Ar-nafaka rev planning June2018

From africa-rising-wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Africa RISING - NAFAKA Project
Review and Planning Meeting
26 - 27 June 2018
Ramada Hotel, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
[edit | edit source]


Objectives

  • Share updates on project activities implemented and results for year 1 (of phase II)
  • Discuss lessons learnt and reflect on these for year 2 (of phase II)
  • Develop draft work plans for year 2 (of phase II)

Agenda
Day 1 [26 June]
8.00 Participant’s registration - Devotha Mawole
8.15 Introduction and overview of agenda for the day – Jonathan Odhong’
8.40 Welcome & Opening remarks

  • Mateete Bekunda - Chief Scientist, Africa RISING, East and Southern Africa
  • James Flock - Chief of Party, NAFAKA

9.10 Overview of project activities & achievements - Haroon Sseguya
9.40 Presentations by teams on achievements [20 minutes presentation for all teams except GIS and Integration of ICT which will use 15 minutes + 15 minutes discussion for each team]
10.15 maize team – Freddy Baijukya, IITA
10.15 Group photo and networking break around coffee/tea
10.45 Presentations by teams on achievements [cont'd]
11.20 rice team – Charles Chuwa, ARI Dakawa
11.55 post-harvest team – Christopher Mutungi, IITA
12.25 GIS team – Francis Muthoni, IITA
12.55 ICT integration team – Fred Kizito
13.00 Lunch Break
14.00 Strengthening seed systems for rice and legumes: experience of the NAFAKA/AR collaboration and future plans – Filbert Mzee
14.30 Lessons learned (by enterprise; district extension staff to form their group)
16.00 Break
16.30 Lessons learned [cont'd]
17.00 End of day 1


Day 2 [27 June]
8.00 Overview of agenda for the day
8:10 Discussion of issues on the Parking lot from day 1
9:10 Work plan revisions/refinement in groups / PMT meeting running in parallel
12:00 Presentation of draft work plans for 2018/19 by teams [10 minutes presentation + 10 minutes discussion for each team]
maize team
rice team
post-harvest team
* GIS and ICT integration teams embedded in the 3 teams above.

13:00 Lunch Break
14:00 Presentation of draft work plans cont'd
15.20 Feedback from PMT
15.45 Way forward/next steps - Haroon Sseguya
16.00 Closing

  • Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon – Manager, Africa RISING
  • Mansoor Hussein – Director, R & D, Ministry of Agriculture


Participants list (Click to download)



Notes



Day 1 [26 June]
Welcome & opening remarks

  • Mateete Bekunda - Chief Scientist, Africa RISING, East and Southern Africa
The project is now going to its 5thyear and that is a long time,That means we have experience in what we are doing and are expecting to listen to good stories of success and that we make good plans for next year.
I think we have been weak in terms of recording the information that we have. As scientists we need to publish what we are doing. The Africa RISING - NAFAKA is a successful project and we are known for being a good example of how research projects and development partners can work together. But of recent I have been challenged to produce the evidence of this 'success',Therefore we need to show it.
I want to therefore challenge the team to (as you make plans for next year), remember to include plans about how you will capture the successful-ness of the Africa RISING - NAFAKA project particularly with a focus on adoption - how many farmers are adopting the technologies we are releasing? It is very easy to say you are successful, but if you don't have the numbers, then it is impossible to substantiate it.


James Flock - Chief of Party, NAFAKA

I have been with the NAFAKA Project for two years. And in that time have very much liked the idea of the academic or the scientific rigor that should complement development programs where there are methodologies to test and actually prove what we see with our own eyes and actually publish that. I think it is something that I have seen in the last 3 years, specifically that US country missions are moving more and more towards scientific research.
I am therefore looking forward to learn and for us to see how we can complement how best to work with farmers, applying both the science and the practical field experience that you guys have.
I would like to thank everyone for coming and look forward to talking to you guys bit more.

Overview of project activities & achievements - Haroon Sseguya(click to download presentation)

  • Comment: How can we go beyond our target numbers for beneficiaries with the resources we have presently?
Our targets are for thousands of farmers yet some of the areas in which we work (like the southern highlands of Tanzania) are inhabited by millions? We probably need to give this a rethink....probably revise our scaling strategy.
  • There are various options we can explore like use of radio etc. One of the reasons we have a colleague from CSA project with us here is to explore how the two projects can address the same issue. We can talk about it in more details later on in this meeting.
  • Comment: It seems our documentation process is still adhoc, this is an area that we really need to improve on.
  • Comment: AR-NAFAKA is a scaling project and not a research project and if you want to conduct R-in-D activities, you should not use the resources meant for scaling for any research.All resources for research should only come from the mother Africa RISING project
  • Comment: We wrote a concept note that was approved by USAID and it had specific targets and we also know that staff are changing within USAID now. So we need to be ready so that If a new staff comes and looks at the concept note and requests for figures related to the targets we need to have them.
Response: Yes, I always refer to the targets when preparing our quarterly reports to the donor. In relation to this however, I would like to add that we also committed to USAUD that we will be capturing the spill overs. That we haven't done well in so far. We need to deliver on it and other targets'
.
  • Comment: For NAFAKA what we have done in the past year with the Africa RISING research is to issue a mechanization grant based on your research on mechanized threshers and harvesters. So we restating to use your data to facilitate adoption.
So the next steps which we talked about briefly last night is that those will be used for the upcoming harvest period and later accompanied with some extra research on the cost-benefit to make see how they affects the household productivity, income generation, increased leisure time availability. So we are using some of those finding and technologies. We are happy to do that as we go into the last full year of implementation of NAFAKA.
  • Question: Haroon, do you have the official definition of the number of households benefiting directly from USG intervention?
Response: Yes there is a standard definition provided by USAID --- Direct beneficiaries are those who come into direct contact with the set of interventions (goods or services) provided by the program in each technical area. Individuals who receive training or benefit from program-supported technical assistance or service provision are considered direct beneficiaries, as are those who receive a ration or another type of good.


Presentations by teams on achievements

  • ' Maize team – Freddy Baijukya, IITA' (click to download presentation)

Question: Were all technology options shown to farmers in your mother trials? or did the mother trials vary from place to place?

Response:

Question: You said long dry spell led to late application of top dressing...so what impact did that have?

Response: Some villages in Iringa went 2-3 months without rains therefore making it impossible to apply fertilizer. Maize that was planted in January was supposed to received no rain therefore we couldn't apply top dressing. incidentally this also the period in which the fall army worm infestation had just hit.

Question: Do we have recommended rates for lime in different soils?

Response: We don't have recommendations for liming,. There has so far also not been a systematic study of soil acidity in different areas in Tanzania.

Question: What is the criteria of choosing a particular legume for testing? Is there any economic benefit on the selection of the legume seed?

Response: Basically we are talking of soybean and common bean. A key criteria for us has been that we focus on the crops that are traditionally grown in those areas.We are promoting the improved varieties of each (taken from ARI-UYOLE) which have a high market demand.

Question: Are you involving the private sector in your scaling efforts?

Response: Yes, in certain cases we have private sector involvement like the Mwaspenjele bean variety there is some private sector involvement. The seed companies are also now coming in, because for the first time we have shown them that they can also engage in producing legume seeds. We'd love for more private sector involvement to tackle the issue about sustainability.
  • Comment: Accessing seed for some of the varieties like Njano Uyole is not easy. Probably in future we should consider scaling those that are more accessible and can easily attract/sell for the private sector.
  • Comment: Some of the scientists writing the extension materials you presented are also writing the technology handbook for ESA. There needs to harmonization of the two documents.

Question: I am not sure how the baby demos select themselves from mother demos....we are likely to have pockets where only specific technologies have been disseminated.

Response: Before a farmer adopts a technology, they first test what they have learnt. The mother demo has many technologies that each baby demo picks whichever they prefer. A baby can not be like a mother in all respects, the baby is at a farmer level.


* ' Post-harvest team – Christopher Mutungi, IITA' (click to download presentation)

Question: I read a study that indicates that for farmers who produce maize in smaller quantities (for home consumption) it is not economical to use these hermetic bags.

Response: Yes, that is correct. Farmers are taking hermetic storage for home grain consumption, however they aren't keeping small quantities. We need to also look at the issue of market dynamics, the environment in Tanzania is replete with unexpected interferences.
  • Comment: your training materials aren't properly branded and need to be shared /follow Africa RISING corporate branding design.

Question:Southern highlands is one of the areas with a high prevalence of stunted growth. Have you identified (from the nutrition side) what is really the problem?

Response: I am not sure of the reason for stunting in the southern highlands, but I can venture a guess that it is closely linked relates with the dietary diversity fo households in the region.

Question: AR-NAFAKA isn't starting from scratch, but I am shocked by the number of farmers who aren't aware of storage technologies (94.6%)! That is incredibly high! How and where did you do the sampling?

Response: Sorry that figure is not for the knowledge of "storage technologies" , but rather it is for "knowledge of the grain quality".

Question: I have seen the different grain quality standards. You talked about the standards for maize, but do you also have the (East African) standard for rice too? I am asking this because probably next year we are planning to opening up the farmers and other producers and processors on these standards and we aren't sure where to get them.

Response: Yes, there are standards for rice - white milled rice, brown rice and mpunga. So we have those three standards. These standard pertain to marketing grades. The East African standards give specification e.g. you shouldn't have this proportion of broken grain, or a specific proportion of would grain etc. There are also COMESA standards available, but specifically Tanzania is using the East African standards for grains.

Question by Judith Kitivo (USAID): (This is a general question to all - maybe more to the leadership of this project)..... Please could you offer some insights into the lessons you are learning about gender mainstreaming. Is it true that we can prioritize the women and youth and still reach our goals? An example I will give is from the horticulture programs (which I manage at USAID), our target there is 60% women and 30% youth. Of course this seems like an over-ambitious target, so from the AR- NAFAKA project phase I and now phase II - do you have some lesson learnt that you can feedback to USAID that we can use in our future programming as we focus more into resilience building.

Response: Here there is an element of gender. we probably will need to do some "affirmative actions" during the trainings into the design of our programs and our training activities.
Response: We have done different things in NAFAKA to reach our gender targets.
We have partnered with other USAID funded programs that are also having more or less similar objectives with regards to gender like our own and explore ways of leveraging the collaborations to mainstream gender.
One of the conversations I had with Silvanus last year, and also something we were trying to target with FIPs is that the small packs & demo plots targeted to youth and female farmers to bring on further inclusion into the program.
How effective that has been? we will see soon during our annual NAFAKA meeting next month. So our target was always that as you give out those small packs/establish those baby demos, then try and target more youths.
One of the unique things with NAFAKA II is the farmer to farmer program, where we have an MoU with Soikoine University and they are giving some help with developing business/ young entrepreneurs.
These young agricultural entrepreneurs are doing their trainings/internships with the millers or the hip agro-dealers etc.
That is a small number, but for example it provides almost like an internship type program to them.
The other one is our grants leveraging for women and youths. So generally we require 10% for women and 10% for youth when we issue them out.
So those are some of the ways that we have kind of done it, we are at about 55 - 60% engagement of our women and youth beneficiaries. But overall I mean youths in Zanzibar for example we are still having discussions. I think from what I have seen we have done a lot actually with Fall Army Worm service providers trying to have a youth focus (based on what I have seen) more than extension services, more than the business services etc. So we are trying to get them into the quick cash wins which tends to engage them more. So those are some of the take-aways from what we have done. The difference. with us is that we also
  • Comment: Your reference to the training materials - you indicated your target was to farmers and traders, but you probably forgot to mention extension officer. I hope they are part of the target groups.

Question:Holw do you think you can help more farmers to understand the toxicity of using liquid Actellic?

Response: We discuss the issue of Actellic a lot during our trainings with farmers a lot. We need to continue doing this with more frequency to mainstream it.


  • Rice team – Charles Chuwa, ARI Dakawa' (click to download presentation)


Question: From your presentation, is it correct to deduce that some of the farmers who got small packs were not trained ?

Response:

Question:How do you monitor the impact of trainings?

Response: It is difficult to monitor the impact of trainings, although we are sure that the farmers use the knowledge they receive due to increase demand of Komboka and SARO 5 varieties. The monitoring is not enough, we depend on district/village extension officers to inform us on progress.

Question: Any criteria to select farmers for trainings?

Response: We have clear criteria to select them. Usually, we use farmer groups of NAFAKA to do that. Sometimes farmers form new groups. There are those trained in the group and others outside the groups

Question: What is the availability of seeds next season in Momba?

Response: More will be produced next season to be used by farmers.

Question: The data you presented for your end distribution analysis is interesting - was that coincidental or purposive?

Response: Partly accidental and the rest is purposive. The main target is youth and women.
  • Comment: Probably the team should re-think the approach that they use at the moment to train farmers on soil analysis. What do the farmers so after the training? It may be better and more useful to train a farmer in soil health management instead.

Question: Why is it that mother demos are achieved at 100% while baby demos are achieved at less than 50%?

Response: Mother demos are 100% achieved due to good selection of sites, but baby demos are selected by farmers themselves hence the control is not ensured hence poor achievement
  • Comment: If a certain variety does well then DAICOs should take charge to ensure that it reaches to more farmers. Project should train on how to fish and not to distribute fish. Scaling up of efforts should be as well assisted by the districts. Mufindi DC is one of the good examples by deciding to buy motorcycles to assist that. DCs shouldn’t just wait for resources from the projects.

Question: How is the back-end of the MWANGA Platform managed?

Response: I manage the platform together with two other people - at SARI and another colleague from CIAT in Arusha. That goes with the quality of informations hared with the farmers.

Question: What strategies do you have in place to market the MWANGA Platform among the potential beneficiaries? What are your plans for sustainability?

Response: We took deliberate effort to ensure that we were presents at 3 of the meetings where agro-dealers, extension officers and development partners are as a means of ensuring they buy in to the whole thing. I also admit that I haven't set up a deliberate strategy to address sustainability, but I am open to suggestions from the groups.

Question: Who collects the information on market, weather, agronomic practices, who sends them out, and who is ultimately responsible for the information?

Response: I am responsible for this but I do this together with colleagues. We work with EcoMobile as the service provider and the platform runs on an android app called EcoMobile app. The three of us are therefore responsible for the quality of information sent.
  • Comment: Having only 3 people running this platform means that the information disseminated is individual dependent and that is not sustainable.

Question: What steps do you take to follow up to ensure that information disseminated is actually used?

Response: In Seloto we have seen this when we sent information to farmers involved in irrigation. This was a case in point to show that information from our services is used.

Question: Do you have a data base for all variety of agronomic activities such that instead of sending info to farmers, they can just query?

Response: The platform is still in general a one way platform because we keep sending messages to farmers, but they can't yet send queries. To get the two way information service, we need to pay more to EcoMobile. We could discuss with Haroon and Silvanus to check whether the budget available can afford it.

Question: How do you interface with the other platforms of a similar nature to ensure that there is as minimal duplication as possible?

Response: The issue is on the parking lot and it needs further discussion.
  • Comment: A similar platform exists in the southern highlands called Sibesonke, but we are no longer working with them at NAFAKA. So this is an opportunity for you to bring in the MWANGA platform into the southern platform. We could also consider coopting other partners beyond Africa RISING into it and this could be a good move towards sustainability of the platform.

Question: Who is responsible for the costs of hosting, sending and receiving the messages?

Response: The project team caters for the costs of hosting the platform
.
  • Comment: 10 - 12 years ago there were services like Frontline SMS which were free, and would be used to send mass SMS messages almost like what you are doing with MWANGA. There was also an opportunity to query, with this service. You may want to check whether this (Frontline SMS) could be an option, particularly if the costs with the current service provider is an issue.
  • Comment: If there is already an existing platform operating and doing the same job as the MWANGA platform in the southern highlands as we have learnt, is there a need to really move MWANGA into the southern highlands? Can't we just then integrate into that platform?
  • ' GIS team – Francis Muthoni, IITA' (click to download presentation)

Question: (a) Can this information be scaled down so that it is usable by the farmers?
(b) How are we using your analysis in providing recommendations (as a project) to the farmers?

Response: The information we generate is not targeted directly to the farmers, but more to the people who are giving agro-advisory services. They need to understand the environment they are working o so that they package the right technologies for the farmers.


Question: Dr. Betty Maeda after hearing Francis' presentation last time noted that this can be a decision support tool that policy makers can also benefit from - if the information is simplified and tailored to talk directly to their information needs and interests. What can we do to validate the recommendation domains that have come from this studies?

Response: Sorry I didn't show all the data, but we have validated the satellite data that is covering everywhere and then validate with observation with the observations from the gauge stations which are unto 80% interlinked. My data looks at long terms trends - like in this case 4 decades. The trends inform trajectories of the future.

Question: Can this tool project the amount of rainfall in the coming two years so that researchers and other people involved in agriculture can be prepared?

Response: See my feedback above.

Question: A lot of soil mapping has been done in this country and out of the nice information that came, nobody used them! So what are the plans to make the GIS accessible and usable by farmers?

Response: I don't have an answer fr this questions, but as I have indicated above that most of this data is targeted at agro-advisory service providers.
  • Comment: We are expected in Africa RISING to be generating technologies that are beyond the sites in which we are working at - they may have been tested for example in Kongwa District, but they they should be applicable to be applied somewhere else for example in another part of Uganda with the same characteristics.

Question: How valid is the information to the specific district where the project is implementing activities?

Response:

Strengthening seed systems for rice and legumes: experience of the AR - NAFAKA collaboration and future plans – Silvanus Mruma, NAFAKA

Question: What is the difference between a model farm and a mother demo?

Response: The model farm is a farm that is managed by a farmer selected by the project as an ambassador or a champion...who is willing to adopt all the gap practices nd a technology. We just started having them this year in partnership with input companies. So the farmers who are running model farms receive free inputs, but they have to follow the GAP practices to the letter. The mother demos on the other hand are a platform for training farmers and usually we have about 25 or more and each participant is a lead farmer expected to go out and establish a baby demo with other farmers. We don't dictate where the baby demo should be, but with the mother demo we as the project have a say where they should be located with accessibility, visibility, land characteristic of a particular area being some the key criteria's we insist on to set them up.

Question: On your first slide which shows the main outputs for NAFAKA II, there was a statement "overall system productivity" .....what does this statement mean?

Response: The systems productivity talks to the primary actors (farmers) and the secondary actors (millers, processors etc.) in the value chain. Primary actors are the farmers. We would therefore like to see them have productivity.

Question: What does having an in-depth network analysis mean?

Response: This is basically to ensure that we strengthen the linkages between different actors in the input-supply networks. the in-depth network analysis is done in addition to the annual outcome surveys by the NAFAKA project. We will work with the Africa RISING team to develop the appropriate methodology for the proposed network analysis.For example what can we do to strengthen relationships between each nodes of the network....Take the case of YARA who have agreed to have a pilot program using 50 NFAKA VBAAs as foot soldier working in villages in Mbarali...what will the VBAAs be doing, how can we improve that?

Question: NAFAKA II is about commercialization and seeking mostly farmers who have a potential to do business. Do those need VBAAs...do they need to be in groups? These kinds of farmers are usually independent and very organized.

Response: We are still operating in the cereal crops value chain which is a predominantly volume based. 99% of maize is produced by small holders so yes these groups of farmers still need a lot of collective action.

Question: How does the model farm benefit the community around which it is set-up?

Response: We experience farmer fatigue in some of our demo plots. What we are witnessing is that more and more farmers are stoping to participate in demo plots. The pioneer farmers can invest their own resources in establishment and management of the farms, what we invest in this is the technical back stopping. So we can occasionally organize field days where farmers go to learn. Please note that these pioneer farmers (model farmers) aren't your typical commercial farmers in most cases. Although in certain cases, like recently we had an arrangement with Assas farms who are a big commercial entity
SI Lessons learned Participants split in groups - maize, rice , post harvest, ICT, GIS and district agricultural officers.
Group Lesson learnt How we factored it into our 2017/18 work plan
Post-harvest Train PO leaders on how to train other farmers -Include a short session at each training to introduce PO leaders to the dynamice of farmer training.

Simpler training materials for farmers needed in addition to trainers' materials-Prepare brochures and leaflets.
Building the capacity of VAEOS and PO leaders enhances the capacity to reach more farmers but proper selection is key-formulate a list criterias for selection of trainess based on experiences and so on.
Gender representation of PO leaders and VAEOS (persons trained to go and train other farmers) was not balanced (always more men than women, low youth participation)-purposifully identification of trainees to meet gender balance requirements/targets.

New partnerships incorporated CONSENUTH, TBS, HELVETAS
GIS & ICT Use of decision support tool generated from GIS tool/ICT in project implementation is very low.

Should have short training on GIS/ICT for project team and extension staffs.
Embed GIS/ICT plan within each team's plan of activities.

New extension officers brought on board, new action districts
Maize There is lack of technology response in some sites/areas suggesting that other factors are limiting.

Optimized crop management factors (time of planting, weeding, pest control) are overriding other factors including integration of varieties and fertilizers.
Farmer to farmer learning approach (there is a need to diversify our technologies dissemination approaches e.g. community radios, model farms.
Successful adoption needs extension staffs lead by example.
Establishment and formalization of Sprayer service providers, this is very crucial for safer use and handling of pesticides.
The knowledge of GAP to most of village extension officers is very limited which jeopardized the supervision of project activities.
Labour saving technology is very crucial eg. Slashers, weeders , planters, crop residue choppers.
There is a need to conduct in-depth study underlying factors for limited response of improved technologies.
There is a need to expand QDS system for legumes because private sector has limited interest to invest on self-pollinated crops, this will enable increase on the access of quality seeds to farmers.
There is need to strengthening QDS producer association to ensure sustainability.
Areas to improve from last year lessons here is a need of joint planning and communication with input companies well in advance.
Sharing of materials not yet.

Involvement of new gvnt inst. was enhanced e.g. TBS and DAICOS
Rice Need more Involvement of VBAA and lead farmers.

Need more involvement of project partners More involvement of research institutions e,g KATRINE and CHOLIMA (interventions ; Seed Purification, soil characterization e.g SARO vs. Geographical location.
Private sector involvement on GYPSUM supply is needed. B2B is required to bridge demand and supply of gypsum, additionally the BDS providers would be involved.
AR-NAFAKA DCOs should be integrated to LGA Extension.

district agricultural officers Involvement in the AR-NAFAKA project increased activeness among VAEOs working with the AR-NAFAKA project. The project facilitated and improved the capacities of the VAEOs.

The project has also simplified the dissemination of agricultural information.
The VAEOs capacities have been built massively through different trainings offered by the project e.g. Fall Army Worm, Good Agricultural Practices etc. Farmers were also introduced new agriculture technologies courtesy of the project e.g. tied ridges in semi-arid areas.
Has reduced post-harvest losses among farmers through various trainings. Farmers have received appropriate trainings through farmers field days e.g. aflatoxin and post-harvest handling of crops, fortification, new seed varieties etc.
Availability of other seed sources through QDS production which ensures that even in the villages, farmers can still access seeds.
Challenges
Inactiveness of some VAEOs e.g. poor supervision of both mother demo and baby demos
Delayed agro-input delivery from AR-NAFAKA staff.
Late site selection for mother demo sites.
No sharing of field reports between project facilitators and the DCOs.
Late payment to extension staff.
Delayed inspection of QDS fields.
Way forward
Irresponsible VAEOs should be reported to DAICOs/DED Site selection should be done in September.
There should be a clear agricultural calendar displaying all the project activities in a particular season to enable easy and early follow up of the future activities.


Day 2 [27 June][edit | edit source]

Parking lot issues & resolutions'

From the discussions held on day 1 of the meeting, participants had raised the following issues (bullet 1 - 4) which were listed in the parking lot. Participants discussed them further on the morning of day 2 and came up with the resolutions captured under each issue below.
  • How do we reach more farmers with the same resources that we have?
Resolution/Way-forward: various options exists through which project partners can reach more farmers without spending beyond our current resources. Use of radio and ICT tools are some of the tools that can be deployed to achieve this. Also actively seeking partnerships with other actors/organizations working with farmers within the locations where we implement activities and beyond is another alternative. Partners were therefore encouraged toe each explore which of this options is feasible within the locations where they work and include these activities into their 2018/19 work plans.
  • Shouldn't we just integrate our activities into the existing ICT platform in the southern highlands? Do we really need to start afresh with the MWANGA platform there?
Resolution/Way-forward: A team consisting of Fred Kizito, Haroon Sseguya, Silvanus Mruma and Leonard Sabula to initiate contact with whoever is leading the existing ICT platform in the southern highland and check whether it is possible for Africa RISING - NAFAKA messages to also be disseminated through the platform. If this doesn't work then the MWANGA platform will be unveiled in the southern highlands.
  • We should organize a multi-stakeholder validation workshop for the recommendation domains for variety fertilizer interactions, flood and drought mapping study by Muthoni et al.
Resolution/Way-forward:This issue to be considered further by the project management team - Haroon Sseguya, Silvanus Mruma, Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon and Mateete Bekunda.
  • There is a need for strengthening access to small scale mechanization services through B2B meetings.
Resolution/Way-forward:NAFAKA will convene a B2B forum/meeting (for 1 day) where each of the teams from Africa RISING will nominate different stakeholders in mechanization along the different value chains - rice, maize etc. The partners who are funded by AR-NAFAKA project will however cover their own costs, while the NAFAKA secretariat will handle all logistical arrangements for the invited participants. The NAFAKA secretariat will also provide the budget for the meeting.


Presentation of draft work plans 2018/19[edit | edit source]

  • ICT and GIS work plans were integrated into the 3 teams below because they are cross-cutting.

uMaize team draft/u (click to download) Feedback on the work plan

  • Comment: Please consider combining all the work you have presented under QDS in one activity.
Response: We differentiated because of the level of involvement, but we can still combine them.
  • Comment: Activity 2 - CSA practices are already known.Why would you be developing protocols? You should be having them somewhere, unless you are starting with new practices.
Response: We moved to new areas where it is not really five years that we have spent there. We will however revise this and ensure that we do select trainings.
  • Comment: Activity 5 - By this time the farmers should already be having capacity, why is training still emphasized?
Response: The protocols we have are site specific and we have notified a few more things in different sites like acidity etc.
  • Comment: Nane nane - your corps should be already planted. Otherwise what will you be showing there?
Response: This plan is for the next season (goes up till Oct 2019). The plans for nine nine are therefore for next calendar year, not this on.
  • Comment: Is the round table meeting proposed going to discuss with stakeholders all the activities that you have proposed?
Response: The focus of the roundtable is going to be on partnerships, but it will be organized differently with a key focus on new individual partners that are interested in collaborating with us.
  • Comment: What do you mean by "cost-effective" CSA? Have you evaluated the CSA practices and you have an inventory?
Response: Yes, there is an inventory that was done by a NAFAKA staff.
  • Comment: You are talking about legume seeds activities in your work plans, but I only see bean....what are the other legumes you will be working on?
Response: In the ouster highlands we basically focus on maize and beans. So we will change this.
  • Comment: When we are going to a development partner we should have complete information about a technology so that when we defend a technology it is based on our own data

uRice team draft/u (click to download) Feedback on the work plan

  • Comment: Please, you need to revise how you phrased some of your activities. For example there is one where you just labeled as "going to Zanzibar" ....what does that mean?
Response: Noted.
  • Comment: Why have you separated the use of urea super granules (USG) from the use of other fertilizers? Is USG really available/accessible for farmers?
Response: Yes, USG is accessible and it is bound to get better because of a manufacturing plant b being set up in Zanzibar. Farmers have seen that USG is really effective and are really demanding for it.
  • Comment: It seems that you have repeated some of the activities from last year into this year's work plan - for example the variety identification and purification was already done last year and you have proposed to do it for the same people/same district? What are you going to do differently in the coming year?
Response: Most of the activities you are citing were done last year were just training workshops. And the issue about mixed varieties is still very much present.
  • Comment (clarification): USAID data base allows us to report the farmers as continuing farmers, so unless the farmer is satisfied that is when we leave. Secondly, when we initiate activities in a village in that first year, it is not possible for us to reach all the farmers. So we are allowed to repeat an activity in a village - particularly when we are certain that there are still households who will benefit from the same training apart from the initial group trained. So USAID gives us authority to repeat, however just repeating for the sake of repeating is not allowed.


  • Comment: Will you be collaborating with the rice council of Tanzania? Do you see the possibility to work with them/integrate them into the plans?
Response:
  • Comment: Which indicator comes out of the activity - scaling the package of demonstrated technologies to large scale. You may need to rephrase the activity.
Response: The increase of area is an indicator for this one. But we will revise how we have phrased this
  • Comment: We should be moving towards training service providers instead of spending time training farmers on soil sampling.
Response:
  • Comment: Just for my information - where is the 0.5 kg of seed that you are giving to farmers coming from? Is the project charged for that seed or is it a donation from ARI Dakawa?
Response: We charge the project for the cost of rice seed. Last year we distributed about 100g per person and this was not acceptable to most farmers, so we increased the amount to respond to the interest of our farmers.


  • Comment: We need to develop a progression map of the people this project is reaching. That kind of map would show how we are expanding as a project.
Response (Haroon): We are working with Francis Muthoni on this and we will share once it is ready.


uPost-harvest team draft/u (click to download) Feedback on the work plan

  • Comment: What is the difference between the trainings you have listed under capacity building and those you list under the other interventions?
Response: The trainings listed under capacity building refer to the training of trainer, while the training listed under the different activities relates to development/refinement of training materials under each of those activities.
  • Comment: How different is the ODK tool formatting different from the GIS work conducted by Francis
Response: Francis is actually involved in this. I t is a means of tracking the beneficiaries and establishing the distribution of trainees in the different sites.
  • Comment: You have trained farmers before in the past 3 years...have you captured the locations of those farmers? Do we know to which extent these older farmers have been trained on?
Response: In the past we have not mapped the farmers, but we have the GIS coordinates.
  • Comment: All teams have trainings and trainings....Why can't we organize common training by different themes to reduce costs and the stress on farmers?
Response: Post-harvest trainings take place after harvest, that makes it difficult to combine with the other teams.


Feedback from PMT[edit | edit source]

  • Last year the PMT noted the need for more GIS in the AR-NAFAKA & NAFAKA activities since the project t has experienced GIS specialist more than what NAFAKA has. A meeting that was supposed to address this directive by PMT was scheduled to hold earlier this year, however that did not happen. As a result PMT has directed tat this still needs to happen this year being with Francis Muthoni (GIS Specialist) attending and participating in the NAFAKA Project Annual Planning Meeting on 10 - 12 July in Iringa to ensure you interact with NAFAKA staff and partners to operationalize this.
  • The PMT noted that the partners need to find innovative ways of implementing activities as a. means of addressing the issue of demo fatigue which was reported by different teams in the previous year.
  • The PMT commended the fact that this year no partner made the error of paying for participation in their activities or meetings.
  • The Project Scaling Specialist (Haroon Sseguya) will be relocating from Morogoro to Mbeya with effect from 1 September 2018.
  • There are still challenges of market for some of our project farmers growing QDS etc. To address this issue , the PMT has requested that the activity to strengthen QDS associations should be prioritized in this year.
  • The government institutions collaborating in the Africa RISING - NAFAKA should do more to ensure that the activities being implemented by the project are sustainable and they keep getting support because beyond 2022 the two projects may cease to exists in their current form.
  • The teams should finalize their training materials by the end of the month (June 2018) and share with Haroon and Mateete for technical review and so that it can be published. The documents should also be translated to Kiswahili.
  • There should be a report for all training activities held by the team. The PMT would like to have all these uploaded to the wiki.
  • USAID would like to clear all the messages before we disseminate them through the media. PMT would like to urge that whenever there is a need to communicate something through the media, the project partners should reach out to the communications team (Jonathan Odhong', Julius Mtemahanji or Catherine Njuguna) for assistance/ guidance on how to get the clearance from USAID. Haroon will also be on standby/available to help with these kinds of requests.
  • The membership for the PMT has once again changed. With immediate effect the World Vegetable Center (represented for the past couple of years in PMT by Dr. Thomas Dubois) has requested to step down from being part of the management team in light of the changed focus of the AR-NAFAKA phase II. The PMT will also reach out to CIMMYT regarding their interest in continue in the PMT since they have a representative in the management team (Dr. Bright Jumbo), but have also been equally affected by the changed focus of the AR-NAFAKA phase II. The PMT highly appreciates the contributions of Dr. Thomas Dubois during his tenure as a member of the PMT. He has been an exemplary member of the management team.
  • There will be a meeting organized in September 2018 to prepare the project partners for the upcoming Environmental Impact Audit to be done by USAID. Invitations will be sent out to each commodity team in the project to send a representative to take part in the meeting.
  • The PMT is also very grateful for the commitment and synergy shown by all the project partners.

Next steps[edit | edit source]

  • A uniform template draft to be shared with all project partners by Haroon Sseguya by Monday 2 July 2018. Partners should make comments/propose revisions to the template by close of business Friday 6 July 2018. A final version will then be circulated by Haroon to all on Monday 9 July 2018.
  • All partners to submit their revised 2018/19 work plans based on the template by close of business Friday 13 July 2018 to Haroon. He will make comments and revisions before submitting to Irmgard and Mateete for input by 20 July 2018.
  • Regarding the budget allocations, all partners are advised to use the initial budget figures for 2017/18 as a guide. In case of any doubts/uncertainties regarding the figure, partners can reach out to Haroon for guidance.
  • It is time for submission of quarterly reports. All partners have probably got alerts to this effect. All IITA staff involved in the project are requested to submit their reports by 30 June 2018. Other partners are requested to submit by 5 June 2018.


Closing Remarks[edit | edit source]

Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon

  • We have reached the end of a 2-day intensive workshop. It has been a great pleasure for me to attend this meeting.
  • I am grateful to attend and always be aware there are no big team issues in this project. So thank you for being a very nice team that collaborates well together.
  • This year I have a feeling that I met a lot of new people, some I may have met before.If I forget you and we've met before please forgive me and it is a pleasure to reconnect again in this meeting.
  • I was very glad to see the participation at this meeting by our colleagues from the district agricultural offices.We would love them to be more involved in the project and to integrate the activities of this project into the district's plans for sustainability.
  • I was also pleased to see quite an improvement in the number of women in this meeting, we have been very few during the previous project meetings of this kind. But I must say that I didn't hear very much from you! So I hope you made sure that you were heard and you made your contributions during the group discussions.
  • Please let's remember the deadline for submitting the reports.
  • The project has a very good reputation at USAID - both here in the country and in Washington DC. This project is considered like a unique model for a collaboration between researchers and development actors. Recently Haroon made a presentation about the model of this project in Lilongwe. There are other voices like Jerry Glover who is an excellent ambassador for us. That means that we are known, but also we are watched very carefully because of the interest and people wanting to learn from us.
  • So let us continue working with the good team spirit and achieve the results and goals of this project.
  • The next steps have been discussed and noted.
  • Thank you all for coming and participating in this meeting.
  • We are grateful of course still to also Betty Maeda, who couldn't join us because she is unwell.
  • I want t to also thank Haroon, Devotha, Jonathan and Julius.
  • All the discussions will be recorded in the wiki, so feel free to refer to them whenever possible.
  • I wish you all safe travels.


Evarist Makene (on behalf of Mansoor Hussein - Director, R & D, Ministry of Agriculture)

  • On behalf of the Director General, I take this opportunity to thank the organizers of this meeting that we have since yesterday.
  • I understand that AR-NAFAKA is a 6 year agricultural project led by IITA, and funded by USAID in Tanzania. This project builds on the efforts of two other regional project (also funded by USAID).
  • The goals of the project are in line with with the government of Tanzania strategy of creating a modern, profitable and highly productive agricultural sector.
  • We heard several presentations yesterday and the project activities. Key gaps were identified and lessons learnt also cited. I wouldn't like to repeat each of them, but to mention the few take home messages amongst many others.
  • We need to strengthen partnerships with private sectors to scale up technologies.
  • Establishing a working modality for integration and harmonization of activities into the project.
  • Documenting success stories of the project key, and
  • Involving government offices in the project for sustainability.
  • Today's planning has resulted into a set of activities that will guide the project towards its intended objectives. It is therefore my hope that each partner will play a role to ensure that we succeed.
  • May I also use this gathering to inform my former DRD team from the research centers that TARI will be officially launched on Friday 29 June in Dodoma. It is our duty now to promote it.For example I will expect that those of us coming from ARI - Uyole to introduce themselves as TARI researchers and no longer from ARI -Uyole.
  • Once more thank you to the organizers of this fruitful meeting. Thank you also to the participants for keeping engaged.
  • May I now declare that Africa RISING - NAFAKA review and planning has been officially closed.