ET planning Feb2013 Agenda

Ethiopia project planning meeting

13-14 February 2013 ILRI Ethiopia InfoCentre, Addis Ababa Back to the event home page

---

Agenda

Timing	Session
08.30	Registration
09.00	Welcome and introduction
09.30	Icebreaker
10.00	presentation]
10.30	Coffee break
11.00	presentation] * Community level issues and interventions (15') - Aster Gebrekristos - See presentation * Markets, value chains and stakeholder platforms (15') - Elihud Birhachi - See presentation
11.45	Bus-stop comments, Q&As about research components
12.45	Plenary feedback on the comments and Q&A
13.00	Lunch
14.00	Group work: Detailed action planning across research component groups * Including intermediary feedback session for cross-group agents
15.30	Coffee break
16.00	Group work continued
17.00	Review of the day, notices and close
	Day 2
09.00	Plenary feedback on group work
10.30	Coffee break
11.00	Group work, continued
12.30	Lunch
13.30	Finalizing group work - See results of group work: * RC1 results/spanbr span styleline-height: 19px RC2 results - and intermediary presentation/spanbr span styleline-height: 19px RC3 results
14.00	Presentation of work plans per group
15.30	Coffee break
16.00	(optional) Open session / parking lot (pending issues) or directly: Next steps, final reflections and close

Meeting notes

Presentation Peter Thorne about implementation plan

Q&A:

• Q: What does sustainable intensification mean?
• A: There is a broad concept about sustainability about longer term. We rarely define the time frame on sustainability. Broadly we mean we are not following an extractive approach, we don't just focus on environmental sustainability but also economic etc. Intensification is about using inputs more efficiently to get more outputs. We need to broaden out from intensification of resources to labour and other factors. It's a term that needs to be more clearly defined. Improve efficiency but avoid negative costs so we can maintain these efforts.

Interventions are not just technological but of other nature too.

• Q: Time frame of RC 4. If we leave it to year 4 we will miss some opportunities in our ex-ante modeling, choice of technologies etc.
• A: This review of tech options is blurred. We have to be opportunistic in what we do in RC 4, it can't all be driven by other components. We will be formulating research component activities etc.
• Q: What has been happening over the last few months etc.?
• A: The research framework has been somewhat top down but we wanted to keep it vague (talking about approaches rather than methods). We had a workshop here in September to discuss how to implement these 3 main research outputs. The framework diagram was meant to give us some guidance into specific outputs we want. The purpose of this workshop is to do that collaboratively. On site selection, we needed to have starting points on action sites where we started. We did a large scale mapping exercise across all regions and we looked at AGP woredas, altitude ranges (1800-2400 m) and focusing on wheat systems (at least 25% on wheat). It brought us 5 woredas in each region. With expert consultations we reviewed those in terms of practicalities (remote access etc.), strength of local institutions etc. and we narrowed it down to 1 woreda. The next step was the engagement with local institutions. We worked in small teams to visit the woredas and discuss with research and bureaus there and selected 2 kebeles in each woreda for access to markets. We have the resources to expand that but we want to try out at a smaller scale. We also capitalized on earlier projects. Six early win projects were commissioned in the first phase of the project, on method development or on specific interventions, and implemented over 5-6 months.
• Q: When did AR officially start in Ethiopia? 1 October 2011?
• A: Yes. That is the starting date. We are now 16 months into this and we have 3.7 years left in this project.
• Q: This project will be focusing on women and children but how will we integrate them in the research? Will they participate? Poverty is a broad concept and looks at education, health etc. so how are we planning to pull them out of poverty?
• A: This is all about the context. We are conducting agric research, but this context in which we do the research includes health and nutrition. What are implications of changes we induce for health and nutrition etc.? As re: the empowerment we can perhaps provide curricular materials, look at the role of local schools etc. Through improving agric development we also have some connections with e.g. labour which frees up people time for schooling etc. About gender there are a lot of difficulties but we are recruiting a gender specialist who will be working 50% on Africa RISING.
• Q: Has any part of RC1 been implemented?
• A: Not yet. But we plan to do this after this workshop.
• Q: What are achievements so far?
• A: The plans and the outputs of early win projects. Baseline designs are not finalized but we have strong links with IITA's work on this which we can borrow. It has been a very slow project design process.

Indicators are not complete but there is some work there. The only indicators we have are outcome indicators for USAID. We need to formulate our own indicators to monitor our progress. DfID has been doing some work on metrics identification. We should indeed try and combine all these data. Overlaps between survey instruments are pretty high. Baselines are tiresome so if we know what we are after we can be more effective and less time-consuming.

• Q:The baseline approach is not completed but how about the indicators?
• A:There are about 7 indicators , we have to formulate the indicators. Currently ICRAF is doing on the indicators identification matrix, we are looking in to survey but it overlaps with other survey methods,

Research component presentations and Q&A

Household systems analysis and characterisation (15') - Alan Duncan

• are we going to use all the tools, modeling, or participatory method (the focus will be on participatory approach)
• we need to develop timeline
• we need to develop activity plans
• we have to develop research components
• we need some coordination (we have center team by activities) but we need more coordination
• we need to develop guidelines, how our process are, who to contact, make sure there is a common systems for all to share
• on the water side, even if this is the household level survey I need to see the indicator,
• what is the source of the water, are they using , ground water or river water, .... ?
• the project to be successful we need to have a very good characterization plan, indigenous plan, are u going to focus on the tools developed so far or are going to use some new available tools, ?

we are going to use a mix of two

• when you say mixed farming system

their might be some household food insecure, there might be some household has ready access to grazing lands depends on the typlogy, the frame workd defien livelihood analysis, what is the key indicator in this community, you form the typology based on the indigenous need and what is important we can't tailor the individual plan for each household

• when I see the three proposals, you are not yet connected and coordinate, this might take your time and how can you focus on some intervention only, site selection by itself require lots of time, are you planing to split yourself, or doing term by term , this will take time

we follow the staged approach, the is the action research project, we are committed to certain nonintervention we don't do more characterization the second stage, is the research centers do some of the characterization mixed farming approach

• how do you develop the research agreement
• how to make sure the connection b/n the research component
• when will the reality reach the ground,

ya, lots of things happening on developing thinking , working on action site, developing with partner, there is a need to look into the deadline of growing season, looking in to intervention on the ground, very quick characterization, develop some typologies, committed to see something in the growing season , when? in the main raining seasons.

• the coordination with sites, with different projects,, site level coordinator,
• we don't see the research components, each research component is the multi center research component which cuts across many research center,
• the question is about methodology, it is action research project, is beginning to inform the methods to feed the future approaches developing methods to be scale up in the AGP area

Full group notes:

• coordination at sites: Guideline/protocol for how to approach communities - contact people, per diem principles etc.
• Preliminary site characterization is on the wiki
• Water indicators e.g. how many hh have tin roofs - potential for rainwater harvesting. Kitchen gardens. Sources of waer
• Characterization work is important.

Balance between quantitative and qualitative data Typologies to target interventions?

• Impatience: committed to interventions this growing season. Action research/iterative approach. Concurrent implementation in all sites.
• Inventory of technologies will be constructed - can use community engagement to priorities
• Methodology vs. high level research questions: Research questions are methodological - meant to inform Feed the Future initiatives
• Connection with ATA - use of their data?

Characterization:

• Will we use all the tools?

Focus on participatory methods Will need some quantitative data

• Need to develop timeline - what will happen when?

Secondary data is there Develop typologies quickly

• Theory to reality: Need to develop activity plans

Research agreements specifying key activities Cross-fertilization among research components. Care needed to avoid duplication

• RC01: household characterization
• RC02: Community characterization, knowledge exchange.

Many centres bombarding sites - coordination needed, also to ensure integration of activities between centres/RCs

Community level issues and interventions (15') - Aster Gebrekristos

• the technology adoption has to be demand drive, one of our challenges are farmers don't have access to the technologies, how do we create demand so that farmers can use the existing technologies?

when we talk about demand driven, we have to convince the farmers, how do we do that, do we have to select some farmers and train and show new technologies? it has to be participatory approach, we have to consult and ask their advise , it is a process, either we build on what we have or we will introduce new technology but it has to be participatory approach during the early wins we selected two sites in Tigray, in one of the sites we selected there was strong community, there was one leader farmer which convinces the other and even mobilize the whole community......it is about how we approach the farmers, we need to find ways , the knowledge approach, as part of the process we have to learn the knowledge , either it should be community leader, finding the sources of agro ecology knowledge or...

• when you talk about gender, weather you mentioned about the household, members of the communities in general

about the gender, the female household, the wife, the representation of female in household is very important

• if it is male or female household, you were talking about equal proportion, what is the proportion women household and male and female household?
• when you said mixed crop livestock system, how do you deal with this, even the government has some challenges, how do you handle this during interventions

nursing effect of ingeniousness trees, we have to advise farmers properly, the right species the right management and methods, it needs time to grow Ecalyptus trees

• when you are talking about intensification, how about malaria irrigation, how do you capture

this about the characterization we have a problem of malaria and maize

• we can do intensification, I am not sure about the intensification in the high lands, how can we apply intensification it this areas, for me it is difficult to integrate this , how can we address intensify research in this areas

when we see the challenges are soil erosion, how can we address this, by planting tress and may other options we can manage intensification in highland areas, in Tigray farmers benefited by reshaping thier land and apply conservation e.g, the apple planting as part of the aggro forest management system, we should find some techniques depends on the trees we plant bird protection, we should look in to different process it is not easy but we can change farmers altitude by having participatory approach

• climate change intensification ?
• how does it work in Oromia, how do you mobilize the community,

mostly the same approach, the government designed one farmer will be the leader to five other farmer (1 to 5), the leading farmer will adopt the technology and will show the others, it is also same for extension workers, one to 5 model

• In Tigray also the same (1 to 5) model
• research up take the potential problem, not enough communication , data collection
• exiting community knowledge sharing group (farmers, extension groups), network, we use that as a platform , we are going to adopt this method
• need for the scaling, we need to involve the govrnment group for scaling up, it needs to involve , start from pear to pear and it will grow
• diversity of system which address climate change issue
• we need to have demand driven technologies instead of implementing top down approach

Full group notes:

• How to create demand? Known-unknown?
• Equal proposition of male vs. female-headed households/farmers
• Mixed crop-livestock-trees

Eucalyptus trees? Honey bees (?) Integration vs. Malaria (e.g. maize farming)

• How can we approach intensification on the Highlands with very steep slopes?
• Intensification in the valley: bird varieties, but there are local technologies to cope with birds (in some parts of SNNPR)
• Climate change and intensification?

Markets, value chains and stakeholder platforms

• Can you please elaborate the value chain approach?

the focus of the platform is on the users of the platforms which is farmers, and sometimes the traders and marketers. the rest actors are the extension workers and researcher, with regards to the management of the platforms the farmers are the key actors, the platform run by the team which is elected, as a part of the platform we document and sharing the experience of other farmers we start the value chain by defined the what market means to farmers, we are targeting certain market, so that the farmer will produce and sale, the farmer has to produce what he knows will have a market need we don't stat after production, we start from the beginning..... the other thing is it need planning

• intensification, the way you present you presentation is more market oriented approach

one of the major purpose of the platform is to establish membership, those memberships will provide solutions we use participatory approach

• the market value chain and the link, I didn't see the linkage b/n institutions,
• in terms of the stake holder platforms, what is your entry point, who do you involve in the steering committee, you need the power representational
• how can we develop the value chain integration in different farming system?
• we can identify some baseline for VCA and how we can scale-up
• what is your intention to integrate the three components with other centers
• what is your next action after integrating value chain?
• it is not going to be a standalone system ?
• how many value chain are we going to use?
• when is the market value chain going to start?
• the use of the current information, there are lots of intervention, projects, are going to be part of , how can the platform be operationalize, who is going to be participate,
• are we focusing only on technologies, it is going to be through , system integration, gender issue, policy it will be collected, not only about the technology the technology should support the activities
• is the value chain focused only on serials or how about the other value chains?

Full group notes:

• Is there any successful experience of value chain?
• Can we separate market value chain and stakeholder platform?
• How can we meet the need of the market?
• What is the role of the platforms?
• Which commodity are you going to address in the value chain?
• How acn we make sure farmers do not produce the same items at a time which affects the prices to go down
• How can we use our information to the interventions we will be doing
• How can we help farmers get access to export market in addition to natioanl markets?
• Links to other project inititiatives?
• RC 2&3: Input to RC4. How soon can RC 2&3 be implemented? We expect 2&3 to be completed by June 2013
• How can we create value chains in terms of trees (e.g. was given for potato)
• Cereal-based system: focus on wheat. But in Ethiopia, value chain is more of an issue for the vegetable sector.
• How to effectively develop multistakeholder platforms while working in 2 kebeles/woreda?
• What enabling environment do you have to create a value chain?
• What is the link between community characterization and market value chain?
• Value chain: outcomes later in the chain will affect behaviour at an early stage of the intensification (e.g. technology adoption)
• How will platforms be elaborated?
• Elaborate the value chain and timeline?
• Where to see broad institutional bottlenecks?
• How are you going to determine your entry point on platforms?
• How to take into account equity issues? Necessity of broadening from merely focusing on technical issues - "comment"
• How to integrate VC with d/t component?
• How can we integrate VC exercise with other components?
• How to identify and map VC?

Answers:

• Focus of platforms is on the users (farmers, traders and other actors like researchers)
• Farmers are a key component represented through farmers' group
• Platforms need due participation
• VC start b/f production by market definition from farmers. Farmers should produce what is marketable.
• Platform and institutional bottlenecks can be solved by the users. Farmers should learn from one another and make best use of it
• Intensification focus on activities that benefit farmers
• Purpose of platforms is to reflect on it and find solutions - the policy contribution is there. Research, extension etc. should be part of the platform
• Solution for the VC bottleneck will come from the participatory approach
• The entry point to VC is product of farmers
• Technology is helping the systems function
• Equity issue - we need to promote this to avoid biases
• Focus on VC will be determined at ground level
• Integration with d/t stakeholders at ground level is important

Presentation of the RC plans & peer feedback

RC1

• Q: On partners' side, ICRAF is mentioned in most activities, but we need participation of other partners, including regional research institutes.
• A: At this stage we're not talking about leads but everyone involved.
• Q: RC3 will require inputs from RC1. The tools you will be using should be conversant with our RC3 approach. On gender analysis, we look forward to benefitting from the expertise of the gender specialist in RC1.
• A: This needs to be done.
• Q: Drivers of technology uptake: do you expect to do this work ex-ante, ex-post? At what point will you carry out this work?
• A: We need to work on this, in relation with other RCs
• Q: Resource mapping is mentioned around current practices. It is difficult at hh level and very intensive. Is it really relevant to do this?
• A: This was one of the discussion points we had.

Resource can be mapped with groups of farmers or with individual farmers (which allows us to compare). At community level we can also map resources around communal lands. We would have baseline for the communal land etc.

• Q: Explaining the main features of SI and its impact will guide us about livelihood outcomes or crop productivity. HH labour data could be used to explain SI.
• A: HH level can give us a better picture but there are community level issues that need to be mapped e.g. degradation, hot spots etc.

RC2

• Q: Nutrition was not touched upon - what will you do about this important FtF indicator as part of the socio economic benchmarks?
• A: We haven't worked on this due to time constraints. RC1 should consider this and baselines too.
• Q: Have you discussed using existing structures such as development groups and what could be considerations in establishing these groups? Will they be mixed with poor and better-off people, or are you planning to have a more homogeneous group?
• A: About community knowledge exchange groups (CKEGs) We have to identify which groups are present in the communities we work with. We can capacitate these groups formally and informally. Every activity will be done through these existing groups - if they are appropriate. Some issues need to be addressed with specific groups (e.g. women-only, or youth-only groups). These groups are quite heterogeneous anyway.

These groups are overloaded with other extension assignments. We are not sure about their composition, selection etc. Bringing more activities to them might clash with other responsibilities. We could have our own set of group members to start this. Have you tried to relate this with MSPs? When we are stratifying for multiple purposes sometimes it doesn't overlap with these groups. The problem is the stratification and collecting census data. We select poor, middle income, better off people.

• Q: How can we identify/assess adoption of practices we recommend?
• A: We are working further on this with M&E.
• Q: Gender participation: How can participation include gender and what are opportunities for knowledge transfer?
• A: We are taking this very seriously.
• Comments: on BP benchmarks, this is presented as done for M&E. It may need to be rephrased. 2) Most of the 'how' are listed as tools rather than approaches. Systems should be listed and indicated rather than tools. RC2 is the main implementation mechanism. We have to explain carefully how this will be done. 3) Who is going to do this: important community members and farmers (e.g. elderly, model farmers, experts in indigenous knowledge), 4) this group work is done separately.
• Q: How to set the benchmark for soil fertility? Will we do a control experiment?
• A: We haven't resolved this kind of issues yet. We are considering using ETHIO-Sys. We need a package of indicators that meets the needs of Africa RISING. We can also work with the University of Tennessee.
• Q: What are RC4 & 5?
• A: This will be addressed later.
• Comments: Evaluation of best practices in technology needs to be done carefully. That will vary depending on stratification in RC1. 2) Knowledge sharing mechanisms seem to be missing e.g. participatory video, digital stories, participatory photography, participatory impact assessment.
• Comments: sustainable intensification is overarching. It means it could be addressed when these 2 are addressed. 2) IWMI is not mentioned but it is important that IWMI features in this work because it has expertise in irrigation management, explaining certain elements of intensification.
• A: This is fair enough. Also ICARDA (which will give inputs to RC4). There are opportunities beyond what is discussed in this meeting. Kathryn Snyder should (IWMI) take part to this work.

RC3

• Q: About VCs, this project is on wheat and livestock. When studying value chains, it seems a broad approach and you need to focus on samples etc. otherwise it won't be captured in an effective way.
• A: We have some diagram about the selection. We will list all possible enterprises and won't impose them on e.g. cereals or otherwise. The selection will be done by farmers themselves. In a 3rd stage we will select some and focus on farmer preferences for enterprises.

When we work on VCs we have to target specific commodity markets. The approach is to list all enterprises but I doubt about this. A wheat VC is e.g. not a serious problem. Where do we prioritize the importance? * We can't predict this. We need to integrate market information The VC is working around specific kebeles at the border of other VCs - how do we connect with those? * Depending on which enterprise has been selected, we may have to bring other actors in particular kebeles. We don't work only in localized sites.

• Q: On MSPs, in the past there were already many MPSs but they don't continue beyond the project. What is your mechanism for the continuation of these platforms?
• A: Most platforms are not sustainable because they are established in a project-based manner. If they are not based on existing constraints of the communities they are not sustainable but if we organize them around these constraints they can be sustainable.

Platforms don't exist because someone pushes them. They exist on the basis of the interest of someone. Needs-based platforms can continue in various ways - perhaps not with monthly meetings. If they start along value chains they may continue over time. At the design of the project we decided not to focus too much on VC research but to link with USAID missions which are working on VCs. What has happened with the link with USAID missions? * We'll have to factor this in.

• Q: We are working in specific woredas and kebeles so we might zoom in on those rather than look at the whole value chain and its various stages. How can we address production issues (main constraints in production, transport, packaging etc.) - perhaps we could put some indicators for this. Otherwise the consultative procedure is good. What are mechanisms to strengthen existing cooperatives, market opportunities that we have. What are specific capacity issues that we will address at farmer level? If there is no option, what mechanism can we develop?
• A: When we carry out the actor identification, what is the gap in input provision? Who are the producers, what are opportunities and constraints? We'll do the same for training, consumption.

Re: capacity building, we have listed training, exposure visits etc. but indeed we need to work on possible capacity building activities.

• Q: In evaluation of market chains, what mechanisms are we going to use to link producers with consumers while avoiding the brokers?
• A: My view is that brokers have the information and they can assist the value chain. SOmetimes they are not equally contributing to the producers, consumers, traders. We can improve their contributions. Avoiding brokers might have its drawbacks.

Brokers have information but they hold it. We may not have to take them out but make them more efficient.

• Q: On the market system, quality and quantity of the production matters. Improving the quality of the production - what do you think of it? Who is responsible for it?
• A: This will come from analysis - if that is an issue we will not focus only on producers but also on interventions of outsiders. Who takes care of this?

The partners can keep control of the quality.

• Comments: There have been equity issues around VCs which we need to pay attention to. I am also concerned that VCs and MSPs are put to the same component. THere's a risk that the MSPs will be focusing only on market issues but not on other issues. The needs-based approach implies it may not be around market issues.

We need to bring an MSP mechanism for RC2 to look beyond market issues and focus on e.g. soil erosion control etc.

• Q: Where does market/VC end? Sometimes fenugreek competes with wheat. When prices go up dramatically all farmers are moving to other commodities - how do we go about this?
• A: Depending on which enterprise has been selected, we may have to bring other actors in particular kebeles. We don't work only in localized sites.

Looking at this projects' outcomes we have to think about feeding back into the Feed the Future initiative - how does research find its way into practice?

Presentation of plans since feedback

RC1 - see group work presentation

We worked further on the list of enterprises etc. and we'll have to collaborate on RC3 around that to agree on a limited set of (packages of) enterprises. We plan to do some future visioning with the CKEGs to see how farmers see themselves in 10 years etc. We are going to use hh typologies to match promising packs of enterprises with those typologies. In every pack of enterprises we'll develop a set of interventions, prioritize them - through the TechFit tool - and some tradeoff analysis. We also want to do some tradeoff analysis between typologies.

• Q: The time frame is not indicated
• A: We probably will have to be selective about what we do, we won't be able to do it all before June.
• Q: What about the skill gaps? Is this addressed?
• A: We discussed that. You can look at the current situation and match interventions or look at desired (changed context) situation and what to do to achieve this. If a skill gap is evident there are opportunities for capacity development.
• C: My concern is that if we are pushing this activity beyond 5 months it might push a lot of our activities back.
• A: What we will have in this first season won't be fully informed by these activities - we have to be pragmatic. We are going to have some field level interventions anyhow. Next year we can refine, hone etc. and use it for informed activities.

RC2 - see group work presentation and slideshow

Presentation of the current governmental organogram at PA or kebele level. Polyscape tool (used in RC1 and RC2): GIS-based tool using all GIS characterization data, using local knowledge that has GIS information attached. It represents an interface that helps design strategies and organize scaling up.

• Comment: What was presented was about scaling interventions but we also need to think about scaling up processes - what we try to do is to develop ways of doing better SI strategies using bottom-up approaches. Some of these would be taken up by ATA and other national partners. We need to find a way to scale up these processes.

We hope that a fresh activity will appear at scaling level to address this activity (at RC5 level).

• Comment: There are pros and cons about using the governmental structures 1 to 5 or not.

This is essential to carrying out any activity. We can however adapt it to suit our needs. We need to work with existing structures but equity issues and how model farmers are selected need to be addressed. There must be some sampling strategy to look at these issues of equity etc.

RC3 - See group work presentation

We reviewed all comments raised and those are going to be included in the detailed activity plans. Major edits/changes concern the time frame (number of days). We worked on the amount of days required per activity. The (amount of) days mentioned are for all the sites - there will be a concurrent approach. It will be useful to look at other projects.

For the value chain analysis, we expect about 25 days of work. On the MSPs, the rapid stakeholder analysis should be combined with the value chain analysis. We expect to have regular interactions re: the establishment of MSPs. Capacity building for platform actors should take about 3 days.

Knowledge sharing with other ILRI projects and tools should take place. We will work with specific MSP M&E tools. In total, these activities should take about 38 days.

In total this should take about 101 days

• Q: The partners are many, it will take a long time to bring them together. Perhaps best increase the amount of people per institution and decrease
• A: (Not answered).
• Q: Are there any significant differences between partners mentioned?
• A: This is not mentioned in a formal order. We can re-arrange this. Some assignment of responsibilities has to take place. Once the working doc is ready we'll assign responsibilities etc.

Other research components (RC4 & RC5)

(Presentation Peter Thorne). These activities we have been discussing are meant to fit into an action research program - RC4. The idea is to turn all results from RC1/2/3 and to feed into RC4 to predict how effective some interventions would be via modelling etc. Some of these research components are going to be quite blurred. These RCs are about validating the results, using representative farmers from the typologies, targeting various activities related to capacity building, building social capital and knowledge transfer etc. We want to find out what outcomes we have on farms for sustainable intensification. A lot should be built around this. Farmers adapt innovations, they select what they want to keep and we have to monitor this. We want to follow a 2-way action research process.

The reason we haven't talked in depth about RC4 is that the actual interventions, technologies, management practices come from RCs 1, 2 & 3. Ultimately, as AR works over the 3-4 years to come, we will follow a cyclical approach looking at innovations from year 1, reevaluate where they sit, what success/failure they've had and gradually we move towards more robust combinations of technologies and think about scaling up more widely. The first step in scaling up could be to extend our interventions to other kebeles. If we want to have much broader impact we'll have to take a different approach.

We haven't worked yet on RC4-5 but after first field season we might have to think about these two components more strongly. This goes back to our R4D processes with research outputs that should inform development outcomes at a broader scale.

In a lot of projects I have been involved that have a systems focus, we tend to get stuck in the first three RCs, get scared about RC4 etc. but what we want to do now is to grasp this nettle and strongly promote approaches we will have systematically assessed.

• Comment: we should identify early on who we want to influence. If people are involved in the design we are much more likely to succeed. We might want some outcome mapping exercise.
• A: There are people in this room that have influence over outcomes. Maybe for RC5 we could bring some people back to discuss this in details.
• RC4 wanted a comprehensive list of outputs that could inform their work.

Parking lot issues

• C: The 'exogenous' mention is perhaps incorrect, we could also look into endogenous knowledge.
• Q: Do we have contact points for each
• A: How is AR connecting with other governmental projects e.g. AGP etc.?
• Q: This is something that multistakeholder platforms will probably address. We have to formalize this a bit more as part of platform development.

Hopes, concerns and questions

Hopes

•  ?
•  ?
• Focus on highlands is good!
• AR will produce sthg useful for farmers
• Strategy that we are trying to follow on stratifying households etc. is better than fitting technologies to hhs that have no say
• Africa RISING's helping farmers to identify their potential thanks to stratification/characterization
• There will be good integration and commitment from all stakeholders to successfully complete project activities
• There should be balance between diagnostic and action
• We hope there will be immediate action to collect existing data and build upon what is there on the ground e.g. characterization data to streamline other RCs
• The project will help SI with crop-livestock and diversification of incomes.

Concerns

• Role of partners not clearly identified

This will be clarified very soon - we can check this with you soon.

• Value Chain Analysis is not focused and timing sounds ambitious
• Intensification vs. greening

It's a huge research topic on its own. Intensification through improved efficiency seems to have good effects on environmental considerations.

• Timeframe is missing in RC1 &2 - there is impatience, we want to see activities get implemented
• Time! We need to get started asap
• Time!
• Given the group experience, we talk about gender in the room but forget about it in the field - we hope the specialist will help address this
• The capacity of partners all the way down to kebeles might be a problem for this initiative --> ILRI has a new capacity development strategy and they can use Africa RISING as a new test bed for their approaches
• Partners (other NGOs and projects working in those areas) may not be happy about us working there (they might want to keep the authority there). We may have to work hard to involve those other partners and make sure they understand our approach

A: When we went for site selection we selected our kebeles to not overlap with e.g. Cascade project.

• Representation of the sites chosen e.g. in Amhara we have only 1 site for a very diverse region
• We need to find readymade technologies, which might be difficult in the Highlands. Getting suitable technologies in those areas might be difficult.

A: We will have to make sure that these issues are reported to people that can do sthg about it.

• How to address farmers' concerns? Maybe beyond the project intervention
• We have to make sure that tools don't dominate our work, we'll have to pull elements from different tools
• Need for rigorous implementation (time) plan for field research

Questions

• Will we have branch offices in the target regions?

A: We want to appoint site coordinators working in those woredas, but not open an office. That's open to discussion.

• When will we assign contact persons from each woreda?

A: Peter has to finish ToR for site coordinators and we will have to go through a recruitment process. We expect them to start in about 3 months but will do our best to get this going at soonest.

• When will the project start?

A: See next steps.

• What are parameters for sustainable intensification? Main parameters to have SI?

A: We are looking for indicators that relate to outcomes and research outputs. The suite of indicators should relate to it. We haven't finalized these indicators.

• What are the new ideas/approaches to interact with farmers? There are different NGOs that do some work in this area.

A: There have been similar approaches before but we really try to be serious about our holistic approach. The typology development and how it drives on-farm adaptive research is new. I haven't found any example of projects that took typology work to discuss it with farmers.

• Time boundaries? This is a 5-year project. We have spent 1 year and 6 months - is it enough for this project?

A: We've had limited opportunities to do this research but that has to change

• The areas for this project e.g. in Oromia only 1 woreda and 2 kebeles? Is it enough?

A: We intend to extend to at least 16 or even 24 kebeles but we need other representative woredas in regions.

• Is it possible to use some existing knowledge to ... ???

A: Yes, we have to build that into the process. Interventions in the first year can't be totally coming out of characterization work.

Next steps

Thank you for all your inputs on the activity plans. The perspectives coming in have been encouraging. I hope everyone feels that their views on what and how we should be working are being taken up.

• Now I need to take these activities and integrate overlaps across RCs e.g. resource mapping at community level should relate to suitable livelihoods. We have to develop 2-3 page summaries about what we are doing etc.
• Then I will circulate that with everyone to see what the role of the partners - if you disagree please let me know.
• We need some budgeting for this - looking at how roughly these plans cost and finding out how partners will take acre of these activities, by the end of February.
• Once we have agreed that, we need research agreements among CG partners, with regional research institutes - middle March?
• Once we have those agreements we can start implementation in the field by mid-March - we need each institution to have identified who can be part of these plans.
• We may have to recruit enumerators - perhaps from existing staff or otherwise.
• These activity plans will lead to an overall timeline chart - which will be up for discussion - about sequencing activities and taking into account your other commitments.

I hope we'll be seeing a lot of interactions for field activities by middle of March. Be ready to comment on draft action plans!

Close of the workshop

Thank you for coming and making contributions. We are working on actions in this workshop. Thank you everyone for the participation, thank you all RC leads for steering this work and sidekicks for this support work. Thank you Ewen and Tsehay for your support. I hope we will get more interactions to discuss the progress made since this workshop.

Thank you!

Agenda for organizers