On-Farm Experimentation
With a view to testing and adapting tree propagation techniques with farmers, vegetative multiplication units, as described in Box 3-4 were put in place in pilot villages (Leakey et al. 2003; ICRAF-AHT 2003). Pilot nurseries were established on the principle of sharing responsibilities, costs and results. Partner-NGOs played a leading role in the process of identification of farmer groups, organisation and monitoring of day-to-day nursery activities. The farmers provided the land for the nursery, built the nursery shed with local material (in some cases ICRAF supplied zinc roof) and provided timber, sand, gravel and sawdust for the construction of propagators. They further supplied all the labour in the nursery. ICRAF offered nursery tools (watering can, secateur, knapsack sprayer, …) and inputs (polybags, plastic sheets, fertilizer, insecticide) not readily available in rural environment.
Box 3-4: Prototype of a farmer-managed vegetative propagation unit, as developed by ICRAF and partners in Cameroon
Rooting of stem cuttings consists of cutting a portion of a stem with a leaf and axillary bud from the parent plant and then set it in an environment where humidity is high (Tchoundjeu et al. 1997). A simple practical tool for this is the non-mist propagator described by Leakey et al. (1990) and fine-tuned by Mbile et al. (2003). A non-mist propagator (Fig 3-4) is a simple practical tool used in the process of rooting of cuttings. It is made using a wooden frame completely covered with a clear polythene sheet in a view to make it air- and water-tight. The rooting medium lies over two layers of small stones and gravel filled with water, resulting in a permanently humid environment and moist substrate. This technology is well-adapted to rural areas of developing countries. It does not require running water supply or electricity, and it can be constructed locally. Layering, on the other hand, is the development of roots on a stem while it is still attached to the parent plant. The rooted stem is then detached to become a separate plant growing from its own roots. (Tchoundjeu et al. 1997). Both techniques have been tested and fine-tuned on a number of indigenous tree species by ICRAF in West Africa and have been under farmer evaluation since 1998.
The prototype of a farmer-managed vegetative propagation unit, as schematised in Figure 3- 3, consists of two non-mist propagators and a stock plant area that can accommodate 200 plants for rooting of cuttings. If the farmers also engage in air layering, a humidity chamber for the weaning of rooted marcotts is added. The propagators are covered with a roof to keep out rainfall. The shed for acclimatisation of rooted plantlets awaiting transplantation in the field or sales is covered with palm tree leaves. A fence made of wooden pegs and bamboo to avoid intrusion by animals completes the nursery set-up. Other nursery tools and inputs include watering can, knapsack sprayer, cutlass, spade, secateur, scissors, sharp knife or surgical scalpel, bucket, polybags of different sizes, plastic sheets and fine strings for marcotting, organic or mineral fertilizers and pesticides.
Once these nurseries were operational, a series of farmer trainings on vegetative propagation techniques and the use of a non-mist propagator (Box 3-4) were organised (building and use of propagator, setting of cuttings, evaluation of rooting and weaning of cuttings, general nursery techniques). These training sessions were led by researchers and took place in the villages with the farmer nursery group. Then, one farmer was nominated by the group to ensure daily maintenance in the nursery and the group decided to come together once a week to carry out the more labour-demanding activities such as maintenance of stock plants, setting, evaluation and potting of cuttings, etc.
Six pilot farmer nurseries were established between 1998 and 1999: Abondo, Nkolfep, Ngoumou and Ting-Melen in the humid forest zone; Belo and Bandjoun in the humid savannah zone of Cameroon (Fig 3-2). The knowledge-intensive nature of the approach required that, in first instance, researchers concentrated their efforts in a small number of villages. In this situation, the sites were chosen to represent a variety of socio-economic and agro-ecological characteristics (Table 3-6) as it was hypothesised that understanding the impact of a number of these factors on the success of tree propagation units would help in identifying the most appropriate sites for tree domestication and subsequent dissemination. In addition to the initial training sessions, technical assistance was provided through follow- up visits by the agroforestry research and extension team at least once a month over the 1999-2003 period. Monitoring and evaluation was done through informal discussions with farmers and yearly evaluation and planning meetings (Degrande 2001b; ICRAF-AHT 2002; Sado 2003; Sado and Tsobeng 2004); regular feedback was obtained from collaborating NGO staff. Records on number of plants produced and integrated in farmers’ fields were registered once a year (ICRAF-AHT 2004b).
Financial Analysis
For the financial analysis, the vegetative propagation unit in one of the pilot villages – Abondo (Fig 3-2) - was chosen as a case study because it had been the first to become operational under the ICRAF participatory tree domestication programme. A nursery enterprise budget (Alima and Manyong 2000) was developed in 2002 using potential though realistic production figures instead of actual production. By doing so, the study can be seen as an ‘ex-ante’ analysis of the profitability of a vegetative propagation unit. This choice was made taking into consideration the experimental nature of the nursery at this stage. It should be underscored that the establishment of the propagation unit in Abondo was initially aimed at evaluating and adapting vegetative propagation techniques with farmers. Hence, the focus was primarily on understanding the factors underpinning farmers’ capability and willingness to propagate trees vegetatively, and not on optimising production or economic performance as such.
Table 3-6: Socio-economic and biophysical characteristics of 6 community nurseries, established by ICRAF and partners in Cameroon in 1998-1999
Community Agro- ecological zone
Tree diversity Ethnic group Population
density NGO involvement Experience in and
attitude towards collective action Experience with tree nurseries
Abondo Transition zone
forest-savannah
Low Eton Average (50
hbt/km2) None Weak Individualcocoa and
fertiliser trees
Nkolfep Degraded
humid forest Medium Eton Medium None Weak Individualcocoa and
fertiliser trees
Ting-Melen Humid forest High Ewondo Medium CRATAD Weak Individual
cocoa
Ngoumou Humid forest High Ewondo Medium ATD Weak Individual
cocoa
Bandjoun Sub-humid
savannah Medium Bamileké High (500 hbt/km2) CIPCRE Strong Individualcoffee and fruit trees
Belo Sub-humid
savannah highlands
Medium Kom High CIPCRE Strong Group nursery
fruit trees and medicinal plants
Cost of infrastructure, equipment, nursery tools and inputs were calculated using local market prices. Labour costs were estimated by evaluating together with farmers the time spent on different activities, using the recall method described by Upton (1987) cited in Franzel et al. (2001). The time horizon of the analysis was 5 years, being the estimated lifespan of most of the infrastructure and basic equipment. We supposed that all investment is made in the first year and revenues are obtained from the second year on. A discount rate of 20% was used, as is commonly practiced in the region (Izac 2003). In Cameroon as elsewhere in the region, the techniques of rooting of cuttings and air layering for fruit trees are new; therefore market prices for vegetatively produced plantlets are not yet available. For the purpose of this study and comparing with prices of fruit seedlings and grafts in urban tree nurseries (Mfoumou 2001), sales prices of cuttings were estimated at 1000 FCFA (1.5 €) and marcotts at 1500 FCFA (2.3 €). Sensitivity analysis (Alima and Manyong 2000; Izac 2003) was conducted to show the effects of changes in key parameters on the returns.
In 2004 a similar financial analysis, but using actual production data, was carried out in Lekie-Assi (Djontu 20055). Lekie-Assi nursery has a shed covered with raphia mats and
supported by 12 poles. There are 2 non-mist propagators and 1 humidity chamber and a fence made of local material. The stock plant area has 221 plants of different species (e.g. Dacryodes edulis, Irvingia gabonensis, Ricinodendron heudelotii, etc.). Actual production of cuttings, marcotts and grafts were recorded for 2002 and 2003; production for 2004 and 2005 was estimated assuming a 10 % increase per year.
Studying Spread
After the establishment of the 6 community nurseries for experimentation and training purposes, 9 more nurseries were initiated between 1999 and 2002. A number of factors were studied to explain the reasons behind the spread of nurseries:
- Size of nursery groups;
- Distance between the nursery site and the living quarters of the group members; - Authority structure and cohesion in a nursery group;
- Innovativeness and creativity of group members.
Participation of Vulnerable Groups
As part of our evaluation on adoption potential of tree domestication, we studied participation of vulnerable groups in tree domestication activities in 2004. The main objective was to identify constraints and enabling factors affecting adoption of tree domestication by women, youth and the poorest farmers with a view of designing appropriate dissemination strategies to enhance their participation. To this effect and with the assistance of a B.Sc.-student (Essomba 2004), we held focus group discussions with women, youth and the poorest households in the community in 6 villages where farmers
have been experimenting with tree domestication techniques since 1999 (Belo, Elig- Nkouma, Nkolfep, Ting-Melen, Nkom-Efoufoum, Bandjoun, Ngoumou and Abondo; Fig 3-2). In each village, focus groups were composed as follows (Table 3-7).
- For the women’s group, representatives of women’s associations were identified with the help of the leader of the pilot group that is experimenting with tree domestication and the village head. These representatives then invited some of their members to attend the focus group discussions. All female members of the tree domestication pilot group also participated in the discussions.
- To compose the youth’s group, all members of the pilot group younger than 35 years, if any, were convened. They were asked to bring their friends along. Invitations were also distributed among the youth at sports events and places where young people normally gather during holiday evenings.
- The poorest categories were identified using participatory wealth ranking, described in Pretty et al. (1995) and Schreckenberg et al. (2002). In each community, four key informants, two men and two women, identified households from the complete list of households (established during a household inventory; see 3.3.1) that, according to them, belonged to the poorest categories in the community. The interviewer then invited these households personally to attend the focus group discussion. Because poverty is a sensitive issue, the interviewer explained that key persons in the community chose them because they might have some specific information on trees and tree cultivation.
Table 3-7: Number of participants in focus group discussions, per category and per village, for survey on participation of vulnerable groups in tree domestication, June- August 2004, Cameroon
Women Youth Poorest category
Village
Number Age
range (yr) Number Age range (yr) Number Age (yr) range
Belo 43 [19-61] 24 [17-29] 4 > 47 yrs
Elig-Nkouma 21 [30-60] 10 [26-34] 3 > 50 yrs Nkolfep 16 [35-60] 13 [24-33] Not possible to group persons
identified because of their age Ting-Melen Not possible to group women
at time of survey 8 [13-25] identify this category in this Resource persons did not village Nkom- Efoufoum 14 [30-69] 19 [17-36] 3 [58-66] Bandjoun 10 [38-58] 4 [25-36] 3 [58-69] Ngoumou 28 [26-68] 17 [13-37] 3 [29-58] Abondo 8 [35-61] 5 [28-34] 2 [56-60] Source: Essomba (2004)
Using a checklist, the focus groups addressed the following issues:
- knowledge and perception of tree domestication techniques, benefits, disadvantages and requirements;
- reasons for participation in tree domestication and/or constraints to participation; - problems faced in practicing tree domestication techniques, specific to their
category or not;
- strategies to overcome obstacles and suggestions for research and extension; - diffusion and adoption of other innovations in the community;
- sources of information about innovations;
- experiences working collectively and sharing benefits within the household, in associations/groups and in the community.
In addition to the focus group discussions, we interviewed individually all members of our nursery groups who fell in each of the categories on their knowledge and perception of tree domestication (Table 3-8). A sample of non-participants was also interviewed to find out why they were not involved in tree domestication (Table 3-8). However, as members of the poorest category had never experimented with tree domestication techniques, only non- participants from this category could be interviewed. Topics covered in the questionnaire were almost the same as those discussed in the focus groups, mentioned above.
Table 3-8: Number of interviewees per category and per village for individual interview on participation of vulnerable groups in tree domestication, June-August 2004, Cameroon Women Youth Village Participant in tree domest. Non- participant Participant in tree domest. Non- participant Poorest category6 Total Belo 4 2 2 1 2 11 Elig-Nkouma 2 2 1 2 2 9 Nkolfep 0 4 0 1 1 6 Ting-Melen 1 1 2 0 0 4 Nkom-Efoufoum 0 1 0 2 2 5 Bandjoun 0 1 0 2 3 6 Ngoumou 1 1 0 1 1 4 Abondo 2 1 1 2 1 7 Total 10 13 6 11 12 52 Source: Essomba (2004)
Assessing Impact
In November 2004, 6 years after the start of ICRAF’s tree domestication programme in Cameroon, two village workshops on the impact of tree domestication on farmers’ livelihood were organised. The rationale for holding village workshops was that farmers are likely to identify types of impacts that researchers may be unaware of, whereas impacts important to farmers would be the most critical ones to monitor and evaluate (Kristjanson et al. 2002).
The main objectives of the workshop were:
1. to obtain farmers’ views on the impact indicators (economic, socio-cultural and ecological) that are important to them and to share with them our ideas on impact; 2. to elicit farmers’ expectations of magnitudes of impact and constraints in achieving
these levels; and
3. to identify factors affecting adoption of tree domestication in the area.
Two locations were chosen for the workshop: (1) Lekie-Assi, situated at about 70 km northwest from Yaoundé in the humid forest zone and (2) Belo, located in the savannah highlands of Cameroon (Fig 3-2). It was expected that differences in agro-ecology would lead to differences in types and magnitudes of impacts, especially at the economic level. The majority of participants were farmers who had at least 3 years of first-hand experience with tree domestication techniques. Other participants included extensionists and ICRAF staff. Lekie-Assi hosted 45 farmers, 7 extensionists and 8 ICRAF staff (total of 13 women and 46 men). In Belo, 35 farmers, 1 extension agent and 5 ICRAF staff attended the workshop (total of 16 women and 24 men). Efforts were also made to have a good balance between old and young farmers.
Four simultaneous working groups were convened and they addressed the following topics: impact of tree domestication on: (1) production, productivity and product quality; (2) household economy; (3) farmers’ social and cultural well-being; and (4) environment. In the afternoon session, all groups focused on the identification of constraints to the adoption of tree domestication. The organisers opted for one topic per working group to focus the discussion and avoid confusion of impacts at different levels. Key collaborators were chosen to facilitate the group sessions. However, group members designated note takers. After each group session, results were presented in plenary and time was allocated for some general questions or remarks from other participants.