visioning and partnership identification in support of an enabling environment for rural enterprise and market development

Community vision maps produced 2 2,3,4

Private sector actors identified through stakeholder maps

2 2

Institutional instruments / mechanism necessary to provide a conducive enabling environment identified across different scales

2

1.5 Identify institutional drivers and trade-offs for market intensification

Institutional drivers of market intensification identified and reports produced

2 3

Trade-offs identified in integrating ecosystem goals with market development report produced

2,3


22

Mode of institutional development

Rural Institutions Diagnostic software (RIDS): RIDS is a simple process for

determining the initial maturity status and subsequent progress of smallholder farmer

groups. It was developed around 5 predefined principles; governance, management,

capacity development, leadership, resilience. These principles are important for building

social capital necessary for improving NRM interventions.

RIDS has 3 main components: (1) Project management; participatory editing and

ranking of criteria, calculation of MCA index. (2) The survey management section that

displays surveys created and enables collection of data from farmer groups; and (3)

Report section that is largely statistical analysis of data. Descriptive and maturity levels,

groups trends, analysis of variance and principal component analysis. Data collected in

RIDS can be exported to other software for further analysis. RIDS distinguishes three

levels of farmer group advancement: beginner, intermediate and mature as a surrogate


23

measure of their capacities. These capacities identified by the software enable

knowledge on both soft and technical skills to be improved for better adoption of NRM.

5.2 Value Chain Development Strategies and market information delivery

systems

This presentation was made by Judith the leader for work package 2. The presentation

flow was as presented below.

Objectives of the work package

1. To identify best fit value chain development strategies (VCD) and market

information delivery systems (MIDS)

2. To examine the influence VCD strategies and MIDS on the success of value

chain innovation platforms in enhancing rural enterprise development

Value chain coordination: Prioritization of VCs will be based on a number of criteria

(growth potential, impact, competitiveness). Cross-cutting issues like poverty, food

security, gender, and Natural Resource Management (NRM) will be taken into

consideration. The value chain selection criteria will be developed with stakeholders at

the project sites. We will use standardized tools to ensure objectivity in the selection


24

process. These tools will include Porter’s Five Forces model, Boston matrix and ranking

matrix.

Value chain characterization/analysis: Focus will be on mapping of opportunities

and constraints to exploit the identified or mapped opportunities along the selected

value chains.

A participatory market system development approach (chain actors, supporters

and enablers) will be used and

Value chain competitiveness analysis (Porter’s Five Forces Model) will be done.

Factors that influence participation of the different gender categories (men,

women, and youth) in the selected VCs will be established.

Value chain development strategies and market information systems for

competitiveness strategy development will then be identified

Forms of Value chain development/upgrading Strategies that will be used

Process and product upgrading ( chain efficiency and product quality)

Functional upgrading (e.g. producers upgrading to processing)?

Horizontal coordination e.g. strengthening producer groups to facilitate collective

marketing

Vertical coordination e.g. contracting)

Upgrading of enabling environment (e.g. changes to policy, law, institutions

Competitiveness strategy

How do we identify best fit VCD strategies?

Develop selection criteria that will take into account the Technological,

Economic- (efficiency/ profitability analysis), Social (gender and inclusiveness),

Institutional and political issues

Network analysis

Matching the identified options with the context in which we are working for

instance using the scoring matrix

How do we engage the private sector to ensure sustainability of the

competitiveness?

We will need to develop models that will promote public private-partnership in the

provision of market infrastructure. It is important for us to think of models that work for

both the private sector and the producers


25

Design and implementation: The project seeks to implement the best fit VCD

strategies and MIDS. There will be flexibility for the platforms to experiment with the

different strategies and adapt them to their context

Monitoring and evaluation

The process will involve

1. Development of indicators of success

2. Documenting innovations within the platforms

3. Identifying which strategies do not work and why?

4. What can be changed to make the strategies work better? - Baseline indicators,

success stories from M&E reports

Outputs linked to work packages 3 and 4

Key output for work package 2: Guidelines for identifying best fit strategies for

developing value chain IPs and MIDS that improve competitiveness of value chain IPs.

Other outputs: Models for engaging the private sector – Candidate models for testing in

work package 3 for their effectiveness and impact; Best fit VCD strategies and MIDS to

be tested in work package 3 for their impact on food security and up-scaling in work

package 4.

5.3 Development approaches for promoting value chain IPs

Karl, began his presentation by clarifying the concept of impact as the difference or

change that the intervention made.

Measures of impact: There are two main approaches that will be used in measuring

impact: o Estimate counterfactual (with intervention and without intervention) –

Randomized Control Sites is a popular approach o Mechanistic approach to causal inference that seeks how change came

about How to assess impact of VIP4FS?

o Need to flesh out the theory of change to identify the intervention – how is what we’re doing going to bring about change

o Mixed methods o Counterfactual and factual analysis

Theory of change: We will use the theory of change framework to trace the changes. This will involve mapping out the causal pathway of the outcome as a function of the treatment, interacting with the contextual characteristics of the farmers themselves. From the theory of change figure, farmers and other stakeholders in the value chains will be engaged in the innovation platforms in a participatory approach. From the


26

interactions, key stakeholders in the selected or prioritized value chains will be selected. As a result of the interactions of the selected stakeholders, networks will be strengthened or new ones formed among individuals and organizations (the stakeholders). We expect the interactions/networks to influence the stakeholders to change their behavior in terms of the value chain activities/processes and also adopt some different ways of doing “business” for the better. It is the changes that will eventually contribute to the food and income security.

Challenge with counterfactual: the key challenge is obtaining a credible estimation of the counterfactual – option is to explore use of Encouragement Design. This would entail mapping out the villages and select some farmers randomly within the groups and encourage them to participate. Within the conceptual framework of improving sustainable livelihood, the question is how do we move the smallholder farmers to sustainable livelihood improvement? There is no obvious plan but a lot will emerge. To capture all the processes and outcomes of the interventions, a systematic approach to learning is needed. Emerging factors from the discussion included:

o How do we achieve quantity and quality of supply o Continuous supply of produce in non-production season o How to encourage farmers to invest more


27

o How can we build trust between farmers and the various value chain actors

Scaling impact: this will involve

Planned comparisons

Learning and dissemination

Scaling stakeholder engagement and capacity development

Impact evaluation Discussion/reactions from the participants following Karl’s presentation

From the Uganda meeting there was heavy discussion on the approach, but this has cleared up.

Some tension between action research and a formal approach to understand what is and isn’t working to establish a generalizable understanding. We need to show the investment on returns to convince policy

Formal impact assessment is necessary to get continued investment in IPs

What are some qualitative frameworks that we envisage using in this – network analysis? Qualitative analysis is to be led by University of Wageningen as part of a mixed methods approach

Given the Solwezi context, what do you see as the entry intervention area?


28

Tony Bartlett from ACIAR encouraged more discussion on the implementation of the project based on the model from the Uganda Workshop

6.0 IDENTIFYING FEASIBLE INTERVENTIONS SUITABLE FOR SOLWEZI

6.1 Identifying the feasible intervention areas in Solwezi

This was done in small groups. Participants were divided into 4 small groups with the task of brainstorming on the types of interventions suitable for Solwezi reflecting on the 4 project work packages. In each group, the session chair (Fergus) ensured that there was a person who understood the project (in this case the work package) and one who had a better understanding of Solwezi.

WP Solwezi Experience Project Experience

1 Shadrack Tanui

2 Isaac Judith

3 Dereck Karl

4 Muyobo Jeremias

Outputs from the groups Group 1 output Opportunities for smallholder farmers:

1. Beans 2. Irish potato 3. Sweet potato 4. Pineapple 5. Honey 6. Fodder and livestock 7. Mushroom production – production and wild harvesting 8. Fruits 9. Cassava – interest from the mines for industrial starch 10. Sustainable household energy provision – efficient braziers, wood fuel 11. Vegetable production

Group task: Reflecting on your work package and knowledge of Solwezi,

discuss and come up with the 3 top value chain innovation interventions that

you see appropriate or desirable for Solwezi


29

Clarifications

Honey – had been spoken about that it’s not being produced, looking at VC, honey contributes towards improving the local livelihoods

Group 2 output

The group came out with the output as:

1. Strengthen producer organizations- through building trust and entrepreneurship training

2. Product upgrading – through post-harvest handling, improving quality and

quantity, and sustainable supply (irrigation)

3. Providing an enabling environment – which mainly includes building and strengthening rural institutions, promoting collective marketing, infrastructure development (roads, storage facilities) and bye-laws

Clarifications

Honey was discussed as one of the interventions, it’s an opportunity given the observed rampant de-forestation. Intervention in honey production could be an incentive to the communities to protect the forest

Group 3 output

Group 3 identified the commodities around which they pointed out possible intervention areas. These crops in order of the group’s perceived descending importance were beans, fish farming and goat rearing.

1. Beans: the beans in Solwezi have a comparative advantage; the local varieties grown are more competitive and have a ready local market available. The opportunities identified revolved around the low level of market organizations – poor horizontal and vertical organization, process and production upgrading, less research interventions on the local varieties, and the largely individualized kind of marketing.

2. Fish farming: There is a high demand of fish therefore market is available,

Solwezi has a comparative advantage in fish production given the presence of swamps. Previous work by some projects e.g. the support to agriculture diversification and food security project that ended in 2010 provides a good foundation – building on what is in existence. Solwezi, however has no dependable source of fingerlings and the horizontal and vertical organization is low. These weak points provide opportunities of project interventions.


30

3. Goats: Solwezi has a comparative advantage in production (has lots of pasture,

water, and minimum pest/disease incidences or pressure), the goat meat has market available. However, like other commodity engagements, there is low level or organization of marketing – the marketing is done at individual level. The quality of packaging and grading of the goat meat is an area around which the buyers have been complaining. The breeds available are local and we could think of how to improve the available goat breeds. This connects well with the need to do something on fodder for the goats e.g. use of Agro-forestry trees. These are areas that provide opportunities for interventions.

Reaction/comment from the plenary

Seems like livestock is spontaneously developing in terms on markets – does this need to be assisted, or is there sufficient demand already? Response: From the presentation that was made in the morning about smallholder involvement in the market, the focus on livestock was more on cattle and poultry, there may be an opportunity for goats. There is a demand country wide for the local chicken rather than the broilers. There is a big market for goat trading into the DRC - Congo

Groups 4 output

Group 4 came out with the possible intervention areas as

1. Post-harvest management – aspects of storage 2. Capacity Building – including trust to facilitate collective resource pooling 3. Gender inclusivity – access to high input crops such as maize 4. Private Sector – value addition of Solwezi Beans – brand recognition, labeling,

packaging Discussion/comments following the group outputs

There is need to clarity on the kind of things people need to get involved in to

guide a smooth project implementation

We need to think of introducing new enterprises versus working with existing

enterprises

The different rich possible interventions need to be evaluated

We then need to think of how to implement the project

Can we model the potential impact of the different commodity interventions to get

a picture of leverage transformation?


31

6.2 A reflection on the steps in the expected deliverables of the project

This was done as a group task. The participants were divided into three small groups, each to work on a specific project work package with a guided task or revisiting the table of deliverables. In spite of the limited time of the task, the groups managed to come up with some outputs as presented below. The approach taken in doing this task differed across the groups as reflected in the outputs.

Group 1: output on WP 1 expected deliverable This group preferred to start by getting insights into the activity plans of farmers in the 12 months of the year, and a picture of the district administrative structure. Outline of District Characteristics including cropping periods, climatic conditions, household characteristics and timelines for project activities

Month Cropping Periods

Weather Household

Characteristics Project Timing Opportunities

January Cropping Period

Rains

Hungry (Deficit) Months

February 2nd Planting Field Visits / Field Days March Cropping

Period

April

May Harvesting

Dry Season

Surveys – HH Data Collection

Soft Skills Trainings

June Storage

July Marketing

August

September

October

Rains

November Cropping

Period

High labor demand -

weeding

December

Zambian Administrative Structure

Group task: What are the steps that we need to go through to implement the

project (work package) in the first 12 months? Who will do what? How will

things be achieved in the Zambian context?


32


33

Output for group 2 on deliverable Table of Work package 2

No. Activity Methodology Due date of

output/ milestone

Responsible organisation

2.1 Development of conceptual framework for examining market information delivery systems

Stakeholder workshop

Yr1 M9

(between July

and October)

Copperbelt University-School of Natural Resources/School of business

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock-Agribusiness and

Cooperative Department

Department of Agriculture

2.2 Identification of potential value chains,

Value chain analysis to identify upgrading strategies

Characterisation of attributes of market information delivery systems in IP learning sites

Stakeholder workshop/local community workshops-

stakeholder identification

Surveys

FGDs

KIIs

FGDs

KIIs

Yr1 M12

(between July

and October)

Yr1 M12

Copperbelt University

Ministry of Agriculture and

Livestock (MAL)

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock

2.3 Identification of appropriate (best fit) VCD strategies and market information delivery systems

Y2 M6

Yr2 M9 (Kap)

Yr3 M3 (Man)

Yr3 M9 (Sol)

Y2 M6

Copperbelt University

MAL


34

Y2 M9

Y3 M9

2.4 Develop models for private sector engagement in market and value chains development through multi-stakeholder processes

Review of secondary literature

Yr2 M6 (Kap)

Yr2 M6 (Man)

Yr2 M6 (Sol)

Y2 M9

Y3 M9

Yr4 M12

CBU

MAL


35

Group 3 Output on the deliverable table for work package 3

No. Activity Steps to be taken Actor (who) How When

3.1 Impact evaluation design workshop and field study to identify IP target and non-target areas

Identify and Mobilise the key stakeholders at Solwezi district

Selection of priority sites/target areas

Identification of priority value chain

Develop impact evaluation framework (including what the communities want to see – local perception of impact)

Integrate the community impact indicators in the project

Work package leader, Adelaide university, Copperbelt, ICRAF, Local government,

3.2 Inventory, assess, and select value chain initiatives and opportunities in impact evaluation sites, which are conducive for the meaningful participation of women and other disadvantaged groups.

For WP 2


36

3.3 Implement facilitation activities and impact evaluation surveys to assess the project’s impact on households, IPs, communities.

Develop and adapt data collection tools

Recruit, train and supervise enumerators

Clean and Analyse data

Develop the report

Sharing/disseminate to different fora

3.4 Assess the effectiveness, including cost-effectiveness, of promising approaches for promoting value chain IPs among smallholders at a practical scale.

Develop and adapt data collection tools

Recruit, train and supervise enumerators

Clean and Analyse data (complementary data analysis)

Develop the report

Sharing/disseminate to different fora

Action/follow up point on the project deliverables: Fergus and Gillian (project coordinator Zambia) will meet on Monday 31st, August 2015 for follow up on project deliverables in Zambia.


37

7.0 VIP4FS PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

7.1 Overall project organization and management structure and the terms/roles

This was presented by Jeremias Mowo and the flow of the presentation was as below. Overall project coordination

ICRAF is the overall coordinator of the project implementation through ESAf

There is a Project Steering Committee

There is National Project Implementation committee (NPIC) The Project manager: is the overall in charge of the implementation of the project under the direction of the steering committee. She will liaise with country project and the National PIC in the two countries; she will ensure timely reporting of both technical and financial reports, work closely with: Relevant Science Domain leaders, scientists, and Work Package leaders to ensure quality data collection, synthesis and interpretation, and report to the steering committee about updates on the project’s progress and any associated problems. Project Steering committee (PSC) composition There will be a steering committee to oversee the implementation of the project. This PSC will be chaired by ICRAF’s ESAf Regional Coordinator. Membership of the PSC

Leaders of ICRAF’s Science Domain on Systems Science (SD1) and Market, Value Chains and Institutions (SD2)

The VIP4FS Project manager

The ‘Trees for Food Security’ Project Manager

The principal investigator

Representative from the University of Adelaide and

The two country project coordinators (Uganda and Zambia) Terms of Reference for the Project Steering Committee

1. Meet bi-annually, rotating amongst the implementing countries or in Nairobi 2. Monitor and assess progress against the outputs, milestones and activities 3. Ensure that the project remains on track and fully utilizes the most up to-date

expertise available 4. Act as a platform to share lessons and experiences 5. Conduct virtual meetings when necessary to keep track of what is going on.

Country coordination


38

The National Project Implementation Committee (NPIC) comprises the project partners

Each country lead partner organization will appoint a scientist to coordinate project activities. The appointed scientist/country coordinator will be the Chair of the NPIC

The National Coordinator will be supported by the ICRAF country representatives / lead scientist

TORs of the National Project Implementation Committee

Conduct quarterly meetings

Assist in the coordination of project activities

Facilitate communication between project partners

Provide a forum for project partners to: Provide project updates, discuss issues, share insights and lessons learned, support project monitoring and evaluation, and make decisions as required

Monitoring and review of project implementation

There will be a Comprehensive M & E Plan to be developed by Project team to guide the project’s contributions to the AIFSRC’s M & E Plan

Work Package leaders and country project coordinators to submit quarterly reports to the Project Manager (on achievements with respect to the 4 objectives)

A simple reporting template and ‘traffic light’ database will be developed to facilitate this

A project mid-term review workshop before end of Year 2 to review progress

An independent evaluation at the end of the project to assess the extent to which positive outcomes were generated in relation to: the communities involved in the project, capacity of participating partner organizations, the uptake of project gendered evidence and lessons to inform wider policy, practice, and investment decisions

7.2 Leadership arrangement and selection of project coordinator for Zambia

Participants from Zambia discussed as a small group and agreed on the composition of the Zambia NPIC and the coordinator. The composition of the Zambia NPIC will


39

compose of ICRAF, Copperbelt University, Zambia Agricultural Research Institute, and any Expert group that will be deemed necessary. From a close discussion between ZARI and Copperbelt University participants, the decision made and shared with the rest of the participants in plenary was that the country coordinator will be Dr. Gillian Kabwe from Copperbelt University.

8.0 INCEPTION MEETING CLOSING REMARKS

The closing remarks were made by - Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Coordinator ICRAF, Dr. Jeremias Mowo. The remarks were mainly to appreciate the different stakeholders for the roles played in the project and meeting. Jeremias thanked all the participants for honoring the meeting and participating in providing ideas that will inform the way forward for the project. He specifically thanked Government of Zambia for hosting the project inception meeting and the ICRAF offices. Special thanks were directed to ACIAR and the Government of Australia for supporting the project and for the important role played in ensuring the project succeeds. He recognized and appreciated the role of the Southern Africa ICRAF node representative in collaboration with the partner organizations in supporting the organization of the workshop. Thanks to the chairs and rapporteurs of the different sessions; ICRAF’s communication officer Albert, ESAf Regional Coordinators and Hazel Warren for a job well done. After appreciating all players in the project and workshop, he wished everyone a safe journey back home. He highlighted continued support and interest for Zambia from ICRAF given its importance in the region. This marked the end of the inception workshop that was later crowned with a cocktail.


40

9.0 Appendices

9.1 List of inception meeting participants

NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND EMAIL

1 ROYD VINYA Copperbelt University [email protected]

2 FERGUS SINCLAIR ICRAF [email protected]

3 ISAAC JERE ZARI [email protected]

4 GODFREY MWILA ZARI [email protected]

5 ALFRED MKONDA S3P [email protected]

6 SHADRECK BWEMBYA ZARI [email protected]

7 JOSEPH TANUI ICRAF [email protected]

8 KARL HUGHES ICRAF [email protected]

9 JUDITH ODUOL ICRAF [email protected]

10 ELLEN HAMBUBA

Zambia News Broadcasting Corporation (channel 1) [email protected]

11 MUYOBO SHIMABALE MIN. OF AGRICULTURE [email protected]

12 MOKA KALIWILE CIFOR [email protected]

13 GODFREY KUNDHLANDE ICRAF [email protected]

14 TEMBO HOWARD ZARI [email protected]

15 PETER LUNGU MAL MULUNGUSHI HOUSE, AGRIC HQ

16 ISAAC B. NYOKA ICRAF [email protected]

17 JEREMIAS MOWO ICRAF [email protected]

18 NDAWAMBI DAKA MAL COOPERATIVES [email protected]

19 MARTIN M. LIYWALII MAL- S3P martin@[email protected]

20 KAUNDA KAPEPUTA MAL - AGRIBUSINESS AND MARKETING [email protected]

21 MWAZIPEZA SAKALA CHANDA ZAMBIA DAILY MAIL

[email protected] [email protected]

22 PROSSY ISUBIKALU MAKERERE UNIVERSITY [email protected]

23 GILLIAN KABWE COPPERBELT UNIVERSITY [email protected]

24 SMART LUNGU ICRAF [email protected]

25 LIZ OGUTU ACIAR [email protected]

26 CHRISANTY CHAMA ZARI [email protected]

27 CLINTON MULLER LANDCARE INTERNATIONAL /ICRAF [email protected]

28 TONY BARTLETT ACIAR [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

















mailto:martin@[email protected]












41

9.2 Brief of the Solwezi field trip

The Solwezi trip program started around 10:00 am. The field trip participants were

welcomed by the Provincial Agricultural Coordinating Officer (PACO). In the opening

remarks the PACO mentioned that they are some noticeable changes in the area due to

the opening of the mines, as a result, a number of opportunities are arising for the local

communities including the smallholder farmers. There is high influx of products from

outside the area, some of which can be produced locally.

The opening remarks were followed by a brief overview of the VIP4FS by the Country

Project Coordinator, Zambia (Dr. Gillian Kabwe). She emphasized the importance of

different stakeholders in working together to improve farmers’ livelihoods. She alluded

to the need to involve the youth and women and mentioned that the locals should own

the project at the end of the day.

This was followed by a trip to the Musangu Project (St Francis)

At Musangu, there is a group of farmers practicing conservation farming which they

learn using the Farmer Field School approach. They started with 30 farmers in first year

and the number increased to 60 and 150 in second and third year, respectively.

Composition of group is 102 males and 48 females. The distance between farmers is

much and this minimizes the efforts of an extension worker in reaching many farmers at

once. Maize is the key crop grown. At the time of the visit there was no crop in the field

– it had been harvested and most of it already sold. The group helps in promoting

farmer to farmer extension and learning. Farmers in the group said that all members of

the group are food sufficient, their yields are very high (>5000 kg/ha), they apply lower

quantities of fertilizer under CA than under conventional. It was also reported that most

group members have planted Musangu in their field although seedlings and

establishment are still a challenge. Crop rotation and crop diversification is also tried.

CA is being practiced in the name of climate smart agriculture. Practice of CA also helps


42

farmers to use the same field over and over therefore minimizing the shifting cultivation

tendencies. CA (mainly mulch component) reduces weeds hence reduced labor

burdens. Food production is higher than before under conventional practices. However

markets are a challenge.

From Musangu, the group headed to visit a fish production site (Katoka)

The fish pond farmers’ group (Bubi Kuja), started in 2013 with the aim of targeting

providing food to the workers in the expanding mines. The group had two ponds: one

big one 25 by 50m and one small one 25 by 25 m. The initial idea was to expand on the

first pond (the 25 by 50) but because of the challenges of labour, the group thought it

worthwhile to dig up the smaller one adjacent this year 2015. Fish production has not

been that high and seldom do they attain the right sizes of fish to be competitive enough

on the market. Besides fish, these farmers wished to diversify. Among their

diversification strategies were (1) to produce jam from strawberry - they already have

the vines but there is need for infrastructure, markets and training, (2) to venture brick

making using light weighted black sandy soil – the bricks would be lighter, stronger and

of very good quality compared to what is on the market currently. The thinking from the

visiting project members was to conduct a feasibility study that will give insights into

sustainable availability of the targeted soil source and potential of resource degradation.

The group also plans to expand their ponds and membership currently they are 46 (27

females and 19 males).

Documents

Zambia Project Inception Workshop Report incepti… · Livestock, Copperbelt University, Zambia Agricultural Research Institute, and Center for international Forestry Research (CIFOR)