Enhancing Partnership Among Africa Rising, NAFAKA, and TUBORESHE CHAKULA Programs in Tanzania

AFRICA RISING Enhancing partnership among Africa RISING, NAFAKA and TUBORESHE CHAKULA Programs for fast tracking delivery and scaling of agricultural technologies in Tanzania 3rd Annual Review & Planning Meeting July 03-04, 2017 Andreas Gramzow World Vegetable Center-ESA Cornel Massawe HORTI-Tengeru Hassan Mdiga - World Vegetable Center-ESA Tilya Mansuet - HORTI-Tengeru Philipo Joseph Lukumay- World Vegetable Center-ESA Alaik Laizer - World Vegetable Center-ESA HORTI

Outline I. Summary of key activities II. Reaching the targets III. Key results preliminary achievements IV. Partners/ key stakeholders V. Challenges and constraints VI. Lessons learned

I. Summary of key activities / training approach Improved varieties Project introduction / Need assessment/ Production for markets and consumption Healthy seedlings GAP Soil improvement / seed bed preparation / nursery management/ Farmer trainers (baby trials) Establishment of demonstration plots / spacing / manuring & fertilizer application Farmer to farmer training Good agricultural practices / IPM / harvesting techniques Secondary knowledge recipients (Grandbaby trials) Postharvest techniques / food hygiene / organoleptic tests / field day Seed multiplication training

I. Summary of key activities Region District Key activities 6 pilot villages Completed season long training in 6 pilot villages Previous CRS pilot villages from NAFAKA I worked now with CARITAS in all 6 villages 8 pilot villages completed season long training sessions in December 16 18 pilot villages (9 in Mbarali and 9 in Mbeya rural Districts) training completed in June 2017 Collaboration with CRS under the UNICEF funded Accelerated Stunting Reduction Project (ASRP) 10 pilot villages Collaboration with Africare in all ten villages based on the USAID funded Mwanzo Bora project Training will be completed in July 2017 Morogoro Kilombero Iringa Iringa rural Mbarali and Mbeya rural Mbeya Iringa Kilolo

II. Reaching targets FY FY % FY ACHIEVE- MENT Kilom bero Iringa rural Mbara- li Mbeya rural % Kilolo Babati TARGE T ACHIEV E-MENT % MALE INDICATOR FEMALE No. of farmers who have applied new technologies or management practices No. of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training 60.0% 40.0% 2,700 2,801 103.9% 505 607 681 460 452 96 60.0% 40.0% 2,740 2,801 102.2% 505 607 681 460 452 96 No. of community- based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG assistance - - - 30 88 293.3% - - - - - No. of rural households benefiting directly from USG interventions 60.0% 40.0% 2,700 2,801 103.7% 505 607 681 460 452 96 No. of beneficiaries with home gardens as a proxy for access to nutritious foods and income 60.0% 40.0% 2,700 2,705 100.2% 505 607 681 460 452 5

III. Key results preliminary achievements Started with 9 villages, now reached 67 villages We trained 2,705 farmers in 2016/17 (538 in 2015/16) using the season long vegetable production training Trained96 farmers on screen house establishment Distributed 2,705 seed kits in 2016/17 (1,096 in 2015/16) First results from impact analysis in first 9 villages in Manyara and Dodoma Regions

III. Key results impact survey overview 9 pilot villages from 2014/15 located in Babati, Kiteto and Kongwa districts Survey of 200 beneficiaries and 203 non-beneficiaries located in the nine pilot villages conducted in 2017 Farmers stated that weather conditions in 2014/15 were almost similar to 2016/17

III. Key results preliminary achievements Figure 1: Comparison of the yields produced by beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (control) located in the nine pilot villages (yield data from 2016) 25.0 22.9 20.0 YIELD IN TONS PER HECTARE 14.7 13.9 15.0 13.7 12.9 11.3 9.1 9.1 8.9 10.0 8.4 5.0 0.0 Control Control Control Control Control Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries A. eggplant Beneficiaries E. mustard Beneficiaries Tomato Control Amaranths Control A. nightshade Control Tomato Beneficiaries Amaranths Beneficiaries A. eggplant Control E. mustard Control Tomato A. eggplant A. nightshade Beneficiaries Amaranths E. mustard A. nightshade

III. Key results preliminary achievements Figure 2: Comparison of beneficiaries yields for specific crops in 2014 and 2016 18.0 17.2 16.0 14.0 12.8 12.4 12.2 12.0 YIELD IN T/HA 10.7 9.8 10.0 8.6 8.3 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 Tomato A. eggplant Amaranths A. nightshade

III. Key results preliminary achievements Figure 3: Comparison of total production costs, total revenues and gross margin of beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries in TSH per ha (last 12 months recall) TZS 4,500,000 TZS 4,000,000 TZS 3,500,000 TZS 3,000,000 TZS 2,500,000 TZS 2,000,000 TZS 1,500,000 TZS 1,000,000 TZS 500,000 TZS 0 Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Beneficiary Non- Beneficiary Non- Beneficiary Non- Beneficiary Non- Maize farmer Beneficiary Beneficiary Beneficiary Beneficiary African Nightshade Amaranth Ethiopian Mustard Tomatoes Maize Total Cost / Ha Total Revue/ Ha Gross Margin

VI. Partners Most important partners in all pilot villages: public extension service (trained 50 village extension officers) Conducted training in 24 CRS project villages in Kilombero, Mbeya rural and Mbarali districts A to Z: Test small-scale net house and shade nets for future scaling out Africare: Collaborate in 10 villages in Kilolo District Provided training in public schools

V. Challenges and constraints Slow growth of jute mallow and African eggplant in higher altitudes (Mbeya rural and Kilolo districts) Problems to access villages due to poor infrastructure (Kilolo District) Male farmers in Kilolo had often limited interest in vegetable production Farmers in some villages expected to be paid for training participations since other projects pay for attendance Extremely poor performance of TAHEA as project partner

VI. Lessons learned Partnership with CRS and Africare contributed significantly to the success of the interventions Close collaboration with VAEO to enable them to follow up and further disseminate knowledge Inviting progressive farmers from other villages to set up demonstration plots and train farmers from their villages promising scaling model for a second phase Focus on nutrition and leafy vegetables encouraged female farmers to participate the training sessions Good combination of well-known crops (e.g. tomato, amaranth) and new ones (e.g. Ethiopian mustard, V. Soybean in Iringa and Mbeya)

Questions ???

III. Key results preliminary achievements Figure 4: Comparison of production cost components in TSH per ha 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 COSTS IN TSH PER HA 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Beneficiary Non- Beneficiary Non- Beneficiary Non- Beneficiary Non- Maize farmer Beneficiary Beneficiary Beneficiary Beneficiary African Nightshade Amaranth Ethiopian Mustard Tomatoes Maize Fertilizer Cost / Ha Labor Cost / Ha InsecticideCost / Ha Total Cost / Ha Herbicides Cost / Ha Total Revue/ Ha Fungicides Cost / Ha Gross Margin