Report of Monitoring Visit to 6 Projects Conducted April and May Jonas Mugabe & Clesensio Tizikara. July 2016

Transcription

1 Report of Monitoring Visit to 6 Projects Conducted April and May 2016 by Jonas Mugabe & Clesensio Tizikara July 2016

2 Monitoring & Evaluation visit background The structured field monitoring of the implementation of activities of MKTPlace started in 2014 (conducted by FARA in Africa). In July 2014, FARA and Embrapa agreed to regularly carry out M&E visits to sampled projects selected randomly by Embrapa. The discussions with the project teams are structured around a pre-filled standard questionnaire. The FARA team carries out the M&E activity and shares the report. Objectives of the M&E field visit The first M&E field visit was conducted from 13 th September to 1 st October 2014 covering 5 projects implemented in Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Benin. The second visit to another set of 5 projects in Ghana, Mali, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Cameroon was conducted in May/June The objectives of the April/May 2016 visit were: To assess the progress made in implementing activities of 6 Africa-Brazil Agricultural Innovation Marketplace projects; To assess key issues and constraints faced during the implementing period, the exit strategies set up; To draw lessons learned that will inform other projects and the next calls for proposals in the frame of Africa-Brazil Agricultural Innovation Marketplace To capture experiences and lessons to feed into the side-event being organised during the AASW in Kigali June. The assessment was limited to levels of the implementation of the activities, the constraints/challenges faced by implementers and drawing lessons that can be learnt and shared to all partners for the MKTPlace and other initiatives. Six projects in Mali, Ethiopia, Ghana and Uganda were covered. Methodology used in the field visit The M&E tool/questionnaire (Annex 1) was sent to the teams who were requested to respond. Field visits by the FARA team followed, during which discussions were held with the project teams and other stakeholders (where it was possible) at the project sites. The project teams made presentations that served as the basis for discussion. Major findings of M&E field visit The major findings of the M&E field visit are summarized in the following bullets. However these elements are developed in one or another section of this report. Most of the projects have generated (or are likely to generate) impressive outputs. Most projects working with a diverse array of value chain actors have generated high expectations that may neither be satisfied in the current phase, nor achieve a scale that can achieve meaningful impact. The 2-year implementation period seems to be inadequate to generate research technologies and scale them out to end users. Some activities could not even be brought to final conclusion. The collaboration between African and Brazilian partners was highly appreciated and judged positive by African partners as mutually beneficial for both sides. However some Brazilian partners were not able to undertake all the planned visits to Africa. Although exit strategy is not clear for some of the projects, a number are linked to other institutional initiatives/projects with secured funding to continue/develop further project Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 1

3 activities therefore guaranteeing some continuity. The projects show significant promise in terms of impacting on beneficiaries and sustainability is assured given the strong commitment of the host institutions and additional funding that is being leveraged from other sources. The involvement of policy-makers in the visited projects is still relatively low. Overall, the projects demonstrate that significantly important research outputs can be achieved with small investment provided it is properly managed. Africa-Brazil MKTPlace should think on the scaling up/out of outputs generated. There is need to integrate the capacity development thrusts of the innovation platform approach with use of modern ICTs and business incubation to speed up technology adoption and commercialization. Famer knowledge may be underappreciated in some instances. There is a strong need to bring knowledge at field level into the research programmes, harmonization of policies and interventions in the field; and to set up more concerted networks of stakeholders to provide an environment conducive to innovation and experimentation. The partnership between FARA- Embrapa and partner institutions should move beyond individuals. Building strong ties/partnerships between FARA- Embrapa -Partner institutions should be one of the objectives of Embrapa-Brazil. Visitation from Brazilian partners to Africa and the movement of germplasm out of Brazil continue to be big bottlenecks. This coupled with the seasonality of operations of some of the projects, cause delays in effective project start-up and completion within the stipulated periods. African students and scientists attached to the projects have been to Embrapa for training to gain skills in using new lab equipment acquired from project funds and other professional skill sets. M&E Team Field Notes The team at the Université des Sciences, des Techniques et des Technologies de Bamako (USTTB) LaboREM Biotech is implementing two projects aiming at improving soils. Those projects are: Enhancing smallholder maize production through the promotion of Tilemsi rock phosphate combinated with phosphate-solubilizing and nitrogen-fixing bacteria as P-fertilizer in Mali. Transfer of Embrapa s On-Farm AM-fungi inoculum production technology to enhance rock phosphate use efficiency and crop production of smallholders in Africa. Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 2

4 The FARA team met and interacted with: Prof Bernard Sodio, Vice-Doyen chargé de l Enseignement et de la Recherche; Prof Moussa Karambe, Chef Departement Biologie; Madame Prof Nah Traore, Chef Departement Chimie; Prof Sekou Bouare, Departement de Chimie; Prof Amadou Hamadou Babana, Chef Laboratoire de Microbiologie et Biotechnologie Microbienne (LaboREM Biotech); Prof Diakaridia Traoré, LaboREM Biotech; Mr Amadou Hamadoun Dicko, PhD student in LaboREM Biotech and Mr Ibrahima Mallé, MSC student. The team also visited the WAPP Mali office and met with Mr Yaya Traoré, Coordinateur Technique and Mrs Mariam Keita, Chargée de questions Sociales et Genre. The two projects in Mali have made a good progress as they take advantage of students doing their postgraduate studies. Impressive outputs have been generated on station. The last phase is on farm research that is waiting for the rains around July The two projects may require an extension to allow them validate the technologies on-farm. The two students working on projects in Mali (USTTB) have been to Embrapa for training to gain skills in using new lab equipment acquired from project funds. Also in case of Mali, the projects have strong links with the WAAPP and other partners involved in similar initiatives. This ensures the sustainability of the projects. However, none of Brazilian partners has visited Africa. Improving poultry production in Ethiopia through production system studies, breed characterization and implementation of improved practices - implemented by the Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research (EIAR). The team met Dr Zemelak Sahlegorags of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Debreizet Station and also poultry farmers groups. The poultry project has conducted pre-surveys and a full survey to establish baselines on poultry production systems. The improved commercial Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 3

5 free-range production model being introduced from Brazil is being implemented with a charitable NGO that has started to build facilities on a new site. Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 4

6 High quality effective rhizobium inoculants for grain legumes in northern Ghana CSIR-SARI, Nyankpala, Tamale, Ghana The team was guided through the project achievements by the project co-leaders (Mr. Benjamin AHIABOR & Mr. Luc Rouws). A total of 5,541 farmers have been reached through video on inoculants technology. Eight lowly effective, 19 effective and one highly effective strain of rhizobia were isolated based on their symbiotic effectiveness on groundnut. A highly elite local rhizobium strain has been selected for groundnut and cowpea. Two SARI technicians trained in modern microbiology methods, inoculants production and quality control and molecular biology methods at Embrapa Agrobiologia, Brazil and have produced a set of quality control protocols on inoculants. Major difficulties were experienced in obtaining travel authorization to visit SARI for Brazilian team members. There was a major delay in the procurement of a laminar flow cabinet for sterile work. An inoculants production laboratory is being constructed with sponsorship from AGRA. There were no Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 5

7 activities in the field as this was off-season but the team met participating farmers who showed enthusiasm and satisfaction with the project activities. Exchange of banana and plantain (Musa spp.) varieties and hybrids between IITA and Embrapa - widening the genetic base for the development of new cultivars and direct use by farmers NARO Banana programme Kawanda & IITA sub-station, Sendusu-Namulonge, Uganda The project plan was to evaluate the pest/disease, agronomic and palatability performance of banana hybrids developed by Embrapa (Brazil) and assist Embrapa with IITA s expertise in plantain breeding. 12 Embrapa hybrids were installed in the experimental area of NARO (Uganda) on 2 October 2015 and artificially infected with Fusarium, and will be planted in Nigeria in June There was an excessive delay in sending the hybrids from Brazil (15 months after the first import permit was issued!!!) due to excessive bureaucratic issues (legal analysis of the project and signing of the SMTA, basically). In Uganda, the Embrapa hybrids were multiplied and shipped to Nigeria. 13 IITA improved plantain hybrids have been sent to Brazil but are yet to be planted. Whereas the proposed plan cannot be finalized by the end of the project, both IITA/NARO and Embrapa will proceed with the germplasm evaluation as planned after the end of the project, as both parties see a great potential of Embrapa hybrids by smallholders in Africa, especially in Uganda and Nigeria, and Brazilian plantain farmers. This was the first time there was an export of banana germplasm from Brazil. The FARA team was conducted through and briefed by Dr. Brigitte Uwimana, Dr. Tendo and Dr. Edson Perito Amorim. Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 6

8 Inoculation of efficient rhizobial strains as an approach to increase the pigeonpea production of smallholders in Uganda NaCCRI, Namulonge, Uganda The project, led by Mr. Charles Kasozi of NARO-NaCCRI Uganda was to evaluate the efficiency of the Brazilian semiarid Rhizobia (plus a strain already recommended by the ministry of agriculture) in at least three eco-regions of Uganda. Besides the evaluation of the Brazilian strains, a culture collection with Rhizobia from Uganda would be structured. The field evaluations would be performed according the official protocol of the Brazilian Agriculture Ministry to indicate a bacterial strain to field inoculation of pigeonpea seeds. The project was not able to import Rhizobium strains from Brazil and opted for morphological selection. Fifteen Rhizobial strains were used and laboratory and field work rum concurrently. Thirtytwo distinct strains have been isolated through PCR techniques and are to be sent to the Netherlands for sequencing. Field trials are conducted in Namulonge, Serere, Ngetta and Abi. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS a) The MKTPlace serves to promote investments in agricultural research and development; strengthen South-South Cooperation through new, innovative and effective mechanisms to satisfy a large demand for tropical agricultural technology. It is run through inclusive governance mechanisms and access to a large group of stakeholders using online platforms. b) The M&E exercise is one way for implementers and evaluators to learn some lessons from the project. One recurring lesson from the visits is that projects are often too ambitious in terms of Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 7

9 anticipated impact. Projects, once selected should be assisted to refine their results frameworks and set realistic indicators. c) All research projects involve researchers from the two divides (Africa and Brazil). It is amazing to see how small amounts of money (maximum US$ 80,000) have generated high/visible outputs. This model has to be deeply documented and shared with other initiatives. All of them have involved national universities with students who carried out MSc thesis research. d) All partners expressed their satisfaction on the partnerships with Embrapa. In almost all projects visited this time, Brazilian partners visited the African partners. Similarly African scientists visited Embrapa or stayed there for training (at least two weeks). In a number of cases, germplasm and other technologies were exchanged between participating institutions. e) Considering the fact that almost all projects start with delay because of fund disbursement (which is common in projects), and that all projects (even those visited last year) requested for a no cost extension, it may be more prudent to set a new time horizon of 30 months for project implementation instead of the current 24 months. This will avoid the request by all projects of a no cost-extension. f) Some partners don t know the role of FARA in the initiative. There is need of streamline the reporting system so as to make FARA more visible in the action. g) M&E exercise should be undertaken routinely for all commissioned projects to assess the level of progress, discuss with implementers and report to donors. There is need to have a uniform format for reporting. APPRECIATION We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the project leaders and their institutions for the kind cooperation extended during our visits. We would also like extend our appreciation to Embrapa for the trust and the role it is playing in Africa-Brazil MKTPlace. Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 8

10 ANNEX 1: MONITORING QUESTIONS The key question for process monitoring is are activities happening according to plan and, if not, what are the reasons? a) Status of Planned Activities As activities are executed, schedule variances often occur (activities can finish earlier or later than originally planned). What is the status of planned activities (as per the project work plan) and level of achievement of key milestones? What interventions have been completed and with what resources? Which activities are on schedule/delaying/proceeding as originally planned? What modifications were made and why? b) Outputs and Outcomes For the major activities undertaken during the reporting period, what outputs/products (both quantitative and qualitative) have been generated or developed and what has changed (outcomes achieved) as a result of your activities? What accomplishments or events do you consider newsworthy and would like to publicise to other project stakeholders? c) Development of stakeholder capacity What organisational and technical abilities has the project imparted on stakeholders to enhance their capacities and competencies in implementing project interventions (e.g. training and mentoring; clarity of roles, responsibilities and rights; institutional structures; partnerships and linkages)? What support mechanism has the project provided to facilitate the implementation of the action and enhance the participatory monitoring of processes, outputs and impact of the project? d) Project performance rating What is your overall rating of the performance of your project on the critical success factors of meeting project objectives, timeliness, functional involvement of stakeholders, and dissemination of outputs? Is the partnership arrangement still the right one to carry out the implementation? Were the processes used to create the necessary conditions and capacity the right ones to implement the project successfully? Is the project still appropriate to bring about sustainable benefits addressing the specific identified needs of the target beneficiaries? Is the project being implemented with fidelity and consistency and is the period of time sufficient for change to occur? Is the size and duration of the investment sufficient to reach the threshold level of change in the outcome? e) Key issues and Constraints What were the key issues and constraints that you faced during the reporting period; what you did to overcome them? Do the assumptions made during the planning process still hold true? Is the original implementation strategy still appropriate and should be continued or should it be modified? Is it necessary to make adjustments to resources and partnership arrangements? f) Lessons Learned List at least THREE key lessons you have learned during the reporting period (these could relate to working with partners, functional involvement of stakeholders, good practice, innovation, project management, communication, etc.). What would you do differently if you were to start all over again (from project design, finding co-leader in Brazil, to current state of project implementation)? Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 9

11 Annex 2: M&E Report: banana and plantain (Musa spp.) varieties and hybrids The key question for process monitoring is are activities happening according to plan and, if not, what are the reasons? a) Status of Planned Activities As activities are executed, schedule variances often occur (activities can finish earlier or later than originally planned). What is the status of planned activities (as per the project work plan) and level of achievement of key milestones? What interventions have been completed and with what resources? Which activities are on schedule/delaying/proceeding as originally planned? What modifications were made and why? The plan was to evaluate the pest/disease, agronomic and palatability performance of banana hybrids developed by Embrapa (Brazil) and assist Embrapa with IITA s expertise in plantain breeding. The Embrapa hybrids were installed in the experimental area of NARO (Uganda) on 2 October 2015 and artificially infected with Fusarium, and will be planted in Nigeria in June There was an excessive delay in sending the hybrids from Brazil (15 months after the first import permit was issued!!!) due to excessive bureaucratic issues (legal analysis of the project and signing of the SMTA, basically). In Uganda, the Embrapa hybrids were multiplied and shipped to Nigeria. IITAs improved plantain hybrids have been sent to Brazil but need still to be planted. Again administration was delaying shipment of germplasm. All this was funded by the Marketplace budget. The proposed plan can thus not be finalized by the end of the project. Yet both IITA/NARO and Embrapa will proceed with the germplasm evaluation as planned after the end of the project, as both parties see a great potential of Embrapa hybrids by smallholders in Africa, especially in Uganda and Nigeria, and Brazilian plantain farmers. b) Outputs and Outcomes For the major activities undertaken during the reporting period, what outputs/products (both quantitative and qualitative) have been generated or developed and what has changed (outcomes achieved) as a result of your activities? What accomplishments or events do you consider newsworthy and would like to publicise to other project stakeholders? 12 Embrapa hybrids and have been imported to Uganda and Nigeria. These were planted in Uganda and will be planted next month in Nigeria. 13 PITA (black sigatoka resistant plantain hybrids) were sent to Brazil but are yet to be planted. The work is executed as planned with a large delay due to administrative issues linked to germplasm exchange. We need to await the reconfirmation of disease resistance in the 3 countries concerned as well acceptability by consumers. If positive, this will be very newsworthy. c) Development of stakeholder capacity What organisational and technical abilities has the project imparted on stakeholders to enhance their capacities and competencies in implementing project interventions (e.g. training and mentoring; clarity of roles, responsibilities and rights; institutional structures; partnerships and linkages)? What support mechanism has the project provided to facilitate the implementation of the action and enhance the participatory monitoring of processes, outputs and impact of the project? The technical partnership between Embrapa and IITA was efficient. The contacts between the leaders of the current proposal were frequent (via Skype, telephone or during Congress / Meetings / Workshops / etc.) and the actions necessary to implement the project were executed. Exchange of information between the collaborating partners has strengthened in-house capacity in breeding and field evaluation. Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 10

12 d) Project performance rating What is your overall rating of the performance of your project on the critical success factors of meeting project objectives, timeliness, functional involvement of stakeholders, and dissemination of outputs? The project has fully met objectives it was set to achieve with full involvement of the community and other stakeholders as planned. Outputs are being disseminated through different channels including MSc theses, scientific papers, trainings and workshops. Is the partnership arrangement still the right one to carry out the implementation? Yes Were the processes used to create the necessary conditions and capacity the right ones to implement the project successfully? Yes, but the science and evaluation delivery were seriously delayed by bureaucracy. Is the project still appropriate to bring about sustainable benefits addressing the specific identified needs of the target beneficiaries? Yes Is the project being implemented with fidelity and consistency and is the period of time sufficient for change to occur? No. Two years were not enough to complete the proposed activities Is the size and duration of the investment sufficient to reach the threshold level of change in the outcome? No. once the hybrids are found to be resistant and acceptable by consumers, these hybrids needs to be multiplied at a very large scale and distributed at a very large scale. In addition, similar tests needs to be executed in different African countries. e) Key issues and Constraints What were the key issues and constraints that you faced during the reporting period; what you did to overcome them? Do the assumptions made during the planning process still hold true? Is the original implementation strategy still appropriate and should be continued or should it be modified? Is it necessary to make adjustments to resources and partnership arrangements? The main problem observed in the project concerns the Brazilian bureaucratic issues associated with the germplasm exchange. Anything else is straightforward and needs to continue in an unchanged matter. f) Lessons Learned List at least THREE key lessons you have learned during the reporting period (these could relate to working with partners, functional involvement of stakeholders, good practice, innovation, project management, communication, etc.). What would you do differently if you were to start all over again (from project design, finding co-leader in Brazil, to current state of project implementation)? Three key lessons: 1. Better understanding of the bureaucratic issues (legal) associated with germplasm exchange in Brazil 2. Key people at Embrapa Headquarters to facilitate germplasm exchange process identified 3. Germplasm import in Nigeria from Brazil is impossible due to absolutely lack of knowledge of correct quarantine requirements Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 11

13 Annex 3: Monitoring Report - Improving poultry production in Ethiopia The key question for process monitoring is are activities happening according to plan and, if not, what are the reasons? g) Status of Planned Activities As activities are executed, schedule variances often occur (activities can finish earlier or later than originally planned). What is the status of planned activities (as per the project work plan) and level of achievement of key milestones? What interventions have been completed and with what resources? Which activities are on schedule/delaying/proceeding as originally planned? What modifications were made and why? Activities listed from A to K were accomplished as planned however, L & M, not as we need to wait construction of house for the proposed model free range production system at selected site " Mekedonia home for elderly and mentally disabled" which is located in Addis Ababa. Link: A) Signing project contract agreement B) Attending 2015's MKTPlace forum in Brasilia, meet Brazilian project coordinator & present project proposal (Sep15-18, 2015) C) Visiting free range poultry production systems at Concordia, Brazil (Sep8-9, 2015) D) Project launching meeting at DZARC, project team formation E) Input purchased: equipments, supplies, breed from local market F) Conducting a preliminary survey with a one page questionnaire to identify target respondents G) Training data collectors H) Structured questionnaire preparation for final data collection, testing questionnaires I) Collecting data on characterization of poultry production, status, challenges, and opportunities at small, medium and large scales level in Ethiopia J) Collecting information package on alternative free range layers production systems K) Selecting target households for introducing a model free range layers production system L) Input purchase for introducing a model free range layers production system M) Establishing model free range production system at selected households Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 12

14 h) Outputs and Outcomes For the major activities undertaken during the reporting period, what outputs/products (both quantitative and qualitative) have been generated or developed and what has changed (outcomes achieved) as a result of your activities? What accomplishments or events do you consider newsworthy and would like to publicise to other project stakeholders? Linkage was established with Brazilian poultry breeding company: Poultry breed technologies such as EMRAPA 051, and C431A/CPK were identified as important source technology for future importation into Ethiopia Seminars were conducted at Debrezeit Agricultural Research Center and EIAR to create awareness on the planned project activities and also introduce Brazilian poultry technologies Enumerators were trained on data collection Researchers and technical assistants were trained on data recording Software: Micro-soft access database A useful production guideline on free range poultry management practices was obtained from Embrapa swine and poultry Contact was established with Brazilian Ambassador and other colleagues in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for further collaborations Field data have been collected on poultry husbandry, performance, production systems, opportunities and challenges Appropriate site was selected to introduce a model Brazilian free range layers production system in Ethiopia. A contract agreement was prepared for the proposed free range production system i) Development of stakeholder capacity What organisational and technical abilities has the project imparted on stakeholders to enhance their capacities and competencies in implementing project interventions (e.g. training and mentoring; clarity of roles, responsibilities and rights; institutional structures; partnerships and linkages)? What support mechanism has the project provided to facilitate the implementation of the action and enhance the participatory monitoring of processes, outputs and impact of the project? A seminar was conducted to create awareness field level data collectors were trained on data collection methods Researchers and technical assistants were trained on data recording Software Networking was established with different Embrapa researchers, African researchers, and partners from funding organizations at 2015 MKTPlace forum Office equipments were purchased: laptop, farm boots, clothing Laboratory inputs were ordered for purchase Project progress reports were submitted monthly and quarterly Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 13

15 j) Project performance rating What is your overall rating of the performance of your project on the critical success factors of meeting project objectives, timeliness, functional involvement of stakeholders, and dissemination of outputs? The project has fully met objectives it was set to achieve with full involvement of the community and other stakeholders as planned. Outputs are being disseminated through different channels including MSc theses, scientific papers, trainings and workshops. Is the partnership arrangement still the right one to carry out the implementation? yes Were the processes used to create the necessary conditions and capacity the right ones to implement the project successfully? Yes Is the project still appropriate to bring about sustainable benefits addressing the specific identified needs of the target beneficiaries? Yes Is the project being implemented with fidelity and consistency and is the period of time sufficient for change to occur? We need extension time to implement the free range poultry production system and collect data on birds performance Is the size and duration of the investment sufficient to reach the threshold level of change in the outcome? Not enough, budget and time are limited k) Key issues and Constraints What were the key issues and constraints that you faced during the reporting period; what you did to overcome them? Do the assumptions made during the planning process still hold true? Is the original implementation strategy still appropriate and should be continued or should it be modified? Is it necessary to make adjustments to resources and partnership arrangements? - Delay of the Brazilian visit to Ethiopia - Government's lengthy procedure for input purchase, It might take a year to buy inputs, it might await the bid process - Office bureaucracy l) Lessons Learned List at least THREE key lessons you have learned during the reporting period (these could relate to working with partners, functional involvement of stakeholders, good practice, innovation, project management, Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 14

16 communication, etc.). What would you do differently if you were to start all over again (from project design, finding co-leader in Brazil, to current state of project implementation)? - Involve people starting from pre-proposal writing stage - Already established linage is very important to easily get a co-leader for new projects - There are always challenges and bureaucracies in the process of project implementation - having good results make you more confident Annex 4: Monitoring Report - Rhizobium The key question for process monitoring is are activities happening according to plan and, if not, what are the reasons? m) Status of Planned Activities As activities are executed, schedule variances often occur (activities can finish earlier or later than originally planned). What is the status of planned activities (as per the project work plan) and level of achievement of key milestones? What interventions have been completed and with what resources? Which activities are on schedule/delaying/proceeding as originally planned? What modifications were made and why? i) Implementation of objective 1 has delayed due to the delay in building the inoculants production lab ii) Objective 2 is 60% achieved: A highly effective strain has been isolated for cowpea and groundnut. Isolation of rhizobium strains for Bambara groundnut is on-going at EMBRAPA n) Outputs and Outcomes For the major activities undertaken during the reporting period, what outputs/products (both quantitative and qualitative) have been generated or developed and what has changed (outcomes achieved) as a result of your activities? What accomplishments or events do you consider newsworthy and would like to publicise to other project stakeholders? 5541 farmers were reached through video on inoculants technology in Northern Region The inquiry about and demand for inoculants have greatly increased this year Eight lowly effective, 19 effective and one highly effective strains of rhizobia were isolated based on their symbiotic effectiveness on groundnut A highly elite local rhizobium strain has been selected for groundnut and cowpea. This strain will be authenticated in the field this season in replicated trials across northern Ghana Newsworthy: Inoculants technology can be disseminated successfully with active participation of the private sector. A survey revealed that 78 percent of the input dealers sampled were willing to expand their business to contain the legume inoculants business The revelation by the survey that farmers preferred inoculating soybean to cowpea & groundnut o) Development of stakeholder capacity Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 15

17 What organisational and technical abilities has the project imparted on stakeholders to enhance their capacities and competencies in implementing project interventions (e.g. training and mentoring; clarity of roles, responsibilities and rights; institutional structures; partnerships and linkages)? What support mechanism has the project provided to facilitate the implementation of the action and enhance the participatory monitoring of processes, outputs and impact of the project? Two SARI technicians trained in modern microbiology methods, inoculants production and quality control and molecular biology methods at Embrapa Agrobiologia, Brazil. They produced a set of quality control protocols on inoculants. Training of farmers, input dealers, AEAs, Field officers of agriculture-base NGOs This project has a very strong partnership or linkage with the AGRA Soil Health project. Certain activities under the AGRA project which have limited budget were financed from the MktPlace project, e.g. radio broadcasts and community video screenings on inoculants technology. Project performance rating What is your overall rating of the performance of your project on the critical success factors of meeting project objectives, timeliness, functional involvement of stakeholders, and dissemination of outputs? The project has fully met the human resource training objective The objective on the isolation of local elite Rhizobium strains for soybean, cowpea and groundnut is generally about 65% complete. No appreciable progress has been made on the isolation of local elite Rhizobium strains for Bambara groundnut Outputs achieved so far are being disseminated through different channels including MSc theses, production of inoculants quality control protocol,, trainings and workshops. Is the partnership arrangement still the right one to carry out the implementation? Yes Were the processes used to create the necessary conditions and capacity the right ones to implement the project successfully? Yes Is the project still appropriate to bring about sustainable benefits addressing the specific identified needs of the target beneficiaries? Very appropriate Is the project being implemented with fidelity and consistency and is the period of time sufficient for change to occur? Yes. But the period of time is not sufficient for long-term real and observable changes to occur. But the little changes can be built on in subsequent projects. e.g. Out-scaling the benefits that will be derived from this project. Is the size and duration of the investment sufficient to reach the threshold level of change in the outcome? No p) Key issues and Constraints Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 16

18 What were the key issues and constraints that you faced during the reporting period; what you did to overcome them? Do the assumptions made during the planning process still hold true? Is the original implementation strategy still appropriate and should be continued or should it be modified? Is it necessary to make adjustments to resources and partnership arrangements? From the Brazilian side, major difficulties were experienced to obtain travelling authorization to visit SARI for Brazilian team members. Since these visits have to be planned during, or close to, the planting period for cowpea, proper planning was difficult or impossible because field experiments depended on rainfall which was unpredictable. One visit planned in May, 2015 had to be cancelled because authorization by Embrapa was not obtained in time. From the Ghanaian side, there was a major delay in the procurement of a laminar flow cabinet for sterile work. This equipment is essential for microbiology work and for inoculant production. This delay affected the capacity of SARI to produce some minimum amounts of inoculants for use during the 2015 cropping season as proposed. The incidence of drought destroyed one of the field trials at Gbulahigu in the Tolon District. The assumption that the inoculants production laboratory being sponsored by AGRA would have been completed in time for some inoculants to be produced for the 2016 cropping season did not hold true due to constructional delays. q) Lessons Learned List at least THREE key lessons you have learned during the reporting period (these could relate to working with partners, functional involvement of stakeholders, good practice, innovation, project management, communication, etc.). What would you do differently if you were to start all over again (from project design, finding co-leader in Brazil, to current state of project implementation)? There is the need to understand very well the application processes involved in the proposal submission process The importance of constant and frequent communication between partners Farmers and agro-input dealers are increasingly getting interested in inoculants so project activities (especially dissemination by way of awareness creation and also making the inoculants available) should be carried out rigorously to achieve milestones in order to meet farmers and input dealers expectations Africa-Brazil M&E visit (April - May 2016) 17