cwmp project

1. Progress with the DST development,
and scaling activities planned in 2019
Integrating knowledge and information from CWMP and ACAI
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org

2. The African Cassava Agronomy Initiative
Purpose and objectives of ACAI
ACAI works around priority use cases identified by development partners, and has developed
decision support tools, supplying tailored or site-specific recommendations on fertilizer use,
fertilizer blend formulations, tillage practices, weed control, intercropping and scheduled planting.
The knowledge needed to develop these decision support tools is generated by applying the
principles of “Agronomy at Scale”.
The African Cassava Agronomy Initiative aims at delivering agronomic technologies that
improve cassava root yield and quality, and cassava supply to the processing sector,
engaging 120,000 farming households through effective partnerships with development
partners in Nigeria and Tanzania, supported by the National Agricultural Research Systems,
and in collaboration with strategic research institutes.
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Effective Weed
Management (WM)
WM

3. General approach
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Develop and facilitate use of site-specific agronomy recommendations at scale…
Understanding of A × E interactions
(Agronomy × Environment)
Extrapolate recommendations
across target intervention area
Supply recommendations
Practical field tool
Model processes
Build prediction models
Scale the use of the tools
within partner networks

4. electronic tools
Paper-based tools
The format and “look and feel” of the tools
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Various ways of packaging the recommendations…
questionnaire
maps
decision trees
budget tables
desktop software
smartphone app
USSD
interactive
voice
response
Radio +
SMS

5. Feedback from Extension Agents and farmers
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Most and least preferred formats by EAs and farmers:
EAs and farmers have rather similar
preferences.
Smartphone app is most strongly preferred by
EAs, while farmers prefer simple tables.
IVR in 3rd place, maps and USSD least often
top-ranked.
None of the formats is consistently liked least.

6. Feedback from Extension Agents and farmers
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Helpfulness, user-friendliness and net promoter score:
EAs scored app and table highest on helpfulness, user-friendliness. These tools have very high net promoter
scores (“Would you recommend the tool to a friend or colleague?)
Farmers scored tables highest, and USSD had lowest scores, but none of the formats had an overall poor
score. None of the formats are strongly disliked.

7. Feedback from Extension Agents and farmers
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Scoring of various attributes of the tools:
App and table have some clear (and opposite) strong positive and negative aspects.
Farmers or EAs expressed less pronounced advantages or disadvantages to IVR and USSD.

8. Prioritized formats
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Smartphone app Paper-based tools
USSD
interactive
voice
response
• Prioritized by most primary partners
• Most advanced in development
• Cheapest to deploy
• Target users = Extension Agents
• Accompanied by direct training
Target release date = 30 April 2019
• Second priority for most partners
• Requires improvements, development
• Higher cost to deploy (and use)
• Target users = Cassava growers
• No direct training, only virtual
Target release date = 30 September 2019

9. Prioritized format 1: Smartphone app
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Smartphone app

10. Prioritized format 2: Paper-based tools
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Paper-based tools
Fertilizer recommendations in Oyo and Ogun state for cassava
Recommended rates of fertilizer (urea, TSP and MOP) in kg per hectare, and expected yield response in tonnes per hectare
State LGA
Urea
rate
TSP
rate
MOP
rate
Extra
yield
Urea
rate
TSP
rate
MOP
rate
Extra
yield
Urea
rate
TSP
rate
MOP
rate
Extra
yield
Urea
rate
TSP
rate
MOP
rate
Extra
yield
Urea
rate
TSP
rate
MOP
rate
Extra
yield
Urea
rate
TSP
rate
MOP
rate
Extra
yield
Urea
rate
TSP
rate
MOP
rate
Extra
yield
Urea
rate
TSP
rate
MOP
rate
Extra
yield
Urea
rate
TSP
rate
MOP
rate
Extra
yield
Urea
rate
TSP
rate
MOP
rate
Extra
yield
Urea
rate
TSP
rate
MOP
rate
Extra
yield
Urea
rate
TSP
rate
MOP
rate
Extra
yield
Ogun Abeokuta North 260 - 169 17 272 - 157 17 252 - 176 16 215 - 169 13 144 - 119 8 45 - 36 3 - - - - - - - - 37 - 37 2 60 - 47 3 176 - 135 10 243 - 177 15
Ogun Abeokuta South 253 16 174 16 253 16 173 16 254 16 168 15 205 - 163 12 87 - 91 7 92 - 86 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - 55 - 52 3 174 - 162 10 238 - 167 13
Ogun Ado Odo/Ota 241 - 182 16 258 - 166 17 249 - 175 16 229 - 189 15 186 - 178 12 134 - 135 8 33 - 35 2 - - - - 39 - 39 2 47 - 50 3 103 - 101 6 216 - 188 14
Ogun Egbado /Yewa North 268 19 148 17 278 20 137 17 262 19 154 17 233 13 165 15 166 - 132 10 75 - 69 5 49 - 51 3 - - - - - - - - 57 - 46 3 161 - 119 9 248 16 163 16
Ogun Egbado /Yewa South 261 27 143 17 266 27 137 17 261 26 142 17 247 - 159 16 203 - 191 14 156 - 158 10 54 - 56 3 - - - - 28 - 31 2 40 - 43 3 127 - 116 7 247 13 159 16
Ogun Ewekoro 253 19 152 16 260 21 145 17 254 18 152 16 227 - 175 15 180 - 177 12 121 - 118 8 63 - 65 3 - - - - 45 - 48 3 73 - 79 5 145 - 139 9 233 - 172 15
Ogun Ifo 243 18 167 16 255 21 155 17 247 18 163 17 232 - 176 15 187 - 185 12 140 - 156 9 61 - 64 4 - - - - 44 - 53 3 61 - 66 3 102 - 106 6 218 - 180 14
Ogun Ijebu East 252 14 164 17 265 17 148 17 257 - 158 17 236 - 185 16 191 - 195 13 146 - 151 9 46 - 52 3 - - - - 65 - 70 4 64 - 67 4 133 - 137 8 230 - 189 16
Ogun Ijebu North 264 - 156 17 276 17 142 17 264 - 156 17 225 - 199 15 176 - 179 11 120 - 118 6 - - - 2 - - - - 48 - 46 3 80 - 78 4 154 - 155 10 236 - 192 16
Ogun Ijebu North-East 257 23 144 17 262 31 137 17 257 16 145 17 223 - 195 15 174 - 202 12 138 - 145 8 - - 27 2 30 - 36 - - - - 2 - - - - 105 - 117 7 227 - 186 15
Ogun Ijebu-Ode 255 23 150 17 263 28 142 17 259 27 146 17 240 - 172 16 194 - 202 13 154 - 167 10 64 - 64 3 - - - - 27 - 30 2 32 - 34 2 107 - 108 7 234 - 178 16
Ogun Ikenne 255 20 157 17 265 20 145 17 257 14 154 17 235 - 184 16 191 - 195 13 141 - 146 8 35 - 35 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 116 - 120 7 227 - 193 15
Ogun Imeko-Afon 266 24 145 17 277 24 134 18 262 23 149 17 226 - 165 14 144 - 124 8 63 - 50 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 71 - 58 4 186 - 148 11 252 16 155 16
Ogun Ipokia 251 - 173 16 273 14 150 17 249 - 172 16 229 - 182 15 184 - 166 11 107 - 105 6 34 - 38 3 - - - - - - - 2 54 - 58 3 99 - 92 6 222 - 181 14
Ogun Obafemi-Owode 259 20 149 17 267 23 140 17 260 21 147 17 232 - 179 15 181 - 179 12 121 - 114 7 29 - 31 2 - - - - - - - 2 66 - 68 4 160 - 153 10 238 - 174 16
Ogun Odeda 270 - 162 17 283 - 149 17 261 - 172 17 219 - 185 14 148 - 130 8 49 - 40 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 86 - 77 5 205 - 180 13 248 - 184 16
Ogun Odogbolu 242 15 166 17 258 24 143 17 256 21 147 17 239 13 171 16 205 - 202 15 166 - 188 11 80 - 90 5 - - - - 36 - 42 3 54 - 60 3 102 - 111 7 220 - 191 15
Ogun Ogun 257 16 160 17 269 18 147 17 257 15 159 17 230 - 178 15 175 - 165 11 111 - 111 7 38 - 41 2 - - - - 32 - 34 2 63 - 61 4 148 - 135 9 235 - 178 15
Ogun Ogun Waterside 249 - 170 17 257 - 159 17 252 - 167 17 236 - 187 16 195 - 192 13 143 - 150 9 38 - 46 3 - - - - 41 - 46 3 76 - 82 4 157 - 162 10 226 - 197 16
Ogun Remo-North 257 - 176 16 273 - 159 17 261 - 172 17 222 - 209 15 170 - 168 10 102 - 94 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - 67 - 61 4 161 - 158 10 229 - 206 15
Ogun Shagamu 232 - 179 16 256 13 161 17 252 13 166 17 231 - 189 16 187 - 190 12 130 - 137 8 41 - 45 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 85 - 90 5 199 - 186 13
Oyo Afijio 269 14 148 17 278 16 136 17 256 14 162 17 217 - 171 14 147 - 120 8 37 - 37 3 37 - 37 2 - - - - - - - - 69 - 59 4 193 - 162 12 244 13 175 16
Oyo Akinyele 283 - 165 18 298 - 147 18 264 - 184 17 225 - 185 14 146 - 114 8 - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 81 - 65 4 216 - 174 13 248 - 195 17
Oyo Atiba 248 38 131 17 252 38 126 17 247 37 132 17 221 24 155 15 160 13 149 11 75 - 79 5 49 - 55 3 - - - - - - - - 64 - 67 4 190 17 158 13 237 30 145 16
Oyo Atisbo 247 16 169 16 267 18 147 17 248 16 167 16 208 - 172 13 114 - 113 7 50 - 55 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 46 - 47 3 173 - 159 11 226 - 180 15
Oyo Egbeda 250 - 177 16 265 - 160 17 252 - 176 16 214 - 190 14 145 - 137 8 45 - 40 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 71 - 65 4 187 - 173 11 228 - 194 15
Oyo Ibadan North 228 - 216 15 252 - 179 16 237 - 200 15 192 - 190 11 109 - 106 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47 - 46 2 157 - 143 8 200 - 209 13
Oyo Ibadan North-East 261 33 133 17 261 33 133 17 260 33 134 17 218 - 195 15 156 - 174 10 65 - 75 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 74 - 79 4 186 - 209 13 242 - 160 16
Oyo Ibadan North-West 242 - 210 16 266 - 186 17 236 - 215 16 193 - 176 11 110 - 94 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 58 - 52 2 189 - 156 10 222 - 219 14
Oyo Ibadan South-West 251 - 181 16 255 14 176 17 251 - 175 15 195 - 171 11 82 - 75 6 60 - 46 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 66 - 57 3 182 - 171 11 231 - 194 14
Oyo Ibarapa Central 279 13 147 18 285 13 142 18 268 - 155 17 224 - 158 14 147 - 108 8 93 - 56 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - 104 - 72 6 218 - 154 13 267 - 156 17
Oyo Ibarapa East 249 35 135 17 254 35 130 17 243 33 139 16 215 29 136 14 152 16 123 10 94 - 88 6 44 - 44 2 - - - - - - - - 110 - 89 7 207 27 132 14 240 33 142 16
Oyo Ibarapa North 257 32 131 17 261 33 127 17 247 29 141 16 217 25 142 14 150 15 116 10 87 - 76 5 33 - 33 2 - - - - - - - - 111 - 86 7 213 23 144 14 247 29 141 16
Oyo Ido 270 - 165 17 284 - 150 17 256 - 179 16 210 - 178 13 133 - 106 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 77 - 63 4 199 - 169 12 245 - 184 16
Oyo Irepo 223 - 169 14 245 14 172 16 248 15 170 16 202 - 170 12 102 - 98 6 41 - 33 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 75 - 72 5 173 - 153 10
Oyo Iseyin 231 47 126 16 234 48 124 16 229 47 128 16 212 42 128 15 159 31 131 12 97 - 104 7 48 - 59 3 - - - - - - - - 128 18 104 9 209 42 127 15 227 46 128 16
Oyo Itesiwaju 257 16 159 17 273 18 140 17 248 15 168 16 205 - 170 13 113 - 107 6 49 - 48 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 75 - 69 4 200 - 166 13 238 14 178 16
Oyo Iwajowa 246 28 148 17 259 29 134 17 243 28 150 16 212 24 156 14 139 15 118 9 67 - 74 5 29 - 36 2 - - - - - - - - 84 - 77 5 191 21 148 12 229 26 161 16
Oyo Kajola 253 27 139 16 260 28 131 17 244 25 150 16 207 21 162 14 136 14 117 9 58 - 61 4 35 - 39 2 - - - - - - - - 95 - 82 6 208 21 162 14 235 21 161 16
Oyo Lagelu 270 - 172 17 286 - 150 17 259 - 184 16 215 - 195 14 141 - 116 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 72 - 59 4 199 - 174 12 237 - 205 16
Oyo Ogbomosho North 234 - 204 15 287 - 173 18 237 - 215 16 189 - 159 10 75 - 59 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 103 - 83 5 197 - 174 11
Oyo Ogbomosho South 252 - 193 15 302 - 145 17 258 - 191 16 206 - 174 12 112 - 84 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 102 - 84 5 210 - 178 12
Oyo Ogo Oluwa 265 - 176 17 286 - 158 18 250 - 189 16 201 - 157 12 104 - 78 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 63 - 54 3 174 - 141 10 233 - 187 15
Oyo Olorunsogo 246 18 164 16 261 21 150 17 247 18 166 17 204 - 180 13 117 - 119 7 39 - 40 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 45 - 45 3 148 - 148 9 215 - 180 14
Oyo Oluyole 276 - 155 17 286 - 144 18 273 - 158 17 231 - 194 15 169 - 154 10 78 - 66 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 91 - 82 5 211 - 191 13 249 - 183 16
Oyo Ona Ara 279 - 156 17 284 - 150 17 268 - 169 17 223 - 200 14 158 - 141 9 60 - 53 3 - - - - - - - - 30 - - 2 92 - 80 5 203 - 185 13 249 - 188 16
Oyo Orelope 230 - 179 15 250 - 176 16 237 - 182 15 177 - 166 11 71 - 75 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 102 - 106 6 188 - 171 11
Oyo Ori-Ire 247 - 182 16 278 - 157 17 242 - 192 16 193 - 174 11 93 - 86 5 - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 127 - 119 7 210 - 187 13
Oyo Oyo East 258 - 189 17 268 - 181 18 242 - 189 15 181 - 151 10 83 - 59 4 51 - 32 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 51 - 37 2 184 - 148 10 241 - 188 15
Oyo Oyo West 241 40 132 16 245 41 128 17 240 40 131 16 215 36 133 15 158 20 131 11 94 - 94 6 36 - 36 2 - - - - - - - - 103 - 90 7 201 31 126 14 234 40 131 16
Oyo Saki East 219 - 183 14 252 - 177 16 235 - 189 15 177 - 159 10 65 - 64 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26 - - 2 113 - 107 6 181 - 163 11
Oyo Saki West 234 - 200 15 263 - 177 17 240 - 199 16 185 - 171 11 65 - 62 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 137 - 129 7 204 - 191 12
Oyo Surulere 264 - 168 17 286 - 154 18 250 - 188 16 202 - 180 12 110 - 101 6 - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 73 - 70 4 168 - 154 10 230 - 180 15
DecemberJanuary February March April May June July August September October November

11. Integrating effective weed management into the PP DST
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
PP DST = step 4 in “6 steps”
• Consider costs of tillage operations
• Consider revenue from expected
yield increase
• Consider labour savings for
weed control during crop growth
• Make best decision that maximizes
net returns
Steps 1-3 in “6 steps”
Decisions on need for
slashing and/or spraying

12. Results 2017 – 2018 (BPP-2)
Best Planting Practices Trials
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
WC = weed control method
• FC = farmer’s current practice
• HB = herbicide-based weed control
Primary tillage
• ZT = zero-till
• SP = single plough
• DP = double plough
Secondary tillage
• FL = planted on flat
• RG = planted on ridges
Little benefit from primary or secondary tillage under low-yielding conditions (<15 t/ha), and negative
effects of herbicide-based weed control. Many farmers abandoned zero-tillage plots!
No difference between weed control methods under high-yielding conditions, and increased yield
with increased tillage intensity. Best option determined by cost of ploughing, ridging and weeding…

13. Results 2016 – 2017 (BPP-1) + 2017 – 2018 (BPP-2): common treatments
Best Planting Practices Trials
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Primary tillage
• ZT = zero-till
• SP = single plough
Secondary tillage
• FL = planted on flat
• RG = planted on ridges
Consistent overall effects by primary and secondary tillage by yield conditions across both years.
The effect of ridging remains to a large extent site-dependent (sd = 3.2 t/ha between fields), and
unclear what drives these differences. Possibly related to weed types and weed severity.
→ BPP-3 + closer investigations through interactions with CWMP

14. How are these results fed into the DST?
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Can this variation in effects of tillage be predicted?
Tillage only makes sense under high-yielding conditions…
Can farmers estimate what conditions to expect in their field?
Primary tillage
• ZT = zero-till
• SP = single plough
Secondary tillage
• FL = planted on flat
• RG = planted on ridges

15. How are these results fed into the DST?
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Align with other use cases: picture-based estimates of current yield
0-3 tonnes/acre 3-6 tonnes/acre 6-9 tonnes/acre 9-12 tonnes/acre 12-15 tonnes/acre
Tillage unlikely to increase yield Tillage likely to increase yield
Tillage intensity depends on relative cost
of ploughing, ridging and weeding

16. Validation exercises – pilot study
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
• Currently 137 farmers across SW Nigeria involved in pilot
validation exercise…
• Supervised by trained extension agents, and coordinated by
primary development partners (OYSCGA and CAVA-II)
• NARS teams of agronomists assist in training and monitoring.
• DSTs and all data collection through a suite of ODK forms

17. Validation exercises – overview
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Valid DST forms submitted: 225
Current yield estimate >4 tonnes per acre: 162 (72%)
Established trials: 137

18. Validation exercises – recommended practice
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
What is being recommended?
Primary tillage
T0 = zero-tillage
T1 = single plough
T2 = double plough
Secondary tillage
FL = planting on flat
RG = planting on ridges
Current practice Recommended practice
Primary
tillage
Secondary
tillage
Primary
tillage
Secondary
tillage

19. Validation exercises – recommended practice
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
What is being recommended?
Most common combinations…
Primary tillage
T0 = zero-tillage
T1 = single plough
T2 = double plough
Secondary tillage
FL = planting on flat
RG = planting on ridges
Currentpractice
Recommended practice
T0-FL T0-RG T2-FL total
T0-RG 2 10 9 21
T1-FL 5 10 11 26
T2-FL 4 3 22 29
total 11 23 42
Increase in tillage intensity: 35%
No change: 34%
Decrease in tillage intensity: 31%

20. Validation exercises – drivers for higher profit
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Why these 3 recommendations?
Zero-tillage, planting on flat, if…
Cassava root price = low
Ridging cost = high and > tillage cost
Zero-tillage, planting on ridges, if…
Cassava root price = medium
Ridging cost = medium and ≈ tillage cost
Double plough, planting on flat, if…
Cassava root price = high
Ridging cost = medium and > tillage cost
11%
23%
42%

21. Validation exercises – drivers for higher profit
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Expected impact on total cost and net revenue
Net revenue increases of 50-200 USD/ha…
• through cost-saving, when T0-FL or T0-RG
is recommended
• through investments of 50-200 USD/ha in a
second ploughing operation (T2-FL)

22. Validation exercises – next season: 2019-2020
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Validation exercises with OYSCGA
– using the integrated BPP/WM DST
Basic set-up (max. 3 plots)
Farmer’s practice
Recommendation
• Slashing/spraying of prev. vegetation
• Tillage intensity
Modified Recommendation (optional)
• Slashing/spraying of prev. vegetation
• Tillage intensity
Extended set-up (optional, max. 6 plots)
• Parallel to basic set-up
• full herbicide control as recommended in 6 steps

23. Research trials – next season: 2019-2020
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Clarifying last open questions on the interaction of
Weeds and Tillage: BPP-4 trials
Interaction of:
Primary tillage
• Double plough
• Single plough
• Zero plough
Secondary tillage
• Ridging
• Harrowing
• 4 to 5 on farm
locations, replicated
• Full weed
assessment at 4, 8,
12, 24 WAP
Double plough Zero ploughSingle plough
No harrow,
No ridges
No harrow,
Ridges
Harrow,
Ridges
Harrow,
No ridges

24. Scaling the use of the DSTs – 2019 activities
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org

25. Scaling the use of the DSTs – 2019 activities
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
• Update primary partners on 6 steps and integrate in their 2019 field operations
=> OYSCGA and Psaltry already participated in 6 steps training in February
• Sensitize more partners/supportive partners on embeddedness of 6 steps and other WM
activities in their services especially in the input segment of cassava value chain (e.g. Hello
Tractor, SSPs, Herbicides companies)
• Train agro dealers to be able to provide recommendations (6 steps, integrated best
planting practices/WM recommendations, fertilizer recommendations, etc.) to farmers
visiting their shops
• Classify partners operational areas of ACAI / CWMP and support grassroots events with
tractor services, herbicides companies, fertilizers companies, NGOs etc.
• Follow-up with relevant public institutions in ACAI/CWMP operation areas on access to
land/land clearing for youth
• Target relevant secondary partners and develop mechanisms for adoption of DSTs in their
operations

26. Training tools accompanying the DST tools…
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Farmer-friendly videos
• Focus on principles and field operations
• Simple terms: “Farmers explaining to farmers”
Farmer’s guides (print-out + digital)
• Same content as videos: principles and field operations
• Simple terms, visualizing how to implement recommendations
DST user manuals
• Focus on how to apply the DSTs, technical and detailed
• Targets Extension Agents
DST user short videos
• Focus on key aspects and advantages of the DSTs
• Promotional, aid for EAs to attract farmers
Under development…

27. Monitoring, evaluation and learning
Project outcomes
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Target:
+2,500 tonnes
new cassava
fertilizer blends
+8 t/ha
additional cassava
root yield
+2 t/ha
additional cassava
root yield, and
+500 kg/ha
additional intercrop
yield
+4 t/ha
additional cassava
root yield (or
equivalent cost
saving)
+10 tonnes
additional supply
of cassava roots to
the processing
industry
+5 tonnes
additional supply
of cassava starch
to the processing
industry
Number of Extension Agents involved:
NA 445 124 496 150 44
Number of households reached:
NA 94,000 46,800 104,200 18,750 15,400
Number of households impacted:
NA 28,200 35,100 42,900 6,563 7,700
WM
Effective Weed
Management (WM)
+ 181,000
+ 680
+ 65,500
+5 t/ha

28. Monitoring, evaluation and learning
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
$$$
We want to track farmers who…
…were reached …gained insights …continued
using the tools
…changed
their practices
…benefited
… and understand why (not) !

29. Monitoring, evaluation and learning
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Nr of farmers (and EAs) who were reached
Type of event
• Radio shows and jingles
• Video screenings
• Training events
• Tool demonstrations
• Field days
• Demonstration fields
• Promotion events
• Agric show
• Media coverage
• …
Essential ME&L data
• Date and location
• Type of event
• Organizing partner
• Short description
• Use cases demonstrated
• Tool formats promoted (paper and/or app)
• Nr of farmers attending (M/F)
• Nr of EAs attending (M/F)
• Nr of other attendants (M/F)
• Participant list + contact details
• Organizations present + contact details
• …

30. Monitoring, evaluation and learning
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Nr of farmers (and EAs) who gained insights
Sample from the participant lists of dissemination events
• Did they understand the principles?
• What dissemination events were more effective?
• Did it trigger participants to use the tools?
• Were they able to get access to the tools?
• …

31. Monitoring, evaluation and learning
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Nr of farmers (and EAs) who used the tools
App: automated
• Date and location
• EA partner
• EA contact details
• Farmer contact details
• Input data
• Recommendations
• Short user feedback
Paper-based tools: manual
• Date and location
• Use case
• EA Partner
• EA contact details
• Farmer contact details
• Recommendations
• Short user feedback

32. Monitoring, evaluation and learning
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Nr of farmers who changed practices
Sample from the attendants of dissemination events + DST users
• Did they one-on-one interaction with an EA applying the DST?
• Can they remember the recommendations?
• Did they apply the recommendations?
• If yes, as recommended or with modifications?
• If no, why not? Cost? Distrust? Access? …?
• …

33. Conclusions
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
• Recommendations on effective weed management and planting practices
have been fully integrated into a single tool.
• Both a simple paper-based tool and the smartphone app (“Cassava CropMaster”)
will be available by end of April. USSD and IVR will follow later this year.
• The integrated version of the tool will be further validated in 2019, with a focus
on understanding when and where investments in tillage and weed control are
not cost-effective.
• Scaling activities are underway for 2019.
• A ME&L framework will quantify reach, insights gained, use of the tools and
changes in practices for different dissemination approaches and tool formats.
• This will provide insights in how to achieve impact most cost-effectively.

34. www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
Thank you!
Questions?
Funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

35. Conclusions
www.iita.org | www.cgiar.org | www.acai-project.org
• Recommendations on effective weed management and planting practices
have been fully integrated into a single tool.
• Both a simple paper-based tool and the smartphone app (“Cassava CropMaster”)
will be available by end of April. USSD and IVR will follow later this year.
• The integrated version of the tool will be further validated in 2019, with a focus
on understanding when and where investments in tillage and weed control are
not cost-effective.
• Scaling activities are underway for 2019.
• A ME&L framework will quantify reach, insights gained, use of the tools and
changes in practices for different dissemination approaches and tool formats.
• This will provide insights in how to achieve impact most cost-effectively.