1. Sustainable Intensification of Cereal-based Farming Systems in the Sudano-Sahelian Zone of West Africa: Project Design Workshop, Tamale, Ghana, 9-12 January 2012

2. Overview Broad M&E Guiding Principles Recap on SI Program Targeting Monitoring and Reporting Scales Evaluation Approaches Site Selection M&E Data and Analysis Platform Issues/Questions

3. M&E Guiding Principles FtF Compliance: Conform to the overall FtF core indicator guidelines Open-access platform: Maintain a transparent, open-access M&E data management and analysis platform to serve the needs of SI stakeholders Multi-scale, Multi-site reporting: Meet broad stakeholder needs and support multi-scale/multi-site M&E through; – System and sub-system reports: e.g. rice, maize, sorghum-based for WA – Site-reports: for each of the three SI system sites – Country reports: Breakout of site reports to serve national stakeholder needs – SSA-reports: cross-system reporting and SI-wide “roll-up” of indicators across the 3 “sites” (Sudano-Sahelian zone, Ethiopian Highlands, Eastern and Southern Africa) Backward & forward assessment: Provide monitoring reports and ex ante evaluations (projections) of key M&E indicators, updated annually Scaling-up and out assessments (evaluate spillover potential/ options): Examine the potential productivity and sustainability consequences of a range of adoption and geographic/system spillover pathways beyond actual implementation sites.

4. HH Attributes Urban/ Rural Income/ Exp Consumption Patterns Production Systems Inputs, Tech Adoption Market Participation Policy/Market Context & Impact Usually geo-political/admin units (policies, institutions) as the unifying concept and object of analysis. Commodity focus Fixed Geographies of Analysis e.g., IMPACT/WATER, GTAP & derivatives Flexible Geographies of Analysis e.g., DREAM, MM models MACRO Household/ Community Characterization Cross-country data harmonization challenges. Livelihoods, Assets, Gender & Access Foci MICRO Production/Market Context & Impact Gridcells/pixels as units of analysis. Natural/Human landscape patterns as well as resource and product flows are unifying concepts and objects of analysis. Systems focus. MESO Production Systems Ecosystems & ES Services Infrastructure/Market Access Demographics/Human Welfare Linking Data & Analysis Across Scales

5. SSA Farming Systems Source: Dixon el al. 2001

6. Selecting SI Focus Areas Population Density GRUMP 2005

7. Selecting SI Focus Areas Poverty Wood et al 2009 (now replaced)

8. Selecting SI Focus Areas Cropland Ramankutty et al (2008)

9. Selecting SI Focus Areas Time to >50K town HarvestChoice Guo 2010

10. Role of Farming Systems in Bridging CAADP-CGIAR Agendas (Dublin Process Activity) Draft Conceptual Framework, November 2011

11. Eastern & Southern Africa Maize-based Systems Ethiopian Highlands Sudano-Sahelian Zone Systems Sub- Systems Country A Country B + + + + + + Action Sites 6.Country to country barriers to spillover SI Monitoring and Reporting Scales Fostering Spillover by Design 1.Implementation sites to local sub-systems 2.Implementation to non- implementation sub- systems 3.Sub-systems to (sub-) systems 4.Systems to systems 5.Sites to sites & Spillover Needs

12. Evaluation Approaches Delineation and characterization (typologies?) of target farming systems: Relies on the fusion of spatially-explicit agricultural production, environmental, and farm/household data, and a conceptual model of impact pathways/goals. Maintain Technology/Intervention Inventory: A characterized inventory of the nature of the individual and integrated farming system components whose adoption and impacts is being evaluated. Includes characterization of spillover potential Recursive Modeling of Projected Change (with and w/o interventions): e.g., productivity and income change, land, labour (sex differentiated) and water use Attribution assessment: Additional to the ability to measure and model change in indicators is the need (with additional information/assumptions) to assess attribution of changes to an agreed level of specificity.

13. 2015 20302011 2013 2030 2014 2011 2030 Annual Evaluation of Past and Projected Impacts Increase in productivity or revenue

14. Av. Daily Temperature (mean 1960-2000) Northern Ghana Southern Mali WorldClim 2005

15. Rainfall (mean 1960-2000) Northern Ghana Southern Mali WorldClim 2005

16. NDVI (mean 2001-2010) Northern Ghana Southern Mali

17. NDVI Variability Northern Ghana Southern Mali

18. Population Density (2005) Northern Ghana Southern Mali AfriPop 2010

19. Travel Time to Towns >50K Population Northern Ghana Southern Mali HarvestChoice 2010

20. Cropland Intensity (2005) Northern Ghana Southern Mali Ramankutty et al 2008

21. Household Enterprise Choices Maize Producing Households Rice Producing Households Sorghum Producing Households Proportion of Households Source: HarvestChoice 2011 based on Ghana Living Standards Survey 2005

22. Households Owning Cattle Household Enterprise Choices (cont.) Proportion of Households Source: HarvestChoice 2011 based on Ghana Living Standards Survey 2005

23. National Northern Regions SI Focus Districts RankHH Crop Enterprises HH Share HH Crop Enterprises HH Share HH Crop Enterprises HH Share 1maize0.55 maize,rice,millet,sorghum,b eans 0.16maize,rice,millet0.15 2maize,cocoa0.15maize0.12 maize,rice,millet,sorghum,b eans 0.14 3cocoa0.11 maize, millet,sorghum,beans 0.12maize0.13 4maize,beans0.06maize,sorghum0.08maize, sorghum, beans0.11 5 maize,rice,millet,sorghum,b eans 0.04 maize, millet, sorghum0.07 maize, millet, sorghum0.09 Ranking of HH Crop Enterprises: Ghana Source:Derived from GLSS 2005 Note:Crops considered are maize, rice, millet, cassava, cocoa, cocoyam, beans, eggplant, sorghum, yam, oilpalm, okra, oranges, pawpaw, pepper, pineapples, plantain, tomatoes, vegetables

25. CULTIVAR Phenology Max # of kernels Kernel filling rate *DSSAT Cropping System Model Ver. 4.0.2.000 May 21, 2009; 16:32:33 *RUN 1 : RAINFED LOW NITROGEN MODEL : MZCER040 - MAIZE EXPERIMENT : UFGA8201 MZ NIT X IRR, GAINESVILLE 2N*3I TREATMENT 1 : RAINFED LOW NITROGEN CROP : MAIZE CULTIVAR : McCurdy 84aa ECOTYPE :IB0002 STARTING DATE : FEB 25 1982 PLANTING DATE : FEB 26 1982 PLANTS/m2 : 7.2 ROW SPACING : 61.cm WEATHER : UFGA 1982 SOIL : IBMZ910014 TEXTURE : - Millhopper Fine Sand SOIL INITIAL C : DEPTH:180cm EXTR. H2O:160.9mm NO3: 2.5kg/ha NH4: 12.9kg/ha WATER BALANCE : IRRIGATE ON REPORTED DATE(S) IRRIGATION : 13 mm IN 1 APPLICATIONS NITROGEN BAL. : SOIL-N & N-UPTAKE SIMULATION; NO N-FIXATION N-FERTILIZER : 116 kg/ha IN 3 APPLICATIONS RESIDUE/MANURE : INITIAL : 1000 kg/ha ; 0 kg/ha IN 0 APPLICATIONS ENVIRONM. OPT. : DAYL= 0.00 SRAD= 0.00 TMAX= 0.00 TMIN= 0.00 RAIN= 0.00 CO2 = R330.00 DEW = 0.00 WIND= 0.00 SIMULATION OPT : WATER :Y NITROGEN:Y N-FIX:N PHOSPH :N PESTS :N PHOTO :C ET :R INFIL:S HYDROL :R SOM :G MANAGEMENT OPT : PLANTING:R IRRIG :R FERT :R RESIDUE:N HARVEST:M WTH:M *SUMMARY OF SOIL AND GENETIC INPUT PARAMETERS SOIL LOWER UPPER SAT EXTR INIT ROOT BULK pH NO3 NH4 ORG DEPTH LIMIT LIMIT SW SW SW DIST DENS C cm cm3/cm3 cm3/cm3 cm3/cm3 g/cm3 ugN/g ugN/g % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0- 5 0.026 0.096 0.230 0.070 0.086 1.00 1.30 7.00 0.10 0.50 2.00 5- 15 0.025 0.086 0.230 0.061 0.086 1.00 1.30 7.00 0.10 0.50 1.00 15- 30 0.025 0.086 0.230 0.061 0.086 0.70 1.40 7.00 0.10 0.50 1.00 30- 45 0.025 0.086 0.230 0.061 0.086 0.30 1.40 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.50 45- 60 0.025 0.086 0.230 0.061 0.086 0.30 1.40 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.50 60- 90 0.028 0.090 0.230 0.062 0.076 0.05 1.45 7.00 0.10 0.60 0.10 90-120 0.028 0.090 0.230 0.062 0.076 0.03 1.45 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.10 120-150 0.029 0.130 0.230 0.101 0.130 0.00 1.45 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.04 150-180 0.070 0.258 0.360 0.188 0.258 0.00 1.20 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.24 TOT-180 6.2 22.2 45.3 16.1 21.4 2.5 12.9 87080 SOIL ALBEDO : 0.18 EVAPORATION LIMIT : 2.00 MIN. FACTOR : 1.00 RUNOFF CURVE # :60.00 DRAINAGE RATE : 0.65 FERT. FACTOR : 0.80 MAIZE CULTIVAR :IB0035-McCurdy 84aa ECOTYPE :IB0002 P1 : 265.00 P2 : 0.3000 P5 : 920.00 G2 : 990.00 G3 : 8.500 PHINT : 39.000 *SIMULATED CROP AND SOIL STATUS AT MAIN DEVELOPMENT STAGES RUN NO. 1 RAINFED LOW NITROGEN CROP GROWTH BIOMASS CROP N STRESS DATE AGE STAGE kg/ha LAI kg/ha % H2O N ------ --- ---------- ----- ----- --- --- ---- ---- 25 FEB 0 Start Sim 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 26 FEB 0 Sowing 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 27 FEB 1 Germinate 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 9 MAR 11 Emergence 29 0.00 1 4.4 0.00 0.00 27 MAR 29 End Juveni 251 0.43 4 1.6 0.00 0.09 1 APR 34 Floral Ini 304 0.44 4 1.5 0.00 0.50 *DSSAT Cropping System Model Ver. 4.0.2.000 May 21, 2009; 16:32:33 *RUN 1 : RAINFED LOW NITROGEN MODEL : MZCER040 - MAIZE EXPERIMENT : UFGA8201 MZ NIT X IRR, GAINESVILLE 2N*3I TREATMENT 1 : RAINFED LOW NITROGEN CROP : MAIZE CULTIVAR : McCurdy 84aa ECOTYPE :IB0002 STARTING DATE : FEB 25 1982 PLANTING DATE : FEB 26 1982 PLANTS/m2 : 7.2 ROW SPACING : 61.cm WEATHER : UFGA 1982 SOIL : IBMZ910014 TEXTURE : - Millhopper Fine Sand SOIL INITIAL C : DEPTH:180cm EXTR. H2O:160.9mm NO3: 2.5kg/ha NH4: 12.9kg/ha WATER BALANCE : IRRIGATE ON REPORTED DATE(S) IRRIGATION : 13 mm IN 1 APPLICATIONS NITROGEN BAL. : SOIL-N & N-UPTAKE SIMULATION; NO N-FIXATION N-FERTILIZER : 116 kg/ha IN 3 APPLICATIONS RESIDUE/MANURE : INITIAL : 1000 kg/ha ; 0 kg/ha IN 0 APPLICATIONS ENVIRONM. OPT. : DAYL= 0.00 SRAD= 0.00 TMAX= 0.00 TMIN= 0.00 RAIN= 0.00 CO2 = R330.00 DEW = 0.00 WIND= 0.00 SIMULATION OPT : WATER :Y NITROGEN:Y N-FIX:N PHOSPH :N PESTS :N PHOTO :C ET :R INFIL:S HYDROL :R SOM :G MANAGEMENT OPT : PLANTING:R IRRIG :R FERT :R RESIDUE:N HARVEST:M WTH:M *SUMMARY OF SOIL AND GENETIC INPUT PARAMETERS SOIL LOWER UPPER SAT EXTR INIT ROOT BULK pH NO3 NH4 ORG DEPTH LIMIT LIMIT SW SW SW DIST DENS C cm cm3/cm3 cm3/cm3 cm3/cm3 g/cm3 ugN/g ugN/g % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0- 5 0.026 0.096 0.230 0.070 0.086 1.00 1.30 7.00 0.10 0.50 2.00 5- 15 0.025 0.086 0.230 0.061 0.086 1.00 1.30 7.00 0.10 0.50 1.00 15- 30 0.025 0.086 0.230 0.061 0.086 0.70 1.40 7.00 0.10 0.50 1.00 30- 45 0.025 0.086 0.230 0.061 0.086 0.30 1.40 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.50 45- 60 0.025 0.086 0.230 0.061 0.086 0.30 1.40 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.50 60- 90 0.028 0.090 0.230 0.062 0.076 0.05 1.45 7.00 0.10 0.60 0.10 90-120 0.028 0.090 0.230 0.062 0.076 0.03 1.45 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.10 120-150 0.029 0.130 0.230 0.101 0.130 0.00 1.45 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.04 150-180 0.070 0.258 0.360 0.188 0.258 0.00 1.20 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.24 TOT-180 6.2 22.2 45.3 16.1 21.4 2.5 12.9 87080 SOIL ALBEDO : 0.18 EVAPORATION LIMIT : 2.00 MIN. FACTOR : 1.00 RUNOFF CURVE # :60.00 DRAINAGE RATE : 0.65 FERT. FACTOR : 0.80 MAIZE CULTIVAR :IB0035-McCurdy 84aa ECOTYPE :IB0002 P1 : 265.00 P2 : 0.3000 P5 : 920.00 G2 : 990.00 G3 : 8.500 PHINT : 39.000 *SIMULATED CROP AND SOIL STATUS AT MAIN DEVELOPMENT STAGES RUN NO. 1 RAINFED LOW NITROGEN CROP GROWTH BIOMASS CROP N STRESS DATE AGE STAGE kg/ha LAI kg/ha % H2O N ------ --- ---------- ----- ----- --- --- ---- ---- 25 FEB 0 Start Sim 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 26 FEB 0 Sowing 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 27 FEB 1 Germinate 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 9 MAR 11 Emergence 29 0.00 1 4.4 0.00 0.00 27 MAR 29 End Juveni 251 0.43 4 1.6 0.00 0.09 1 APR 34 Floral Ini 304 0.44 4 1.5 0.00 0.50 *DSSAT Cropping System Model Ver. 4.0.2.000 May 21, 2009; 16:32:33 *RUN 1 : RAINFED LOW NITROGEN MODEL : MZCER040 - MAIZE EXPERIMENT : UFGA8201 MZ NIT X IRR, GAINESVILLE 2N*3I TREATMENT 1 : RAINFED LOW NITROGEN CROP : MAIZE CULTIVAR : McCurdy 84aa ECOTYPE :IB0002 STARTING DATE : FEB 25 1982 PLANTING DATE : FEB 26 1982 PLANTS/m2 : 7.2 ROW SPACING : 61.cm WEATHER : UFGA 1982 SOIL : IBMZ910014 TEXTURE : - Millhopper Fine Sand SOIL INITIAL C : DEPTH:180cm EXTR. H2O:160.9mm NO3: 2.5kg/ha NH4: 12.9kg/ha WATER BALANCE : IRRIGATE ON REPORTED DATE(S) IRRIGATION : 13 mm IN 1 APPLICATIONS NITROGEN BAL. : SOIL-N & N-UPTAKE SIMULATION; NO N-FIXATION N-FERTILIZER : 116 kg/ha IN 3 APPLICATIONS RESIDUE/MANURE : INITIAL : 1000 kg/ha ; 0 kg/ha IN 0 APPLICATIONS ENVIRONM. OPT. : DAYL= 0.00 SRAD= 0.00 TMAX= 0.00 TMIN= 0.00 RAIN= 0.00 CO2 = R330.00 DEW = 0.00 WIND= 0.00 SIMULATION OPT : WATER :Y NITROGEN:Y N-FIX:N PHOSPH :N PESTS :N PHOTO :C ET :R INFIL:S HYDROL :R SOM :G MANAGEMENT OPT : PLANTING:R IRRIG :R FERT :R RESIDUE:N HARVEST:M WTH:M *SUMMARY OF SOIL AND GENETIC INPUT PARAMETERS SOIL LOWER UPPER SAT EXTR INIT ROOT BULK pH NO3 NH4 ORG DEPTH LIMIT LIMIT SW SW SW DIST DENS C cm cm3/cm3 cm3/cm3 cm3/cm3 g/cm3 ugN/g ugN/g % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0- 5 0.026 0.096 0.230 0.070 0.086 1.00 1.30 7.00 0.10 0.50 2.00 5- 15 0.025 0.086 0.230 0.061 0.086 1.00 1.30 7.00 0.10 0.50 1.00 15- 30 0.025 0.086 0.230 0.061 0.086 0.70 1.40 7.00 0.10 0.50 1.00 30- 45 0.025 0.086 0.230 0.061 0.086 0.30 1.40 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.50 45- 60 0.025 0.086 0.230 0.061 0.086 0.30 1.40 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.50 60- 90 0.028 0.090 0.230 0.062 0.076 0.05 1.45 7.00 0.10 0.60 0.10 90-120 0.028 0.090 0.230 0.062 0.076 0.03 1.45 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.10 120-150 0.029 0.130 0.230 0.101 0.130 0.00 1.45 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.04 150-180 0.070 0.258 0.360 0.188 0.258 0.00 1.20 7.00 0.10 0.50 0.24 TOT-180 6.2 22.2 45.3 16.1 21.4 2.5 12.9 87080 SOIL ALBEDO : 0.18 EVAPORATION LIMIT : 2.00 MIN. FACTOR : 1.00 RUNOFF CURVE # :60.00 DRAINAGE RATE : 0.65 FERT. FACTOR : 0.80 MAIZE CULTIVAR :IB0035-McCurdy 84aa ECOTYPE :IB0002 P1 : 265.00 P2 : 0.3000 P5 : 920.00 G2 : 990.00 G3 : 8.500 PHINT : 39.000 *SIMULATED CROP AND SOIL STATUS AT MAIN DEVELOPMENT STAGES RUN NO. 1 RAINFED LOW NITROGEN CROP GROWTH BIOMASS CROP N STRESS DATE AGE STAGE kg/ha LAI kg/ha % H2O N ------ --- ---------- ----- ----- --- --- ---- ---- 25 FEB 0 Start Sim 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 26 FEB 0 Sowing 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 27 FEB 1 Germinate 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 9 MAR 11 Emergence 29 0.00 1 4.4 0.00 0.00 27 MAR 29 End Juveni 251 0.43 4 1.6 0.00 0.09 1 APR 34 Floral Ini 304 0.44 4 1.5 0.00 0.50 OUTPUTS/INDICATORS Phenology flowering dates grain/seed/tuber maturity dates Yields grain/seed/tuber yields residues/stover yields total biomass yield Growth grain/seed/tuber, biomass, LAI Soil N, C and H 2 O balances Cropping System Models as Means of Tracking & Forecasting Key Indicators Source: Jawoo Koo (HarvestChoice 2010)

26. Potential Productivity Gains in Maize in Northern Ghana: Yield Responses by Region, Soil Response Class & Management Intervention for Representative OPV and Hybrid Varieties

27. Potential Productivity Gains in Maize in Northern Ghana

28. M&E Implementation Strategy (to date) Establish Core FtF Monitoring Obligations: Primarily with USAID Washington (e.g., agree required core indicators and reporting timelines) Senior M&E Coordinator: IFPRI to recruit SI M&E Coordinator (Senior International Research position, likely based in Addis) with junior staff support in addition to DC-based team. M&E Implementation Alliance: Establish M&E community (esp. evaluation methods and tools) to finalize project M&E design, as well as guide, participate in and review M&E work plans and deliverables (composition, e.g., M&E specialist/liaison from involved CG centers, donor and national and regional partners). M&E Open-Access, Web-Based Platform: To host and make accessible SI M&E plans, documents, and annual reports, as well as background publications, underlying datasets and, wherever possible, analytical tools. Promote and apply standards for farming system, technology and impact characterization. Annual M&E Technical Meeting: Likely aligned with proposed Project-wide Annual meeting (Need for cross-site planning and review meetings?)

29. Issues/Questions What is appropriate split of M&E resources between M & E? Scope of donor’s minimum indicator needs? Project management versus strategic M&E needs? Roles of implementation partners versus M&E team in collecting/analysing indicator data? Do we need to re-examine the rationale for specific focus sites and sub-systems? Who will join the M&E Alliance/community? Any likely candidates for M&E Coordinator?