C3P First Quarterly Report - Crop Crisis Control Project - IITA

1. Executive SummaryThe Crop Crisis Control Project (C3P) is a regional activity supported by the USAID FamineFund to intensify and bring coordination to the fight against Cassava Mosaic Virus disease(CMD) and Banana Xanthomonas Wilt (BXW) in six countries of Central and East Africa –Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. It isan 18 month activitiy and Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and the International Institute ofTropical Agriculture (IITA), are the implementing agencies. Together they are leading a networkof regional and local partners. The C3P commenced on 15 April 2006 and ends on the 15October 2007. This is the First Quarterly Report for the period 15 April to 15 July 2006.In brief, three activities make up this report:I. Recruitment (April- July)• An initial first step in the whole process was the recruitment of key staff. During thisperiod a total of twelve C3P staff were employed by CRS and IITA.II. Organizing and Convening the Planning Workshop (April-June)• The Regional Planning Workshop, which was organized by CRS, was held from 13-15June in Kigali, Rwanda. A major goal of this activity was to bring together all keystakeholders for a regionally coordinated response to the catastrophic spread of these twoserious diseases in six countries. There were 80 participants, representing 32 differentorganisations, from 10 countries.a. The workshop achieved it four main objectives viz. to obtain:i. a comprehensive picture of the status of CMD and BXW in the region andof the existing initiatives underway to control them,ii. an outline for a regional work-plan,iii. six draft country work-plans andiv. finalization of the Regional Steering Committee.III. Development of Workplans through CCUs (June –July)• Six Country Work Plans were completed.• In addition considerable progress was made towards achieving some of the other outputsrequired to achieve both the two SOs and the IRs of C3P, particularly in relation to thefollowing:o collating information on the status of CMD and BXWo development of a web site for C3Po using GIS to collate country data to determine target areas for country work planso food security, BXW and CMD surveys were carriedo training proposals for BXW were developed.For this first report and all subsequent reports to USAID, CRS-IITA will utilize the ProgramFramework shown on page 4 to guide the reporting of activities and progress towards achievingthe main Goals and Objectives during the life of C3P.3

OFDA. After the workshop 19 representatives from the above organizations were contacted andan ASC of 17 members was formed (5.11). It was agreed that the ASC will provide guidance tothe CCUs and help develop country-level work plans. The ASC will also provide the forum forhigh-level regional consultations, if required, also offering the C3P an opportunity to influencepolicy at the regional and national levels. This was confirmed in meetings the CoP had with bothASARECA and COMESA representatives, both before and during the planning workshop.1.1.2.3 The process of establishing CCUs was finalized. It is envisioned that the CCUs will beresponsible for coordinating country-level C3P activities. All main stakeholder groups (theplanning meeting CCGs, USAID, NGOs, extension, research, farmer groups) will be representedat the CCU meetings to ensure that agreed country-level work plans are as broadly supported bynational stakeholders as far as possible. During late June and early July the countries held CCUmeetings to finalize their Country Work Plans. IITA scientists assisted CCUs with theirdevelopment. At the time of going to press, 7 th August, all these six work plans have beenfinalized. These will be presented in the Second Quarterly Report in November 2006.1.1.5 Publish and share project information through a web site• All the activities under this heading have been organized and co-coordinated by ChrisLegg (CL) from IITA and are proceeding according to the plan. The following are a listof those activities:• IITA discussed the implementation of the C3P website with FAMESA contractors• CL organized the construction of the C3P website by staff of the IITA GeoSpatialLaboratory (GSL)• GSL prepared preliminary maps from the six countries for the C3P website• Preliminary maps sent to Burundi, Uganda and TanzaniaIR 1.2: GIS technology links data on disease to data on vulnerability to food insecurity1.2.1 Food security survey: Field surveys and review of existing national documentationof food security. Links developed with related GIS projects in East/Central Africa• The Food security activities have been organized and co-coordinated by Steffen Abele(SA) (IITA) unless otherwise stated• Analyzed existing food security data for Kenya, Tanzania and Burundi• Established a food security assessment model• Developed a food security baseline questionnaire and sampling tools for application inUganda• Trained enumerators and completed field testing of the food security questionnaire inUganda• Started field surveys for food security in Uganda• Made preparations to start food security surveys in Burundi• Made preparations to start food security surveys in Rwanda and DRC• Provided a demonstration of the approach using GIS for C3P targeting in Burundi (C.Legg)8

IR 2.2: Effective control of BXW is achieved through promotion of improved diseasemanagement techniques and through multiplication and distribution of wilt-escaping varieties2.2.2 Survey to obtain germplasm inventory for banana in all target countries• In Tanzania, a survey was carried out in Kigoma Region. The CoP also visited KageraRegion, where BXW is a major problem (CRS-Tanzania)• In Uganda, guidelines for partners to obtain information on farmer-preferred bananavarieties, including BXW-escaping varieties have been developed (CRS-Uganda). TheCoP and staff from BARNESA and INIBAP visited farms in Luwero district whereexperiments on BXW are being carried out• In Uganda, contact was made with AGRGEN TECH Laboratory to supply tissue culturedplantlets (CRS-Uganda)2.2.7 Development of training curricula in both English and French• Developed a joint training proposal for the BXW component to implement withINIBAP/BARNESA (IITA)• Developed a questionnaire and survey protocol for the regional BXW assessment (IITA)• Initiated the development of the BXW training curriculum and diagnostic guide (IITA)• Initiated the development of the training manual for macro-propagation (IITA)2.2.8 Regional training: Extensionists trained in BXW management approaches• Maina Mwangi from IITA-Uganda and Mgenzi Byabachwezi from LZARDI Tanzania,attended the 4 th International Bacteria Wilt Symposium and BXW Expert Consultationmeeting held from 17-28 July, York, UK. An objective of this was to provide newtraining skills and information for future trainers on BXW.10

NAADSNARONARSNGOOFDAPMURRADAREDSOREFSOSECIDSENASEMSOTORUKUSAIDUNFFEWFPNational Agricultural Advisory Services (Uganda)National Agricultural Research Organization (Uganda)National Agricultural Research SystemsNon-Governmental OrganizationOffice of United States Foreign Disaster AssistancePeace Money for Rehabilitation and ReconstructionRwanda Agricultural Development AuthorityRegional Economic Development Services Office/East and Southern AfricaRural Energy and Food Security OrganizationSouth East Consortium of International Development (D.R. Congo)Service national de semancesStrategic ObjectiveTerms of ReferenceUnited KingdomUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentUganda National Farmers FederationWorld Food Programme12

5. AppendicesAPPENDIX 5.1C3P Staff RecruitedName Organization PositionDr. John Peacock CRS-Tanzania Chief of PartyMr. Steven Walsh CRS-EARO Deputy Chief of PartyDr. Caroline Nankinga IITA-Uganda BXW ConsultantMr. Sylvestre Nshimirimana* CRS-Burundi Program ManagerMr. Joseph Lusambo CRS-DRC Program ManagerMr. Benard Odero CRS-Kenya Program ManagerMr. Sylvain Hakizimana CRS-Rwanda Program ManagerMr. Eliawoni Marandu CRS-Tanzania Program ManagerMs. Stella Nagujja CRS-Uganda Program ManagerMr. Valentine Nakato IITA-Uganda Research AssistantMr. Edgar Twine IITA-Uganda Research AssistantMr. Rudolph Shirima IITA-Tanzania Research AssistantMr. Francis Otim-Okello IITA-Uganda Research Assistant• Start Date 1 st August13

53 Dr Legg James Scientist IITA/ NRI jlegg@cgiar.org +255 744 78588454 Dr Peacock John Chief of Party C3P CRS-Tanzaniajohnp473@yahoo.comjpeacock@crstanzania.org+255 74393557255 Mrs Christian Julieth Project Coordinator RUDDO julitibi@yahoo.com +255 784 508832, +255 784 72348356 Mr. Byabachwezi Mgenzi Agriculture Researcher ARDI Maruku msrbyabachwezi@yahoo.com +255 784 340 25557 Dr Bramel Paula Director, Research for Development IITA Bramel +255 744 78131858 Fr. Muchunguzi Taurine Community Services Rulenge Catholic Diocese ruddo@satconet.net +255 784 407152/+255 28 222345259 Mr McAndrew Tom USAID Tanzania PSP tmcandrews@usaid.gov +255-22 266849060 Dr Mwangi Maina Plant Pathologist IITA m.mwangi@cgiar.org +256 752 78781961 Dr Nankinga Caroline Researcher NARO/IITA cnankinga@mail.kari.go.ug 041567158 077252464262 Dr Omongo Christopher Agric Research Officer NARO caomongo@naro-ug.org +256 77 97266963 Mr Tumusiime Edward Chief Executive Secretary UNFFE unfa@starcom.co.ug +256 772 200347Uganda64 Dr. Karamura Eldad Scientist ASARECA e.karamura@inibap.co.ug +256 41 28621365 Dr Blomme Guy ScientistINIBAP/BARNESA,UgandaG.Blomme@cgiar.org +256 77248307766 Mr. Jagwe John Agriculture Economist ASARECA j.jagwe@iitaesarc.co.ug +256 41 28506067 Dr Oryokot Joseph Agriculture Extension NAADS/Danida ASPS joryokot@naads.or.ug +256 772 20026168 Mr Oroma Lawrence Program Manager World Vision lawrence_oroma@wvi,org +256-41-54371769 Mr Tewolde Michael Program Manager CRS mtewolde@crsuganda.or.ug +256 77277169470 Dr Ntawuruhunga Pheneas Cassava Scientist IITA/EARRNET p.ntawuruhunga@iitaesarc.co.ug +256 75278781571 Ms Nankya Rose Program Officer ECO TRUST rose@ecotrust.or.ug +256 78 574916, 256 41 34312972 MrsNagujjaSengendoStella Agriculture Program Manager CRS ssengendo@crsuganda.or.ug +256 0772 41964973 Dr Abele Stephen Social Economist IITA s.abele@iitaeasarc.co.ug +256 75278781174 Mr Warwick Thomson Senior Advisor Danida ASPS warwick.thomson@asp.org.ug +256 77 220034175 Dr Tushemereirwe Wilberforce Research ScientistNational BananaResearch Programmebanana@imul.com +256 41 567 15876 Mr Okaasai Opolot Agriculturist MAAIF, Uganda bbwci@infocom.co.ug +256 41 322610/077- 258964277 Mr Bamulesewa Sudi Agriculture Program Manager USAID sbamulesewa@usaid.gov +256 31 38738778 Mr Hostetter Loren Agricultural Advisor USAID-Uganda lhostetter@usaid.gov +256 77 200 745USA 79 Mr Witte Eric Agricultural Advisor USAID/EGAT Washington ewitte@usaid.gov +1 202 712 1906Zambia 80 Mr Mukanda Bruce SPS Expert COMESA bmukanda@comesa.int +2601229725/3216

APPENDIX 5.3C3P Planning Workshop, Hotel des Mille Collines, 13-15 June 2006,Kigali RwandaFigure 1. Representatives of COMESA, ASARECA, Rwandan Government,USAID, CRS and IITAFigure 2. Cross section of the 80 participants17

APPENDIX 5.4Opening SessionBruce Mukanda - COMESA SecretariatHe thanked the organizers for the invitation to participate in the workshop. He explained thatCOMESA was a regional Economic body. It is the common market for East and Southern Africapromoting regional economic integration through trade and investment. It is composed of 20member states with a population of 375 million and covers an area of 13 million km 2. Thirteencountries make up the free trade area with a total internal trade of 7.3 billion US dollars and totaltrade of 17 billion US dollars.In the area of agriculture COMESA is committed to the development of agriculture. Sectorprogrammes include irrigation development, fisheries, Livestock, Fertilizer programme with SADCand an Agricultural Market Promotion and Regional Integration Project (supported by the ADB).There are also other initiatives in the area of HIV/AIDS and private sector involvement inproduction and trade.A number of problems have however undermined the progress of agriculture initiatives one ofwhich is the occurrence of plant and animal diseases and to which measures have to be undertaken.It is in view of this that COMESA appreciates proposed actions under the C3P. Bananas andCassava are important in the region and therefore efforts have to be taken to control pests anddiseases that affect these crops. This will work towards the objective of ensuring food security.COMESA will therefore contribute towards efforts to fight BXW and CMD.He called on the participants of the workshop to have a practical approach to dealing with theproblems facing agriculture and to remember that they are dealing with poor small scale farmerswho cannot afford expensive and complicated technologies but would rather use affordable,appropriate technologies and methodologies.John Jagwe – ASARECAASARECA is fully committed to the successful implementation of the C3P project. There ismuch thought that has recently gone into how the outputs of the project can be incorporated intoASARECA networks such as FOODNET and RAIN. ASARECA therefore hopes that whilst itsupports the implementation of this project, its networks will also be significant beneficiaries.Tom Remingtion – CRSCRS is a bit like CARITAS-US and is part of the international Catholic family. We normallyconsider partners as those development partners in target countries. CRS has worked hard in thelast ten years to strengthen partnerships with international research centres. The new partnershipwith IITA in this project is an example of this. In addition, CRS works hard to function closelywith both governmental and non-governmental organizations. I would like to highlight threeCatholic principles that have relevance to this project.1. Options for the poor. We must respond to the major problems that affect the poor, such asthese two disease pandemics.18

2. Subsidiarity. Who’s best placed to do what? CRS aims to push responsibility down to thelevel at which it can be done most effectively.3. Stewardship. Primarily financial stewardship. We have a lean structure in C3P and weaim to target as much of the resources to the work as possible.Paula Bramel – IITAIITA has a long history of working on cassava mosaic disease (CMD). We have had successes,but the disease does not go away. We also know that research alone is not an answer. IITA istherefore very committed in this partnership as this is an opportunity to work hand in hand withCRS as a development agency. This will allow research to get to the field and provide a longterm solution to the problem. The partnership will be a challenge. Both CRS and IITA will needto be committed to make this work and developing partnerships with other organizations. IITAhas a long-term commitment, developed through support of a project financed by OFDA. Wehope to bring this knowledge to bear in this new project. IITA has also been involved in BXWwork, although INIBAP has been working on this for longer. We hope to work with INIBAP tohelp to deal with the BXW problem. As yet, we do not have the kind of control productsavailable, so the solutions are more complex. We hope that through these diverse partnerships wewill be able to bring the research tools to the field to help address these problems on asustainable basis.Eldad Karamura - INIBAP/BARNESAWe have a crisis within the region. 20 million people are threatened with hunger and starvation.Also, the region is a secondary centre of banana diversity, notably for East African highlandbananas. This crop is threatened in a massive way. The region probably consumes more bananasthan anywhere (460 kg per person per year). People are beginning to abandon banana cultivation.This may lead to a change from perennial to annual production systems and we cannot predictthe consequences of this. INIBAP/BARNESA is most grateful for CRS and IITA for coming upwith this proposal. We are also grateful to USAID for their support. Within BARNESA, since2001, when the disease was first reported, the disease has been made a priority and we have puttogether a framework to address it. Obviously, together we can have an impact. Togetherness isthe key to success in addressing these complex problems. The people of Rwanda have alwayswelcomed us. We thank them for their rousing welcome since we arrived yesterday.Patrice Hakizimana – Director of RADA, representing the Ministry for RwandaIt is a good opportunity for the Ministry to share with this network in addressing this crop crisiswhich affects cassava and bananas in Rwanda. It is really a great problem since these crops arevital for the food security not just in Rwanda, but also for the region. The threat to geneticdiversity is also worrying. We would like to encourage you in your efforts to improve and restorethe production of these two crops, not just for food security, but further, to help in incomegeneration and improve the economic situation of our farmers.Mark Bagabe – Director General, ISAR, Rwanda19

I would like to take the opportunity to welcome you to this important event. It was not preparedby ISAR, but ISAR is an important partner and would like to be a shareholder. We are looking atcommodities that are very important to many farmers in Rwanda. It is very clear that banana isone of the most important crops in the country, of which beer bananas make up about 60%.Bananas have had a range of problems over the years, but recently, BXW has appeared. It hasbeen in Rwanda for some time. It was July 17, 2005 when the disease was first recognized inRwanda. It was considered that it had been there for the last 2-3 years. Measures were taken totry to contain it and infected plants were uprooted and buried. We have tried to find out how thespread occurred. It was suspected that infected material may have been inadvertently introducedfrom the nearest neighbour country.CMD has been an on-going problem for some time. Surveys have been conducted and tolerantvarieties have been accessed from IITA. Only about three months ago we had a namingceremony for some of these varieties. Extensive survey and identification work has been donebut efforts have been very limited. The institute had to start again after the 1994 genocide andcapacity remains limited. However, from this workshop, we hope that we shall come out with anew strategy in terms of a new partnership. NARS have not been cohesive enough, and we needto improve this aspect. It is very important to invest more of our research funds into the realwork rather than money for workshops, per diems and fuel etc. Let us show real achievementsfrom our work on this project.20

APPENDIX 5.5CROP CRISIS CONTROL PROJECT (C3P)REGIONAL PLANNING WORKSHOP13-15 June 2006Hotel Des Mille CollinesKigali, RwandaCRS and IITA, in collaboration with the Rwandan Ministry of Agriculture, announce the launchof a regional agricultural initiative, called the Crop Crisis Control Project (C3P). Its goal is tocombat two diseases of staple food crops, Cassava Mosaic Virus disease (CMD) and BananaXanthomonas Wilt (BXW), in six countries of Central and East Africa. On Tuesday June 13 thCRS and IITA will host an International Planning Workshop, at the Hotel des Mille Collines, inKigali, Rwanda. The project is organized under the auspices of COMESA (the Common Marketfor Eastern and Southern Africa) and ASARECA (the Association for Strengthening AgriculturalResearch in Eastern and Central Africa), and is funded by USAID.Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) areleading a network of regional associations and agricultural institutions, country-level agriculturalresearch organizations, and local implementing partners. The 18-month initiative will intensifyand coordinate the fight against Cassava Mosaic and Banana Wilt in six countries of Central andEast Africa – Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kenya, Tanzania, andUganda. The Crop Crisis Control project will strengthen regional and national mechanisms todeliver agricultural technologies and knowledge to rural households, to reduce the harmfulimpact of these plant diseases on food security, while aiding famers to speed agriculturalrecovery.The workshop will bring together representatives of key partners involved in the fight againstthese diseases, including the national research and extension organizations (NARS) fromparticipating countries, Non-Governmental Organizations, international and regional research,and USAID mission. The objectives of the three day workshop will be a greater understanding ofthe status of CMD and BXW in the region and existing initiatives underway to control them aswell as the development of indicative works plans for this Crop Crisis Control Project (C3P)across all six countries.Cassava mosaic has been recognized in East Africa for more than a century. Rapid spread of anew and more severe strain of the disease was reported in north-central Uganda in the late 1980s.This has since expanded into a “pandemic” over a vast area of East and Central Africa, withdevastating effects on cassava production. The zone currently affected now covers all of Uganda,western Kenya, southern Sudan, eastern DRC, north-western Tanzania, all of Burundi and all ofRwanda (apart from Cyangugu region). It is arguably the greatest single threat to staple foodproduction in the sub-region. A recent assessment estimates the area affected at 2.6 millionhectares, with losses totaling 22 million metric tons annually. A common response of farmers has21

een to abandon cassava cultivation. As cassava is the primary food staple in much of theaffected area, food security has been drastically undermined. Virtually all of the varietiescultivated by farmers have proved to be susceptible, but new, resistant varieties are beingmultiplied and distributed.Banana wilt is caused by the bacterium Xanthomonas campestris pv. musacearum (Xcm). BXWwas initially reported as a disease of a close relative of banana called Enset, about 90 years agoin Ethiopia. By 1974, the disease had jumped to bananas in Ethiopia. Then in 2001, outbreakswere reported in Uganda and the DRC. In five years banana wilt has spread rapidly through allthe central districts of Uganda and has moved into the major banana producing districts in thewestern and southwestern parts of the country. Likewise, in the DRC, the infected area hasincreased substantially to cover large parts of Masisi District in North Kivu Province. InRwanda, two infected sites were observed in Cyanzarwe district of Gisenyi Province in October2005. Tanzania has reported the disease. BXW causes early ripening and rotting of fruits, even inthe absence of other apparent external signs. As it progresses, it causes wilting and death of theplant. Second crops sprouted from infected mats are severely diseased and often wilt beforeproducing bunches or produce bunches with rotten fruits. Once established in a locality, thedisease can spread rapidly (up to 70 km per year) and is difficult to eradicate. Without propermanagement, yields in affected areas go down to virtually zero.Bananas are extremely important for food security and as a source of household income in muchof the Great Lakes region. Over 20 million people depend on them as the main source oflivelihood. They are grown both as a staple food crop and for income generation mainly throughbrewing and regional export of both cooking and dessert bananas. Bananas also protect soilagainst erosion and leaching both through their massive root system and their aerial leaf cover,especially in the hilly terrain found in much of the Great Lakes Region. Control measures forbanana wilt have included public awareness campaigns to inform farmers about the symptomsand to teach disease control practices, including the destruction of infected plants and thesterilization of infected tools with household bleach to prevent spread.This workshop brings together partners from the Great Lakes involved in these two seriousdiseases. Close coordination among stakeholders across the region will mean that best practiceswill be shared, so that many poor banana and cassava farmers of limited means in the GreatLakes region can recover their capacity to produce disease-free cassava and bananas andimprove their food security. CRS and IITA are proud to join the Government of Rwanda to hostthis most important workshop, to help improve the lives of thousands of farmers in the region.22

APPENDIX 5.623

APPENDIX 5.7CROP CRISIS CONTROL PROJECTRegional Planning WorkshopAGENDATUESDAY 13 JUNEDAY 1Session 1: Crop Crisis Control Project, Chair, Steven Walsh. Rapporteur, MainaMwangeWelcoming Statements:8:00 – 8:10 Peter Ewell, USAID/East Africa Regional Mission8:10 – 8:20 Bruce Mukanda, COMESA Secretariat8:20 – 8:30 John Jagwe, ASARECA/FOODNET8:30 – 8:40 Tom Remington, CRS-EARO8:40 - 8:50 Paula Bramel, IITA8:50 – 9:00 Eldad Karamura, ASARECA/INIBAP/BARNESA9:00 – 9:10 Mark Bagabe, Director General, ISAR, Rwanda9:10 – 9:15 Patrice Hakizimana, Ministry of Agriculture, Rwanda9:15- 9:30 Participants, Introduce themselvesBackground and objectives of the Crop Crisis Control Project, andthe expected outputs of the workshop9:30 – 9:40 Peter Ewell, USAID/East Africa Regional Mission9:50 – 10:00 John Peacock, CRS C3P Chief of Party10:00-10:30 BREAKSession 2: Crop Crisis Control Project, Chair, John Jagwe, ASARECA, Rapporteur, Edward CharlesCurrent state of the threat posed by CMD and BXW in the sixcountries, and state of research and proven best practices for theircontrol10:30-11:00 Knowledge and Control of CMVD: James Legg, IITA11:00-11:30 EARRNET Activities on CMVD: Pheneas Ntawuruhunga,ASARECA/IITA11:30-12:00 Knowledge and Control of BXW: Maina Mwangi, IITA; and GuyBlomme, INIBAP24

12:00-12:30 BARNESA Activities on BXW: Eldad Karamura,ASARECA/BARNESA12:30-13:00 Discussion13:00-14:00 LUNCHSession 3: Crop Crisis Control Project, Chair, Tom Remington, CRS. Rapporteur, PaulaBramelOverview of programs of response to date by NGOs andorganizations working with affected communities14:00 -14:20 Uganda, Stella Nagujja, CRS14:20 – 14:40 Tanzania, Edward Charles, CRS14:40 - 15:00 Kenya, Paul Omanga, CRS15:00 – 15:30 Discussion and contributions to flipcharts to rough out the picture in thethree East African countries15:30 -16:00 BREAK16:00 – 16:20 Rwanda: New C3P CM, CRS16:20 – 16:40 DRC, Steve Walsh, CRS16:40 – 17:00 Burundi, Kevin Doyle, CRS17:00 – 17:30 Discussion and contributions to flipcharts to rough out the picture in thethree Central African countries19:00 COCKTAILS & DINNERWEDNESDAY 14 th JUNEDAY 2Session 4: Chair, James Legg, IITA. Rapporteur, Stella Nagujja, CRSProgram elements for work plans at the country and regional level8:00 – 9:00 Structured discussion of elements that should go into the work plans: General Criteria: Peter Ewell, USAID Issues related to environmental impact: David Kinyua, USAIDLinkages with programs focused on emergency relief and Food Aid: AlexDeprez and Denise Gordon, USAID9:00 – 9:30 Assessment of the Impact of CMD/BXW on Food Security: SteffenAbele, IITA9:30 - 10:00 Data Management & GIS: Chris Legg, IITA10:00 – 10:30 BREAK10:30 – 11:00 Market-based approaches to the dissemination of planting material:25

Steven Walsh, CRS11:00 – 1:00 Working groups break up by activities, to identify program areas: e.g.target areas; timing concerns for multiplication and distribution ofplanting material; scope of public awareness and extension campaigns,etc. 6 groups in total13:00 – 14:00 LUNCH14:00 – 1500 Working groups continue; summaries prepared by group chairs15:00 – 16:00 Plenary: reports back from working group chairs; discussion16:00-16:30 BREAK16:30 – 17:30 Discussion of guidelines for country and regional working groups toprepare draft work plans.THURSDAY 15th JUNEDAY 3Session 5: Chair, Sean Gallagher, CRS. Rapporteur, James Legg, IITAWorking Groups8:00 – 8:30 Country Working Group/s. Status on Work Plan Development8:30 – 13:00 Country Working Group/s. Drafting of Work Plans13:00 -14:00 LUNCH14:00 – 16:00 Presentation of Country Work Plans (C3P HOPs and/or CMs 20 mineach)16:00 – 16:30 BREAK16:30 – 17:00 Selection organizations for Advisory Steering Committee (ASC)17:00 – 17:30 Closing RemarksFRIDAY 16 th JUNEDepartures26

APPENDIX 5.8 Presentations Day 1Day 1 Session 2: Chairman, John Jagwe; Rapporteur, Edward Charles1. James Legg “The African Cassava Mosaic Disease Pandemic and Mitigation”Cassava in Africa, CMD and impact: Cassava has the highest production of any crop, oftenregarded as a Food Security crop; many constraints to production though, especially the CassavaMosaic Disease (CMD) and the pandemic this has caused. In late 1980s, CMD was spreading inUganda. The spread of East African Cassava Mosaic Virus-Uganda was associated with highpopulations of whitefly vectors. By June 2006, CMD had spread throughout Uganda, WestKenya, Lake Zone of Tanzania, South Sudan, Rwanda, most of Burundi, Central and North ofDRC, Congo and Gabon. The disease has caused 47% loss of the Great Lake Region’s cassavaproduction. This loss may have contributed to extreme food insecurity, especially in areasfrequently affected with drought.CMD Control: The primary method is breeding plant resistance to CMD. Rogueing measuresand provision of virus-free planting material are important. These measures are feasible more onmultiplication nurseries than generally on-farm. The “Regional CMD Pandemic MitigationProject” funded by OFDA starting in 1998 and still presently running started in S. Uganda, W.Kenya and NW. Tanzania considered then as frontline areas and today now includes DRC,Rwanda and Burundi with work ceasing in Uganda because of large success in controlling thedisease there. Main activities include 1/ “Monitoring and Diagnostics” through annual surveyswith results mapped, 2/“Germplasm Diversification and Exchange” through on-station and onfarmscreening for resistance using germplasm from Serere, Uganda and an “Open Quarantine”system to facilitate cross-border movement of material, and 3/ “Multiplication of CMD ResistantMaterial through a system of Primary (official large institutional farms), Secondary (smallermore diverse farms or groups of farms) and tertiary sites (farmers’ fields). Today, Uganda hascontrolled the disease and W. Kenya has 1/3 of cassava area under resistant material but lesssuccess in other affected countries. 4/ “Training & Technology Transfer Centres and AwarenessRaising” through farmer level ToTs and further assessment and selection of resistant materialand 5/ “Project Management and Monitoring”, which has provided coordination through a 2-tiersystem of Regional and National Steering Committees and annual review meetings.Conclusion: C3P provides the opportunity to scale up 1/ in on-going areas, 2/ in reaching newareas and 3/ in increasing range of stakeholders.2. Pheneas Ntawuruhunga, EARRNET “Effort to mitigate CMD Pandemic in EasternAfrica through disease breeding programs”.The virus causing present CMD pandemic is “a novel type and a recombinant hybrid of the EastAfrica Cassava Mosaic virus (EACMV) and African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV). Strategyfor combating CMD has already been reported more fully in James Legg’s presentation above.The East African Root Crop Research Network (EARRNET) is part of ASERECA network inEast and Central Africa.Discussion:27

There are varieties that are “disease-escaping” because the bracts on the male flower protect thescar tissues left when flowers naturally fall off or they have neuter flowers, which persist andtherefore do not leave scar tissue.Developing a strategy for managing BXW; there is reason to be optimistic that the disease can becontained and even eradicated using the simple control techniques listed above. However,farmers in pre-pandemic areas do not always respond, there are many other crises divertingattention away from BXW such as HIV/AIDS and Avian-flu, one solution does not fit allsituations requiring tailoring responses to mode of transmission and research investment is stillneeded to better understand the technologies for managing the disease. The strategy to adoptdepends on the status of the disease and this is discussed by Eldad Karamura below.What added value can C3P bring?• Training and monitoring,• Support wide publicity of the disease,• Facilitate synergy between partners so that all may learn from the lessons being learned by thedifferent partners.Discussion:Are all three banana types; cooking, eating, brewing, susceptible? Yes, although cookingvarieties seem to be more susceptible.Guy Blomme, Summary of the banana wilt on farm activities by International Network forthe Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP) in Luwero, UgandaOn-farm BXW control options;• Studies have shown that the main entry of the bacterium with insect transmission is throughthe male bud and that debudding the male flower immediately after formation of the lastcluster is affective in controlling the infection by insects. This is especially true of “PisangAwak” type of banana widely present in Uganda. Flower infection (symptoms of male budwilting and drying) infects the true stem initially before it travels to the mother plant corm andthen infects the pseudostem and leaf sheaths and eventually the suckers. Symptoms of cormand leaf sheath infection are premature ripening and yellowing of the leaves. At this stage,removal of whole mat is recommended but this is costly in terms of labour and loss of foodand income and if the tools that are used are not properly disinfected, this may actuallyenhance the spread of the disease.• Herbicide use as an alternative to physically uprooting the mat was tested using Roundup and2-4-D to kill the BXW infected mats. It was found that 2-4-D was cheaper than Roundup andmore efficient in treating fields with a large number of infected plants compared to manualuprooting.• Rehabilitation of infected fields: Uprooting or killing of infected mats allows replanting ofclean disease-free material.Discussion:Q1: What measures to ensure quality planting materials?29

A1: Tissue culture gives quality. Test kit on quality being developed.Q2: What is the residual effect of herbicides on other crops?A2: 2-4-D and Roundup can affect Taro (Colocasia). 1-2ml of herbicides injected intopseudostem cannot affect following crop. Have to control livestock from entering herbicidetreatedplot.Eldad Karamura “Banana challenge in East and Central Africa, Summary of BananaResearch Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (BARNESA) activities”The spread of the disease can be halted and its impact mitigated by crop management strategies.Debudding, sanitation (removal of diseased plants) and tools disinfection and bagging can give100% control. Debudding, tools disinfection and sanitation will give 93% control. It requires anIntermediate Pest and Disease Management (IPDM) approach to control nematodes as well asviruses. These measures imply intensive farmers’ education based on the biology andepidemiology of the disease applied over a wide area.BARNESA has a Regional approach to address BXW.• Regional meetings will facilitate synergies between institutions, e.g. NARS and Departmentsof Extension,• On-farm technology development,• Multi-institutional approach to assess impact on livelihoods,• Integrate gender, poverty and environmental concerns.BARNESA suggests an immediate strategy in three disease zones;• Pre-endemic (ahead of the disease) as in Kenya and Burundi,• At front line as in Tanzania, Uganda, DRC, Rwanda, and• Endemic areas as in Uganda, DRC, Rwanda and Tanzania.Strategies for Pre-endemic areas:• Surveillance,• Reporting networks,• National action plans,• Statutory measures to contain spread of the disease,• Awareness raising of disease and possible management techniques to control it,• Debudding campaigns,• Strengthen capacity of stakeholdersStrategies for Front Line areas:• Continue sensitisation,• Remove/debud male flowers,• Tool disinfection,• Sanitation (removal of diseased plants from infected fields),• Strengthen NARS and Departments of Extension,• Train NGOs• Diagnostic tools,• Communication packages30

• Exclusion strategies mounted and developed.Endemic Areas:• Strengthen ownership of the BXW control such as in District Local government authoritiesand particularly by communities as their problem and not the government’s• Initiate farmers participatory research to demonstrate effectiveness of methods of control,• Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) plant health management systems developed.Medium term strategy:• Focus on banana cropping systems to understand the behaviour of the pathogen and toidentify and develop genotypes to control the disease.Role of C3P:• Facilitate national coordination through national task forces linked to Regional Task Force,• Facilitate NARS access to clean seed and desired genotypes from INIBAP global gene bank,• Promote synergy and pool of knowledge and optimise resources at regional level,• Manage trans-boundary pest and disease management,• Technical Assistance,• Information and access to technology,• Web based portal as repository of technology and lessons learned,• Institute impact-tracking linked to M&E activities,Discussion:Q1: Can we advocate what Guy Blomme suggests to remove true stems (male bud) and save thewhole mat?A1: In Uganda farmers are removing true-stems (in case of insect transmission) so that suckersare not infected. Tanzania farmers remove whole mats (in case of infection through infectedtools). In the Tanzania case, it is better to remove the whole mat.Q2: Can disease cross high-elevation areas?A2: In Karagwe District in Tanzania, elevation is 1700m and the disease has entered there andcrossed to lowland areas. High elevation may not control movement of disease.31

APPENDIX 5.9 Presentations Day 2THEME:PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR WORK PLANS AT THE COUNTRY ANDREGIONAL LEVELSession chair: James Legg, IITAThis session was meant to provide guidance to country teams in identification of elements forinclusion during the formulation of country work plans for the C3P project.1. General criteria: Peter Ewell, USAIDPeter Ewell gave a general criteria that would be followed by the country groups in coming up withtheir work plans.To ensure that the project holds together and adds value to other ongoing efforts it is important thatattention be paid to linkages with programs focused on environmental impact and emergency reliefand food aid. Presentations that followed highlighted guidelines and procedures that have to betaken into account by USAID funded projects.2. Issues related to Environmental Impact: David Kinyua, USAIDThis presentation highlighted issues related to environment that have to be taken into account byUSAID funded projects. Environmental issues can be looked at from a regulatory (legislation ofhost governments) and voluntary point of view (EUREGAP, ISO 1400).USAID Environmental procedures or regulator requirements22 CFR reg.216- requires that environmental review is done. All programs should be classifiedaccording to the risk level (low, Medium, High risk).The use of pesticides is considered a high risk.USAID requires that in order to mitigate the dangerous consequences of pesticide use issues thathave to be given adequate attention include; Labeling Awareness.Pesticide use includes the following: Procurement of pesticides Direct purchase of pesticides, Payment in kind; Provision of credit to procure pesticides; Technical assistance Being a grantee of credit for procurement of pesticidesExclusion/exemption is provided if: The surface area is under 4ha Application of the pesticide is done by a trained individual Technical assistance is provided32

If products to be treated will not be consumed by people or animalsEmergency situation and other exceptions:You need a document that specifies the following: The pesticide to be used Potency Targets and non-targets Sites National conditions Ability of the country to use pesticides EPA registration status. Encourage IPM There has to be a monitoring regime: presence of a PERSUAP (Pesticides Evaluation Reportand Safer Use Action Plan).C3P is part of a bigger program. It is under SO10 of the USAID and there exists a document thatcovers environmental Review of C3P which will be done under IEE. A reservation will be givenbecause we don’t know if pesticides are going to be used. No use of pesticide will be done until theIEE has been used.Questions on the presentation:1. Question: How does the C3P project handle the issue of PERSUAPs given that it is going to beimplemented in different countries and sub-awardees?Answer: Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya have PERSUAPs. Tanzania and the DRC don’t havePRSUAPs. This means that if pesticides are envisaged to be used we will need a document toshow the presence of a PERSUAPS which will be presented to USAID. One way of goinground this is to have a regional PERSUAP where the review is done at a general level rather thanat country level. This project is an umbrella project that includes sub awardees. A generalenvironmental document can cover the sub-awardees rather than have it done by the differentNGOs.2. Question: Who is the key contact person for addressing environmental issues at the USAIDmission?Answer: The REDSO office will make every effort to address issues related to environment.Each country working group should endeavor to produce a list of pesticides that will be used inthe project.3. Question: What should be done for countries that have no PERSUAP but are part of theproject?Answer: USAID will be analyzing pesticides to be used to see if a particular pesticide isregistered in that country. A regional perspective is advised because this will prevent repetitionacross countries.33

COMESA is also looking into the issue of sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) protocols which willinclude pesticide regulation. A link is therefore needed with COMESA in order to take care ofenvironmental issues related to pesticide use.4. Linkages with programs on emergency relief and Food Aid : Denise GordonC3P will not be occurring in countries where the ONLY problem is CMD and BXW. C3P will occurin countries that have existing emergency relief programming in progress addressing issues that maybe more critical than C3P interventions. There will be instances were emergency responses may berequired for example during armed conflict; Severe drought and epidemics. We therefore need tounderstand the environment with in which the project is operating.Targeting will be important especially were emergency programs are in place. The criteria should bebased on existent information which can be sourced from FAO, UNICEF, WFP, Ministry ofAgriculture and PVOs. Existing assessments and analysis should be appropriate to C3P. Potentialpartners such as NGOs should not be ignored in the formulation of a work plan.A contingency plan should be in place in case things don’t go as planned .Sometimes emergencysituation such as conflict, war and drought may break out before major Project activities. We mightthen need to establish linkage between the Project and emergency activities. Refugee camps can beused for multiplication if land is available, food work programs can be used for labor intensivemultiplication activities and creation of a value system through a voucher program.Food aid and C3P activitiesFood aid can play a complementary role in supporting key elements of C3P such as partnerships andsynergies, coordination, training and recovery. There are opportunities for C3P to work with foodAid. Food aid can fill gaps between research level and the farmer level. Private voluntaryorganizations with traditional good relationships at grassroots level and already in the regionworking in food aid with potentially same farmers C3P want to reach and partner with, can providea link between C3P project and food aid activities.Possible Food Aid activities with C3P include the following:• Motivation and encouragement of farmers that have destroyed their fields, in the interim• Using a better practices-reward model for farmers in endemic areas• Food in exchange for : liberating land for multiplication or leaving land fallow• Monetization of commodities to finance other activitiesMechanisms through which C3P can link with Food for Peace (FFP)• Formulation of proposals that demonstrate linkages of food aid with C3P initiatives• Dialogue with WFP for a potential partnership arrangement with FFW/FFT activities• PVOS currently submitting DAPs: Proposals should demonstrate clear linkages with C3PactivitiesCassava and bananas represent food security and income generation resources. If farmers have toeradicate their crop completely in the case of bananas then this implies eliminating ¾ of theirlivelihood at a go. FFP would therefore like to see Title II partners integrate food aid with cashbased food security initiatives and therefore expect to see stronger linkages between Title II partnersand C3P34

Comments and questions on the presentation1. Comment: Bilateral offices should provide information on opportunities that allow partners towork in partnership with PVOs and food aid granting organizations.2. Question:For C3P project to take into account links with food Aid is there another planning meeting thatis anticipated?Answer: No other planning meeting is anticipated, this meeting is basically aimed at coming upwith work plans and this should be the focus.5. Assessment of the Impact of CMD/BXW on Food Security : Steffen Abele, IITA-FOODNETProject activities to asses the impact of CMD and BXW on food security: Assessing the status of food security by farm-household surveys Identifying and quantifying the magnitude of factors that affect food security Identifying and quantifying food security scenarios Computing indicators of food security and vulnerability on a geographical basis Mapping indicators in a GIS system (together with the GIS unit) Linking the GIS system to the dynamic development of scenarios of biotic and abiotic as well associo-economic stress factors in order to forecast changes in the food security status (togetherwith the GIS unit) Forecasting short term and medium/long term food security developments to guide food reliefaid and development efforts.The paper gave a brief review of food security in theory. Food security can be looked at in threedimensions which are: Socio-economic dimension: looks at accessibility which is the ability to obtain the necessary foodeither through own production or purchase from the market. Demographic dimension: looks at the food security status at the national regional, householdand individual level. Temporal aspects: focuses on food insecurity cyclesConclusions for food security assessment Target indicator is access to food/nutrition which will be linked to BXW and CMD prevalenceand mitigation. It will be a composite of food purchasing power and production potential(determinants/variables) The indicator will be applied to targeting as well as M&E Socio-demographic and temporal dimensions have to be taken into account35

Assessing Food security in C3PAccessibility of food athousehold level(production andpurchases)Determination ofpresent householdfood security statusHouseholdpatterns(nutritionStep I: Map of statusquo on a regionalbasis at householdElaboration ofdependency on ownstaple foodDetermination ofnatural risks affectingown production:•Pests and diseases(BXW, CMD)•DroughtElaboration ofdependency on foodmarkets and off-farmincome to purchasefoodDetermination ofsocio-economicdynamicsStep II: Map of riskand food securityvulnerability, basis forscenarios anddecision making ondevelopmenti i bQuantification ofpresent and imminentrisks:•Harvest failures•Market dynamicsStep III: Earlywarning system ofimminent foodsecurity distortions byFirst food security case studies: done in Burundi and Tanzania were used to give an idea of themodels that were used and determinants considered to affect food security. Conclusions based onthese case studies included the following: Main determinants (land endowment for own production and cash income for foodpurchases) confirmed Socio-demographic factors (age, gender) play an important role and have to be incorporatedin the determinants The significance of socio-demographic factors strengthens the choice of the household levelas assessment unitFood Security Information systems Regional Agricultural Information Network – RAINwww.asareca.org/rain Famine Early Warning System –Fewsnetwww.fews.net– Comprehensive food security information, similar to the C3P food security– FSN working group for drought affected countries in the Horn of Africa and GreatLakes Region– Valuable source of information and methodology– Cross-check on overlaps/potential interfaces required36

Regional Agricultural Trade Intelligence Network – RATINwww.ratin.net– Focus on commodity prices and trade flows– Valuable information source especially for maize Kenya Agricultural Commodity Exchange (KACE)www.kacekenya.com– Private market information service and trade platform– Prices, quantities and market assessments on subscription Food and Agricultural Market Information System (FAMIS) of COMESA(under construction, website and platform being designed by IITA/FOODNET)– Market information, trading platform, food security, food safety and plant/animal health– Covers only COMESA countries– Relies on national information systems– Potential for information exchange, cross-check on overlaps/potential interfacesrequiredWay forward Basic tools and methodologies established, to be adapted (socio-demographics, dynamics,interface with other food security information systems) Surveys to be completed before end of September GIS up and running by end of NovemberQuestions on the presentation1. Question: Are issues related to availability being considered?Answer: Yes they are being considered.2. Question: C3P is being implemented at regional level and country level will there be enoughtime to collect information?Answer: The collection of information depends on the administrative structure in a country.The collection of information will be done at district or provincial level. Indicators will becomplied at district level. Surveys will carried out at household level and disaggregation will bedone at the household level.3. Question: Will the GIS be specific to the C3P project? Is it going to provide baselineinformation? Will the food security assessment be done in only the areas that we are targeting orthe whole country /region?Answer: If we restrict our selves to the target areas this will be a problem because of the waydiseases across countries. Food security is due to other factors rather than just CMD or BXW.We have to discuss whether we do the GIS regionally or country wise. The disaggregating ofdata will depend on the information available at district/ household level that can be feed intothe GIS system. The geopolitical organization of the country will have to be considered.6. Data Management & GIS : Chris Legg, IITAAn example of combining multiple data-sets for the C3P project using GIS: Targetingintervention against CMD: The case of Burundi37

The following data sets were used:1. Data-Sets at Provincial / National Levels Agricultural Production: Cassava Production by Province Food Security Survey: Food Insecurity by Province Cassava Disease (CMD) Survey: CMD Incidence and SeverityData at provincial level can be disaggregated to commune level if suitable finer-resolution data isavailable2. Data-Sets at Commune or more detailed Levels Population: Population data at commune level, and AfriCover detailed land-use maps can beused for disaggregation. Land-Use (AfriCover): For point observations, such as disease surveys, disaggregation by landuseis not appropriate. Geo-statistical techniques, especially KRIGING, can be used tointerpolate and extrapolate estimated values. Climate Elevation Satellite Imagery3. Losses in cassava production can be estimated for each commune from a combination ofseverity and incidence of CMD. Intervention to combat CMD and ameliorate its effects can betargeted by a combination of estimated cassava losses, land shortage and food insecurity.4. Detailed data-sets can be used to assist with logistics of household and plant health surveys,and with project implementation. Landsat satellite imagery (2000) is available for all C3P countries Village locations are available from NIMA Road maps are available for some countriesProvince-level data can be disaggregated to provide estimates of values for smaller administrativeunits. Estimates at commune level can be used to select priority communes for intervention againstCMD and other diseases.Similar studies like the one done in Burundi can be undertaken in other countries covered by theC3P project. Africover maps are available for all six countries. As new more detailed plant healthand food security data is collected by the C3P project, more precise targeting can be undertaken.Targeting can be done basing on estimated losses, cultivated land and food security. These can becombined to produce targeting map for 1 st , 2nd and 3 rd priority areas.It is envisaged that the food security assessment will be undertaken in September and the planthealth survey in November 2006.38

Comments on the presentationComments: the targeting really depends on the information available. When more information isavailable it can be updated. Partners are useful in this area by providing more information.For the other countries if the same GIS system is to be applied we need to get disaggregatedstatistics for 2005-2006.7. Demand driven approaches to disseminating planting material : Stephen Walsh, CRSMarket-Based Approaches: Emerging LessonsThe seed fairs and voucher approach: A seed Vouchers & Fairs is an alternative relief seedapproach that focuses on demand rather than on supply. The approach is now used in all locationswhere there is a seed-based response to disaster. Between (2000-2006) seed fairs and vouchers havelead to increased capacity and adoption. They have been endorsed and adopted by relief agencies,governments and have as a result received expanded donor support.Impact of Seed Vouchers & Fairs• Primary asset transfer and secondary asset strengthening• Increased interest in seed aid, seed systems and seed security• Increased advocacy for market approaches and demand subsidiesWe need to understand local seed systems. Any approach that is used should ensure that it isdemand driven and not just given. There is therefore need to consider local seed systems in the C3P.The seed security framework is made up of 3 components Access, Availability and utilization.Framework for demand sided interventions:• This is based on the so called ‘entitlement approach’ of Amartya Sen.• Demand sided orientations should be considered when the underlying seed system problem isdefined as access and not availability oriented.Demand sided orientations, may also lend themselves to more effectively addressing entitlementlosses at household level which are associated with shock to a seed system. The ‘availability’ or‘access’ characterization of the seed system diagnostic points to the need for sharply differingresponses by seed aid practitioners.Physo-sanitary control is more challenging as one moves from more classic availability (supply side)responses to access (demand sided) responses. This is illustrated in looking at vegetative propagatedcrops (banana, cassava, sweet potato) where their tradability in more conventional seed markets islow to nonexistent due to perishability and inability to effectively assess quality.Using the seed security matrix a Draft Framework for Diagnosis and Response for VegetativelyPropagated Planting Material is proposed in which immediate and gradual responses are suggesteddepending on the seed security situation (availability, access or utilization).39

ParameterPlanting Material SecurityDefinitionImmediateResponseGradual ResponseAvailabilitySufficient quantity of seed ofappropriate crops availablewithin reasonable proximity,and in time for planting-Crop Substitution.-Import large quantityof Clean Materialsfrom unaffected areas.-primary, secondaryand tertiarymulplication of cleanlocal or resistantmaterial.-TCP Subsidy.AccessUtilizationPeople have adequate incomeor other resources to purchaseor barter for planting materialPlanting material is ofacceptable quality(physiological, analytical, andsanitary), and of adaptedvarieties (varietal integritySeed Voucher &Fairs(SV&F)On Farm Voucher(OFV)-Crop Substitution.-Import large Quantityof Resistant Materialsfrom unaffected areas.-Limited ManagementOptions to mitigateagainst effects ofdisease.SV&FOFV-Crop Substitution.- Primary, secondaryand tertiarymulplication of cleanlocal or resistantmaterial.Of resistant material.-Management tomitigate against effectsof disease.-Varietal validation ofresistant material.In applying the Framework to CMD, Optimal responses require consideration of all threeparameters – availability, access, and utilization. The resulting response should be a combination ofvarietal validation targeting TCP’s, subsidies to traditional cassava planters (TCP) to stimulatesupply, and on farm vouchers (OFV). Any sustainable response to CMD requires a combination ofthese three responses, with the relative weight of the responses depending on a careful diagnostic ofthe cassava system. This framework underlines the importance of better understanding thetraditional cassava system in order to more effectively tailor responses.In assessing which combination of responses are most appropriate, practitioners should considerlooking at the value chain for vegetatively propagated material and focus on the bottlenecks. Insupporting effective diffusion – practitioners should ask ‘Where on the supply chain should wefocus our subsidy (intervention)?’Recommendations• Develop a diagnosis and response framework for vegetatively propagated material.• Planting material system & security assessments to focus on specific systems in order todiagnose problems and tailor application of the subsidy to the bottleneck in the value chain(TCP subsidy & OFV, TCP subsidy, OFV).• Evaluation of the effectiveness of the response should be based on adoption – How many viableplants resulted?40

• Pipeline new varieties into TCP systems to sustain farmer demand and sustain research links.• Responses need to be tailored to the situation on the ground. Undiagnosed responses arediscouraged.Comments and questions on the presentation1. Question: Is there a market for cassava, can we compare the seed system to the vegetativelyproduced planting material system?Answer: the market research information where available could be used in this initiative. Yesthere is demand for cassava cuttings. This has been shown by studies done by NEPAD inMalawi.2. Question: How can the voucher system be applied to cassava, given that cassava takeslonger to produce and are bulky to transport?Answer: A farmer with planting material exhibit his planting material at a fair and farmerswho are interested can then negotiate on how to get the planting material. The farmersprovided with a voucher can redeem them at the time when their fields are ready or whenthe rains start.For the model for dissemination of cassava and bananas we need to define the geographicareas3. Question: Are going to have enough time to put the voucher system in place?Where and how do we provide the subsidy? How does the model work out?Answer: A demand subsidy is provided to the target farmers who use a voucher to get theplanting material from a TCP, the vouchers are then paid out by CRS. The vouchers have tobe time bound so that liquidation doesn’t take place after the project’s time frame.4. Question: Is the seed fairs and voucher approach a superior approach to the primary,secondary and tertiary multiplication approach?Answer: By using the primary, secondary and tertiary multiplication system we tend tosuppress demand. If we provide a demand subsidy we allow the market to expand. Theapproach to be used really depends on the seed security situation and an understanding ofthe local seed systems in place.WORKING GROUPSParticipants of the workshop were then divided into 6 working groups covering the followingthematic areas:Group 1: Geo-targetingGroup 2: Phyto-sanitaryGroup 3: DiffusionGroup 4: CoordinationGroup 5: Monitoring and EvaluationGroup 6: Information and communicationGroup 1: Geo-Targeting Chris Legg and Kevin DoyleGeographical Targeting Assessment & Analysis41

Criteria for focusing of C3P project activitiesTwo Analyses are to undertaken:1. CMD2. BXWThe Criteria Process should involve the following steps:1. Quantitative2. Participatory Qualitative3. Cost/Benefit AnalysisStep 1: QuantitativeNecessary Data Production (annual, seasonal, over time) Disease incidence & severity (CMD, BXW, other major crop diseases/pests... Food/livelihood security (consumption, malnutrition, income, food expenditures...) Demography (population & population structure, repatriation, IDPs...) Human health (HIV/AIDS, other epidemics...) Climate/soils. land use data market flow of commodities humanitarian interventions (food aid, etc.)Outputs of Step 1 based on data: Where is impact or expected impact? Where are zones of vulnerability? What stage of crop crisis? Pre-epidemic? Epidemic? Post-epidemic?Timing of step 1: a) data collection (1 month)b) Input and analysis of data by IITA (6 weeks)c) validation/consensus of final analysis (2 weeksStep 2: Qualitative Who is doing/has done what? Where are they doing it (or have done it)? How effective are their interventions? What are the capacities/weaknesses of current intervening actors? What is the presence and capacity of CRS and its primary partners on the ground in targetedareas based on data analysis? What are the opportunities to collaborate with other actors in targeted areas? (Farmersgroups, other local partners.)Outputs of Step 2 qualitative, refined targeting consensus building among primary actorsTiming: Stakeholder consultative meetings (3 weeks)42

Step 3: Cost/Benefit Analysis how much money is available? comparative advantages of C3P interventions Number of beneficiaries reached / cost per beneficiary supply and demand / accessibility to markets accessibility of getting material to farmers (perishability, time) cost/benefit of potential interventions opportunity costs probability/viability of successOutputs of Step 3 Final, prioritized targeting!Timing: Final country specific target selection/planning meeting (end September/early October).Comments and questions on the presentation1. Comment: Exercise may be necessary but some countries might have to ask themselves howmuch of it has to be done. How many of the steps can be skipped? Going through with theprocess means that the project might have to be delayed. It is vital that the steps be followed toallow for standardization across countries.2. Comment: The criteria have to be applied across all 6 country programs. Justification for thetargeting has to be done. In some countries data is already available say on food security. Theissue will be to combine the food security data with the prevalence data. The process of targetinghas to be well documented. Good quality data is a prerequisite to proper targeting.Group 2: Phyto-sanitary control Bruce Mukanda and James LeggThe following phyto-sanitary approach was proposed:For control of BXW1. A =Avoid introducing the disease2. B = Break the male bud (removal)3. C = cut off infected plants (or destroy them)4. C = Clean5. Escaping varieties exist-For insect spread6. Regular and intensive surveillance is required- establish networks of farm monitors-task forces7. Establish gene banks of both improved and local material.For control of CMD1. Resistant varieties available in all countries2. Rouging3. Selection of CMD free stems4. Control of spread of diseases and control of movement of planting material Establishment of Quarantine facilities Uniform surveillance across countries Public awareness on safe disposal of waste and Germplasm movement Border controls in countries were they don’t exist43

Regional system for phyto sanitary control developed by COMESA to facilitate trade andmovement of food.Legislation relating to the control of CMD ad BXW There is need to harmonize legislation. This is being addressed through COMESA Facilitating a regulatory system for cross border movements to allow movement in an openenvironment rather than ban them. Keep law enforcers informed and instill an attitude of patriotism. Facilitating law/ legislation at local level. Legislation should be facilitatory rather thanprohibitive.Regional coordination There is need for a regional coordination network or mechanism Awareness is critical.Reaction to presentation:What is being proposed is necessary but beyond the scope of C3P. We can provide as muchinformation to COMESA so that it can take on the legislative issues. We can work with COMESAbut some of the issues raised might not be implemented with in the life of the project but COMESAcan contribute through: Coordination Certification: interaction between phyto-sanitary certificates related to planting material COMESA can advocate for a particular measure to aid the movement of materials acrossborders.A person in each country group should be assigned to look at the phyto-sanitary issuesGroup 3: Diffusion Michael Tewolde / Father TaurineIt noted that there is considerable overlap between group 1 and 3. The steps to be followed aregiven below:1. Define the Geographic target (geo-targeting- group 1).2. Identify a partner [sub-award]. [Institutional and technical capacity of a partner key criteria].3. Using the coordination mechanism engage key stakeholders to define scope and coverage of aRapid assessment.44

Framework for Diagnosis and Response:CASSAVAUndertake a Rapid assessment [could be part of the baseline survey]Needs AssessmentAvailability of Material• Targeting criteria to identify thevulnerable.• Identify how many, gender, age,acreage, incomeStatus /Availability• Is material available locally? [With indistrict / sub-county], if yes what variety,quantity.• Carry out field inspection to ensure thematerial is disease free.None Very little Sufficient Prioritizationfor resourceallocationPre-epidemic • Establish mothergarden of resistantvarieties atstrategic sites.• Awareness tocreate demand toreplacesusceptiblematerialFront line • Establish mothergarden of resistantvarieties atstrategic sites.• Awareness tocreate demand toreplacesusceptiblematerialEpidemic • Rapidmultiplication-• [Managed byNGO-CBO toensure success].• Import Resistantand clean material[phyto- regs].Post-epidemicParticipatoryevaluation of newgenetic material• Maintain mothergardens.• Awareness tocreate demand toreplacesusceptiblematerialMaintain mothergardens.• StrategicallySelected Rapidmultiplicationplots [Managed byNGO-CBO]• Farmers will betrained on thetechniquesFarmer to farmerdissemination• Maintain mothergardens.• Establish mothergarden of resistantvarieties at strategicsites.Maintain mother gardens.Traditional Cassavaplanters (TCP) & OnFarm Voucher(OFV)Farmer to farmerdissemination.3 rd2 nd1 st4 th45

BANANASThe country is divided into 3 zones:1. Unaffected zones2. Frontline areas3. Endemic zonesThe strategies will be such that:In unaffected zones:Strategies:• Mobilising local communities to form BBW task forces• Mobilising agriculture extension and NGOs to engage in prevention.• Aggressive eradication of disease pockets.Halting disease in frontline areasStrategies:• Awareness• Use of TOTs to reach farmers at the grass roots.• Use of a community based approach to be able to identify the disease and control thedisease.• Mobilising local communities to form BBW task forces• Dissemination of PDC tools (brochures, videos, posters, calendars)Dissemination in endemic zoneStrategies:• Awareness building on how to cope with the disease followed by• Dissemination of clean planting material• Intensive de-budding and rouging of affected plants• Promotion and dissemination of Participatory Development Communication tools (videos,pamphlets, Brochures) and use of other communication channels.Depending on the situation it is proposed that tissue culture plantlets be disseminated to farmershowever a benefit/cost analysis will have to be done. The rapid multiplication method requires moretime; however farmers will be exposed to it by way of demonstration plots.Comments and questions on the presentation1. Comment: Focus should be placed on areas were there is the epidemic. However it is criticalthat availability of planting material be ascertained first before putting in place a particulardiffusion mechanism.2. Question: Consideration has to be made for countries that lack tissue culture facilities. Is itviable to use tissue culture as opposed to the macro-propagation method?Answer: In Uganda the tissue culture has proved to viable given the negative response that themacro-propagation approach has received in some of the areas were it has been tried by thebanana programme. Farmers have complained of the labour intensiveness of the method andthe fact that they have to destroy a plant in order to get suckers. Tissue culture plantlets have46

een provided to farmers through a cost sharing mechanism. However the issue here is the costto the project and sustainability issues.3. Comment: It is advisable to have quantitative targets in the diffusion plan. The assessmentscarried out to come up with the appropriate diffusion mechanism should consider differentscenarios or conditions.Group 4: Coordination mechanisms C3P Country Managers / Pierre RousseausIt is envisaged that coordination will occur at 4 levels which are:1. Region level- composed of the steering committee, chief of party, country managers2. Country level: Program managers, partners, NARS Country Coordination Committees Technical staff3. Partners’ level: choice of partners should be based on a criteria and number of partners will beadaptive to each country. A participatory methodology should be used. Partners should bewilling to invest resources and buy into the program philosophy.4. Farmer level: Coordination will be carried out by a management committee that is committed toimplement the programme They have to buy into the program philosophy Program ownership is important.Comments and questions to the presentationIt is necessary to use the existent frameworks to come up with a simplified model. The approachmay be different for different countries. If there is an existent framework in place we need to learnfrom it or utilize the same coordination framework. With in the country groups we need to keep thecoordination frameworks simple and work with existent coordination mechanisms were they exist.47

Group 5: Monitoring & Evaluation Stephan / Steve / Stella / MetaThe group presented an M&E framework. It was proposed that M&E be undertaken at two levelsthat is at the goal level to determine project impact. Impact will be measured at the baseline andthe end of the project. The second level will be at the intermediate results level to determine theproject performance and progress. Refer to project documents for target, milestones andindicators. A check list of outputs expected and time frame is given in the project documents.Monitoring of activities can be done by ticking off the checklist.Monitoring and Evaluation frameworkLevel Description Type Indicator Quantification Tool AssumptionImpactGoaln.a.Threats to foodsecurity causedby agric. crisesreducedImpact onlivelihoodsMore food available +better access to food ofhouseholds XLess variability of foodproduction + quick andeffective response to foodsecurity threats=Increased food securityHigher foodproduction (nodisease effects)More income(fromagriculture)Regional foodtrade improvedReduction inyield varianceSignificantlyreduced time lagbetween threatand responseBaselinesurveysEx postsurvey intargetgroupsand nontargetgroupsStrategicObjectivesProjectSO1: Regionalstakeholdersinstitutionalizeagriculturaldisaster responsemechanismsSO2: Farmersemploy effectivemeasures tocontrol CMDand BXWImpact oninstitutionsImpact onagriculturalproductionRegional disaster responsenetwork set up, includingcoordination bodyand affiliated to sustainable(on-project mode)political/institutional entity(e.g.COMESA/ASARECA)National informationsystems set up and linked toregional levelInformation exchangefacilities established(platforms, website, GIS)Adoption of technologies byend of project XReduction of diseaseprevalence by end of projectn.a.Adoption ratesInfection ratesIn a given time(18 months)Minutesofmeetings,numberandregularityofinteractions,amountandregularityofinformationexchangeBaselinesurveysEx postsurvey intargetgroupsand nontargetgroupsAvailability ofnationalinformationsystems tosupplyinformationAvailability/willingness ofpolitical entityto housenetworkAll otherbiotic andabiotic factorsstable48

Level Description Type Indicator Quantification Tool AssumptionProgressIntermediateresultsvariousAchievements of outputs aslistedOutputs as listedInputs(activities)ProjecteffectivenessandefficiencyProjecteffectivenessandefficiencyActivities as listedNecessary conditions: An M&E unit has to be established Feedback mechanisms and reporting/reaction, checks and balances M&E budget Consultation with USAID M&E specialist at country levelComments on the presentationActivities aslistedChecklist: LogframeandtimeframeChecklist: LogframeandtimeframeComments:Feed back is very important in order to meet project objectives. We need to keep sight of themile stones and use the information collected during M&E to inform implementation.Efficientnational andregionalcoordinationmechanismsPolicyenvironmentfavorableEfficientnational andregionalcoordinationmechanismsPolicyenvironmentfavorableGroup 6: Training and CommunicationMugenzi / Rose / Pheneas/ Eldad/ CarolineTraining and communication will be looked at 2 angles:• Public Awareness• SensitizationObjective(s)1. Train stakeholders to recognize and control BXW & CMD diseases;2. Raise awareness of the project nationally & regionally;3. Share information and best practices regarding CDM & BXW;4. Linkages to Food for Peace (FFP), World Food Programme (WFP) and national andregionally programs (ASARECA and COMESA).Participatory Approaches• Establish training & communication needs (national & regional levels) for both BXW &CMD• Identify traditional & non-traditional partners (in training, communication & awareness –regionally)• Identify and adapt successful training and communication approaches• Identify appropriate training and communication strategies for different target groups49

RegionalCMDNationalLocalTarget GroupsRegionalBXWNationalLocalTraining of TrainersFocus on:1. Not Affected2. Frontline3. Endemic (+ 6 months)Farmers, Farmers organizations (FOs)Extension ResearchPolicy MakersNon-Governmental Organizations LearningInstitutionsReligious & Cultural InstitutionsObjective 1: Train stakeholders to recognize and control BXW & CMD diseases1. Develop a training manual/guide for farmers and/or stakeholders Strengthen participatory facilitation and communication skills Disease recognition and prevention/control Establish demonstration plots where appropriate2. Simple message deliveryObjective 2: Raise awareness of the project nationally & regionally1. Develop appropriate communication tools (e.g. mass media)2. Simple message deliveryObjective 3: Share information best practices for BXW & CMD1. Workshops2. Seminars3. Quarterly Newsletter (input from six countries)4. Websites5. Exchange visits50

6. Mass media7. Community meetingsObjective 4: Linkages to Food for Peace (FFP), World Food Programme (WFP) and national andregionally programs (ASARECA and COMESA• Involve Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs), NGOsSummary: The discussion on thematic areas should guide the country teams in the formulation ofthe work plans. The CRS head of programming and the country program managers should thinkcarefully about the cost involved in undertaking each of the activities.51

APPENDIX 5.10Summary of Day 1 Session 3Each country gave its presentation. The presentations were given, where possible, by the newlyrecruited CRS Country Program Managers or another CRS representative.One purpose of this session was to familiarize every work shop participant with the on –goingCMD and BXW activities in each of the 6 countries, particularly as it related to the potential C3Pactivities for the CRS partners. This provided countries to compare and contrast their activitiesand to identify, gaps, strengths and weakness.The major purpose of this session was however to identify the main regional and common areasof importance that would need to be thoroughly considered for each country to develop theirCountry Work Plans and subsequently their sub-grants. In this session the rapporteur, Dr. PaulaBramel, was really a facilitator, with the job of identifying from the 6 presentations, theimportant regional issues.Once these regional themes could be identified then it would be easy to break the whole groupup into specific groups.The facilitator identified 6 distinct groups, which were as follows:7. Geographic Target Areas8. Quarantine and Phytosanitary issues9. Multiplication and Diffusion mechanisms for disease resistant CMD and BXW plantmaterial10. Monitoring and Evaluation methods11. Local, National and Regional Coordination mechanism12. Training, communication and sensitization requirementsFor each of the 6 groups a chairperson and rapporteur were identified.The participants joined the groups where they had particular expertise. e.g. the GIS people wentinto Group 1. The training specialists into Group 6.The chairperson of each group presented their findings to the meeting on DAY 2.These presentations provided the basis for each Country Coordinating Group to develop its Workplan52

APPENDIX 5.11Advisory Steering Committee MembersName Organization Position Email AddressEldad ASARECA ASARECA e.tukahirwa@asareca.orgTukahirwaSecretariatPheneas ASARECA IITA/EARRNET p.ntawuruhunga@iitaesarc.co.ugNtawuruhungaCoordinatorEldad ASARECA INIBAP/BARNESA e.karamura@inibap.co.ugKaramuraCoordinatorCris Muyunda COMESA COMESAcmuyunda@comesa.intSecretariatBruce COMESA Consultant (SPS bmukanda@comesa.intMukandaMeasures)Thomas COMESA COMESAtbarasa@comesa.intBarasaSecretariatPeter Ewell USAID Regionalpewell@usaid.govAgriculturalAdvisor(REDSO/ESO)Denise USAID Regional Food for dgordon@usaid.govGordonPeace Officer(REDSO/ESO)Laura Powers USAID Director OFDA lpowers@usaid.govPaula Bramel IITA Director for p.bramel@cgiar.orgResearch andDevelopmentJames Legg IITA/NRI Cassava Scientist j.legg@cgiar.orgMaina IITA Banana Scientist m.mwangi@iitaesarc.co.ugMwengeTom CRSSenior Agricultural tremington@crsearo.orgRemingtonAdvisor (EARO)John Peacock CRS Chief of Party C3P Johnp473@yahoo.comSteven Walsh CRS Deputy CoP C3P swalsh@crscongo.orgNebambi FAOnebambi.lutaladio@fao.orgLutaladioJohn Lynam Kilimo Trust Managing Director jlynam@africaonline.co.keSimon-Eden EG Consulting Director egc@eden-green.co.ukGreenSteve Collins ACDI/VOCA Country Director scollins@acdivoca-kenya.or.ke53

APPENDIX 5.12Closing SessionBruce MukandaIf we are to ensure trade and food security we need to look to trade beyond our borders. Thismeans we need to organize ourselves in teams of SPS. Methods must comply with internationalstandards. COMESA is keen that countries involved in controlling CMD and BXW use bestpractices. COMESA is trying to set up a regional programme for phytosanitary control. It isimportant that national plant protection organizations are represented in this. Most countries havebeen linked in to this process, with the exception of one or two. In the next two months, trainingefforts are beginning. This is how COMESA will contribute to trying to help you in controllingthese two diseases. COMESA is a club and the members are the member countries, so you needto tell us what you would like. COMESA is ready to help whenever it can. We are pleased tohave participated in this meeting. I will report back to my HQ and we look forward to seeing thesuccessful implementation of the project.Pheneas Ntawuruhunga – ASARECAASARECA is excited to be participating in this project. A key constraint is mechanisms of seeddelivery. We are pleased to see that this is being addressed through this project. BARNESA toois very keen to be involved. These activities are key in improving the livelihoods of people inrural areas. ASARECA has accepted to incorporate these activities into its work plan for 2006-2010. It would like to thank USAID for support both for ASARECA as well as for this projectand the allied OFDA CMD Pandemic Mitigation Project. Many thanks also to our Rwandesecolleagues.Steve Walsh – CRSCRS is not an agricultural organization. We do partnership and agriculture is one of the fieldswhere we do this. In the last ten years we have seen the need for agricultural partnerships andinvolvement with research partners. Your presence shows what can be done if we work together.We have made a good start, although a lot more work remains to be done. It is much harder toapply technologies but much easier to get them. We need to find out why sometimestechnologies are not applied. How we work together will be critical as we move forward. Weshould think about how we design our work that allows feedback from beneficiaries. I think wecan do it if we listen to our communities and households. At the end of the day, we are here toserve, not the project, not our own institutions, but the end beneficiaries. Thank you to all of youfor using your time to come here.Paula Bramel – IITAThanks to CRS for giving IITA the chance to partner with them. We are thrilled to be part of thispartnership. Now the same level of commitment needs to be kept up. Thank you very much.54

Peter Ewell - USAIDWe are pleased to see the progress made to this point. We are pleased that both ASARECA andCOMESA are supporting this process. Things need to move quickly. We need to see the workplans and sub-awards move forward quickly and resources used well. We are very optimistic andlook forward to interacting through the implementation of this project.John Peacock – C3P COP, CRSThank you. Without you, this workshop would not have been possible. Thanks to USAID butparticularly to Peter Ewell who has put so much time in and has always been there. I would liketo personally thank Steve Walsh, my wife-Paula Bramel, Tom Remington and Debbie Reynolds;the CRS Country reps in all the target countries; Wanjiru, Guy and Theresa, Sean Gallagher andLaura Dills’ we could not have done it without this team. Thanks also to James Legg who hashelped to introduce me to the cassava problem and to Eldad and Guy who have taken time toexplain the banana situation. Rwanda has welcomed us all. I thank the government and all thosewho have helped us in our stay here, including the hotel and its staff, particularly Paul and Evordand our translators. Thank you to all of you. We wish you all a very safe journey back and I lookforward to working with you.55