Final draft Ethiopia ACIAR Inception Workshop Report Sept 22 012

TREES FOR FOOD SECURITY: 

ACIAR Inception Workshop, 6-7 August 2012, 

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 

Workshop Report

“Trees for Food Security” ACIAR Inception Workshop Report for Ethiopia 

Executive Summary 

This paper summarizes the inception workshop held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to launch the 

“Trees for Food Security” project managed by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and 

funded by the Australian International Centre for Agricultural Research (ACIAR). The project 

will use EverGreen Agriculture to improve food security in the partner countries: Ethiopia, 

Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, through research and scaling up adoption. EverGreen 

Agriculture is trees integrated into intensive crop and livestock farming, for improved soil 

fertility and livelihoods at a field, farm and landscape scales. 

The workshop was attended by ICRAF, CIMMYT, CSIRO, World vision and Ethiopian partner 

organizations which included RAB, Addis Ababa and Mekele University among others. These 

proceedings provide a summary of the workshop presentations, participant discussions and 

planning for project implementation; and a list of participants who took part in the workshop. 

Participants were provided with a copy of the entire workshop presentations. A similar 

workshop was held in Kigali, Rwanda, and attended by ICRAF and representatives of the 

Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi project partners. 

Key outcomes of the workshop included a renewed commitment from the Ethiopian 

government and project partners to the project, and an improved understanding by the project 

partners of their roles and key work areas in the project. There are five objectives to the 

project (provided in this summary), and several workshops are planned in the near future to 

progress work plans and design the characterization, targeting, monitoring and evaluation for 

the project 

ii


Table of contents 

DAY 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

SESSION 1: Opening Remarks. ...........................................................................................................1 

1.1 Dr Solomon Assefa, Director General, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research .......1 

1.2 Dr. Tony Bartlett, Forestry Research Program Manager, Australian Centre for International 

Agricultural Research (ACIAR) .......................................................................................................1 

1.3 Prof. August Temu, Deputy Director General, World Agroforestry Centre ............................2 

1.4 Official opening of the workshop: Mr. Sileshi Getahun, State Minister, Ministry of 

Agriculture .....................................................................................................................................2 

SESSION 2: Background Context and Project Overview. ...................................................................3 

2.1 Food Security Update in Ethiopia: Mr. Berhanu W/Michael, Food Security Directorate 

Director ..........................................................................................................................................3 

2.2 ACIAR's Forestry Program (Dr. Tony Bartlett, Australian Centre for International 

Agricultural Research (ACIAR) .......................................................................................................4 

2.3 Overview of the Project (Prof. Catherine Muthuri, World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi) .....7 

SESSION 3: Overview of partner roles and work packages 1 and 2. Chair: Wubalem Tadesse ....10 

3.1 CIMMYTs’ role in the ACIAR project and the link between ACIAR AND SIMLESA (Dr. Fred 

Kanampiu, CIMMYT) ....................................................................................................................10 

3.2 CSIRO’s role in the project (Dr. Philip Smethurst, CSIRO) .....................................................11 

3.4 World Vision’s role in the ACIAR project (Mr. Assefa Tofu, World Vision Ethiopia) ............12 

3.5 Gradient and analogs- where we are working (Dr. Ermias Betemariam, ICRAF) ..................13 

3.6 Best fits for species and management systems (Dr. Fergus Sinclair, ICRAF).........................14 

DAY 2 : ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 

SESSION 4: Project management, characterization and participatory design. ................................16 

4.1 Introduction to teams and organization of work (Prof Catherine Muthuri, ICRAF) .............16 

4.2 Characterization (Dr. Miyuki Iiyama, ICRAF) ........................................................................19 

iii


4.3 Participatory design and modeling (Dr Fergus Sinclair, ICRAF) ............................................21 

SESSION 5: Extension, Monitoring, Evaluation and Capacity Building. ...........................................22 

5.1 Extension methods and scaling approaches (Dr Evelyn Kiptot, ICRAF) .................................22 

5.2 Monitoring & evaluation (Mr. Sid Mohan, ICRAF) ................................................................25 

5.3 Capacity Building (Dr Yitebetu Moges, EIAR) .......................................................................26 

SESSION 6 – Work package planning. Chair: Dr. Fergus Sinclair ..................................................29 

Workshop conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 38 

List of Participants ............................................................................................................................................................. 39 

Workshop Programme ..................................................................................................................................................... 43 

iv


LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Discussions on Ethiopia’s Food Security Program and ACIAR's Forestry program ... 6 

Table 2: Discussions on the Overall Project ..................................................................................................... 8 

Table 3: Discussions on CIMMYTs’ role in the ACIAR project and the link between ACIAR AND 

SIMLESA and CSIRO’s role in the project ...................................................................................................... 11 

Table 4: Discussions on the impact of farmland enclosures on soil quality and sustainability of 

conservation structures; and World Vision’s role in the ACIAR project ......................................... 12 

Table 5: Discussions on Gradient and analogs; and Best fits for species and management 

systems ........................................................................................................................................................................... 15 

Table 6: Discussions on project management, characterization and participatory design ... 17 

Table 7: Discussions on characterization ....................................................................................................... 20 

Table 8: Discussions on participatory design and modeling ................................................................ 21 

Table 9: Discussions on extension methods and scaling approaches .............................................. 25 

Table 10: Discussions on Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................. 26 

Table 11: DiscussionS on capacity building .................................................................................................. 27 

Table 12: Discussions on Characterization and targeting ...................................................................... 31 

Table 13: Discussions on participatory trials and modeling work plan ......................................... 32 

Table 14: Discussions on Extension and scaling out and up ................................................................. 33 

Table 15: Discussions on extension and scaling up work plan ............................................................ 37 

v


List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural research 

AAU Addis Ababa University 

CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center 

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization 

EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research 

ICRAF The World Agroforestry Centre (International Centre for Research in 

Agroforestry) 

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute 

MU Mekelle University 

NARS National Agricultural Research System 

NGO Non-governmental Organization 

RRC Rural Resource Centre 

WFP World Food Program 

WV World vision 

vi


DAY 1 

SESSION 1: Opening Remarks. 

Chair: Dr. Jeremias Mowo; Chief Rapporteur: Dr. Abayneh Derero 

Session rapporteurs: Drs. Kiros Hadgu, Miyuki IIYAMA and Evelyn Kiptot 

1.1 Dr Solomon Assefa, Director General, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research 

Dr Assefa first welcomed the workshop participants warmly. He then elaborated on the 

multiple benefits of forests to humanity, stating that forestry research is one of the core 

research directorates in the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR). The major 

research programs in EIAR are plantation and agroforestry, natural forest, nontimber 

forest products and forest products utilization. Since 1995 EIAR has enjoyed collaboration 

with ICRAF through the African Highland Initiative. EIAR has also collaborated with the 

Australian Centre for International Research (CIMMYT and ICRAF are international 

research partners) in sustainable intensification of maize-legume cropping systems for 

food security in Eastern and Southern Africa project (SIMLESA). The new ACIAR project 

whose focus is on improving sustainable productivity in farming systems and enhancing 

livelihoods through adoption of evergreen agriculture in eastern Africa will strengthen the 

existing research activities in the country. EIAR is also delighted to learn of ICRAF's new 

office in Ethiopia and expects great contributions to improving the livelihood of the rural 

poor. 

1.2 Dr. Tony Bartlett, Forestry Research Program Manager, Australian Centre for 

International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) 

Dr. Tony began by noting that ACIAR recently celebrated its 30 th anniversary, and 

expressed the commitment of ACIAR to work on food security issues in Africa. Through a 

recent commitment from the Australian government, ACIAR has established the Australian 

International Food Security Centre. The current project ‘Trees for Food Security’ is the first 

project to be financed by the Food Security Centre. Dennis Garrity came to ACIAR at the 

right time and made an impressive talk. It only took 5 months to develop the project and 

get it approved, which was a very quick process. He noted that the project is the biggest 

project in the ACIAR forestry program. 

1


1.3 Prof. August Temu, Deputy Director General, World Agroforestry Centre 

Prof. Temu took the participants though a one minute video to show the rate of expansion 

of cropland on the planet. He said that Dennis Garrity had shared with him the need for 

opening an agroforestry program in Ethiopia in 2006. He stated that although the previous 

efforts were not successful, there are four milestones that will guarantee success for the 

new initiative: the Ethiopian Government's move on long term land certification, its strong 

commitment to plant trees e.g. 100 million Faidherbia albida seedlings, the climate resilient 

green economy strategy and the most recent efforts involving preparation of an 

agroforestry strategy for Ethiopia. Agroforestry today has become a mechanism for system 

transformation; an affordable system for smallholder farmers. There are three areas we 

want to excel in the ACIAR project: (1) build individual and institutional capacity (2) share 

knowledge (3) acquire improved germplasm. ICRAF has finished all the preparation to 

open its office in Ethiopia. 

1.4 Official opening of the workshop: Mr. Sileshi Getahun, State Minister, Ministry of 

Agriculture 

Mr. Sileshi noted that during the visit of the then DG of ICRAF (Dennis Garrity) in 2009 to 

Ethiopia, the government requested the presence of ICRAF in Ethiopia. As a follow up to 

this request, ICRAF is opening an office in Ethiopia soon. Ethiopia's economy and the wellbeing 

of the majority of its people is dependent on agriculture and use of natural resources. 

The rural development policies and strategies of the country signifies the importance of its 

natural resources including soils, water, forests and in particular agroforestry. Taking into 

consideration the generation's global challenges, the Government of Ethiopia has launched 

innovative approaches that include a Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy. In 

addition, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi declared at the Durban Climate Change Convention 

that the government will plant 100 million Faidherbia albida seedlings on cereal croplands 

in four years. The government also has a plan to reforest 15 million hectares of land, 

including the regeneration of tree cover on croplands. Mr. Sileshi observed that new project 

being launched on improving sustainable productivity in farming systems and enhanced 

livelihoods through adoption of Evergreen Agriculture in Eastern Africa is very much in 

line with the Ethiopian Government's food security as well as rural development strategies. 

Hence, the government’s support to the project, and its success will mean a lot to ensuring 

food security; the government is also pleased to learn of the new ICRAF office in the 

country. He concluded by stating that agroforestry is the best option we have for the 

heavily degraded and highly populated highlands of Ethiopia. 

2


SESSION 2: Background Context and Project Overview. 

Chair: Dr. Solomon Assefa Dr Miyuki Iiyama 

2.1 Food Security Update in Ethiopia: Mr. Berhanu W/Michael, Food Security 

Directorate Director 

In the past 2-3 decades, food insecurity has been a chronic problem. Food security refers to 

availability of sufficient food to all people at all times to enable them have an active and 

healthy life. Ethiopia has problems from all the aspects with 29.2% total poverty head 

count, and the causes include drought, environmental degradation, population pressure, 

limitations in technology, lack of product diversification and market integration, limited 

capacity in planning and implementation and limited access to credit. The Food Security 

Program has been implemented since 2003 and now covers 319 chronically food insecure 

districts. The food security program has the following four components: 

1. Resettlement program (RSP) –key program in the last 9 years, aims at attaining 

food security through improved access to land 

2. Productive safety net program (PSNP) – designed to prevent asset depletion at 

the household level, create asset at the community level, and is a multi-donor 

funded program. 

3. Household asset building program (HABP) 

4. Complementary Community Investment (CCI) – intervention designed to create 

community assets and complement HH investment through creating enabling 

environment, implemented mainly in pastoral and agro-pastoral areas. 

1. RSP is implemented strictly on a voluntary basis, and participating people receive up to 

2 ha of land and essential agricultural inputs. In addition they have access to water and 

health services, and other essential supports. 

2. PSNP is designed to fill the food gaps, which occur for 3 to 4 months in a year. The 

program is development oriented and has shifted from an emergency approach to the PSNP 

approach. Program beneficiaries receive support through public works such as soil and 

water conservation, water harvesting, small-scale irrigation, afforestation and rural 

infrastructure development. More than 7 million people have received PSNP transfers. 

PSNP resources include cash and food; it follows a cash first principle, preference of 

beneficiaries, with a transfer size at a wage rate equivalent to 3 kg of grain per day/person 

for 5 days a month, for 6 months/year. The program has avoided death of people due to 

hunger, transformed the lives of many households, played a critical role in responding to 

crisis, and productive community assets are created. As a result, natural resources are 

rehabilitated, household food security has been improved, and there has been a 

measurable impact on beneficiary’s livelihood as measured by income and assets. 

3


“Graduation” is the ultimate target of the food security program.; Up to now about 2 million 

PSNP beneficiary households have received credit from different sources, and more than 

496,300 household heads have graduated and have become food self-sufficient. 

3. HABP: households packages delivered have been agricultural packages based on 

agroecological realities, moisture problems, fodder availability, and environmental risks. 

Different combinations are employed: some involve a single activity, while others are 

diversified. Credit provision to the program beneficiaries are from the governments’ annual 

food security budget, as well as from World Bank, CIDA, and others. The size of credit 

varies depending on the nature and size of the package. Up to June 2012, about 1.99 

million beneficiaries have received household credit from the government allocated budget 

and from the World Bank supported project and other non-government organizations 

(NGOs). As a result, households have been able to earn additional income, build assets and 

increasingly cover their own consumption needs from own resources. 

2.2 ACIAR's Forestry Program (Dr. Tony Bartlett, Australian Centre for International 

Agricultural Research (ACIAR) 

ACIAR’s mission is 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; the main focus is on research 

related to food security, livelihoods, smallholders and sustainable systems. ACIAR was 

established in 1982, and conducts research for development. 

The Australian International Food Security Centre (AIFSC) was announced in October 2011 

($33 m Australian Dollar) at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). 

AIFSC is located within ACIAR, and its initial focus is on advancing food security in sub 

Saharan Africa. A 10 year strategy for the AIFC identifies where activities should focus to 

most effectively deliver greatest impacts for food security. In addition, ACIAR’s forestry 

program aims to enhance sustainable forestry contributions to economic development and 

rural livelihoods and build capacity. The focus of its research is on smallholder livelihoods, 

plantation productivity, genetic improvement, agroforestry, value adding processing and 

non-timber products. The new project in Africa on Evergreen Agriculture, is about the role 

that trees play in enhancing food security via improved soil productivity. 

ACIAR’s Forestry Research Program themes are: 

Theme 1: tree growing – germplasm improvement & distribution, plantation 

productivity and management, AF and smallholder livelihoods, forest health 

4


Theme 2: sustainable forest management – community forestry, sustainable forest 

management systems (inventory and yield regulations, certification), environmental 

services 

Theme 3: efficient and sustainable forest industries - value chains for wood and nontimber 

forest products, chain of custody systems, value-adding processing and 

product manufacturing 

Theme 4: climate change mitigation and adaptation, reducing deforestation and 

forest degradation (REDD+), resilience of trees and forest systems, management of 

fires, wood-based bioenergy. 

ACIAR forestry program’s interest in East Africa is because it has high levels of poverty and 

food insecurity, and trees/forests have a role in addressing food security and enhancing 

livelihoods. While agroforestry systems are well established, evergreen agriculture has 

great potential for expansion. Good local institutions exist such as ICRAF and partners, and 

there are opportunities to demonstrate the very positive roles trees can provide in 

enhancing food security. Research plays an important role in enhancing outcomes and 

influencing policies. 

The ACIAR Evergreen Agriculture project (FSC/2012/014) “Trees for Food Security” aims 

to enhance food security for resource-poor rural people in eastern Africa through research 

that underpins national programs to scale up the use of trees within farming systems in 

Ethiopia and Rwanda and then scale out successes to relevant agro-ecological zones in 

Uganda and Burundi. Expected outputs from the projects include establish/strengthen 

partnerships in Ethiopia and Rwanda, plus Uganda and Burundi, undertake some 

collaborative research, build capacity, produce and disseminate research outputs, achieve 

significant scaling out, and demonstrate contributions to improved food security in partner 

countries. The project is a 4 year project led by World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) with 

$ 5.4 million (Australian Dollar) funding from ACIAR and with over $1.6 million (Australian 

Dollar) in partner contributions (ICRAF, CIMMYT, CSIRO, World Vision and Partner 

Governments) 

Dr Bartlett concluded his talk with the following key messages: the project is well designed 

with strong commitment from all partners. However, complexity of research activities and 

number of partnership means good leadership and co-ordination is essential. It is a 

research and development (R & D) project with a strong focus on scaling out of research. 

Outputs will be relevant to global and national agendas on food security and the role of 

trees, and lead to real benefits for smallholder farmers. 

5


Table 1: Discussions on Ethiopia’s Food Security Program and ACIAR's Forestry 

program 

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Responses/ Answers 

Dennis Garrity: What is the ability of 

FSP/PNSN program to integrate 

agroforestry into the program as investment 

plans? What are the experiences with 

credits for water harvesting? 

Woldeyohanes Fantu: What are the 

challenges for PSNP implementation? How 

are farmers recruited to this program; who 

is responsible in the household? If there is 

little or no monitoring on the use of the 

credit by farmers for the objectives of the 

project, how is the money returned? 

Ermias Beteremariam: Is there any 

mechanism to ensure resettled people do 

not degrade the land? 

Yitebitu Moges: where is resettlement 

program being implemented? -Is it in forest 

areas-which will contradict our green 

strategy? 

August Temu: For credit facilities extended 

to smallholders a major cost is the first few 

years, as farmers can't pay back 

immediately. What is the time required for 

farmers practicing tree planting to start 

repaying the credit? 

6 

Mr. Berhanu W/michael: Agroforestry is 

already integrated in the program. One of 

the public works is soil and water 

conservation on degraded land, usually 

going to livestock management. No credit is 

involved in getting seedlings; only public 

work is involved. 

Mr. Berhanu W/michael: Ten years data on 

emergency food aid receiving farmers was 

used for targeting beneficiaries; we have 

developed targeting guidelines. The 

targeting is done at two levels: at 

community and at administration levels. At 

community level, the community themselves 

recruit the beneficiaries, and this is 

endorsed at district/village administration 

level. The challenges in the implementation 

of the program include coordination among 

stakeholders (10 development partners are 

involved in financing the program, they have 

different conditionality, so harmonizing 

them was critical) and hence producing a 

single program document was a challenge 

and staff capacity and shortage was another 

challenge 

Mr. Berhanu W/michael: Before making 

resettlement, the program raises awareness 

of the people, efforts are made to minimize 

deforestation. 

Mr. Berhanu W/michael: Concerning 

handling of credits, there is a credit 

guideline, training is given to the partners, 

and M&E systems are in place, biannually 

with the development partners. We track 

the list of beneficiaries and review before 

disbursing, and identified with training 

needs, the money is released to the 

community as a revolving fund.


August Temu: What are the possibilities for 

enrolling the students of African universities 

with the capacity building mechanisms? 

7 

Tony Bartlett: ACIAR rules are that 

scholarships should be given to both African 

students to study in Australian Universities, 

as well as ensure Australia benefits as well. 

There are some countries which cannot 

meet the criteria of Australian Universities, 

for example English language, so the ACIAR 

model may be externally reviewed in future 

as countries and levels of funding in 

operation expand. 

Rosemary Lott added that in her experience, 

Australian university courses offer a flexible 

framework including critical analytical 

skills, while case studies can be done in the 

countries of project operation. 

2.3 Overview of the Project (Prof. Catherine Muthuri, World Agroforestry Centre, 

Nairobi) 

Professor Muthuri started by urging the partners to own the project jointly! She requested 

project participants to go through/digest the proposal to understand what we committed 

to do, especially the national partners as the owners and the implementers of the projects. 

The project is a regional project on food security, a big investment in scaling up in Ethiopia 

and Rwanda, and scaling out to Burundi and Uganda. 

Challenges to food security include high (and rapidly increasing) population density, 

fragmentation of already small holdings and cultivation of fragile margins on steep slopes, 

land degradation and deforestation, high poverty levels, increased demand for tree 

products and services, degreasing soil fertility and water scarcity, uncertain climate, 

variability and change. 

Trees can make difference on average yields – in the case of maize, slightly over 2 times 

under Faidherbia tree canopy – but this is dependent on crops, species, and different 

conditions. 

Areas of project work and rationale: the study will be carried out in two agroecological 

zones in Ethiopia and Rwanda. The project aims to scale up the adoption of farm trees in 

Ethiopia and Rwanda and scale out successes from these countries to Uganda and Burundi 

under similar agroecological zones. Suggested areas in Ethiopia are Melkasa, Bako, and


Tigray, building on the role of partners and experiences of CIMMYT and others in SIMLESA. 

The key research questions are designed to address how to transform site-specific 

examples of how trees improve farm productivity into scalable results that deliver 

productivity gains across large agroecological zones. 

Aim: to enhance food security for resource-poor rural people in eastern Africa through 

research that underpins national programs to scale up the use of trees within farming 

systems. The project’s specific objectives are: 

(1) to characterise target farming landscapes and systems, and develop tools for 

matching species and management options to sites and circumstances, 

(2) to generalize predictions of impacts of tree species and management on crop 

productivity, water resources and nutrients at field, farm and landscape scales to 

inform scaling up to improve food security and reduce climate-change risks 

(3) to develop effective methods and enabling environments for scaling up and out 

the adoption of trees on farms, 

(4) to develop databases and tools for monitoring and evaluation of the impact of 

scaling up and out the adoption of trees on farms 

(5) to enhance capacity and connectivity of national partner institutions (including 

farmer groups) in developing and promoting locally appropriate options for 

adoption of farm trees. 

National universities must be also proactive. The linkages in the conceptual framework 

need to be internalized. Each team has important roles to play!! Works on the ground need 

to be led by the Ethiopian partner. A project webpage is already developed for placing 

workshop brochures, and updates on the progress of the project, to assist good 

communication and visibility. Event news and photos are welcome. 

Table 2: Discussions on the Overall Project 

Questions/suggestions/comments Reactions/ Answers 

Prof. Catherine sought clarification on the 

extension system in Ethiopia 

8 

The session chair, Dr Solomon Assefa, 

explained the status of the extension system 

in Ethiopia: the extension system belongs to 

Ministry of Agriculture, which has a highly 

organized structure, with 68,000 

development agents to reach grassroots. In 

each village, there are three development


Prof Temu: How are the farmers' training 

centers (FTCs) coming into the project? 

Capacity building should be clearly targeted. 

Dr. Woldeyohanes Fantu: So many partners 

are involved in the project in Ethiopia, but 

there should be one main institution 

responsible for the coordination 

Dr. Yitebitu Moges: Could you clarify the 

selection criteria of the sites, or otherwise 

can this forum come to agree? 

Jeremias Mowo: ICRAF Ethiopia office is not 

foreign; should be regarded as a local 

institution 

Dr. Solomon Assefa – this project is very 

much aligned with Ethiopia government’s 

policies and strategies with a focus on food 

security and livelihoods, so we expect huge 

impacts from scaling up and out. The 

9 

agents (DAs) responsible for crops, livestock 

and natural resources management. The 

DAs provide knowledge and services to 

farmers, and they can be utilized for 

successful scaling up and out. 

Dr Solomon Assefa; FTCs are available in 

each village; about 9000 are active centres 

whereas there are potential 17,000 centres. 

Baselines are also needed to assess the 

capacity needs of development agents for 

scaling up and out. 

Prof Catherine Muthuri: there is a need for 

capacity gap assessment in all education, 

extension and research institutions. 

Prof Catherine Muthuri: EIAR is the lead 

institute in Ethiopia; ICRAF Ethiopia office 

will discuss the modalities for disbursement 

of the funds. 

Prof Catherine Muthuri: During the proposal 

development workshop, partners suggested 

sites, but for this proposal, we are taking the 

agroecological zone approach. When we say 

Bako, it refers to the agroecological zone 

represented by Bako. Tigray and Melkessa 

are more semi-arid, and Bako is more semihumid. 

Tony Bartlett: there will be more 

participatory site selection for scaling up 

and out. The project design was done very 

quickly especially from the modeling 

perspective, so we needed to leverage on 

the existing sites, for example SIMLESA. 

Dr August Temu – expressed appreciation of 

the commitments expressed by Dr Solomon 

Assefa of EIAR.


locations criteria suggested by Catherine 

and Tony, i.e. capitalizing on SIMLESA, 

more on agro-ecological zones rather than 

specific locations is the right approach. As 

EIAR leading institution, EIAR will ensure 

transparent and consultative partnerships 

for success of the project. We want ICRAF's 

presence felt in Ethiopia like it is our own 

ICRAF at Ethiopia. We are working with 

some African nations in EAAP project, 

Ethiopia also committed to disseminate 

successes to other African countries. 

SESSION 3: Overview of partner roles and work packages 1 and 2. Chair: Wubalem 

Tadesse 

3.1 CIMMYTs’ role in the ACIAR project and the link between ACIAR AND SIMLESA 

(Dr. Fred Kanampiu, CIMMYT) 

The challenges facing food security include water scarcity, nutrient scarcity, climate change, 

pests and diseases, energy scarcity. Given these, a challenge is how to increase efficiency of 

production? Only 10-30% of water is used by crop, and 20-50% of nitrogen (N) fertilizer 

applied is used by cereal crops. Precision agriculture is about when, where and how to 

apply practices. 

Problems to address in increasing water availability are high water loss through runoff, 

evaporation, deep drainage and shallow root distribution by annuals. Problems with N 

fixation and recycling are that production of N fertilizers is dependent on fossil fuels and 

the high mobility of the nutrient. Problems in phosphorus (P) mobilization and acquisition 

are that P is a poorly mobile nutrient and mainly occurs in non-available forms in the soil. 

Minimizing competition is possible through tree species selection (phenology, pattern of 

root activity, plasticity of the root system) and management (spacing, supply of limiting 

factors, shoot pruning and tillage) 

The CIMMYT contribution will be answering practical questions for maize farmers, such as: 

What happens near trees? What to plant near trees? What management is needed near 

trees? What to measure near and away from the crops? 

SIMLESA Link. The project will link with SIMLESA since the two areas selected for the 

project are SIMLESA sites and so some of the baselines may be useful for the ACIAR 

projects. 

10


3.2 CSIRO’s role in the project (Dr. Philip Smethurst, CSIRO) 

CSIRO will bring the APSIM modeling framework to the project especially the tree 

component. The model was developed to simulate biophysical processes in farming 

systems and has been applied in Australia, Asia and smallholder farming systems in Africa. 

It has a library of plant growth models for a wide range of crops. The maize module is well 

developed and has wide applicability. APSIM has good crop models, and for this project, a 

likely starting point is F. albida and maize. Further work will consider to what extent we 

need to include nutrients and build in other species. 

APSIM also has an agroforestry module, which will be developed during the ACIAR project. 

Some examples of tree-crop competition were provided to demonstrate the model’s 

capacity to predict cost-returns of planting trees. The example was based on Australian 

data with windbreaks of Eucalyptus and one adjacent crop, in low rainfall, poor soil 

situations where tree-crop competition is high and there is no commercial product for 

young eucalypts. This differs financially from many situations in eastern Africa, but 

demonstrates that APSIM can include: 

Climate data in scenario analysis 

Cost/returns of planting trees 

Annual cash flow 

APSIM has a lot of useful models available for a wide range of systems, and field data 

can be extended to farm scale level. 

Table 3: Discussions on CIMMYTs’ role in the ACIAR project and the link between 

ACIAR AND SIMLESA and CSIRO’s role in the project 


Dr. Ermias: Regarding the soil component, 

Fred mentioned measuring N, P and why not 

carbon as one of the parameters? 

Prof. August Temu: Modeling of complex 

systems-traditional AF systems are complex, 

the most successful systems are the more 

complex systems. Not modeling at the 

landscape level leaves us with little 

information in understanding these systems. 

11 

Dr. Fred Kanampiu: As the project is 

implemented, we need to develop the 

protocols together to avoid duplication and 

save on the expenses. Planning together is 

important. 

Philip Smethurst: Complexity can be thought 

about in different ways. Can simulate one 

plant species or can look at complexity at 

the landscape level. Comment is well taken.


3.3 The impact of farmland enclosures on soil quality and sustainability of 

conservation structures: The case of Hadegulele Initiative, Adama Woreda. (Mrs 

Aynalem Mamo, Addis Ababa University) 

Organic matter and cation exchange are significantly higher in the enclosed farmlands due 

to the presence of agroforestry. Most of the enclosures are still intact. The management 

practices in the study area include integration of trees in the farmlands, and use of manure 

and composting. Application of fertilizers is widely practiced in the enclosed farmlands. 

Conclusions: Organic matter and cation exchange are higher in the enclosed farmlands, and 

enclosures are therefore useful in improving soil and crop productivity. 

3.4 World Vision’s role in the ACIAR project (Mr. Assefa Tofu, World Vision Ethiopia) 

World Vision Ethiopia (WVE) has been working on agroforestry with Cornell University, 

and has a regional and national structure, operating at the grass roots level via area 

development programs (ADP). World Vision operates in 9 countries in East Africa. In 

Ethiopia WVE covers 81 districts supporting more than 12 million people in the country. 

Child well-being is World Vision’s priority and the 'Secure the future initiative' focuses on 

the root causes of vulnerability. 

Beating famine through farmer managed natural regeneration (FMNR) is a model where 

desired stumps are selected and cared for to encourage regeneration. FMNR is supported 

by WV Australia (financial and technical). Antsokia, a district, used to be a valley of death 

but now it is a valley of change. Agroforestry has been one of the key intervention areas of 

WVE. In Tigray WVE has 7 ADPs and around Melkassa we have Adama ADP. 

Factors for success in the changes include involvement of the community, use of 

community based technical program (CBTP), and ownership of the intervention by the 

community. 

WVE can contribute to the ACIAR project database, M&E and in scaling up and out of 

technology components of the project. 

Table 4: Discussions on the impact of farmland enclosures on soil quality and 

sustainability of conservation structures; and World Vision’s role in the ACIAR 

project 

12



Rosemary Lott: is WVE working alongside 

the government effectively? 

Dennis Garrity: though there are mature 

trees on Faidherbia farmlands, in some 

places the natural regeneration is being 

grazed down to bush sizes and as scaling up 

are going to be based on community 

management of grazing, how is the 

involvement of communities in FMNR? 

Could you comment on how scaling up is 

going to be undertaken in the midst of 

challenges of grazing? 

13 

Assefa Tofu: WVE is working with the 

district offices; joint evaluation takes place 

every three years and budget use is 

transparent. 

Assefa Tofu: Definitely, the challenges of 

grazing can be overcome since (1) the value 

of livestock is getting higher, and people are 

now focusing on quality and not on quantity 

of cows, (2) the attention given to ecosystem 

protection is high, about 6 million hectare 

under rehabilitation this year, (3) people are 

also getting higher return from crop 

produces, agriculture is becoming a 

business, and the policy is also very 

conducive (4) costs for fertilizer are higher, 

hence there is room for trees. 

3.5 Gradient and analogs- where we are working (Dr. Ermias Betemariam, ICRAF) 

This presentation showed how climate analogs and vegetation gradients can be used in site 

selection for the ACIAR project. 

Climate analogues can be used to: 

Show similar climatic conditions, or somewhat similar. E.g. where similar species 

and practices might apply. 

Point to sites, where future-adapted land use options can be tested. 

Provide an impression about the impacts of climate change e.g. What will happen in 

20 years? (Projecting climate change impact requires models.) 

Identify locations, from which climate change adaptation measures could be 

obtained 

Show locations from which information could be collected for making climate-proof 

system models. 

Vegetation maps can help us in site selection. For example: Databases on species 

composition can be used for site selection 

VECEA: a higher resolution map for 7 countries in eastern Africa 

The project will also map tree cover and dieback use a modeling approach to inform 

site selection and identifying where are we going to upscale. 

These data can help identify where are we going to upscale.


3.6 Best fits for species and management systems (Dr. Fergus Sinclair, ICRAF) 

We should use the term best fits for species and management systems, rather than best 

bets, in customizing species and management options to sites and farmer circumstances 

The challenge is that we have fine grained variation in soils, climate, farming practices, 

household characteristics, market opportunities/ development of markets (access to 

markets change and we can affect) social capital (social structures to enable collective 

action), policy to implementation (how is policy implemented on the ground, what is the 

perception). We need an appropriate enabling environment for the interventions to work. 

The right species for the right circumstances (both biophysical and socio-economic) need 

to be selected. What is good for one farmer in one altitude is different to another farmer in 

another altitude. 

The approach is characterization, to match the knowledge we have to the variation, identify 

strengths and weaknesses (knowledge gaps), and design scaling up so that promising 

options are tested across sufficient ranges. We need to establish a participatory approach, 

eco-efficiency (most options that increase productivity also increase risks), measure 

performance of options, establish participatory research trials with farmers, and build on 

what we have, learn from options from other parts of Africa. Options vary according to 

different farmer circumstances. 

Forms of intervention 

Intervention = target practice + associated practices + enabling environment 

E.g. trees for crop fields, controlled grazing, trees on other farm niches, social capital, 

secure land and tree tenure, quality seed/seedlings supply or encouragement of FMNR. 

In summary, for best fit species and management systems: 

Embed research within development 

Provide the data that drives development 

Action required now but knowledge is imperfect 

Build on what we already have 

Use an iterative /structured learning approach 

Deliver results as methods, tools and approaches. 

14


Table 5: Discussions on Gradient and analogs; and Best fits for species and 

management systems 


Prof. Temu: It is very interesting analysis, 

Dr. Fergus. Farmers need options- a broad 

analysis is important. They may have their 

own choices, mix of species. They are 

intelligent and know what they want. 

15 

Dr. Fergus Sinclair: Multiple factors and 

market opportunities contribute to selection 

of species diversity. 

Dr. Philip Smethurst: Documenting a 

number of successful cases where trees 

have had an impact and communicating 

these case studies to other people may be 

important. 

Dr. Fergus Sinclair: Philip's comment on 

case studies is valid, they are important for 

communication, but there is also a need for 

rigorous study. The interest in this project is 

to effectively change the lives of farmers in 

scaling up effort, and that is a real challenge.


DAY 2 : 

SESSION 4: Project management, characterization and participatory 

design. 

Chair: Dr Philip Smethurst; Chief rapporteur: Mr. Sid Mohan 

Session rapporteurs: Drs. Rosemary Lott, Ermias Betermariam, Mr. Fred Kanampiu 

4.1 Introduction to teams and organization of work (Prof Catherine Muthuri, ICRAF) 

Proposed steering committee: 

Chair – Dr. Mowo (regional coordinator) 

Project manager – Catherine Muthuri 

ICRAF global research programs 2 & 3 – Fergus Sinclair and Steve Franzel 

CIMMYT scientist involved in SIMLESA – likely to be Frederick Baudron 

Four country coordinators (one scientist from each country’s main national partner 

organization) 

Roles 

Steering committee: 

o Oversight and advisory role on project 

o Will meet bi-annually, rotate location amongst implementing countries 

Project manager – overall oversight of project 

Country coordinators – implement project in country and report to project manager 

Work program leaders – responsibility for work package and liaise with country 

coordinator for smooth running of activities within respective countries. 

Meetings 

Virtual monthly meetings 

Midterm review meeting for the project 

Work packages leaders: 

1. WP1 – Characterization and targeting – Miyuki Iiyama 

2. WP2 – Participatory trials and modeling – Eike with CSIRO and CIMMYT 

3. WP3 – Scaling up methods and enabling environment – Evelyn Kiptot, with strong 

coordination with country coordinators and partners 

4. WP4 – Monitoring and assessment of impacts – Frank Place with country 

coordinators 

16


5. WP5 – Capacity strengthening and connectivity of national institutions – ICRAF with 

country coordinators –led by Catherine Muthuri. Note this is capacity strengthening 

according to the needs of the project. 

Scheduled workshops and dates 

1. Baseline survey design – 28-30 August 2012 (Nairobi) – coordination by Miyuki 

(sampling, tools, analysis, data management, focus on same households, nesting, 

extension methods/ systems) 

2. Measurement and modeling – early to mid-October 2012 (Addis Ababa) – 

coordination by Eike and CSIRO. For scientists from CSIRO, CIMMYT, country and 

ICRAF. 

3. Participatory trial design and monitoring and evaluation – March 2013 – 

coordinated by ICRAF, and includes other country scientists, CIMMYT and World 

Vision 

Table 6: Discussions on project management, characterization and participatory 

design 


Evergreen a large and complex project – 

ACIAR requires bi-annual report 

Discussion of role of the steering committee SC has oversight and advisory roles on 

project, and not intended to comprise 

representative from each supporting 

institution (i.e. SC a functional rather than 

political role) 

ILRI and World Vision each $100,000 

contribution to project – they will use 

funds for on ground implementation 

rather than committee costs 

Need mechanisms for partners to 

provide and receive feedback from 

SC 

SC advisory role to project includes: 

to advise on project and 

coordination issues which arise (e.g. 

resource issues, things go wrong, 

inadequate communication) 

review progress reports before 

submitted to ACIAR (especially in 

first year), and 

advise if a contract variation is 

17


Discussion of the size of the steering 

committee: 

The project needs to maintain flexibility to 

adapt to issues that arise. 

Communication is critical to success of the 

project 

18 

required, and verify with project 

partners that all are happy with the 

change 

More detailed roles to be prepared soon – 

clarify role of project manager and 

steering committee 

need Terms of Reference for host 

country coordinator implementation 

SC proposed above is large – drawing on 

experience from SIMLESA, CIMMYT and 

other large integrated projects: 

need smaller committee for 

immediate project decisions and 

oversight 

Agreed management committee for 

day to day advice on project – 

comprising first 5 reps on SC list 

above 

To reduce size of steering committee 

– the five work package leaders 

attend steering committee by 

invitation only. Work program 

leaders (focal scientists) will report 

to project manager, who can 

represent them at the SC meetings. 

Uganda and Burundi not required to 

attend first 18 months of meetings, 

while project is focused on Ethiopia 

and Rwanda – bring in as project 

lessons relevant to them are achieved 

depending on purpose of meeting, 

some members could attend 

electronically 

further consideration of the SC 

meeting and reporting structure 

needed – to help define roles and 

process for consultation with country 

coordinators and work package 

coordinators 

3 way communication is required 

between project manager, country 

coordinators and work package


Country coordinators will come from the 

host/lead institution - should be appointed 

based on experience and skills 

19 

coordinators 

Project manager and project 

management group to keep lines of 

communication open 

Project manager will talk directly with 

the country coordinators during the 

project 

Country coordinators need to link with 

director of organization in their country 

Develop a common reporting 

structure/template to provide 

consistency across countries/work 

package areas and assist the project 

coordinator to collate reporting 

Meetings within each country are 

needed to ensure communication 

between parties 

4.2 Characterization of target land uses and systems (Dr. Miyuki Iiyama, ICRAF) 

The objective (work package) 1 is to characterize target farming land uses and systems; 

and to develop tools to match species and management options to sites and farming 

circumstances. This will involve biophysical and socio economic information. 

The research question is: What mix of trees, crops and management practices will work for 

which sites and farmer circumstances across the target agro-ecological zones? 

The presentation outlined a range of factors which affect food security and poverty in the 

regions, and how the project, through agroforestry and natural resource management, aims 

to improve these circumstances. 

Baseline methods will comprise: 

biophysical data/ surveys (managed by Ermias Betermariam) 

Socio economic household surveys (led by Miyuki) Value chain analysis /local 

knowledge survey /policy- institution studies 

The project will also use existing monitoring data from project partners and other sources. 

Contribution/ benefits of this work package:


The characterization will inform targeting and prioritization for species, sites and 

management options. The baseline data is important to inform scaling up and out. 

The baseline monitoring and evaluation will allow future detection of changes in 

land, livelihood and adoption of practices. 

Workshop and survey dates: 

28-30 August, 2012 – baseline design workshop (Nairobi) 

September 2012 – design of tools and pre-testing, prepare logistics 

Oct-November 2012 – implement the survey 

December 2012 – data entry and cleaning 

Jan-May 2013 – data analysis and reporting 

Table 7: Discussions on characterization of target land uses and systems 


Dennis Garrity - Regarding the diagram of 

factors affecting production and food 

security in the presentation – suggest add a 

box to represent community management of 

grazing 

How quickly can the survey and baseline 

data be incorporated into implementation? 

20 

The baseline data will be made available as 

fast as possible, in particular the 

participatory trials/participatory rural 

appraisal. The survey results are to be 

available by May 2013; this is as early as can 

provide the survey results (given the tight 

timeline). 

Use of survey results The survey results are important – not just 

for publishing in journals – but to 

understand the degree of variation and this 

will inform sampling trials. 

Survey length Need to design the survey to target key 

questions to assist scaling up and extension. 

The household survey could take 1-1.5 

hours per household. The recent Australian 

“Drivers of practice change survey” took this 

long, with a similar range of questions on 

reasons for adoption of practices, and 

questions by the Australian Bureau of


Some baseline data already exists, for 

example World Vision monitoring data. 

For scaling up to be successful, country 

contributions are critical. 

21 

Statistics on farm agricultural practices and 

financial data. 

What incentive for farmers to answer the 

survey? Need to explain the purpose of the 

survey and then they will answer. The 

survey (and project) will provide 

community benefits. 

Yes, this can be used. However need the 

survey to be systematic so it forms a 

baseline. 

4.3 Participatory design and modeling (Dr Fergus Sinclair, ICRAF) 

Participatory trials – these need enough different options across a sufficient range of 

variation. This will give a large number of data points with shallow data – to be used for 

regression models. Sampling needs to take care to avoid confirmatory bias, that is, only 

testing and confirming what already believe. Need to build in randomness and a range of 

scenarios into the design. 

Simulation models – Can’t extrapolate using regression techniques – need simulation 

measurements and modeling also. 

A big gap is that many crop models can’t represent many natural resource management 

interventions. For example, the CERES model can’t incorporate tree crops, mulching, can 

only compare genotype variation for rice, crop models don’t allow for different soil layers 

including depth to which tree roots grow. ICRAF models are good on interactions but don’t 

have good measurements of crop yields. CSIRO APSIM model has a family of modules which 

incorporate interactions. This project will therefore develop APSIM to analyse these 

interactions. 

Table 8: Discussions on participatory design and modeling



Will the participatory trials include 

livelihood data? 

22 

Yes, but through baseline monitoring and 

evaluation data. 

What is the threshold tree cover? Historical tree cover may indicate the 

natural carrying capacity of sites. 

Remember agriculture modifies natural 

systems – e.g. can prune trees to manage 

cover. Crops vary in their water use and 

shade needs – need to measure and simulate 

this. 

Trees can have offsite benefits which should 

be considered. 

The farm scale modeling, if done right, can 

inform the design of the participatory trials. 

The project will be iterative – can refine or 

improve design each based on previous 

years’ results. 

Will there be monitoring of old trees? Yes, but need to be careful in interpreting as 

we may not know history of their 

management. Can use to help parameterize 

the models. 

Who will do the monitoring of the old trees 

and new trials established during the 

project. 

At what point will work package 2 inform 

work package 3? Important as will use to 

test methods. 

Models of livelihood impacts are not due till 

year 4. Need preliminary data earlier. 

Need a combination of WP2 and 3 to 

evaluate different extension methods in 

different contexts. 

Participatory trials are the extension (i.e. 

research embedded in development) 

SESSION 5: Extension, Monitoring, Evaluation and Capacity Building. 

Chair: Dr. Jeremias Mowo 

5.1 Extension methods and scaling approaches (Dr Evelyn Kiptot, ICRAF) 

Team composition: 

Jonathan Muriuki, Judith Oduol, Joseph Tanui (ICRAF) 

National partners, World Vision.


Research question: What are the most effective extension methods and seed/seedling 

supply systems that will enhance adoption of Evergreen Agriculture? 

Objective: Effective extension methods for scaling up/out 

Access to germplasm, knowledge and enabling environments like markets, policy support 

and strong institutions (community in managing enclosures, market etc.) are important 

factors in improving productivity and livelihoods. 

This objective has four sub-objectives 

1. Develop efficient tree germplasm supply systems 

2. Identify, test and promote effective extension methods 

3. Engage stakeholders to create an enabling environment for adoption 

4. Value chain analysis and development 

Cross-cutting activities 

1. Establishment of effective project communication strategy 

2. Effective communication is essential to achieve scaling up/out 

3. Develop communication materials for all the outputs within the project. ICRAF 

Communication unit can be used. 

The presentation provided further detail on activities for each of the sub-objectives. These 

included: 

3.1 Developing efficient tree germplasm supply systems 

Supply of germplasm to farmers is crucial to the scaling up of agroforestry adoption. 

National seed/seedling supply system: FRC can’t meet the seed demand especially 

in quality and quantity. 

One extension mechanism is the Rural Resource Centres (RRC) which is a facility 

established by the community for production and dissemination of high quality 

germplasm. 

Demonstrations/field trials to demonstrate suitable species combinations and 

effective management techniques. 

3.2. Identify, test and promote effective extension methods 

• We should identify best extension methods for different biophysical and socioeconomic 

circumstances. 

• Customizing species and management options to sites and farmer circumstances 

23


We need extension models that strengthen farmers’ capacities, improve farmers’ access to 

information, knowledge/skills, and foster entrepreneurship and strengthen their capacities. 

This is particularly a challenge for AF practices because they are knowledge-intensive and 

require considerable skills that most farmers lack, such as raising seedlings in a nursery, 

pruning trees and harvesting tree products. 

Activities 

• A rapid rural appraisal to identify existing extension models (strengths and 

weaknesses) 

• Test different scaling up approaches for their effectiveness in different contexts, 

based on recommendations from participatory trials. 

• Best fit approaches will be used for scaling up agroforestry practices 

Some of the criteria for assessing effectiveness include the degree to which they: 

• facilitate the flow of information and materials (e.g., seed) among farmers 

• strengthen local capacities 

• benefit women and the poor 

• are sustainable. 

3.3. Engage stakeholders to create an appropriate enabling environment 

• Address barriers to adoption through national dialogue meetings, round table 

discussion. 

• Empower farmers to engage in collective action (control grazing and marketing) 

• Strengthen the capacity of farmers in marketing (business skills, negotiation skills, 

identifying market opportunities) 

3.4. Value chain analysis and development 

• What are key constraints and opportunities in selected agroforestry product value 

chains and how can stakeholders (farmers, policy makers, the private sector and 

facilitating organizations) address them? 

• identify bottlenecks and opportunities in AF product value chain that require 

intervention to enhance adoption 

assess ways to expand smallholders' access to value chains for agroforestry 

products and to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the chains so as to 

improve farmer’s livelihoods. 

Potential challenges 

• The success of objective 3 depends on Objective 1 and 2 - need to plan and work as a 

team right beginning. 

24


• Testing of extension approaches is difficult, because both training and, establishing 

nurseries/ trees takes time. We need to plan well to avoid delays, and implement on 

time. 

Table 9: Discussions on extension methods and scaling approaches 


Dr Tony Bartlett: section 3.2.2. of your 

presentation was lost from the final version 

of the project document and should be 

included in the project and 6 month report. 

We should identify the participants from 

national partners (e.g. World Vision) 

5.2 Monitoring & evaluation (Mr. Sid Mohan, ICRAF) 

The three components of the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) approach are: 

1. Planning a monitoring system for project activities and outputs, including how we 

should work with other working programs 

2. Monitoring and regular assessments of project outcomes and impacts 

3. Evaluation: to crosscheck and analyze the results obtained during the monitoring. 

Overview of M&E approach 

• Led by specialists from ICRAF and partner organizations (e.g. World Vision) 

• Analysis of agronomic, economic, social, educational, and environmental indicators, 

outcomes and impacts. 

• Participatory M&E design and implementation 

• Each work stream will be responsible for a set of indicators 

• Regularly scheduled performance analysis meetings and reviews 

• Creation of M&E repository to allow easy access of project data and findings 

• Use of data and associated findings in making management decisions. 

M&E next steps 

• Engage partners to undertake preliminary planning of the project using appropriate 

tools and methodologies 

• Identify indicators for each work stream to assess progress and achievements. Here 

the indicators will be standardized and defined 

• Data collection and reporting procedures standards 

• Data analysis quality control and coordination 

• Identifying and tracking assumptions and data on externalities 

25


• Formulating key evaluation questions, studies and surveys for each work package 

• Planning monitoring meetings & reporting schedules 

• Developing capacity for M&E amongst partner organizations and project 

participants (farmers to institutions). 

Table 10: Discussions on Monitoring and Evaluation 


Dr Tony Bartlett: The purpose of M&E is to: 

• demonstrate to donors and users 

what has been done 

• Understand what works and does not 

work in the project and to provide a 

reflection on this in the annual 

project reports. 

• M&E is not about the data we are 

collecting, rather, we need M&E 

through the whole process to inform 

the project. 

5.3 Capacity Building (Dr Yitebetu Moges, EIAR) 

In this project, the capacity building objective encompasses: 

1. Research institutions: existing human capacity 

2. Farmer advisory service- the extension system 

3. Government- we need to evaluate the policy document to understand the context 

that we are working 

4. Educational institutions: Addis Ababa University and Mekelle University may 

introduce agroforestry in their curriculum. 

Dr Yitebu Moges outlined Ethiopian capacity building needs with a focus on strengthening 

the capacity of research institutions. Needs included: 

Equipment 

• Scientific equipment - Forest equipment 

• Vehicles 

• Basic laboratory for soil and plant material analyses 

Training: 

26


• Short term training (Research methodology, proposal and scientific report writing, 

GIS/remote sensing techniques, modeling, etc) 

• Postgraduate fellowships (MSc, PhD, Postdoc) 

• Participation in Training of Trainers. 

Strengthening capacity of farmer advisory services: 

• Training in tree propagation, community tree nurseries for farmers, business skills 

Training on agroforestry technologies, workable extension methods/approaches for 

DAs 

• Long-term training (masters, PhD) 

• guidelines, manuals (preferably in local languages) 

• exchange visits of experts 

• Support in developing knowledge management tools on best agroforestry practices 

Mapping Faidherbia sites and seed sources in Ethiopia 

• Germplasm supply (ICRAF, CISRO) 

Governance dialogue/advisory to government 

• Establishing functional institutions, programs for effective implementation of 

forestry and agroforestry programs in Ethiopia recognizing their distinct role 

alongside crop/agriculture sectors 

• Issue of open grazing 

• Investment in NRM (incentives) 

• Job availability for NRM graduates 

Strengthening capacity on agroforestry in educational institutions 

• Curriculum development 

• Postgraduate training 

• Research facilities) 

• Access to information. 

Table 11: Discussions on capacity building 


Prof. Catherine Muthuri commented that 

some of the capacity building issues raised 

are beyond the scope of the project but it is 

good to note them. We should focus on what 

is indicated in the project document and we 

should not promise what we can’t deliver. 

We do not have PhD and MSc packages 

within the project and we should use the 

27


budgeted labour and researchers’ time of 

the various national partners in 

implementing the project. 

The director of the Forest Research Centre 

(FRC) raised the issue of hiring other 

researchers, as his staff might be busy with 

other research activities. 

Dr Mekuria Argaw (Addis Ababa 

University): How are we, the higher 

education institutions, going to engage 

ourselves in the project without having 

PhD/MSc students involved in the project? 

28 

Dr Jeremias Mowo: responded by quoting 

the promises given by DG that he will 

release his staff to be fully engage in the 

project. He also mentioned that if more 

projects are coming to Ethiopia then 

recruiting may be required. 

Dr Wubalem Tadesse (EIAR) happy to know 

that the project will have vehicles, as this is 

the main constraint in doing forest research 

in Ethiopia. 

Dr Tony Bartlett: explained that ACIAR 

cannot pay stipends to students through its 

research projects. The project budget is only 

for technical research, other agreed 

research-related activities and information 

services. However the project budget for 

labour/technical work could be used to 

employ students providing the work is 

consistent with the project, and the students 

could then use the income or data to 

support their studies. University fees or a 

stipend would need to be found outside the 

project. The project sites may also be useful 

as research project sites for African 

university students. However from 2013 

onwards there could be opportunities 

through ACIAR’s scholarship program for 

postgraduate study in Australian 

universities. 

Dr Dennis Garrity: Attaching students in the 

project is very important and something 

that each working packages should 

consider. 

Dr Fergus Sinclair: We may pay their 

logistics but not university fees. 

Dr Mekuria: We are asking for research cost 

(logistics) not for stipend or university fees 

because we would like to engage our staff


Dr Fergus Sinclair: asked Tony if there is any 

possibility that ACIAR could support 

applicants who are part of the project. 

Dr Fred Kanampiu raised the following two 

points: 

1. We have a tree nursery at Melkas - 

species are identified – that you 

shouldn’t wait for WP 1 and 2 

2. Can we develop a commercial 

business plan for the community 

nurseries? 

Dr Abayneh Derero: The rural resource 

centers found elsewhere in Africa play a 

similar role that the farmers training centers 

(FTS) in Ethiopia have been doing. 

Dr Jeremias Mowo: It is difficult to control 

spillover of technology that we should 

rather encourage it to bring a wider impact. 

Dr. Jeremias Mowo: asked if there is a 

possibility of blending the indigenous 

communication system into the extension 

programs. 

Dr Dennis Garrity: Free grazing is a serious 

challenge for the survival of seedlings. He 

emphasized the need to have a national 

dialogue on free grazing and come up with a 

national strategy. 

29 

Dr Jeremias Mowo: Still students could 

apply for grants from Australia. 

Dr Tony Bartlett: In the first 6-month report 

you can raise this concern that you can send 

the list of students and their qualifications 

to ACIAR. Passing the English test and 

having a good proposal are requirements to 

qualify for the scholarship. 

Dr Evelyn Kiptot: the points are noted and 

we will build on existing knowledge. 

Dr Evelyn Kiptot: Rural resource centers 

look similar to the farmers training centers. 

We will consider if the FTCs of Ethiopia 

could serve as RRCs that we have in other 

African countries. 

SESSION 6 – Work package planning. Chair: Dr. Fergus Sinclair 

Dr Evelyn Kiptot: Spillover can’t control it 

but the objective is to test extension models 

that we should control the effect of other 

extension systems. We are working with the 

research method team of ICRAF to come up 

with a robust sampling strategy. 

This session comprised group work on work packages 1-3 (planning for packages 4 and 5 

will occur over the next several weeks). Provided below are the reports from each group


discussion followed by feedback from the workshop participants. The workshop concluded 

with summary comments from Dr Fergus Sinclair and closing remarks from Dr Wubalem 

Tadesse. 

Work package 1 (Characterization and targeting) 

Baseline should be completed by year end for other work packages 

It will have a 2 tier structure – 

o Participatory survey 

o biophysical survey 

Baseline workshop will be held from Aug 28 - 30 at ICRAF, Nairobi 

o Two representatives from Ethiopia will attend from 

University, World Vision, EIAR 

o Expect to have all scientists from ICRAF 

o Resource methodology group will give more explanations about baseline 

o Get experiences from different partners 

o Comparative sampling methodology 

Have different sampling sites based on biophysical conditions 

o Each group will discuss research questions and try to answer hypotheses 

brought up 

Data collection will be handled by EIAR and partners 

o Roeland Kindt has extensive maps for Ethiopia and Rwanda 

Design questionnaires for household survey, biophysical survey, etc. based on some 

of the already existing samples 

Develop protocols for implementing baseline, data collection 

Baseline timetable as agreed by the group 

o By September 30 - Refined findings of the workshop and pre-testing 

conducted 

o October and early November - Data collection 

o December - Data cleaning and entering 

o January to May - Rigorous data analysis 

o End of May – final report 

o Need inputs from Judith on how much can be done by when 

For each site, 320 soil samples will be collected – 10 sq. km landscape with 160 

points based on the AFSIS protocol to help e.g. characterize variability in 

agroecological zones? 

Approximate cost of sampling per site will run between $12,000 to $15,000, 

including analysis 

Next steps 

Each working package should forward their requirements and timetable to us so 

that we can manage expectations 

A draft questionnaire will be prepared before the workshop and forwarded to the 

partners before workshop 

30


A management plan should be developed for the work plan – allocating resources, 

management etc. 

A vehicle for the project cannot be purchased by October – we must talk to DG of 

EIAR to borrow a vehicle from them 

Miyuki and all will travel to Ethiopia for training and initiate the baseline work 

Rely on partners for vehicles, enumerators 

Jeremias - Make sure to use resources from within Ethiopia 

o Make sure data collection and protocols are uniform 

o We’ll have a national team of experts here 

Ermias – Roeland may have his own way for vegetation 

o I need to spend at least 5 days with field team to set standards 

o Some of the techniques we use are a little complicated 

o We’ll be working with national team 

Involving students – will they be ready when we need them? 

Both locations here have experience with projects – plenty of human resources to 

undertake the baseline and related activities 

World Vision - can use existing models that WV have if they are present in the two 

areas 

Quality issue can be a big one with baseline 

Whoever is developing questions should be able to provide quality control back up 

for the area 

National office and or WV can recheck the data after collection 

People answer questions differently – structure should be important 

In Ethiopia, can’t do more than 4 or 5 questionnaires per day 

o Need good supervision to ensure that there are no shortcuts 

Miyuki will send a list of who will do what by 17 th Aug 

Need to clearly define the boundaries of the project 

Define what is expected and what data is to be collected 

Already budgeted one socioeconomic and one biophysical technician in ICRAF 

o Can we have a national staff instead working with the country reps? 

o East African Dairy Development project has technicians in Rwanda and 

Uganda etc. 

Table 12: Discussions on Characterization and targeting 


How will the project capture farm 

dynamics 

This will be done through continuous M & E. 

Given baseline survey need to start really ICRAF will develop the instruments and 

soon, when will the questionnaires be 

ready? 

avail this as soon as possible. 

Work package 2 (participatory trials and modeling) 

31 

Comment [M1]: Sid - the issue of quality control 

can be partially addressed by getting the questioner 

to provide quality standards regarding the data to 

be collected i.e. what form of data or answers is 

acceptable. 

Comment [R2]: Clarify meaning 

Comment [MC(3]: Needs clarification from the 

raporteuer


• It was clarified that the participatory trials are actually the extension activity and 

funded by the Ethiopian government. There will be no separate participatory 

research. Instead the participatory research will be to suggest and augment options 

for extension, including the agroforestry methods and the statistical design to be 

used. 

• Farm Research Extension Groups of the Ethiopian government will be an ideal 

method of scaling out propagation methods and silvicultural options. 

• Eucalypts will not be used in this project. They are not allowed on cropland, but 

little encouragement is needed to get farmers to plant them in woodlots. 

• Wind protection alone can be a considerable benefit in erosion-prone areas where, 

for example, men of 40 years of age can be of low productivity due to partial 

blindness caused by dust. 

• The Africa Rising project would be a good place to look for the first draft of best fit 

for species and management options 

• Two main agro-ecologies are envisaged, i.e. humid and semi-arid, but this needs 

confirming or refining by WP1. 

• Three types of controlled experiments are envisaged: 

o (1) Long-term, generic, which will be essential for new plantings of slowgrowing 

species, e.g. Faidherbia in many areas that will probably induce little 

or no change during this project. Such experiments will be a valuable 

contribution to longer term research. 

o (2) Short-term, which will allow expected changes to be measured during 

this project. 

o (3) Existing planted or farmer managed natural regeneration. 

• Controlled experiments will be located at Melkassa and Bako research stations, as 

this capitalizes on CIMMYT and SIMLESA synergies and should keep travel and 

several other operational expenses to a minimum. 

• Dr Alamie Mekelle University, Tigray, is 20% funded by the project and has very 

relevant capability (APSIM, soil and water management). Although controlled 

experiments at Mekelle have not been funded in the project, we will look for 

opportunities to include Dr. Amalie in a meaningful way. 

• Further details of the modeling work plan will be decided at the October workshop. 

Table 13: Discussions on participatory trials and modeling work plan 


Issue of site choice was revisited There are arguments the northern zone 

which is cereal based has no trees. This area 

is more prone to degradation, erosion, etc 

and hence more deserving than the current 

32


What scope is there to do trials in Tigray 

area? 

Work package 3 (Extension and scaling out and up) 

33 

selected sites. More impact can be made in 

this region and future projects should focus 

in this area. Selected sites (Melkassa and 

Bako already have natural and established 

agroforestry systems. 

The sites chosen for the detailed trials were 

chosen to build on existing SIMLESA and 

CIMMYT experience 

It was emphasized participatory trials and 

baseline surveys will be done in Tigray area. 

In this project, detailed experiments will not 

take place there. However, efforts are being 

made to look for extra funds. These funds 

will enable detailed studies to be conducted 

in Mekelle University and exploit the 

already existing infrastructure for these 

activities. 

This group focused on discussing who would be the responsible organization and person 

for each sub-objective and activity in work package 3. The results of this discussion are 

presented as a table. This is a draft and will be confirmed by the participating organizations. 

Table 14: Discussions on Extension and scaling out and up 

No. Activity Outputs/ 

Milestones 

3.1 Develop 

efficient tree 

germplasm 

supply 

systems 

3.1.1 National seed 

and seedling 

subsectors analysed 

from 

characterisation data 

and stakeholder 

workshops (see 1.1.2 

above) and reports 

produced 

Lead agency Collaborators 

FRC WV Ethiopia (Hailu 

Tefera) 

(note – address national 

systems and also 

regional; build on 

current work through 

Africa Rising? Project & 

WVE)


3.1.2 Establishment 

of Rural Resource 

Centres (analyse 

appropriate models 

and existing centres 

– assess future 

needs) 

3.1.3 Designs and 

business models for 

alternative 

seed/seedling supply 

systems for use in 

national scaling 

programmes 

including rural 

resource centres, 

satellite nurseries, 

genebanks and 

motherblocks 

prepared and 

implemented 

3.1.4 Protocols for 

participatory 

provenance and 

propagation trials for 

target species 

produced; trials 

established and 

journal papers 

produced later 

3.1.5. Report on 

developing efficient 

germplasm support 

systems for partner 

government 

FRC (Kaleb 

Kelemu; socio 

economics unit) 

TBA – business 

school 

FRC + Mekelle 

University (Dr 

Emiru) 

34 

WVE, MERIT, Tigray 

Relief Society, MA FTC 

(note 9000 centres), 

PSNP, SLM 

Need to consider 

structural lead 

(convening power or 

influence) and functional 

(existing skills and 

experience) 

Seed/ling specialist 

Note existing 

provenance trials – long 

term eucalypt trials & 

indigenous species 

(Juniperus procera, 

Cordia, Ajera)


3.2 

Identify, test 

and promote 

effective 

extension 

methods for 

reaching 

farmers in 

different 

contexts 

3.3 Engage 

stakeholders 

to create 

appropriate 

enabling 

environment 

3.2.1 Report on 

different extension 

methods and their 

suitability for 

different contexts, 

materials and 

messages in the 

evergreen 

agriculture domain. 

3.2.2 Testing 

approaches 

3.2.3 Community of 

practice with 

network of users 

applying and 

evaluating 

approaches to scaling 

up established and a 

communication 

strategy developed 

3.3.1 Dialogue with 

policy makers to 

remove barriers to 

and encourage 

adoption of farm 

trees for food 

security 

35 

Mekelle University ICRAF (Evelyn Kiptot) 

Mekelle University 

[follow up to 

determine who] 

WVE HOARec 

ICRAF & ILRI 

Agriculture Ministry & 

other groups 

(note ATA newly 

established to support 

the Ministry of 

Agriculture - role is 

implementation and to 

support 

implementation)


s for 

adoption of 

farm trees 

for food 

security 

3.3.2 

Trainers of 

farmers trained 

to impart training 

in negotiation 

skills and in 

 

identifying 

market 

opportunities; 

Training manuals 

and training 

event reports 

produced 

3.3.3 Analysis of 

models for 

strengthened rural 

institutions for 

enhanced collective 

action to, where 

appropriate, control 

livestock grazing and 

develop quality tree 

germplasm 

systems 

supply 


lessons learnt from 

rural institutions 

Mekelle University 

delivering to 

Ministry of 

Agriculture 

Dr Mukuri’s group, 

Addis Ababa 

As above – do 

together with 3.3.3 

36 

Note this activity is 

Analysis of models and 

information on different 

options for collective 

action


3.4 Establish 

effective 

project 

communicati 

ons 

3.3.5 Guidelines on 

the appropriate 

balance of 

community and 

private sector 

engagement in 

different contexts 

that is required along 

the tree-crop 

intensification value 

chain for farmers to 

gain market access 


outcomes from 

enhancement of 

value chain to ensure 

sustained market 

access for the 

agroforestry 

products 

3.4.1 Prepare project 

communication 

strategy 

3.4. 2. Development 

of Communication 

materials for all the 

outputs 

FRC (Kaleb 

Kelemu) + 

marketing 

specialist 

(University?) 

As above – do 

together with 3.3.6 

ICRAF 

Communications 

unit 

Table 15: Discussions on extension and scaling up work plan 


Clarification made that scaling up and out 

will be done by Extension agents. These 

structures are in place and effectively 

37 

Note – a) this is broader 

than germplasm supply. 

It links with 3.3.6 (value 

chain enhancement). b) 

there is an existing 

project (Molinga?) in 

FRC on value chain for 

non-timber products 

EIAR, Ministry of 

Agriculture, WVE, 

HoaRec 

Note: links to 3.1.3 

business models 

germplasm and 3.2.3 

which will distribute 

material within Ethiopia


working. 

Seed systems and seed supply will be 

conducted by Forestry Research 

Institute who are mandate and the 

required knowledge. 

Workshop conclusion 

The workshop was officially closed by Dr Wubalem Tadesse, who thanked all participants 

for their time and commitment to the project. 

38


List of Participants 

NAME AND DESIGNATION ORGANIZATION/ AREA OF CONTACT 

INSTITUTION SPECIALIZATION DETAILS 

1. JEREMIAS GASPER ICRAF SOIL SCIENCE Tel:+2547158138 

MOWO-REGIONAL 

56 

COORDINATOR EA 

Email:j.mowo@cg 

iar.org 

Skype:jgmowo 

2. FERGUS SINCLAIR- ICRAF PRODUCTION Tel:+2547296800 

GLOBAL RESEARCH 

ECOLOGY 

79 

LEADER 2 

Email:F.SINCLAIR 

@CGIAR.ORG 

3. CATHERINE 

ICRAF PLANT 

Tel: 

MUTHURI 

ECO-HYSIOLOGIST +254710272109 

Email:c.muthuri@ 

cgiar.org 

4. MIYUKI IIYAMA ICRAF SOCIO ECONOMIST Tel:+2547122926 

56 

Email:m.iiyama@ 

cgiar.org 

5. ERMIAS 

ICRAF LANDSCAPE Tel:+2547324700 

BETEMARIAM- 

ECOLOGIST 20 

LAND HEALTH 

Email:e.betemaria 

SPECIALIST 

m@cgiar .org 

Skype:ermias_ba 

6. KIROS MELES MEKELLE 

AGROFORESTRY Tel:+251-914- 

HADGU-PROFESSOR UNIVERSITY 

700467 

Email:KIRHADGU 

@gmail.com 

7. TONY BARTLETT- ACIAR RESEARCH 

Tel:+612 

FORESTRY 

MANAGEMENT 62170549 

RESEARCH 

Email:tony.bartlet 

PROGRAM 

t@aciar.gov.au 

MANAGER 

Skype:tony.bartlet 

tact 

8. ROSE ONYANGO- ICRAF-EA ADMINISTRATION Tel:+254- 

REGIONAL 

AND PROJECT 719867040 

ADMINISTRATOR 

MANAGEMENT Email:r.onyango@ 

cgiar.org 

Skype:rose.onyan 

go 

9. ROSEMARY LOTT- ICRAF FOREST 

Tel:+254- 

VISITING FELLOW 

ECOLOGY,SILVICUL 0729177748 

TURE,POLICY AND Email:Rosemary.L 

39


10. FRED KANAMPIU- 

SCIENTIST 

11. MESERET NEGASH- 

CENTER DIRECTOR 

12. ASSEFA TOFU - 

FOOD SECURITY 

AND CLIMATE 

CHANGE 

13. AYANA SALEHU- 

NATURAL 

RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT 

CASE TEAM LEADER 

14. DAISY OUYA- 

COMMUNICATION 

SPECIALIST 

40 

AGROFORESTRY 

RESEARCH 

MANAGEMENT 

ott@bigpond.com 

CIMMYT AGRONOMY Tel:+254 -20- 

7224605 

Email:f.kanampiu 

@cgiar.org 

Skype:fred.kanam 

OROMIYA AGRIC 

RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE/BAKO 

AGRIC RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE 

WORLD VISION- 

ETHIOPIA 

MINISTRY OF 

AGRICULTURE 

AGRIC/PLANT 

PATHOLOGY 

AGRIC AND 

NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

piu 

+251- 

911798905/9243 

17677 

Email:meseret.ne 

gash@yahoo.com 

Tel:+251- 

911345057 

Email:assefatofu@wvi.org 

Skype:assefat 

FORESTRY Tel:+251- 


Email:ayanasaleh 

u@gmail.com 

ICRAF Tel:+254 20 


Email:d.ouya@cgi 

15. HAILU TEFERA WORLD VISION LAND RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT 

16. EYASU ABRAHA- 

DIRECTOR 

GENERAL-TARI 

17. DR.WOLDEYOHANE 

S FAUFU-CENTER 

DIRECTOR 

18. AYNALEM MAMO- 

LECTURER 

TIGRAY AGRIC 

RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE 

PLANT 

BIOTECHNOLOGY 

EIAR FOREST BIOMASS 

MODELLING 

ADDIS ABABA 

UNIVERSITY 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

SCIENCE 

ar.org 

Tel:+251- 

911059112 

Email:Hailu.Tefer 

a@wvi.org 

Skype:Hailu_Tefer 

a 

Tel:+2510914381 

999 

Email:eyasuabrah 

a@gmail.com 

Tel:+251 911 

156981 

Email:woldeyoha 

nesf@yahoo.com 

Tel:+251 913 

104946 

Email:ayniareg@y


19. YITEBITU MOGES- 

NATIONAL 

AGROFORESTRY 

RESEARCH 

COORDINATOR 

EIAR AGROFORESTRY 

ahoo.com 

Tel:+251 

912865584 

Email:yitebitumog 

es@yahoo.com 

20. PHILIP SMETHURST CSIRO TREE CROP 

MODELING 

EXPERT 

41 

Tel:+61 409 

242677 

Email:Philip.Smet 

hurst@csiro.au 

21. ABAYNEH DERERO EIAR FOREST GENETICS Tel:+251- 

913439808 

Email:abaynehdd 

22. MULUGETA 

DEMISS-SENIOR 

TECHNICAL 

ASSISTANT 

23. EVELYNE KIPTOT- 

SOCIAL SCIENTIST 

24. WUBALEM 

TADESSE- 

DIRECTOR EIAR 

25. BERHANN W 

MICHAEL - 

DIRECTOR,FOOD 

SECURITY 

COORDINATION 

DIRECTORATE 

26. GETACHEW AYANA- 

CENTER DIRECTOR 

@yahoo.com 

ATA SOIL SCIENCE Tel:+251 

911367005 

Email:mulugetade 

m@gmail.com,mu 

lugeta 

demiss@ata.gov.e 

ICRAF EXTENSION Tel:+2547226076 

93 

Email:e.kiptot@cg 

iar.org 

Skype:evelynekipt 

EIAR FORESTRY Tel:+251- 

912132303 

Email:wubalem16 

@gmail.com 

Skype:wubalem.ta 

MINISTRY OF 

AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL 

ECONOMIST 

EIAR-MELKASSA PLANT 

PATHOLOGY AND 

NATURAL 

RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT 

t 

ot 

desse 

Tel:+251- 

0913544631 

Email:berhanuw 

@yahoo.com 

Tel:+251- 

911362118 

Email:Getachew_a 

yana@yahoo.com 

Skype:Getachew 

Ayana


27. SID MOHAN- 

CONSULTANT 

28. MEKURIA ARGAW- 

ASSISTANT 

PROFESSOR 

ICRAF Tel:+254 

0708252371 

Email:s.mohan@c 

giar.org 

ADDIS ABABA 

UNIVERSITY 

42 

ECOLOGY AND 

NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

Skype:sid.vish 

Tel:+251 

911191568 

Email:mekuriaa69 

@gmail.com 

Skype:mekuria.ar 

gaw


Workshop Programme 

DAY 1: 6 th August, 2012 

VENUE: HILTON HOTEL 

Session 1 Chair Jeremias Mowo Rapporteur Dr Kiros 

Hadgu 

Time Activity Presenter / moderator 

8.30 am - 8.45 am Registration 

8.45 am - 9.00 am Participants introduction and welcoming 

remarks 

9.00 am – 10.30 am Welcome remarks: 

43 

Dr Jeremias Mowo RC 

ICRAF EA 

EIAR Director General Dr Solomon Assefa 

ICRAF Ag Director General 

Australian International Food Security Centre- 

ACIAR 

Dr Tony Bartlett 

Prof August Temu, DDG – 

P&I 

H.E. State Minister Sileshi Getahun 

10.30 am -11.00 am Health break / Group photo Rose Onyango 

Session 2 Chair DG EIAR Rapporteur Dr Miyuki Iiyama 

11.00 am -11.30 am Food security update in the country Mr. Berhanu W/Michael, 

Food Security Directorate 

Director 

11.30 am -12.00 noon Presentation from ACIAR Dr Tony Bartlett 

12.00 pm -12.40 pm Overview of the project Prof. Catherine Muthuri 

12.40 pm -1.00 pm Discussion on the overall project Dr Jeremias Mowo 

1.00 pm - 2.00 pm Lunch Rose Onyango 

Session 3 Chair Dr Fergus Sinclair Rapporteur Dr Evelyn Kiptot 

2.00 pm – 2.30pm CIMMYTs’ role in ACIAR project and link of 

ACIAR to SIMLESA 

CIMMYT- Dr Fred 

Kanampiu 

2.30 pm - 3.00pm CSIROs’ role in project Dr Philip Smethurst 

3.00 pm- 3.30 pm Presentation by a national key stakeholder Mrs. Aynalem Mamo 

3.30 pm - 4.00 pm World vision role in the project Mr. Assefa Tofu 

4.00 pm - 4.30 pm Gradient and analogs – where we are working Dr Ermias Betemariam 

4.30 pm - 5.00 pm Best bets (species, management systems) Dr Fergus Sinclair 

5 pm Tea break Rose Onyango 

Chief Rapporteur for the day 1 Dr Abayneh 

DAY 2: 7 th August, 2012


VENUE: DESALEGN HOTEL 

Chair Dr Phillip Smethurst Rapporteur Dr. Rosemary Lott 

Time Activity Presenter / moderator 

8.30 am - 9.00 am Introduction to teams and organisation of work Prof Catherine Muthuri 

9.00 am - 9.20 am Presentation on characterisation Dr Miyuki Iiyama 

9.20 am - 10.40 am Presentation on Participatory design and 

modeling 

44 

Drs Fergus / Philip / 

Frederic 

10.40 am - 11.00 am Health Break Rose Onyango 

Chair Dr Jeremias Mowo Rapporteur Dr Ermias Betemariam 

11.00 am - 11.20 am Presentation on Extension methods and scaling 

approaches 

Dr Evelyn Kiptot 

11.20 am - 11.40 am Presentation on Monitoring & Evaluation Mr. Sid Mohan 

11.40 am - 12.00 noon Capacity building Prof. Catherine Muthuri 

12.00 pm - 12.45 pm Discussions on work programs presentations Dr Kiros Hadgu 

12.45 pm - 2.00 pm Lunch Rose Onyango 

Chair Dr Fergus Sinclair Rapporteur Fred Kanampiu 

2.00 pm – 3.00 pm 

Group work on each work package work plan Dr Jeremias Mowo 

3.00 pm – 4.15 pm Reports on group work and discussions Prof Catherine/ Dr 

Miyuki 

4.15 pm – 4.30 pm Way forward Dr Fergus Sinclair 

4.30 pm - 4.45 pm Closing remarks Dr. Wubalem Tadesse 

4.45 pm Tea break Rose Onyango 

Chief Rapporteur for the day 2 Mr. Sid Mohan

Final draft Ethiopia ACIAR Inception Workshop Report Sept 22 012

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?