INVC BA Review&Planning June2017
- 1 INVC Bridging Activity annual review and planning meeting29 - 30 June, 2017Lilongwe, Malawi
- 1.1 Participants
- 1.2 Objectives/Purpose
- 1.3 Agenda
- 1.4 30 June, 2017
- 1.5 Meeting Notes
- 1.5.1 Welcome and opening remarks
- 1.5.2 Overview of INVC Bridging Activity (Activity implementation and challenges) - Elizabeth Sibale
- 1.5.3 Progress and emerging issues in the value chain component - Pelius Kabuli, VC Specialist INVC Bridging Activity
- 1.5.4 Progress and emerging issues in the agricultural productivity component - Genschers Chisanga, Agricultural Productivity Specialist INVC Bridging Activity
- 1.5.5 Progress and emerging issues in the M&E component - Nicholas Mkandawire, M&E Specialist INVC Bridging Activity
- 1.6 Zooming into implementation by each Bridging Activity component
- 1.7 Progress of soya value chain in WE Effect impact areas - Sophie Mahoya, WE Effect
- 1.8 Lessons learnt >>>>1 – 2 – 4 all exercise
- 1.9 What didn’t worked so well?
- 1.10 Work planning for the next year - Presentation of draft work plans by each component
- 1.10.1 Component 1- advancing competitive market - Pelius Kabuli
- 1.10.2 Component 2- agricultural productivity - Genschers Chisanga
- 1.10.3 Monitoring and evaluation - Nicholas Mkandawire
- 1.10.4 Africa RISING - Gliding on biological N2-fixation - Regis Chikowo
- 1.10.5 AgDiv/INVC BA project collaboration – transition - Carl Larkins/ Shelix Munthali
- 1.10.6 Partners present the draft work plans
- 1.11 ACE
- 1.12 Discussion on project transition - World Café discussion – see 3 questions
INVC Bridging Activity annual review and planning meeting
29 - 30 June, 2017
Lilongwe, Malawi[edit | edit source]
Participants[edit | edit source]
Click here to download the list of participants
Objectives/Purpose[edit | edit source]
- Share updates on project activities implemented and results for year 1 of implementation ( 2016/2017)
- Discuss lessons learnt and reflect on these for year 2 (2017/2018)
- Discuss plans for implementation of project activities in year2 in light of end of INVC Bridging Activity in its current form
- Develop draft work plans for year 2
- Discuss transition from INVC BA to AgDiv project
Agenda[edit | edit source]
28 June, 2017 - Arrival of participants from outside Lilongwe
29 June, 2017
07:30 - Registration - Esther Chadzala, Administrator INVC Bridging Activity
08:00 - Presentation of agenda for the day and introductions - Jonathan Odhong’, Facilitator
08:30 - Welcome and opening remarks
- Alene Arega – IITA Country Rep.
- Elizabeth Sibale – INVC Bridging Activity Manager
- Martin Banda/ Fenton - rep. from USAID
08:50 - Overview of INVC Bridging Activity Activity implementation and challenges - Elizabeth Sibale
09:20 - Reflections on presentation/clarifications/Q&A - Participants
09:45 - Group Photograph and networking break around coffee/tea
Progress and emerging issues
(3 presentations, 20 minutes each, only 2 burning comments after each presentation, overall discussion at the end of the 3 presentations)
10:20 - Progress and emerging issues in the value chain component - Pelius Kabuli, VC Specialist INVC Bridging Activity
10:40 - Progress and emerging issues in the agricultural productivity component - Genschers Chisanga, Agricultural Productivity Specialist INVC Bridging Activity
11:00 - Progress and emerging issues in the ME component - Nicholas Mkandawire, M&E Specialist INVC Bridging Activity
11:20 - Overall discussion, feedback and reactions to the 3 presentations
Zooming into implementation by each Bridging Activity component
(15 minutes presentation + 15 minutes discussion after each)
12:00 - Progress of seed fairs - Norias Kayira, CRS
12:30 - Progress of soya and groundnut value chain in CADECOM impact areas - Nick Phamba, CADECOM
13:00 - Lunch
14:00 - Progress of soya value chain in FUM impact areas - Rudolf Binga, FUM
14:30 - Progress of soya value chain in WE Effect impact areas - Sophie Mahoya, WE Effect
15:00 - 2-in-1 presentation - Abbie Morris, ACE
- Progress of soya and groundnut value chain in ACE impact areas
- Progress of marketing activities in all the INVC Bridging Activity impact areas
16:00 - Coffee/tea break
16:30 - Lessons learnt >>>>1 – 2 – 4 all exercise
17:00 - End of day 1
30 June, 2017[edit | edit source]
08:00 - Recap of Day 1
Work planning for the next year
(10 minutes presentation of draft work plans by each component + 10 minutes comments and feedback after each)
08:30 - Component 1- advancing competitive market - Pelius Kabuli
08:50 - Component 2- agricultural productivity - Genschers Chisanga
09:10 - Monitoring and evaluation - Nicholas Mkandawire
09:30 - Coffee/ tea break
Africa RISING - Gliding on biological N2-fixation - Regis Chikowo
AgDiv/INVC BA project collaboration transition - Carl Larkins/ Shelix Munthali
- -Elizabeth to give a brief instruction for participants work planning
- -Planning for 2017/2018 season (Participants go into groups to discuss specific activities to be implemented by each partner and budgeting)
13:00 - Lunch
14:00 - Partners present the draft work plans
- - FUM
15:30 - Discussion on project transition - World Café discussion – see 3 questions
- - What should continue in the AgDiv project from INVC BA activity?
- - What practical implementation issues/realities of working with the communities that AgDiv should be briefed about? Assume you are giving a briefing note
- - What needs to happen in the best-case scenario of the transition from INVC BA to AgDiv?
16:30 - Next steps and way forward – practical steps - Elizabeth Sibale
16:40 Closing - Irmgard Hoeschle –Zeledon / Rep. from USAID
End of day 2 – coffee/tea break
Meeting Notes[edit | edit source]
29 June, 2017
Welcome and opening remarks[edit | edit source]
- Alene Arega – IITA Country Rep.
- Pleasure to welcome everybody on behalf of IITA
- IITA is reflecting its past as it celebrates its 50 year. Over the years we have been transforming from pure research to R4D as well as Partnership for development.
- Previously there was mismatch between the vision of reducing poverty and the action on the ground
- But with only research, Poverty reduction was not met.
- IITA agenda became research for Development then R for Delivery.
- In Malawi we started in 1987 and now is 30 years ………..done cassava production, Tikolore released in Malawi after adopting the situation in Mw.
- Delivery aspect……thanks to the USAID for the assistance
- INVC BA- It’s a bridge to another important project……the agenda is not to improve production only but also advancing market competitiveness through VC approach.
- Marketing has been a challenge in Malawi……………….attract prices for farmers so that you reach a win-win situation.
- Thanked USAID for the financial and technical support given and lastly he thanked all partners present at the review meeting
- Martin Banda/ Fenton - rep. from USAID
- Thanks IITA for being a listening partner to USAID
- It has been a year since we last sat down and review the programme.
- There are 2 forms of assistance given by USAID:
- Assistance; USAID just come in to assist
- Acquisition; where the implementing partners is asked to implement on behalf on IITA
- The relationship of IITA /USAID is that of Assistance
- Besides being Assistance partner, IITA has also been a listening partner
- New administration in USA means refocusing of activities
- For us to continue, we need to remain relevant to the agenda of the new administration
- We need to be free during this meeting and this is the only way we can model the programme
- We need to discuss not only results but also the processes as we plan for the second year…………and also bridging for the Ag. Diversification……..we need to draw a lot of lessons and pass it on to Ag. Diversification
Overview of INVC Bridging Activity (Activity implementation and challenges) - Elizabeth Sibale[edit | edit source]
Comment: Storage of seed need to be unshelled for groundnuts
A: If seed are identified late in the season, seed supply take advantage of the situation. The seed issue need to be discussed at national level. Other projects have also faced problem with G/nuts seed. This is being documented. Still in the process of documenting. There will be an annual report on how the issue of seed quality has been tackled.The seed company sued IITA and the case is currently in court. Seed certification is done by seed services and certificates provided to suppliers are usually 6 or more months old hence not giving a true reflection of seed quality during seed distribution/planting. Seed should be distributed in good time so that farmers should conduct germination tests and reject the seed. In Mchinji, after learning that the seed did not germinate well, farmers returned it.
Comment: The emphasise of USAID is to get the seed to farmers asap so that farmers can do the germination test. Farmers did the germination test and even though the results were poor farer went ahead to plant the seed. Comment: Trace of seed was a problem for seed fair areas.
Progress and emerging issues in the value chain component - Pelius Kabuli, VC Specialist INVC Bridging Activity[edit | edit source]
Q: Is the economic analysis also given to farmers during training?
A: Farmers were trained on gross margin analysis through lead farmers.To trickle down to farmers but it was a problem. We visited farmers upon noting
Q: On the issue of difference in yields between the project and government because the government considers those that did not grow improved seed?
Q: Is the yield of 1468 an average? What inputs are you counting and which ones are you not considering?
A: Yes it is an average (incl. others) Including everything (labour)
Q: Prices started going down even before harvesting. Do you find out the other reasons that influence prices?
A: Advocate for policies that should aim at removing the block to ensure free market
Q: Did you consider the economic analysis if germination percentage of groundnuts was high? (bearing in mind that it was low)?
A: No, it was not considered. But if it was high, yield would high as well (comment from participant-yield high, price low!!!!!).
Progress and emerging issues in the agricultural productivity component - Genschers Chisanga, Agricultural Productivity Specialist INVC Bridging Activity[edit | edit source]
Q: When they wrote proposal, they indicated that the farmers will double the area, are they still doing it?
A: Farmers are keeping seed….infact they complained of the 10kg, therefore they gonna increase the area this year.So they (farmers) will upscale the production using their seed they got from INVC. On doubling, we are not sure as it will depend on their land sizes as land sizes are a constraint in the south we are working. We will link the farmers that will need more seed to seed suppliers.
Comment: Challenge with the seed fair………..What we ended up with was a fixed packed for each farmer without choosing one value chain. Farmers have to spread the risk.
Comment: The use of lead farmer….IFPRI did an assessment and they found out that only 9% of farmers get the message from lead farmers…………..some think the approach cannot work but some of us we are in support of the model. I think it is the way it is being used. It should concentrate on Transfer Of Technology Model only not involving every activity. SANE is doing it very well, you can learn from them.SANE and LUANAR are working on the comparison of lead farmers and the other models such as learning centre model and model village.
Comment: CRS is having a survey on lead farmer approach compared to (others). We can follow-up with them later to hear what they have learnt.
Comment: The benefit of double row in groundnuts is not only productivity but also aflatoxin management.
Comment: Upscaling for seed fair farmers is an option for this year but this will depend on availability of land for each individual farmer
Q: Was production estimates were they consistent with the ones that Africa RISING used? Is it possible to put our data together and publish a paper together?
A: Yes, and we will share the data, WE used your data collection templates.
Progress and emerging issues in the M&E component - Nicholas Mkandawire, M&E Specialist INVC Bridging Activity[edit | edit source]
Q: We are comparing INVC 1 and INVC 2 on yields. I think the rains were different. We can compare treatments within the same year by our farmers.
A: The baseline is INVC year 1. We will consider the within year in our final year report. We will use national crop estimates to compare with ours. We are expected to compare yields over years in our templates
Q: The use of the leader farmer approach
Q: 18000 farmers aggregated their crop against 15000 mean? Does it mean all these farmers aggregate only 5 tonnes?
A: These volumes are the ones that have been aggregated. 18000 are the ones that were identified for aggregation.
Q: Nutrition is not mentioned in your presentations?
A: We take note of it.
Comment: Most of the indicators are customs…………..need to sum up the indicators and put the standard indicators
Overall discussion, feedback and reactions to the 3 presentations
WOW! - An insight that was interesting from the three presentations
- Good production
- High technology adoption
- Number of female farmers participating in the project
- Farmers trained on GMA
- Balance of qualitative and quantitative analysis
- Sensitivity Analysis
- Shared figures during the presentation
- M&E presentation
WHOA! - Something that came from any of the three presentations that is a cause of concern/worry
- GM for soya
- Seed value to be reduced by 70%
- All the farmers of soya to make loss
- Chithumba model repayment too high
- Seed revolving system not very clear…..1:2, 1:4 etc
- Budgetary constraints for not implementing some activities by partners
- Comparing bad and good year in terms of production
- Data not talking to each other
- Performance of G/nuts in Kanyama EPA
- WRS not yet accepted by now
- Low prices now vs future production
Zooming into implementation by each Bridging Activity component[edit | edit source]
Progress of seed fairs - Norias Kayira, CRS[edit | edit source]
Comment: Nitrofix inoculant came in very late
Q: Area reported by CRS is high compared with the seed received? What happened/Why???
Q: How does the double row technology reduce labour?
A: Double row increases groundcover and therefore reduces amount of soil that splashes onto the pods; because it is from these soils splashes that rosette thrives.
Q: Poor collaboration with Africa RISING?
A: Need to improve the coordination at all levels
Q: How do you not know what happened to the other Kgs that were not planted? What responses did your June survey collect?
A: The farmers were not willing to disclose but we all know the three value chains are edible. In most of the EPAs, soybean is a new crop and farmers were not necessarily conversant with its agronomic practices, so we got some incomprehensible answers at times.
Q: During data collection, did you visit the fields to verify the areas planted? Because the area reported is a bit too large for the 4kgs distributed?
A: The project came in a bit too late when the farmers had already planned their farms, so most of them just interplanted into the gaps between maize, gps involved rounding the whole farm, that’s why we reported larger areas, because part of that same land carried maize.And in the south, landholding sizes are small, so interplanting was most plausible to most farmers.
Progress of soya and groundnut value chain in CADECOM impact areas - Nick Phamba, CADECOM
Q: Seed recovery on G/nuts when the germination is bad…….what have we done?
A: The association agreed to aggregate other commodities so as to recover the loan………..sale other produce and repay the loan
Q: Poor participation in the trainings by lead farmers…..Why?
A: Farmers look for incentives in the trainings…….when planning for follower farmer training there is need for thorough preparation including logistics………..however this was quashed because giving drinks to farmer
will affect extension service delivery by govt extension staff
Q: Number in their monitoring schedules
Q: Use of government staff in implementation is underexploited.Why?
A: Mere comment. When we ask government staff to work with us, they always ask for allowances failing which they do not attend.
Q: Don’t you think providing refreshments will prove unsustainable and consequently make extension greatlty difficult especially on the work of the govt staff because this is basically buying participation?
A: I am merely reporting the matter on the ground. During training of the lead farmers, refreshments are provided and the farmers are aware of that.
Q: What did your monitoring visits bring us. Why are the results not reported in the presentation?
A: Noted. It was noted that some farmers intercropped soya with other crops such as maize.
Progress of soya value chain in WE Effect impact areas - Sophie Mahoya, WE Effect[edit | edit source]
Q: They tried to train the farmers directly, and they found it effective. Are you saying the Lead farmer model is ineffective?
A: Studies and research on the lead farmer model have shown that trickle down of messages takes very long in this model. Using Lead Farmers proved to delay our sensitization messages to our farmers, we had to disseminate the messae through our field officers.
Comment: I note that we overload the lead farmers (we give them the task of an extension officer). It should be for a particular technology transfer.
Q: What do we mean by technology?
A: We can define double row as technology or the whole soya production.It would be unreasonable to put the different aspects of soya production to different farmers.
2-in-1 presentation - Abbie Morris (ACE) & Luke (ATL)
Progress of soya and groundnut value chain in ACE impact areas
Progress of marketing activities in all the INVC Bridging Activity impact areas
Q: Are we linking with outside market (export) or we are only marketing in Malawi?
A: We are involved in the regional market exports platform. The best prices are in Zimbabwe and Kenya but factoring in transport costs, the opportunity cost of risk, paperwork, the prices still boil down to the current prices on the local market.
Q: Loan repayment rate……….who is deciding the repayment rate?
A: 1:2 repayment was for variety populisation but it does not make economic sense. Therefore people/NGOs are making their own repayment term………….Chithumba looks at economic sense as this has a bearing on the sustainability of the system
Q.Financing……..is the funds going to INVC-BA farmers?
A. US$11.3Million…………..forward contract finance, Receipt system. For INVC US$531,000 financed
Q. OVO is indicating 3 but only one was done?
A: Because we are talking of OVO/BVO …..1 OVO & 2BVO
Q: Yield for G/nuts high as compared to Soya why?
A: The figure of 750kg/acre is unshelled…when you shell it will be around 500/acre
Q: Trainings , are they harmonised?
A: Yes, same materials and content. IITA and ICRISAT held a TOT to all the staff. The material is the same, the partner ngo decides how to disburse
Progress of soya value chain in FUM impact areas - Rudolf Binga, FUM
Lessons learnt >>>>1 – 2 – 4 all exercise[edit | edit source]
What worked so well?[edit | edit source]
- Donor – implementer partnership
- A good percentatge of the targets were achieved.
- Repayment of grain higher
- Technology adoption was high e.g double low
- Involvement of DAES
- Use of leader farmer approach
- Targeted activities were achievement
- Collecting mkt and GAP
- Quantification of outcome
- Aggregation improved mkt access
- Aggregation = better price
- Timely trainings have positive impact
What didn’t worked so well?[edit | edit source]
- There is need for coordinated messages e.g. conflicting messages on recovery
- Plans were loose between partners….better coordinate
- Link to markets are still weak
- Leader farmer approach not clear
- Enough time for presenter and discussions
- Late rolling out of the project
- Loan repayment of 1:2 not sustainable
- Chithumba loan model - Farmers are not protected
- No time management………knocking very late
- Low involvement of DAES staff
- Low market prices
- Poor seed in groundnuts
- Awareness on ACE WRS
- Field days not conducted in time….eg post harvest field days
- Follow-up on lead farmers
30 June, 2017 Recap - Participants reflected on the lessons learnt from the previous day as a preparation and reminder ahead of the planning for next year's activities.
What worked well?
- Aggregation improved market access - Not entirely true, but those that were aggregated improved market access.
- Involvement of DAES - Collaboration was good. With CRS it was not. Some groups put it positive while others put it negative but the ones that involved DAES had a good experience.
- Technology adoption /use/ was high - Not all technologies were adopted (double row was highly adopted).
- Great donor/Implemetor relationship - That is true.
- Quantification of outcomes - True. Most partners reported figures were used
What didn't work out so well?
- Low involvement of DAES staff - Many showed that collaboration was not as good as it would be expected.
- Understanding on ACE warehouse receipt system - Some farmers were withdrawing from the system
- Field days not conducted in good time (weeding, post-harvest)
- Farmers not protected in chithumba model - 1:4 ratio is too high for farmers to make profit from their farming. In cases of crop failure, it is not clear as to how farmers will be cushioned.
- Late roll out of project activities - It affected conduction of activities.
- Low market prices - A lot of soya on the market forcing low prices, those farmers that aggreah=gated had relatively better prices.
- Lead farmer approach not clear - It is an issue of understanding of the model. DAES is working out on the model having noted that is being misunderstood and misused.
- 1:2 repayment not sustainable - The aim is for promotion of varieties not sustainability as chithumba.
- Links to markets are still weak - Farmers are selling to vendors.
- Conflicting repayment of seed - Some partners are using 1:4 while others use 1:2. The standard message is that we want to use a suatinable seed revolving program. The cost of the seed has to be recovered.
- Poor quality groundnut seed - Groundnut seed had poor germination.
Work planning for the next year - Presentation of draft work plans by each component[edit | edit source]
Component 1- advancing competitive market - Pelius Kabuli[edit | edit source]
Q: We need to be guided on the activity plans because last year we submitted detailed activity plans but they were reduced by INVC-BA?
A: partners will be given ceiling budgetary allocations to base their plans on.
Q: Explain the role of business management support services? What are you doing to ensure farmers still get good prices?
A: We need to build capacity to farmers. Sub committees need to be involved in market issues not only the executive as the case now
. Q: On business management support services, some farmers kept PP last season in warehouses in Balaka and how can we help them?
A: Farmers need to be taught simple rules of demand and supply
Q: Can we explore any other options apart grom the warehouse receipt system?
A: AgDiv is looking at pool factors of marketing, empowering agro-processors, working with other international opportunities (organisations). ACE involves farmers in the search of markets and give them a chance to look for markets and also make choices on the offered prices. We have to empower farmers to rely on themselves. They have to participate in all activities and we just need to facilitate.
Component 2- agricultural productivity - Genschers Chisanga[edit | edit source]
Q: FOs strengthening-what was the criteria in selecting these FOs?
A: INVC used FUM groups, in Mangochi there were care groups which were not organized. We are recruiting new groups and we will build their capacity. We are upscaling.
Q: Food processing-Did you have it last year?
A: AgDiv will deal with the processing, while we will
Q: Are you working with the same groups or you will include more groups?
A: More groups will be added as we scaling up.
Q: Why cant you empower the farmers to multiply seed?
A: We will work with Africa RISING. WE also want to work with MISST.
Q: We are told that we will work more groups. Can you also include registration of such?
A: We will register them.
A: Farmer group is defined as cooperative or club. We will define clubs, care groups, association, cooperative. We will communicate.
Q: Is AgDiv going to build structures or just improve the existing ones?
A: We did a baseline, and we will add value to the existing structures eg. Schemes. And we will ensure technologies are made available by linking cooperatives to suppliers. Implementation and media. We will work with SANE who have hotspots
Monitoring and evaluation - Nicholas Mkandawire[edit | edit source]
Q: Wont the bridging activity look into nutrition this time around?
A: The Bridging activity does not have a nutrition component, nevertheless Ag.Div.
Q: Does the Bridging Activity have a database?
A: We are compiling a database with different components and it will be ready for sharing soon.
Africa RISING - Gliding on biological N2-fixation - Regis Chikowo[edit | edit source]
Q: What have put in place to ensure that the results benefit the other farmers outside ZOI?
Q: What are you doing to influence policy?
Q: How practical is it to use land for replacement maize for legumes?
A: We are not asking farmers to replace, but we are encouraging them to increase legume area and produce more maize by intensification of inputs.
AgDiv/INVC BA project collaboration – transition - Carl Larkins/ Shelix Munthali[edit | edit source]
Q: You talked about CSA, Information centres, Africa RISING has 7 automated weather stations. We can work together with you?
A: We will work with you.
Q: Will specific partners achieve specific areas or you will do it all?
A: Partners will be working on specific outcomes. That will bring effectiveness and value for money.
Q: Drip irrigation started many years ago by Total Land Care, but it hasn’t been highly adopted, what are the measures put in place to ensure it works?
A: We want to make it available. We have made arrangements with suppliers and some are already on the ground. Payback period will be 1 year
Q: Are you going to use the same partners?
A: It will be competitive based on innovativeness and value or money.
Q: Do you have any backstopping from scientists in your project?
A: We are working with CG centres, IITA, ICRISAT, CIP.We will also have specialists/scientists who will provide technical support, we will give them contracts. USAID expects its projects to work together. All these “projects” represented in this meeting are activities in the FtF project. So you will not need to have contracts but rather work together.
Q: What are soy-goat and soy-cow
A: They are soy milk processing machines.
Q: Why only approaching women?
A: We consider them as disadvantaged in the society.
Partners present the draft work plans[edit | edit source]
ACE[edit | edit source]
Q: Which are the additional districts?
A: Will discuss.
Q: Who is responsible for transport logistics?
A: ACE/ATL does it.
Q: Where are your aggregation points?
A: We use ACE warehouses. We would like to identify farmers who will collect for us because the Ace warehouse worked for soya but didn’t work for groundnut.
Q: I haven’t seen demonstration plots included?
A: We have them. We will have in each area.
Q: What strategies to reduce challenge in ware house system?
A: Sensitisation and ACE marketing schools. We will have farmer warehouse visits to enable farmers learn more.
Q: I see an activity on constructing a new warehouse as it not in INVC?
A: It is with AgDiv. There is a fund in one organization we are working with that has provision on rural and urban warehouses
Q: You should do more than just training but involve strucrtures eg. DAEC to influence change.?
A: We will use that and we already work with them.
Q: If you work with DAES to ensure the text msg 321?
A: We are already working with them in 321. Those messages come from ACE.
CADECOM[edit | edit source]
Q: Training for of new beneficiaries?
A: Will be trained together with the old ones
Q: When you have demonstarion plots and farmers are implementing at the same time, who the demos are for?
A: They are at different times, demos in September while planting for farmers around December.
Q: From which areas does the number of new beneficiaries come?
A: Four EPAs in 2 districts.
Q: No targets indicated?
A: We had little time.
Q: Clarify between target beneficiaries and additional, whats the basis of reaching at the numbers e.g 1500?
A: We considered size of area and capacity of the partner, it was just an estimate.
We-Effect[edit | edit source]
Q: Effects of double up legumes usually take long, how will they ensure that it is done for a long period?
A: Not responded to.
Q: Is there an opportunity to go to new EPAs basing on the history that previously we were told we could not go to new areas?
A: We will extend to other EPAs. Other partners are already working in those areas. Expand from within the area that you are because some areas are hard to reach.
Q: 3 of the presenters indicated training of FOs, do we have a standard training or every partner does theirs?
A: CRS has 5 smart skills model.
Q: How are we targeting the farmers because here it shows those that are in FOs only are the targeted? Why not forming new ones?
A: Farmers have different needs and we arrange training basing on that need. We would like to promote those FOs that were created by INVC 1. It was not feasible to form new ones in just two year project. Food for peace targets the very poor while the FtF targets the better ones. So they graduate from FfP the T to FtF.
CRS[edit | edit source]
Q: We considered the wholistic approach of NRM. We have a module and we used that one?
Q: In second year of INVC we do not need seed fairs unless if AgDiv wants to do it.
Q: How long are you going to register the associations?
A: In each EPA there are about 2 existing associations, so it wont be long. Its only involving verifying the membership and not necessarily starting from a scratch.
Q: The number of associations and training of lead farmers are too high. Demos ( are too high)?
A: The group should sit down and discuss. We want to reduce distances. We are considering 6 EPAs. In one village we can have about 3 lead farmers each showcasing a particular technology i.e NRM, crop production etc.
Q: Arent there any groups already that the project had from INVC 1?
A: There are already there, we are just to strengthen them.
FUM[edit | edit source]
Q: Seed distribution has only been indicated on new farmers why not the old ones?
A: The old ones knew they have to keep their own seed.
Q: Are you going into new areas or not?
A: The added groups are already existent and within the same areas.
Discussion on project transition - World Café discussion – see 3 questions[edit | edit source]
What should continue in the AgDiv project from INVC BA activity?
- Promotion of the new technologies
- Continue of Chithumba Value for value (Value to value based on prevailing situation)
- Use of Lead Farmers. However Lead Farmers need to be backed up
- Should involve DADO in the promotions
- Continue with marketing promotion at the same time strengthen the system
- Continue working through farmer organizations (Association and Cooperatives)
- Assume you are giving a briefing note to AgDiv. What practical implementation issues/realities of working with the communities should AgDiv be briefed about?
- The maintenance of partnership that was involved in the INVC BA
- Improved technologies to strengthen the system
- Issues of collaboration between stakeholders should
- Continue with strengthening the marketing which is the cry for farmers.
- ACE to continue sensitizing farmers on their ACE products
- What needs to happen in the best-case scenario of the transition from INVC BA to AgDiv?
- Should continue with improved technologies. Since we are upscaling and new farmers need to embrace that
- Continue with collaborative efforts with government.
- Ag.Div should pay attention to what did not work so well during the BA
- Continue with aggregations and market linkages
- Collaboration with donors should not stop
Next steps and way forward – practical steps - Elizabeth Sibale[edit | edit source]
As way forward, we now expect to sit down with the collaborative partners and the other projects with whom we are co-financing some of the activities like ADIN and SANE so that we see how much funds are available. Each partner will then be advised accordingly about the funds available for the proposed activities this year. Since we are getting to our reporting time of the year, we are also expected to prepare an annual report of our activities and send it to USAID. So, I am counting on you to submit the reports of some of the great works you just shared during this meeting in a timely fashion. Between now and the time the new contracts are finalized, I would also request that we can already start identifying the new groups of farmers that we are supposed to be working with as expected. Let us not wait and then end up once again under time pressure. I think overall, we have been a good team and have achieved a lot in 1 year!
Closing - Irmgard Hoeschle –Zeledon[edit | edit source]
I am the manager of Africa RISING, a USAID project that is operating in among other countries - Malawi. The INVC Bridging Activity was placed by USAID under Africa RISING because they felt that at the core of Africa RISING is the focus of increasing productivity and this aligns with component 2 of the INVC BA. I thank all of you for the past twelve months of good collaboration and engagement, and I’m looking forward to this continuing in the next year! I also would want to thank Martin Banda for taking time to be with us at all stages of this meeting, but also in the course of implementing the project. This has helped us to achieve what the donor (USAID) expects from us. We are also grateful to colleagues from ADIN who were able to join us for this meeting and engage with us. I was in the field in February and witnessed some really great work! Wishing you all safe travels, thank you very much!