The Napier grass diseases projectThe Napier grass diseases project

Presented by Nyangaga J., J. Proud, M. Mulaa, J. Kabirizi and B. Pallangyo for the 5th All Africa Conference on Animal

Agriculture and the 18th Annual Meeting of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP), Addis Ababa, October 25-28, 2010.

PlanPlannning for and monitorining for and monitoringg OUTCOMESOUTCOMES

in action-research Projects:in action-research Projects:

ICIPE

Kibaha, Tanzania

NBCP

Project background:Project background:Dairy farming sector importance to East Africa’s rural communities, livelihoods

Napier grass (P purpureum) - a large component of the sector’s forage feed base

Napier grass diseases – Smut and Stunt increasing and threatening productivity

Napier grass diseases project – ASARECA-funded. Researchers, farmers, extension agents.

Napier smut

Napier stunt

Project Outputs:Project Outputs:

3. Smut and stunt resistant Napier clones identified

1. Disease in Napier grass in selected areas mapped; clones collected, evaluated for diversity

2. Diagnostic probe for smut, screening protocols, tools for detection developed and available for NARS

4. Information on genetic diversity and sources of resistance made available to stakeholders

Outcomes =Outcomes =

… transformationtransformation … supported by ProjectProject

Behavioral,Behavioral,Cultural,Cultural,Social, Social,

Institutional …Institutional …

ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES:ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES: Processes of obtaining information about the program’s performance and system transformation as a basis for learning

For each partner:Outcome Challenge: Outcome Challenge: The ultimate, ideal transformation

Progress markers:Progress markers: Gradual qualitative transformation. Starting from immediate reaction to project …

Change in behaviour or social systems of individuals, groups, institutions or organizations

BOUNDARY PARTNERS BOUNDARY PARTNERS plan for and demonstrate OUTCOMESOUTCOMES aas a result of Project support (Mission and Outputs)

The PROJECTThe PROJECTMission & Outputs

&&

Outcome Mapping FrameworkOutcome Mapping FrameworkEarl, et al , 2001

Findings: Country differencesFindings: Country differences

Kenya Tanzania Uganda-Smut in central highlands

-Stunt in western districts

- Reports of both diseases together not confirmed

-Stunt reported along Kenya and Uganda border

- No investigation in other parts of the country

- Stunt most prevalent, spread out the country

Few research projects

ASARECA first project Several research activities underway

Mulaa, et al , 2009, Kabirizi, et al, 2009, Pallangyo et al, 2008

Findings: Country differencesFindings: Country differences

Kenya Tanzania UgandaHH visited 550 259 298No. clones collected 400 210 77Number unique, analyzed, challenged

80 30 56

Number found tolerant 41, still testingAll others

succumbed after 3rd cutting

7, still testing NoneAll succumbed at

8th cutting

All teams:-Compiled farmers’ mitigation practices- Assessed information needs and disseminated findings: public forums, brochures, leaflets

Project’s Boundary PartnersProject’s Boundary PartnersOutcome challenges

Farmers - adopting tolerant materials and mgt practices- disseminating info and tolerant material- monitoring and reporting disease incidence

Extension, Media - organizing forums to discuss diseases & solutions- institutionalizing surveillance systems- managing collections & distribution of tolerant clones

Researchers - analyzing incidences, severity, and distribution- screening and developing tolerant or resistant clones- evaluating effectiveness of mitigation practices

Policy, Regulation - increasing government support to policies, resources- enforcing containment of the diseases

Cause Persuade Support

Individual Partner

Partner’s environment

Project’s StrategiesProject’s Strategies

What will we do to compel “immediate” transformation in partners?

How will we build interest, and capacity for change in partners?

How will we guide and mentor interested partners?

What can be done to compel immediate transformation in the system

What will be done to increase awareness and need or urgency for change in the system?

What will we put in place to sustainably support system transformation?

Cause Persuade Support

Individual Partner

Partner’s environment

Project’s StrategiesProject’s Strategies

Farmer extension links

Leaflets, Brochures

Public forums, Media

Progress made, Outcomes achievedFarmers(Mulaa, et al, 2009; Kabirizi et al 2009, Pallangyo, et al, 2008)

- Uganda: ALL farmers aware of problem, 60% adopting mitigation practices. Group and self trials. Demanding for alternatives. Disease incidences reduced 20 – 40%. Fodder yield up 25%.

- Kenya: Farmers in affected sites using public forums to raise awareness. Mitigation practices decreased disease incidences, milk up 20% in inspected farms (un-confirmed).

-Tanzania: Farmers along border part of project surveillance activities to identify and remove diseased plants. More than 90% adopted mitigation.

Extension, Media(Interviews, FGDs, documents)

- Uganda and Kenya extension agents and media routinely sensitizing farmers to stunt disease & control methods.-Tanzania Ward agricultural officers are part of project-initiated surveillance system- Media (newspapers, radio and TV) communicating about the diseases. Uganda more frequently, regular programs.

Project’s Boundary PartnersProject’s Boundary Partners

Progress made, Outcomes achievedResearchers(Interviews, FGDs)

-Participated in surveys and information-sharing forums

-Uganda: several projects proposed and underway (tests, trials)

-Kenya: research proposals for further work only from Project team

- Tanzania: on-going work part of Striga Mgt program led by ICIPE

Policy, Regulation(Interviews, FGDs)

- Kenya and Tanzania: one-time allocation of funds (Kenya via KAPP, Tz via the Striga Program in select districts)

- Uganda: A national committee on Napier diseases + regular budget allocation through NaLiRRI

Project’s Boundary PartnersProject’s Boundary Partners

Challenges, …Challenges, …Outcomes ‘yet-to-be-met’:-Institutionalized surveillance (data collection from farms): disease incidence, adoption of mitigation, production and socio-economic impacts, bulking tolerant varieties, distribution, production

-Stronger regulatory support, systems

- More funding, more research, especially via national budgets

Cause Persuade Support

Individual Partner

Partner’s environment

Project’s StrategiesProject’s Strategies

What will we do to compel “immediate” compliance by partner(s)?

Farmer extension links

Leaflets, Brochures

What can be done to compel immediate transformation in the system

Public forums, Media

What will we put in place to sustainably support system transformation?

Were they enough to influence OUTCOMES?

Cause Persuade Support

Individual Partner

Partner’s environment

Project’s StrategiesProject’s Strategies

What will we do to compel “immediate” compliance by partner(s)?

Farmer extension links

Leaflets, Brochures

What can be done to compel immediate transformation in the system

Public forums, Media

What will we put in place to sustainably support system transformation?

What information exchange platform(s) relationships?

Significant progress Significant progress but but ……many OUTCOMES many OUTCOMES remain un-planned,remain un-planned,

and un-mappedand un-mapped

A project web site (https://sites.google.com/site/napiergrassdiseaseresis

tance/home)(Google “Napier grass diseases project”)

designed and content for sharing information and results from the project more widely

Thank YouThank You