Badu AprakuEnhancing

7/31/2019 Badu AprakuEnhancing

1/24

Expl Agric.(2005), volume 41, pp. 137160 C 2005 Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/S0014479704002492 Printed in the United Kingdom

ENHANCI NG THE CAPACI TY OF NATI ONAL S CI ENTI S TSTO GENERATE AND TRANS F ER MAI ZE TECHNOLOGY

I N W E S T A N D C E N T R A L A F R I C A : R E S E A R C HIMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING

AND EVA LUATI ON

ByB. BADU-APRAKU , M. A. B. FAKOREDE , A. MENKIR ,K. A. MARFO and L. AKANVOU

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, c/o Lambourn( UK ) Limited, Carolyn House,26 Dingwall Road, Croydon CR9 3EE, UK; Department of Plant Science, Obafemi Awolowo

University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria; International Institute of Tropical Agriculture,P.M.B. 5320, Ibadan, Nigeria, Crops Research Institute, Box 3785,

Kumasi, Ghana and CNRA, Abidjan, Cote dIvoire

( Accepted 10 September 2004 )

SUMMARY

The West and Central Africa Collaborative Maize Research Network (WECAMAN) was establishedin 1987 to strengthen the capacity and capability of national programmes of West and Central Africa(WCA) to tackle regional constraints to maize production. The Network created several mechanisms forimplementing, monitoring and evaluating maize research and development activities, including research

project development and implementation, attendance and quality of paper presentation at technicalconferences organized by the Network, scientic monitoring tours, consultation visits, mid-term reviews,and end-of-project reviews and impact assessment. WECAMANs approach to the system of allocating research responsibilities and competitive grants resulted in increased research efciency and the generationof sustainable technologies that have catalysed increased maize production in the region.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Maize ( Zea mays ) is an important cereal crop in West and Central Africa (WCA). Recentanalyses by Fakorede et al.(2003) showed that, in the subregion, land area under maizecultivation has increased from about 3 million ha in 1980 to over 8 million ha in 2000.

Similarly, total maize grain production increased from about 2.7 million t in 1980 toover 10 million t in 2000. Grain yield per unit land area, which increased from lessthan 1t ha 1 in 1980 to about 1.3 t ha 1 in 2000, showed that the increase in totalproduction was largely due to extensive rather than intensive cultivation of the crop. Availability of early and extra-early varieties has made maize production possiblein marginal areas, especially in the Sudan savanna and the northern fringes of thenorthern Guinea savanna. The rather low yield per unit land area is due primarily tothe low use of fertilizers and the poor adoption of other recommended inputs. Otherfactors that contribute to the low yield per unit area and hence the low impact of

Corresponding author: [email protected]


2/24


3/24

Enhancing the capacity of scientists 139

quality of paper presentation at technical conferences organized by the Network,scientic monitoring tours, consultation visits, mid-term reviews, end-of-projectreviews and impact assessment. In this paper, we discuss the procedures used inassigning research and development activities to NARS collaborators and the mecha-nisms adopted in monitoring and evaluating the performance of WECAMAN and thecollaborating NARS scientists.

P R O C E D U R E S

Research project development and implementationOne of the major activities of WECAMAN is collaborative research on topics and

problems of common interest to WCA countries. The purpose of the collaborativeresearch projects is to exploit the strengths of the different NARS (e.g. researchpersonnel, infrastructure, and potential for generation of technologies) that couldbe shared by all member countries in particular, and WCA countries in general.The strategy of optimizing the research strength and comparative advantage of strong NARS (lead centres) by assigning them specic research problems identied asprincipal constraints to maize production in West Africa has been adopted. Researchresponsibilities for the development of sustainable agronomic practices and breeding of new varieties with tolerance/resistance to the major stresses were assigned to thelead countries of WECAMAN. Where necessary, the Network put new researchfacilities in place and/or reconditioned existing ones. For example, in furtheranceof the objective of breeding for drought- and nitrogen-stress tolerance in maize, sixregional stress screening and testing sites have been developed in Benin, Burkina Faso,

Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria and Senegal. The screening sites are fully operationaland have enabled the NARS scientists to conduct stress-breeding research. It isunderstood that the lead centres would share germplasm and other technologiesthey develop with the technology adapting NARS (relatively weak NARS) so that allmember countries could take advantage of gains made by the lead centres as wellas the International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs). This strategy enablesthe technology-adapting countries to concentrate their efforts on adaptive researchand verication of technologies under farmers conditions. Furthermore, in orderto ensure accountability and maximum returns from the Networks research funds,WECAMANs Steering Committee (SC) established criteria for allocation of funds forcollaborative projects. The idea of competitive research grants has been introduced forselected collaborative projects so as to motivate NARS scientists to increase researchoutput and to be creative. Funds are allocated to prospective lead NARS based on thesubmission of well-conceived research proposals. The procedure used for screening research proposals, allocating research funds and assessing implementation of researchprojects is described in the following sections.

Research proposals.Initially, the Network proposed seven competitive collaborativeresearch projects. Announcements soliciting research proposals for the projects weresent to member countries. To ensure fairness in judging the proposals, the SC of the Network appointed a three-member Ad hoc Research Committee (ARC). ARC


4/24

140 B . B A D U - A P R A K U et al.

members were residents in the subregion and nationals of non-member countries.The ARC charge was to: (i) review collaborative research proposals submitted byNetwork member countries; (ii) select the lead centre for the collaborative researchprojects; (iii) allocate funds for the activities; and (iv) review progress reports on thecollaborative projects. All member countries were provided with the guidelines andformats for project proposal preparation along with deadlines for submission.

ARC members meet once or twice a year to consider the research proposals,assign responsibilities, and review and evaluate the progress reports. The Network also invites them to participate in the SC meetings and the Biennial Regional MaizeWorkshops organized by the Network. One of the ARC members usually presents thereport of their meetings and the members are generally involved in the programmeof activities of the Workshop, such as serving as chairpersons for scientic or othersessions. In addition, some of the ARC members assist in editing the proceedings of the Workshops before publication. For all activities involving ARC members, they are

ofcially released by their organizations, which, in some cases, cover their per diemand other expenses. Otherwise, the Network takes care of their transportation andsustenance during the period. It should be emphasized that the ARC members haveno monetary remuneration. Their participation, which is offered gratis , is based purelyon their commitment to the development of science in the subregion.

The ARC applied published guidelines in evaluating proposals, including:(i) comparative advantage; (ii) relative importance, scale of constraints and the extentto which the proposal is researchable within a two-year time frame; (iii) researchattainment or experience of the researchers in the specied research; (iv) avoidanceof duplication within and between countries; and (v) portability or value-addedopportunities in ecologies not covered by the mandate of the Network. Using thesecriteria as guides, the ARC developed a standard evaluation matrix for judging theproject proposals. Each proposal is evaluated on a 1 to 3 scale (1 = low, 2 = medium,and 3 = high) for each criterion in the matrix. The sum of the scores is used toselect projects funded by the Network. An example of the project proposal scoresheet, along with the summary and decision of the ARC, is presented in Table 1.Of the 11 proposals received for this particular project that year, two were rejectedoutright (e.g. due to low scores and duplication), one was referred to a specialist forexpert advice, and two were merged into only one proposal. Funds were allocated

to a total of ve proposals for the project. In judging and approving proposals forfunding, the ARC was as fair and transparent as possible. First, as may be seen fromthe example presented above, the ARC did not use exclusively the total score on theevaluation matrix but took cognizance of other rational factors to ensure fair and evendistribution of the projects among member countries. Second, the ARC gave reasonsfor rejecting proposals so that the scientists could improve future proposals. Third,because approved proposals,generally, were not awless, the ARC provided, as needed,comments and suggested modications to improve each approved proposal. Fourth,the ARC was careful to give credit to well-conceived and well-written proposals.Comments such as Good proposal, Excellent proposal, Well-focused proposal wereused to encourage scientists to write good proposals. Fifth, the ARC was quite strict


5/24

Table 1. Score sheet for proposals received for the 1996 Project 6 Biological and cultural control of Striga using the s

Resource Proposal appraisalmanagement

Country and Available Optimal Available Available and Achievableproposal human representativeness infra- nancial administration Technical target in 3 Ind

number resources of site structure resources efciency content years Benin 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 Benin 2 Cameroon 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 Burkina Faso 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 Burkina Faso 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 Burkina Faso 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1.5 Burkina Faso 4 Rejected Not priorityGhana Togo 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 Nigeria 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 Nigeria 2 Rejected

Scale: 1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high.

Summary and ARCs decision

Country Proposal number Total score or Remarks Rank Approval

Benin 1 17 4 Yes2 Merge with proposal 1

Cameroon 13 7 NoBurkina Faso 1 22 1 Yes

2 19 2 No

3 17 4 Yes4 Rejected not a priority

Ghana Feasible, referred to specialistTogo 17 4 YesNigeria 1 19 2 Yes

2 Rejected

Similar to a proposal from another country; therefore, not approved for funding.


6/24


in executing its proposal guidelines and requirements, for example: (i) no extensionof proposal submission deadlines; (ii) proposals not addressing the target ecologies orsubject-matter areas were not considered; (iii) countries defaulting in the submissionof progress reports were not given further funding until such reports were submitted;and (iv) countries that could not use approved funds in one year were allowed touse the funds the following year, but no further allocation of funds. Although therehave been revisions and modications of the evaluation matrix as well as changes inthe membership of the ARC, the Network has maintained the same principles andimproved on the standards of the ARC over the years.

Progress reports.Review of progress reports on the collaborative research projects isincluded in the proposal guidelines and requirements of the ARC. This arrangementallows the same set of people to keep track of the details from project proposal toexecution; that is, both ex ante and ex post evaluations were built into this approach

(ISNAR, 1991). The ARC developed an instrument using ve criteria for objectivelyevaluating the progress reports of each project. Each progress report was rated foreach criterion on a scale; 0 or 1 in some cases, 1 to 3 or 4 in others where 1 = poor,3 or 4 = good/excellent. Each criterion was assigned a weighting factor on the basisof its relative importance in project execution. The weighting factor multiplied by therating for each criterion was recorded as the score for that criterion for the project.The sum of scores for each factor was expressed as a percentage of maximum possibletotal score to obtain the performance index, PI. Examples are given in Table 2.

The ARC passed comments on individual project reports. Here again, the Com-mittee commended good reports and was bluntly critical of poorly executed projects.Finding glowing commendations on one project followed by strong criticisms inanother project are not unusual for the same country, as shown in the examplepresented in Table 2.

Badu-Apraku et al. (2003) used regression analysis to determine the trends in themean performance index (PI) on progress reports from 1994 to 2001. Across allcountries and research projects, PI increased from about 58 % in 1994 when the ARCstarted using the new approach to assess progress reports, to about 80% in 2001(Figure 1). Although the linear model produced a good t for the data ( r 2 = 90%),the quadratic model improved the t slightly ( r 2 = 93 %). Also, the quadratic b-value

was positive thus indicating that the improvement in PI scores in the later part of theperiod under study were larger than those for the earlier years.

We are convinced, therefore, that the WCA maize researchers have graduallyimproved their ability to execute maize research and development projects effectively.The level of transparency displayed in the allocation of competitive grants using the ARC approach, and the renements in the whole system of allocating researchresponsibilities and matching grants to carry out such research have resulted in: (i) theconduct of high quality research, (ii) increased efciency, and (iii) high accountabilityand judicious use of resources. Another dimension to the progress made, though noteasily quantied, is that the research involved Francophone and Anglophone scientists.Each researcher or group of researchers submitted their proposals and reports as


7/24

Table 2. Score sheet for evaluating the progress report of WECAMANs collaborative research projects with typical scores for the report

Project code

Criteria (weight) A B C D

1. PROJECT IMPLEMENTED (5%)Yes = 1; No = 0 1 (5) 1 (5) 1 (5)

2. PROJECT IMPLEMENTED AS APPROVED (17%)1 = poorly; 2 = medium (OK); 3 = well focused (good) 2 (34) 2 (34) 2 (34)

3. PROGRESS REPORT (35%)Received on time (5%): Yes = 1; No = 0 1 (5) 1 (5) 1 (5)Quality (30%): 1 = poor; 2 = fair; 3 = good; 4 = excellent 3 (90) 1 (30) 3 (90)

4. ATTAINMENT OF PROGRESS (25%) Aims for year attained: 1 = weak; 2 = OK; 3 = good 2 (50) 1 (25) 3 (75)

5. BUDGET (18%)Submitted on time: Yes = 1; No = 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)Management of funds: Yes = 1; No = 0 1 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) Accounts, receipts: Yes = 1; No = 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Total out of 18 (274) 10 (190) 6 (99) 10 (209Performance index (PI), % 69 36 Badly 76 Status Good Poor, re-submit Written re-submit Very good


8/24


50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Year

P I , %

1 2

Figure 1. Mean performance index (PI) across countries and projects for progress reports from WECAMAN colla-borators from 1994 (year 1) to 2001 (year 8). Fitted lines: linear y = 2.61x + 55.9 ( s.e.slope = 0.359, intercept = 1.810;r 2 = 0.890 ) and quadratic y = 0.23x 2 + 0.52x + 59.4, ( r 2 = 0 . 93 ).

well as presented papers in conferences and workshops in the preferred language.Occasionally, simultaneous translations were not available at certain meetings, yet thescientists coped very well at such meetings. The Network seems to have served as anincentive for the scientists to have a working knowledge, at least, of the other languagein the region.

Regionally oriented resident research by the Co-ordinator.The Co-ordinator of the Network spends 2530 % of his time on developing and promoting early and extra-earlymaturing maize varieties that combine drought tolerance with resistance to thestreak virus and Striga . Other research-related activities of the Co-ordinator includeseed multiplication, establishment of nurseries for training purposes, germplasmconservation and maintenance, analysis and interpretation of the data from regionaluniform variety trials (RUVTs), training of research technicians and NARS scientists.Several early and extra-early Striga -resistant and drought-tolerant populations, varieties and inbred lines have been developed by the Co-ordinator and made available

to NARS for testing and release in their countries or for use in the national maizebreeding programs.

Exchange of scientic informationThe technical conferences organized by the Network are designated Biennial

Regional Maize Workshops. Held since 1987 (Table 3), the Workshops have provideda forum for scientists to acquire skills for communicating research ndings to theirpeers. The Workshops are an invaluable means of motivating scientists towardsprofessionalism as well as for promoting exchange of information, techniques andtechnologies. Intending participants at the workshop rst submit abstracts of theirpapers. The abstracts are reviewed and screened by a panel of three scientists.


9/24


Table 3. Date, venue, number of participants and number of papers presented at WECAMAN regional biennialworkshops, 19872001.

1987 1989 1991 1995 1997 1999 2001March March March May April May May

Date 2327 2024 814 28June 2 2125 37 1418

Venue Ouaga, Lome, Niamey, Cotonou, Cotonou, Cotonou, Cotonou,Burkina Faso Togo Niger Benin Benin Benin Benin

No. of NARS 18 22 40 60 43 49 51Scientists

Representatives of 17 19 37 34 16 11 9internationalorganizations

Total no. of 35 41 77 94 59 60 60participants

No. of countries 15 15 17 17 12 12 13No. of scientic papers 20 20 41 51 40 48No. of general papers 10 10 13 10 12 6 8Total no. papers 10 30 33 51 63 46 56

There was no workshop in 1993; rather a meeting of Heads/Coordinators of national maize programmes was held January 2728 1994 in Cotonou, Benin Republic.

Participants whose abstracts are selected are sponsored to attend the Workshop andare expected to submit the full papers at the Workshop. After the Workshop, the papersare peer-reviewed and those accepted are published in the proceedings subject to theauthors having effected the reviewers suggested modications.

Using the data in Table 3, the proportion of NARS attending the biennial maizeworkshop and the number of technical papers relative to the total number of paperspresented at the workshops were computed from 1987 to 2001 and subjected toregression analysis (Badu-Apraku et al., 2003). In 1987, no technical papers werepresented at the Networks Biennial Workshop and only about 50% of the participantswere NARSscientists (Figure 2). The proportionof NARS participants remainedaboutthe same in the following two Workshops, although 6070 % of the papers presentedwere technical. Beginning from the 1995 Workshop, the proportion of technical papersincreased to 80 % or more. Similarly, from 1997, the proportion of NARS participants

at the Workshop increased to 73% or more, with a peak of 82% in 1999. Linearregression analysis showed a 9 % increase in the proportion of technical papers peradditional Workshop with an r 2 value of 63 %. Corresponding values for the proportionof NARS participants were 5 and 90 %, respectively. The quadratic analysis produceda better t for the proportion of technical papers ( r 2 = 82 %) at the Workshop, with aquadratic b-value of 0.694; a reection of the peak observed in 1999 (Figure 2).

One problem theNetwork has not been able to solve is the relatively small number of women involved in maize research in the subregion. There are about 15 females to 85males in the maize Network. This problem, however, is not peculiar to WECAMAN.For example, in the rice taskforces co-ordinated by WARDA from 1989 to 1997,the proportion of female relative to males scientists was very low. This is a clear


10/24


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1987 1989 1991 1995 1997 1999 2001Year

%

% papers

% NARS

Figure 2. Proportions of technical papers presented and NARS participants at the WECAMANs biennial workshops,19872001.

reection of the actual situation in the national programmes of WCA (Fakorede andYoboue, 2001).

To ensure further proper monitoring and evaluation of the scientic contributions of collaborating scientists, the Network established a Working Group at the 1995 biennialworkshop to serve as an umpire for the papers presented at the Workshop, evaluatethe communication skills of the presenters, and appraise critically the Workshop ingeneral. Based on the contents of the papers presented at the Workshop, the Working Group was to highlight the advances made in the generation of maize technologyin the subregion, draw up the lessons learnt, identify challenges and make specicrecommendations on the future directions for the Network. This Working Groupcarried out the assignment in 1995 and at every biennial workshop of the Network thereafter; that is, in 1997, 1999, and 2001 (Badu-Apraku et al., 1997; 1999; 2001;2003).

Each year, the Working Group noted that generally, the presentations were lively,thought-provoking and generated a lot of useful discussions. The papers were wellpresented, of high quality, and they made denite contributions to our knowledge of maize in the subregion. Each year, the Group made recommendations for improving future Workshops. At the next workshop, the extent to which the recommendationswere implemented during the intervening 2-year period was examined. The Grouphas consistently noted continued improvement in the quality of papers presented atthe Workshop and the communication skills of the scientists. For example, at the 1999workshop, the Group recommended that there should be no presenters with hand-written over-head transparencies, and at the 2001 workshop, the Group noted thatthis recommendation had been followed.


11/24


Monitoring and evaluationMonitoring, along with evaluation, is a continuum of critical assessment of resources

and activities during implementation of research to warn the researchers of deviationsfrom what was originally planned and to identify new opportunities that may meritattention (ISNAR, 1991). Monitoring helps to strengthen further what is being donecorrectly and pinpoint the weak areas for improvement during project execution.WECAMAN was established to improve collaboration among the scientists fromthe subregion and to improve access to the international research community. Thisstrategy is designed to accelerate the ow of technologies between the NARS andto increase the NARS efciency in generating sustainable and protable agriculturaltechnology and adapting it to local production environments.

In order to achieve the set objectives, ensure judicious use of limited availableresources and maintain donor condence and thereby ensure continued funding support from both donors and national governments for network activities,

WECAMAN has adopted several approaches for monitoring and evaluation of performance. These include scientic monitoring tours, consultation visits, mid-termreviews, end-of-project reviews and impact assessment, all of which are described indetail in the following sections.

Scientic monitoring tours.WECAMAN conducts monitoring tours with the objectivesof: (i) discussing maize production constraints in the countries visited; (ii) discussing the research being conducted and the methodologies used to solve the problemsrelating to maize production; (iii) observing how research, extension and productionare organized in the countries and the linkages which are in place between researchand extension to facilitate technology development and transfer; (iv) providing a forumfor interaction among national scientists on issues relating to maize research, extensionand production; and (v) visiting in situthe collaborative research projects and RUVTsfunded by the Network. One representative is selected from each member country toconstitute the team for the monitoring tour. At the end of the tour, the participantsprepare a report that is presented to the SC after which the report is sent to thecountries visited.

Monitoring tours have been organized biennially to see maize-related researchand development activities of two selected countries at a time. The monitoring tours

have provided a unique opportunity to appraise in situfeasibility and potentials of theNetwork output in member countries. The participants of the monitoring tour usuallyreturn to their respective countries, taking along with them successful technologiesand development strategies for adoption. About 62 scientists have participated in themonitoring tours since 1988 (Table 4).

Consultation visits.The work environment and situation of the agriculturalresearcher vary from one country to another in the subregion. It is necessary to look into individual national experiences and build evaluation guidelines on thisbasis ratherthan make a generalized ideal system of evaluation. Differences in national capab-ilities, interests, resources, cultures and organization are important considerations


12/24


13/24


has used these to advantage. Usually, the donor agency appoints the consultantsthat would conduct the external review. USAID has handled the external review of WECAMAN activities when due. In all cases, experienced scientists are appointed tohandle reviews. To facilitate the review process, WECAMAN appoints a consultantto synthesize the primary data in readiness for the review team. The reviewteams normally visit the project activities, hold discussions with project staff andcollaborators, and examine the reports and publications of the Network. Additionally,the review teams ensure that the projects are being executed in line with the objectivesand goals of the Network and note whether progress is being made or not. Reviewteams normally discuss their impressions, suggestions and recommendations with thescientists. Also, the nal report of the team is made available to the Co-ordinator foronward transmission to the collaborators.

End-of-project reviews.Procedurally, end-of project reviews are similar to mid-term

reviews. However, the points of emphasis are different. End-of-project reviews placeemphasis on the achievements and impacts of the projects. The teams are interested inthe technologies generated by the projects and the extent to which they have been orare being adopted. End-of-project reviews normally make recommendations for thecontinuation of the projects to the next stage, or outright termination. End-of-projectreviews of WECAMAN were conducted in 1992 and 1996. WECAMAN has beenable to continue its existence since 1987 because the reviews of the different phases of the project have been favourable.

Impact assessment.Impact assessment studies are important in improving the ef-ciency of technology development and deployment of interventionsand in mobilizing resources for future activities. Thus WECAMAN has made efforts to institutionalizeimpact assessment as a planning tool in its research process. Results from impactassessment can be used to allocate resources more efciently and in helping to makeresearch resources more productive in generating social impact.

The rst impact assessment of the Network was sponsored by USAID in 1992to determine whether there had been good returns to the investment in researchin WCA. Externally recruited consultants conducted the assessment. Since then,WECAMAN has made positive attempts to improve NARS capacity to conduct

impact assessment by sponsoring participants to the regional impact assessmenttraining organized by Purdue University and INSAH (Insitut du Sahel) in Mali(1994 and 1995), Burkina Faso (1997) and Ghana (1997). Recognizing the needfor methodological harmonization for better impact assessment studies, WECAMANhas also organized its own impact assessment workshops for member countries. Therst, which was held in 2000, was to acquaint impact assessors with the necessaryknowledge needed to conduct and evaluate adoption rates and social gains of maizeproduction technologies. The second workshop was organized to train participantsfrom all member countries in the impact assessment of maize stress managementtechnology. The workshop, which was attended also by a participant from Kenya, washeld at IITA Ibadan in 2000. Following this workshop, participants were guided to


14/24


15/24


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98Year

C u m u l a t

i v e

% a

d o p t

i o n

Improved variety

Local variety

Figure 4. Cumulative adoption percentage of improved and local maize varieties by farmers in the Cotton ProductionZone of Mali, 199298. Fitted lines: local variety y = 2 . 43x + 253; improved variety y = 22 . 43x 153 (for both

lines: s.e.slopes = 0 . 452; intercepts = 42 . 7; r 2 = 0 . 88 ), (adapted from Sanogo et al., 2001).

varieties with a 41 % increase in total grain production and a yield advantage of 45 % of improved over local varieties (Manyong et al., 2000). Fakorede et al. (2003)summarized the FAO data on land area, total production and yield per hectare formaize from 1980 to 2001 for eight countries that had been WECAMAN membersconsistently since inception. Nearly all of the countries had signicant increases in landarea under maize and total grain production, while four countries (Benin, Burkina

Faso, Cameroon and Ghana) had signicant increases in yield per unit land area(Table 5).

D I S C U S S I O N

For about 25 years, WECAMAN has put in place and sustained a research anddevelopment system for maize in the subregion. USAID has provided nancial supportsince the inception of the maize network. IFAD and UNDP have complementedUSAIDs efforts since 1997. The governments of the various member countries havealso provided funds, infrastructure and logistic support for maize research. Thesesynergistic efforts have stimulated the capability and initiatives of national scientists


16/24


Table 5. Parameters from the linear regression analysis of total land area under maize (million ha), total grainproduction (million t), and grain yield (t ha 1 ) for maize in eight WECAMAN member countries, 19802001,

(from Fakorede et al ., 2003).

Country 1980 2001 b-value r 2 , %

Land area (million ha)Benin 0.38 0.57 0.009 0.76Burkina Faso 1.00 1.36 0.017 0.55Cameroon 0.33 0.35 0.001 0.00nsCote dIvoire 0.51 0.72 0.010 0.78Ghana 0.20 0.33 0.006 0.57Mali 0.48 0.80 0.015 0.28nsNigeria 0.99 5.34 0.207 0.50Togo 0.14 0.39 0.012 0.86 All countries 4.03 9.86 0.035

Total grain production (million t)Benin 0.22 0.66 0.021 0.88Burkina Faso 0.61 1.26 0.031 0.61Cameroon 0.28 0.76 0.023 0.71Cote dIvoire 0.38 0.67 0.014 0.76Ghana 0.09 0.34 0.012 0.73Mali 0.43 0.70 0.013 0.42nsNigeria 1.00 6.80 0.276 0.67Togo 0.09 0.45 0.017 0.85 All countries 3.10 11.64 0.051

Grain yield (t ha 1 )Benin 0.64 1.21 0.027 0.83Burkina Faso 0.59 0.91 0.015 0.47Cameroon 1.10 2.21 0.053 0.46Cote dIvoire 0.72 0.89 0.008 0.22ns

Ghana 0.52 1.11 0.028 0.75Mali 0.91 0.91 0.000 0.00nsNigeria 1.28 1.30 0.001 0.00nsTogo 0.79 1.13 0.016 0.39ns All countries 0.82 1.23 0.0196

, Signicant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of probability respectively.ns = not signicant.

to solve maize production problems and to generate and/or identify and transfer

appropriate technologies to end-users.The sustainable technologies emanating from research efforts of the Network

include early and extra-early open-pollinated maize varieties with resistance/toleranceto Striga, drought and streak for drought prone areas; post-harvest methods; andcrop management practices. Through the competitive grants system instituted byWECAMAN, technologies developed by lead member countries such as appropriateplant densities, earlier date of fertilizer application, and the use of maize-legumerotations to improve soil fertility and maize grain yields have been tested and adoptedin other countries. The extra-early variety TZEE-W SR BC5 has been releasedin seven countries while the early and drought tolerant variety Pool 16 DT hasbeen released in six countries through on-farm tests and demonstrations funded in


17/24


WECAMAN member countries since 1994. To date, a total of 20 extra-early and 30early varieties have been made available to farmers in WCA through WECAMAN.Obatanpa, a quality protein maize (QPM) variety with good nitrogen use efciencywhich was developed in Ghana, is being vigorously promoted by WECAMAN in thesubregion. This variety has been released or is intended for release in all the membercountries. The availability of early and extra-early varieties developed and promotedby WECAMAN has created niches for maize production, consumption and improvedfood security in WCA. The Network activities have also contributed to increasedmaize production and productivity through the movement of maize into new areas,which would have been impossible without the availability of the early and extra-early varieties. Thus, the network impact on production is largely through bringing newareas, which hitherto were unproductive under maize production. The impact on yield per unit land area is quite low because of the absence or poor functioning of agricultural support institutions particularly for input supply and the macroeconomic

reforms initiated in many of the countries from the 1980s, which had the effect of reducing the use of fertilizer on maize. Furthermore, several technology adapting countries have since evolved into technology developing nations indicating that theLead NARS Concept adopted by the Network has worked effectively and has createda strong feeling of collegiality without which networking would be impossible.

The impressive performance of WECAMAN in generating and transferring technology is attributable largely to the mechanisms put in place for planning, imple-menting, monitoring and evaluating the collaborative research projects and thecollaborating scientists. Through both monitoring tours and consultation visits, theNetwork has been able to identify serious research constraints for individual countriessuch as problems of mobility of scientists during the cropping season, lack of researchfunds, lack of organized seed production and distribution system, non-availability of production inputs and poor linkages among researchers, extensionists, and betweenresearch and extension. Furthermore, training needs were identied and training courses and workshops have been organized on the basis of the reports of themonitoring tours and consultation visits. Generally, monitoring tours and consultation visits havecontributed immensely to the development of national experts with increasesin horizon and depth. They have also improved the capability of national scientists togenerate and transfer maize technology in the sub-region.

One of the greatest problems of regional collaborative research is the individualcountry being wary of having full and uninhibited access to all the results andtechnologies emanating from projects executed in Lead countries. Apparently,WECAMAN has not faced this problem. Actually, the understanding has been that allparticipating countries would have unrestricted access to the results and technologiesemanating, not only from the Lead countries, but from all other projects undertakenby the network as well. To actualize this understanding, the reports of all network projects are published and made available to all collaborating countries. The resultsof the RUVTs and on-farm trials are also available to all countries, and results of all completed projects were presented at the biennial workshop of the network andthe proceedings were usually peer-reviewed and published. Lastly, all technologies


18/24


emanating from the research activities are placed at the disposal of all collaborating countries and many have beneted from the technologies.

One secret of the resounding success of WECAMAN is its management structure. A democratically elected Steering Committee (SC) manages the Network. All membercountries are represented on the SC. The SC provides a concerted effort in directing the Network by deciding the agenda for meetings, monitoring tours, seminars andworkshops as well as allocating research responsibilities to member countries. TheCommittee monitors the performance of member countries, including sponsoring consultation visits to member countries for in situinteraction among scientists. If andwhen there is a problem in any member country, the Committee promptly arranges aspecial visit to the country to investigate the problem and to proffer solutions as far aspossible. Decisions taken at SC meetings are closely followed to execution. Similarly,the Committee seriously considers, and in most cases, endorses the recommendationsof consultants, sub-committees and any committee it sets up for specic issues. The

idea of the SC as the decision-making entity had been in operation in earlier regionalprojects such as SAFGRAD, but the WECAMAN Steering Committee introduced theresearch committee system. The ARC screens all research proposals and recommendsthose to be funded to the SC. The ARC also evaluates the reports of the fundedresearch projects and recommends to the SC projects which the Network shouldterminate or continue funding. Members of the ARC are experienced scientists fromnon-WECAMAN member countries.

One of the strong points of WECAMAN at present is the level of transparencydisplayed in the allocation of competitive grants using the ARC approach. With thisapproach, WECAMAN introduced renements in the whole system of allocating research responsibilities and matching grants to carry out such researches. These haveincreased efciency, ensured accountability and judicious use of resources, and haveresulted in the conduct of high quality maize research in the subregion. It is evidentthat the ARC has been an important player in WECAMAN activities.

The mid-term and end-of-project reviews as well as impact assessments have alsobeen very useful in re-orientating the activities and emphasis of the Network. Forexample, the 1992 impact assessment study of WECAMAN recommended that agreater emphasis should be placed on combined agronomic innovations and increasedintegration of IARC and NARS activities. Other weaknesses of the network identied

were lack of competitiveness in the allocation of research funds, an efcient systemto retrieve technical data from NARS, specic criteria for disbursement of fundsand retrieving expenditure receipts. Following the impact study, steps were taken toaddress these issues and to correct the lapses. For example, the competitive grantsystem was introduced to make the NARS more creative and to ensure judicioususe of resources. Also, the emphasis of the Network has since then been shiftedfrom technology generation, for example breeding, to technology transfer (TT), forexample, on-farm evaluation of improved technologies (Figure 5). From 1994 to 2002about 30 % of WECAMANs funds were allocated to TT whereas the combination of transfer of technology and community seed production (CSP) was allocated 4655 %of the total network funds from 1996 to 2002. This represented a reduction in the


19/24


20/24


21/24


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000Year

A r e a

( h a

1 0 6 ) / P r o

d u c t

i o n ( t

1 0 6 )

Production Area

Figure 6. Total land area under maize and total maize production in eleven WCA countries, 19802001.

there was an internal rate of return (IRR) of 35% from maize research during the period 19821998. There was a high adoption of improved maize varietiesto satisfy the needs of farmers (Laraba, 2001). In a similar study conducted inNigeria, varietal adoption rates, social rates of return and net social gains frommaize research and extension during the 198697 period were obtained (Phillip,2001). The study indicated varietal adoption rates of 8, 50 and 43% per annumfor local, improved open-pollinated and hybrid varieties respectively, an IRR of 23%, and the net present value (NPV) of about $330000 during the 198697period. Incremental yield gains by open-pollinated and hybrid varieties improvedboth the IRR and NPV. In Mali, the adoption rate of the improved varietiesduring the period 1991 to 1996 was 74% (Sanogo, et al., 2001). The improvedmaize varieties taken up included Tiamante, adopted by more than 50% of theproducers, Tuxpe no by 38%, TZE-SR-W by 22%, EV 8422-SR by 15% andSotubaka by 10%. The net income of the maize producers was about $200 ha 1

for improved varieties compared to about $95 ha 1

for local varieties, an increase of about 110% for the improved varieties. The reasons mentioned by the farmers inthe subregion for adopting the improved varieties are high grain yield, early maturity,desirable taste, ease of processing and storage, good our yield and increased income(Enyong et al., 1999; Onyibe et al., 2001). Thus, through networking involving nationaland international research programmes, regional constraints to increased maizeproduction are being tackled by scientists in WCA. The effort has gradually usheredin a maize-based Green Revolution in the subregion (Fakorede et al., 2003). However,a full-blown maize revolution will be achieved when farmers practice intensive maizeproduction. In order for farmers to do this, there is the need to examine critically policyimpediments to higher production and trade inefciencies negating the realization of


22/24


the full potential of maize in the subregion. CORAF/WECARD (Conseil Oest etCentre Africain pour la Recherche et le D eveloppement Agricoles/West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development) as the regional researchcoordinating body has a very critical role to play in this respect. CORAF/WECARDshould in collaboration with WECAMAN energize the NARS in each country toencourage the creation of appropriate national policy environments for greater maizeproduction and improved trade. CORAF/WECARD should also become activelyinvolved in advocacy at the national and sub regional levels to inuence nationalgovernments to support public research systems and investment in public goods.

An important noticeable achievement of the Network is that, over time, there hasbeen a marked improvement in NARS participation, and contribution to technicalpaper presentation at conferences and workshops organized by the Network. Also, themanagement of the Network is NARS-driven. Thus the stage is now set for the NARSto increase its leadership role of the Network.

Several lessons could be drawn from the WECAMAN experience in the generationand transfer of maize technology. Firstly, it is possible to secure subregional collab-oration to carry out relevant and quality research. To secure the collaboration, theactivities should address problems of common and regional interest. The anticipatedbenets should be well dened; NARS should be part of the process of assessing theirresearch capabilities and, by implication, part of the decision-making in assignmentof roles. In addition, there is the need for human capacity building, sustained funding,adequate infrastructure and logistic support from stakeholders donors, nationalgovernments, international centres, regional, and national research institutions.Secondly, the mechanisms for planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating activities should be transparent and continuously assessed with the view of improving output. The process of monitoring and evaluation should not be limited to the researchprojects, but include the collaborating scientists as well. The results of evaluationshould be fed back into the technology generation, transfer and adoption process. Amanagement structure that leaves the NARS in charge of the affairs of the technologygeneration and transfer process has the advantage of creating a sense of ownership,and prepares NARS to assume leadership roles. Thirdly, it is possible to apply scienceto solve complex agricultural production problems to achieve impact. This is achievedby each stakeholder focusing on what it can do best IARCs concentrating on research

that NARS do not have comparative advantage to implement, providing backstopping to NARS and facilitating the exchange of germplasm and other technologies betweenNARS; participating NARS focusing on research in which they have capabilities; anddonors and national governments providing the required funding support.

C O N C L U S I O N

During the past two decades, WECAMAN has helped to expand substantially thetraining and scientic capacity of NARS of WCA. The NARS have successfullyproduced and helped to extend new technologies to farmers elds. The wide adoptionof the technologies has led to increased maize production and productivity and has


23/24


24/24


Badu-Apraku, B., Fakorede, M. A. B., Ouedraogo, M., Carsky, R. J. and Menkir, A. (2003). Maize revolution inWest and Central Africa. Proceedings of a Regional Maize Workshop, 1418 May 2001, IITA-Cotonou, Benin Republic.WECAMAN/IITA.

Badu-Apraku, B., Fakorede, M. A. B. and Ajala, S. O. (2004). Enhancing human resources for maize research anddevelopment in West and Central Africa: A networking approach. Journalof NaturalResources and Life Sciences Education(USA) (in press).

Brader, L. (2002). A study about the causes for low adoption rates of agriculture research results in West and Central Africa: Possible solutions leading to greater future impacts. SDR/ISC : IAR/02/22/ iSC working document.

Enyong, L. O., Coulibaly, A., Adesina, A., Youri, A., Raman, A. and Th e., C. (1999). Dynamics of maize production,adoption of improved varieties and food security in the northern region of Cameroon. In Strategy for Sustainable Maize Production in West and Central Africa. Proceedings of a Regional Maize Workshop, 2125 April, 1997, IITA-Cotonou, Benin Republic.365376. (Eds B. Badu-Apraku, M. A. B. Fakorede, M. Ouedraogo, and F. M. Quin).

Fakorede, M. A. B. and Yobou e, N. (comp.) (2001). Summary of WARDA/NARS Task Forces Activities 19911997.WARDA,Bouak e, Cote dIvoire.

Fakorede, M. A. B. and Akinyemiju, O. A. (2003). Climatic change: effects on maize production in a tropical rainforestlocation. Proceedings of a Regional Maize Workshop, 1418 May 2001, IITA-Cotonou, Benin Republic.WECAMAN/IITA.

Fakorede, M. A. B., Badu-Apraku, B. Kamara, A. Y., Menkir, A. and Ajala, S. O. (2003). Maize revolution in Westand Central Africa: An overview. In Maize Revolution in West and Central Africa. Proceedings of a Regional Maize Workshop,1418 May, 2001, IITA-Cotonou, Benin Republic.315 (Eds B. Badu-Apraku, M. A. B. Fakorede, M. Ouedraogo,R. J. Carsky and A. Menkir), WECAMAN/IITA.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). (2001). FAOSTAT-AGRICULTURE [Online]. Available at http://www.fao.org/waicent/portal/statistics en.asp (Accessed November 23, 2004).

Gyasi, K. O., Abatania, L. N., Paulinus, T., Abdulai, M. S. and Langyintuo, A. S. (2003). A study on the adoption of improved maize technologies in northern Ghana. in Maize revolution in West and Central Africa. In Proceedings of a Regional Maize Workshop, 1418 May, 2001, IITA-Cotonou, Benin Republic.365380 (Eds B. Badu-Apraku, M. A. B.Fakorede, M. Ouedraogo, R. J. Carsky and A. Menkir), WECAMAN/IITA.

ISNAR (1991). Highlights of a consultation on monitoring and evaluation of agricultural research. The Hague, November 1214, 1990.The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.

Kassam, A. H., Gregersen, H. M., Fereres, E., Javier, E. Q., Hardwood, R. R. de Janvry, A. and Cernea, M. M.(2004). A framework for enhancing and guarding the relevance and quality of science: the case of the CGIAR.Experimental Agriculture 40:121.

Laraba, I. (2001). Impact economique de la recherche et de la vulgarisation du ma s au Burkina Faso. In Impact,Challenges and Prospects of Maize Research and Development in West and Central Africa. Proceedings of a Regional Maize Workshop, IITA-Cotonou, Benin Republic, 47 May, 1999.6878. (Eds B. Badu-Apraku, M. A. B. Fakorede, M.Ouedraogo and R. J. Carsky), WECAMAN/IITA.

Manyong, V. M., Kling, J. G., Makinde, K. O., Ajala, S. O. and Menkir, A. (2000). Impact of IITA-improvedgermplasm on maize production in West and Central Africa. Impact Document, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Onyibe, J. E., Daudu, C. K., Akpoko, J. G. and Iwuafor, E. N. O. (2001). Challenges of maize technology transfer inmarginal zones. In Impact, Challenges and Prospects of Maize Research and Development in West and Central Africa. Proceedings of a Regional Maize Workshop, IITA-Cotonou, Benin Republic, 47 May, 1999, 383393. (Eds B. Badu-Apraku, M. A. B.Fakorede, M. Ouedraogo and R. J. Carsky), WECAMAN/IITA.

Phillip, D. (2001). Evaluation of social gains from maize research in the northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria. In Impact,Challenges and Prospects of Maize Research and Development in West and Central Africa. Proceedings of a Regional Maize Workshop,IITA-Cotonou, Benin Republic,47 May, 1999, 7990 (Eds B. Badu-Apraku, M. A. B. Fakorede, M. Ouedraogo andR. J. Carsky), WECAMAN/IITA.

Sanders, J. H., Taye Bezuneh and Schroader, A. C. (1994). Impact assessment of the SAFGRAD commodity networks.OAU/STRC SAFGRAD, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.

Sanogo, O., Mariko, R. and A. Diakite. (2001). Etude de limpact economique de la recherche agronomique sur lema s au Mali. In Impact, Challenges and Prospects of Maize Research and Development in West and Central Africa. Proceedings of a Regional Maize Workshop, IITA-Cotonou, Benin Republic, 47 May 1999, 91103 (Eds B. Badu-Apraku, M. A. B.Fakorede, M. Ouedraogo and R. J. Carsky), WECAMAN/IITA.

Badu AprakuEnhancing

Documents

Transcript of Badu AprakuEnhancing