2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Investment costs

Stock plant area 145,600

Fence 135,000 Shed 75,000 Non-mist propagators (2) 150,000 Humidity chamber (2) 90,000 Nursery equipment/tools 194,500 250 250 16,250 250 790,100 250 250 16,250 250

Fixed costs (land rent and

infrastructure maintenance) 30,000 101,625 101,625 101,625 101,625 Production costs 278,752 278,752 227,627 234,000 253,330 Sales Marcotts @ 2,500 FCFA 0 982,500 300,000 330,000 362,500 Cuttings @ 1,500 FCFA 0 96,000 450,000 495,000 544,500 Grafts @ 1,000 FCFA 0 41,000 55,000 60,000 67,000 0 1,029,500 805,000 885,000 974,000 Income flux (-1,098,852) 648,873 475,873 533,125 618,795

Net Present Value 323,566

Internal Rate of Return 38 %

*_{1 F CFA = 0.0015 €}

6.4 Feasibility and Acceptability

Participatory evaluation of vegetative propagation from 1998 to 2003 showed that farmers, after a series of trainings and technical backstopping, mastered the propagation techniques and produced cuttings and marcotts for personal use and some even started selling. However, as also mentioned in 6.1, actual production figures were very much below capacity for most of the nurseries. For example, the nursery in Abondo with its current infrastructure has a capacity of producing 1218 cuttings and 85 marcotts per year, but produced only 265 cuttings and 4 marcotts in 2002.

Depending on the species, rooting of marcotts can take from 2 to 6 months After removing the bark over ± 10 cm,

the rooting substrate is wrapped around the wound

The wrapping is removed and the rooted marcott is potted When the roots are visible through the

transparent plastic, the marcott is removed from the mother tree

To explain this discrepancy, one needs to understand the factors that determine the potential production capacity of a vegetative production unit. These factors are both biophysical and socio-economic, and include:

- rooting time of a species, i.e. the average time it takes a cutting to root and to develop new shoots. This will determine the frequency at which cuttings can be set (see Table 6-2 for some examples);

- rooting percentage and survival rate after weaning of a species, i.e. the percentage of plants that develop roots and the proportion of plants that survive and develop new shoots after weaning (see Table 6-2 for some examples);

- infrastructure and equipment at the disposal of the operator. The capacity to root cuttings will not only depend on the number and dimensions of the non-mist propagators, but also on vegetative material available in the stock plant area (quantity and quality);

- labour availability (amount and skills) to carry out nursery activities;

- existing demand for plants in rural and urban areas and access of nursery operator to clients.

Taking into consideration the above factors and through observations in on-farm vegetative propagation units and discussions with nursery operators, the following reasons could explain why production recorded in the pilot nurseries has been below potential capacity.

- Insufficient availability of stock plant material. To have enough juvenile material in the stock plant area all year round, rigorous management including adequate pruning, fertilisation, phytosanitary measures and watering in the dry season is required.

- Poor water management. One of the major difficulties farmers face in using the non-mist propagator is correct water management (Mbile et al. 2004). Whilst moisture is required for maintaining constant humidity levels in the non-mist propagator, too much water leads to inundation of the rooting medium, and thus favours rotting of cuttings. Farmers judge the water level in the propagators through a tube inserted into the substrate and correct it by adding or removing water to a mark on the tube. However, water may increase suddenly as a result of a thunderstorm, or leaking shed roof while the farmer is away. Frequent inundation also requires time-consuming removal of water using a sponge, in addition to causing damage to the cuttings. - Low rooting and survival percentages. The rooting and survival percentages mentioned in

Tables 6-2 and 6-3 have been obtained in researcher-managed trials (Mialoundama et al. 2002; Avana et al. 2004; Tsobeng (pers. comm. July 2005); Ngo-Mpeck (pers. comm. July 2005). While exact data on rooting and survival rates in village nurseries have not been systematically collected, it is to be expected that success rates will be lower under farmer management. Reasons are lower mastery of the techniques, lack of understanding of the underlying principles and less rigorous implementation of nursery requirements because of time, material or financial constraints. This fact is exacerbated if the nursery is managed by a group of farmers with different levels of skills and dedication. For example, records show that the average number of plants produced per group member decreases with increasing group sizes (ICRAF-AHT 2002).

A farmer-managed vegetative

propagation unit, roofed with traditional thatches in Nkom-Efoufoum, humid forest zone, Cameroon

Building of a non-mist propagator

Cuttings from Dacryodes edulis and Calliandra calothyrsus in non-mist rooting propagator

Rooted single-node leafy cutting of Pausinystalia johimbe (a medicinal tree)

- Long rooting cycles. Table 6-2 shows average duration of a rooting cycle under researcher-controlled trials for 3 species (Mialoundama et al. 2002; Avana et al. 2004). In principle, 4 production cycles a year are possible for Dacryodes edulis, 2 for Irvingia gabonensis and 6 for Ricinodendron heudelotii. Obtaining these frequencies, however, requires good planning and organisational skills, and does not necessarily take farmers’ other activities into account.

- Lack of motivation or perspective. Farmers sometimes deliberately keep production below capacity because they are unwilling to invest much effort if they perceive the benefits as long-term. Another cause of low production is their fear that they will be unable to sell their plants. They prefer to invest in activities that yield immediate benefits. Since the proposed propagation techniques are rather new to farmers, they often lack confidence in the results and adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Some may prefer to start off with a small nursery and gradually increase. Others may lose interest because their preferences in terms of species, techniques or tree traits are not adequately addressed, as was confirmed in the focus group discussions reported in 6.5. This notwithstanding, it is possible for farmers to adopt one or more of these vegetative propagation techniques at different points in time. One can start with adopting marcotting, since this technique requires less investment, is a seasonal activity, can be practiced on an individual basis and its benefits are rapidly observable. On the other hand, rooting of cuttings necessitates rather costly infrastructure (shed, non-mist propagators, nursery tools), which is difficult to obtain for resource-poor farmers individually. The daily maintenance requirement of non-mist propagators is another reason why farmers may want to carry out this activity in group.

- Constraints related to group management. From evaluation meetings with farmers (Degrande 2001b; ICRAF-AHT 2002; Sado 2003, Sado and Tsobeng 2004) it has become clear that group dynamics (attitude towards collective action, leadership, group composition and functioning) are determinant for the viability and sustainability of group nurseries. Essomba (2004)6 _{found that 4 of the 9 nursery}

groups studied experienced serious drop-out from members, decreasing membership from 15-20 in 1999 to merely 1-2 in 2004. Discussions with members of nursery groups (Essomba 2004; Sado 2003, Sado and Tsobeng 2004) revealed that nurseries do not perform well when there is no charismatic leader, when group objectives are loosely defined and where there is lack of transparency in group management and benefit sharing. On the other hand, strong leadership, presence of rules and clear allocation of tasks and related benefits, are factors explaining success in nursery groups (Essomba 2004). On the other hand, strong leadership, presence of rules and clear allocation of tasks and related benefits, are factors explaining success in nursery groups (Essomba 2004). This is similar to results found by Böhringer et al. (2003) in Tanzania, Zambia and Malawi. They highlighted that group nurseries produced significantly fewer tree seedlings, leading to lower number of trees being transplanted. They explained this by the larger transaction costs for organisation and capacity building in group nurseries, compared to individual nurseries.

6 _{A survey on participation of vulnerable groups in tree domestication was carried out in 2004, as part of}

participatory evaluation of tree domestication, by a B.Sc. student, Essomba Hermann, under the supervision of Ann Degrande.

However, the success of individual nurseries was depending again on human and social “start-up” capital being provided by group nurseries earlier, suggesting that both types of nurseries have a role to play in the dissemination of agroforestry.

Farmers’ Innovations and Adaptations

One of the major innovations we observed in pilot nurseries was that, in addition to the priority species, farmers apply the vegetative propagation techniques to many other fruit tree species, both indigenous and exotic. This indicates that farmers master the techniques and have confidence in the results.

However, the main constraint that farmers currently face in adopting vegetative propagation techniques is the high up-front costs of the nursery. This is particularly true for rooting of cuttings, which requires building of non-mist propagators, a nursery shed with watertight roof, and specific nursery tools (secateur, surgery knife, knapsack sprayer, …). In all pilot villages, ICRAF and collaborating NGOs have been subsidising the set-up of such nurseries by providing material that is not easily found in the rural environment, e.g. plastic sheets, nails, some nursery tools, etc. Nevertheless, this has not hampered farmer modifications and innovations aimed to lower costs, including:

- traditional raphia thatches in stead of corrugated zinc to cover the nursery shed, reducing the cost by more than half;

- a simple but sharp kitchen knife in stead of a special grafting knife for marcotting and grafting, bringing down the cost from at least 15,000 FCFA to about 1,500 FCFA;

- razor blades, fixed on a wooden handle, to replace the costly and difficult to find surgery knife and blades;

- discarded wine cartons in stead of polythene bags;

- transparent plastic bags which are used to package sugar, salt, soap, etc. to wrap marcotts;

- old nylon shopping bags (big size) to pot marcotts; etc.

Spread of Vegetative Propagation Units

According to Franzel et al. (2002), acceptability of a technology is generally best ascertained by monitoring whether farmers continue to use and even expand their use of the innovation once the experimentation phase is finished. Therefore, we looked at the diffusion of vegetative propagation units over time. The 6 pilot nurseries (Abondo, Nkolfep, Ting-Melen and Ngoumou in humid forest zone and Bandjoun and Belo in sub-humid savannah area), established in 1998-99 with the main objective of testing and adapting with farmers vegetative propagation techniques, developed in ICRAF’s research nursery, subsequently

oriented ‘sibling’ nurseries, managed by smaller groups or individuals. Figure 6-2 depicts the spread of vegetative propagation units within the humid forest area from 1999 to 2003. Three years after the establishment of the 4 ‘pilot’ nurseries for initial experimentation and training purposes, 9 more nurseries had been created. For the most part, this spread of nurseries had occurred without extra dissemination efforts by either researchers or NGOs. Various factors explained the creation of new nurseries. Amongst these, the most notable ones are listed below (ICRAF-AHT 2002).

1. Large size of initial nursery groups. The nursery group in Abondo counted more than 40 members before splitting up in three groups: Abondo I, Essong-Mintsang and Abondo II.

2. Considerable distance between the nursery site and the living quarters of group members who must trek sometimes as much as 10 km to and fro just to work in nurseries. This was the case for Nkom-Efoufoum and Elig-Nkouma where farmers came to attend training sessions and to work in the Nkolfep nursery before creating their own nurseries in 1999.

3. Strong differences in opinion between members of the same group over possible and/or perceived differential long-term benefits that may accrue to different members.

4. Enthusiasm and creativity of certain members who considered their initiative for experimentation stifled by belonging to a large group. This was specifically encouraged by researchers, with the intention of promoting innovation, experimentation and adaptation. Innovation will indeed take place if and when farmers are free to experiment individually in their own nursery. This has been the case for Lekie-Assi for example, where the group leader was first a member of the nursery group in Elig-Nkouma, but decided to create his own nursery two years later.

ABONDO NKOLFEP 1998 1999 2001 2002 NGOUMOU TING-MELEN Nkom-

Efoufoum Elig-Nkouma

Essong-

Mintsang Abondo II Nkom- Efoufoum II Lekie-Assi Mpong Ottotomo Nlobisson