PCT-SAG meeting

PCT/SAG meeting

22-23 June 2017 Venue TBD, Arusha, Tanzania Back to the event home page See also: PCT23 and SAG meeting#1 (in phase 2)

---

media type="custom" key="29269031" See more pictures of this event in our FlickR album.

Topics and objectives

• Africa RISING: SAG members acquainted with the program so they are clear about various aspects of the program
• Phase II so far: SAG members understand key differences between phase 1 & 2 and progress made so far
• CoPs: SAG members understand the rationale behind these CoPs progress so far - SAG member affiliated with different CoPs
• Reach, use, adoption etc.: All participants see where there are areas, propose tentative definitions and come up with a plan to engage others on this topic
• M&E: SAG members understand the M&E architecture and the surveys and analysis planned
• SAG/PCT: Respective objectives are met (to be defined for each of them)
• CoP champions work further on their CoP work and on supporting each other.

Participants

1. Patrick Okori, ICRISAT
2. Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon, IITA
3. Bernard Vanlauwe, IITA
4. Asamoah Larbi, IITA
5. Mateete Bekunda, IITA
6. Jonathan Odhong, IITA
7. Haroon Sseguya, IITA
8. Bernard Lukuyu, ILRI
9. Kindu Mekonnen, ILRI
10. Nancy McCarthy, LEAD Analytics
11. Jim Ellis-Jones, Freelance consultant
12. Eva Weltzien, Freelance consultant
13. Moses Tenywa CAES, Makerere University
14. Brigitte Maass, Freelance consultant
15. Siboniso Moyo, ILRI
16. Peter Thorne, ILRI
17. Ewen Le Borgne, ILRI
18. Carlo Azzarri, IFPRI
19. Caroline Sobgui, World Vegetable Center
20. Lieven Claessens, IITA

Agenda

Thursday 22 June

• 08.00 Registration
• 08.30 Welcome, participants' introductions, agenda and objectives (BvL / ELB) [ELB]

Outcome: All participants are familiar with each other, particularly SAG members Process: SAG members sit at 3 different tables and groups of people (PCT, CoP champions, chief scientists and whoever else) come to visit them to introduce themselves (3x6')

• 09.25 Overall introduction to the program (IHZ) [JO]

Outcome: SAG members are aware of the program and clear about its institutional arrangements, technical research activities and recommendations from the phase 1 external evaluation Process: Presentation 20' - Q&A 30'. [https:www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/ar-pct-sagirmgard2017-77694924| See presentation]//

• 10.15 Break
• 10.45 Phase 2 so far (PT / chief scientists) [JO]

Outcome: SAG members are fully aware of the choices made in the umbrella and regional documents against phase 1 and what has happened so far Process: Presentation 15' PT about the main differences between phases 1 & 2 - Q&A 15'. Presentation by the 3 chief scientists (20') about what has happened so far (on a physical timeline, and with pictures printed out to highlight key activities) - 25' Q&A.

• 12.00 Lunch break
• 13.15 Communities of practice (BvL / CoP champions) [ELB]

Outcome: SAG members understand the rationale behind phase 2 CoPs and get to hear what progress has been achieved with what members for each CoP. Each SAG member is affiliated with (at least) one of the CoPs - ideally covering all CoPs). Process: Presentation 15' BvL about CoPs - 15' Q&A. Quick go-around (30') of the 7 CoPs (each at a station with flipchart and if need be print out pictures, graphs etc.), each introduced in 5' by their CoP champion. Free roaming around for another 30' to ask questions and for SAG members to mention their affiliation with either CoP etc. 15' Final open discussion about CoPs

• 15.00 Break
• 15.30 Unpacking reach, use, adoption etc. (JG/BvL) [JO]

Outcome: Having a clearer understanding of what needs more clarity, of what definition we might tentatively offer and of the next steps we suggest taking in order to progress with this work and establish Africa RISING's thought leadership on this topic Process: Presentation by Haroon/Scaling CoP group 30' about tentative definitions and suggestions - 15' clarification Q&As - 45' World cafe on the key definitions [3x10' + recap] and how to develop these further into an engagement plan - 15' open discussion to discuss next steps including polling to go ahead. [https:www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/ar-pct-sagharoon2017-77694923| See presentation].//

• 17.00 Wrap-up for the day [ELB]

Outcome: Key reflections from the day are captured Process: 1-2-4-all and final commentaries from SAG chair if elected

Friday 23 June

• 08.30 Refreshing our memory [JO]

Outcome: Getting every participant back in the spirit of the meeting and ensuring we start with the whole group Process: Quick buzz among the participants about a) the challenges that we seem to be tackling well and b) the elephant in the room that we might be missing - sharing in plenary

• 08.45 M&E (CA) [JO]

Outcome: SAG members are clear about the M&E architecture in Africa RISING phase 2, and know about the surveys and data analysis planned Process: 20' Presentation CA/team - 25' Q&A

• 09.30 Getting started with parallel SAG/PCT/CoP meetings (CoP champions should work on their own plans and how they can support each other etc.) [ELB]

Outcome: Respective objectives of SAG/PCT meetings achieved (see PCT23 and SAG meeting#1) and for CoPs: Feedback from SAG/PCT incorporated, updated plans with outputs made available, clear short plan developed for CoP champion mutual support. Process: TBD

• 10.30 Break (to be taken freely by each group)
• 11.00 Parallel SAG/PCT/CoP meetings - see above. The CoP meeting is about getting going with the CoP work individually and if there is time and a need for it, to review how to ensure cross-pollination among CoPs.
• 12.30 Lunch break
• 13.30 Parallel SAG/PCT/CoP meetings - see above.
• 15.00 Break
• 15.30 Coming back together [ELB/JO]

Outcome: Each group is aware of key reflections, recommendations and decisions made by other groups Process: SAG, then PCT then CoP champions each get 10' to give feedback on their respective work and to highlight things that need to be discussed. Open discussion to deal with the Q&As - possibly 'lean coffee' to address any remaining issue

• 17.15 Close

Meeting notes

Program overview

[https:www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/ar-pct-sagirmgard2017-77694924| See presentation] by Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon// Q&A

• Question: Capacity development for students - how is it organised? It can really help with the quality of research, publications, scaling capacity etc.
• Answer: We have an open approach system to directly support students in areas where we think we need their participation. We have resources for that. In ESA (and esp. TZ) we also support institutions that do capacity building e.g. USAID project EAGRI (helping students with classroom work). We linked with them and they sent us students. We are also working with students who come to us directly. We mentor them. In Ethiopia we have an MoU with Ethiopian universities and with federal and regional research institutes and extension system. We have student attachments from those local universities e.g. 30 PhD students working for 6 months with us and specific CG centres to supervise them
• Q: I was surprised by the point about scaling as it's key in phase II. How will you go about it. You have set up a CoP on scaling but what beyond that?
• A: In CGIAR we are not best placed to determine what is the best scaling approach. We don't have much experience in that. We have been discouraged to do research on scaling but we are working with development organisations. We work with FAO, Wageningen UR (Cees Leeuwis) etc.

Meanwhile we continue with scaling the best way we can. Where we have funding for dissemination of technologies we are quite successful. In phase 2 we're using different approaches and that's a good opportunity to assess these different approaches. We are creating a big lab on scaling approaches and there's a risk of not capitalising on this. We are wondering if we should have an output on scaling research and we decided we were not best placed to do that and we haven't cracked that. We need to take some comments with a pinch of salt. e.g. in the whole mix, the CG is the gearbox driving or slowing the system. We have a fundamental role but maybe because CGIAR has not boldly come out and talked about it we are not positioning ourselves frankly on this. But for technology roll-out we need to talk more boldly about it. We need to scale out and do research about it and CGIAR needs to look more intimately into it. From FAO interactions, I got the signal that Africa RISING (AR) is very specific etc. It's hard to set up only one mechanism for scaling. We need to talk about this. Sometimes I wonder if it's really worthwhile to do research on scaling methods given our limited resources. If we work with scaling partners, they know how to do it. What matters is that we scale, not that we know how to best scale.

• Q: The governance and participation of local partners. There are steering committees with these local partners?
• A: We have in e.g. West Africa some partners in Mali and Ghana who are engaging with us...

In Ethiopia, our partners in each region came from research institutes, ministry of Agriculture and universities. Now 50+ universities. Those partners were always involved in the annual planning. In the first phase they were adequately represented. In phase II we reviewed that and we are widening out to many development partners and we have a project advisory committee which will address this. In ESA we work with the regional institutions ASARECA, AGRA etc.

• Q: In the first picture when you showed the activities, it seemed very linear but it's different from reality.
• A: I will introduce this in my presentation.
• Q: Where is the donor uncertainty in the US with this program?
• A: The donor was very much involved in the first four years, Jerry Glover came to our annual meetings etc. he's part of our program coordination team (PCT). I'm always in contact with the donor. We get informal information a lot. We are being sensitised to what could happen. There's no information to what could happen. These changes are not going to happen abruptly.

Until September 2018 we have secured funding but things could change after that. We just don't know for now. It looks like the cut is not going to be across the program but in focused ways on specific aspects (e.g. climate change will be cut considerably). We were always required to respond flexibly. We were very elastic and a lot of things happened throughout phase 1 so we are also a laboratory for USAID and we can continue to do this. When we started we didn't have a program framework right ahead.

• Q: To what extent are the lessons leading to principles. Which principles are derived from phase 1.
• A: A program like AR, dealing with farming systems, needs multiple partnerships. No one institution can deal with all of it e.g. IITA doesn't do livestock. So we ended with a broad range of implementing partners. Each partner has their interest, agenda etc. To balance that for the program benefit, it was a learning experience. We stopped some partnerships etc. Partners identify with the program.

The process usually involves a lot of diagnostics and small pilot activities. AR started off with situational analysis so we could look at all the options with Sustainable Intensification. It's been a very nice opportunity to participate in that whole process. What lessons are from that we didn't document to see how repeatable it might be. We started with the RISING acronym but we didn't really know what it meant and now we start to understand it and if we come up with innovations that address sustainable intensification it's good. One of the things that worked was the coordination of the program. In many other programs it's expected to happen but there are not enough resources for it but in Africa RISING it's one of the factors that was important to have that energy going into coordination. We talk about lessons learned and principles, one thing that I thought would have appeared is that if we continued with our scaling agenda we would never reach the USAID targets so we are much more responsive to the development community etc. rather than focus on best bets etc. Integrating farming system components requires efforts. We had good support from WUR but we are here in Africa. We need a certain infrastructure for coordination from Mali to Zambia, Ethiopia etc. and it doesn't work without resources.

Phase II so far

• Q: Now that you are more engaged with development partners, they have their own M&E requirements. Is there integration and feedback/joint learning on this?
• A: In Ethiopia, we will use where adequate the existing M&E requirements and supplement them if need be.

In the Africa RISING Nafaka project we do monitoring focusing on Feed the Future indicators (output level indicators how many households reached through quarterly report forms, outcome level indicators through surveys etc. It's very important because USAID are very keen on that data). We do some things together and some separately, based on USAID recommendations. We embed their mechanisms into our monitoring tool e.g. now we are working on custom indicators pre-populated for Nafaka. It's on a case by case basis. We are integrating with their reporting system but it's not full integration.

• Comment: I picked two major words: learning and scaling. All components you mentioned are very intensive processes of data processing and reporting on indicators. A very innovative way to capture information through M&E linked with communication could enhance the efficiency of your approach to inform our learning. It could help go a long way.
• Q: The advocacy and lobbying for Africa RISING funding might be difficult but with evidence of success it can be done.
• A: I didn't see this as a structured activity but when you meet people you can bring a good word for Africa RISING in such meetings. It's an informal role.

(response) But it's a great opportunity. The potential is great if evidence is provided and gaps are very clear and somebody sees how targets are met and what the shortfalls are. There was a meeting in October in Lilongwe and I (Bernard) had to give that presentation and there are a few different accents with this presentation by Peter. John Dixon (ACIAR) said 'we should move to research in development'. I think this needs to be much more prominent. A lot of people think R4D and RinD are the same but one of the things we can do is to develop these concepts. If we do RinD, for M&E we need to get farmers to decide what needs to be prioritised, we can't segregate the data etc. Attribution is a real barrier and it stops us justifying what we've done. We must have that part as well. Part of our impact pathways is that we have identified where our technologies came from. It's a contribution. How can we market that sort of approach instead of just focusing on attribution. Can we not do something a lot more creative?

• Comment: You've decentralised M&E and I was trying to find the new monitoring forms to see how it differed from phase I forms. You want some continuity and flexibility.

There are online and offline forms. We found in Phase I that providing only online forms was struggling with lack of connectivity etc. so we are using both online and offline forms now. I'll share the links with you.

• Q: The development vs. research is an important and challenging element to explore.

One of the things we need to address here is capacity - capacity for delivery is much more than training scientists. What capacity do we need for development? We need to step back a little bit and think about the kind of capacities for change to take place. Maybe very few have to do with PhDs etc. and are more concerned with the 2ndary boundary partners who need human or hardware resources. It's that sociology element that is missing from this program. On the capacity of the various scientists: we need to develop that as well and we want to find out about capacity gap analysis of not only NARS but also of our own capacities. The way development partners package their work is different. They talk at us, not to us. This goes to the capacity. We need to think how we package our technology and how we deliver it.

Timeline from the regional chief scientists

In West Africa: We tried to document the work that happened in phase I. We had a legacy workshop to put things down in writing. 35 items submitted both internal and external. We identified journal communications etc. Only about 50% of the contents were accepted. In January we had training on farming system approaches and data analysis in Accra. In February we had our planning and review meeting with partners from national system, development partners. We discussed Phase II proposal and discussed how to implement it. In March we had [...] From February to May we refined our plans for 2017 and we were done last week. Sub-contracts have been submitted and planting for phase II is

• Q: What was different with Phase I?
• A: We ensured that people actually commit prepare the deliverables in a clearly defined way. It took longer because we were more critical than in Phase I. After the general meeting there were specific country-based meetings with exchanges about what needs to be done. One key thing was looking at integration (which was a gap in the previous phase). We changed the format for preparing plans.
• Q: You didn't talk about development partners in a demand-driven manner.
• A: We had a long list of partners and now we're ensuring we have commitments. One of the recommendations from the USAID review was to start mapping out partners that would be pushing the scaling process in Phase II.
• Q: You mentioned that 50% of the outputs were not good quality enough. How will you ensure that your outputs are responding to a research project?
• A: We have work plans asking for research questions and hypotheses to be tested. Some of this was missing in the previous phase. We have to start from the design.

Is there training happening on that? --> Yes on farming systems approaches...

• Q: What was the reaction of development partners to phase II. And is their commitment financial and human?
• A: Last year we were talking about plans and proposals for phase II etc. Now we'll be detailing commitments etc.

We've asked development partners to come up with proposals in Mali and Ghana for 300K USD. What we are lacking still is that our research products are integrated in their day-to-day activities. That's exactly what we are missing for our partners. We haven't yet achieved that. In Northern Ghana there are so many projects, approaches etc. Some projects are purely development projects that would give out inputs for free etc. It's a challenge.

• Q: You did this workshop on legacy. What is your favourite result about sustainability from Phase I? What's really changing for the farmers?
• A: We listed some of the potential technologies that came out of Phase I. What I'm proudest of is the integration of crop & livestock. Some crop technologies such as drought-tolerant maize has been demonstrated and farmers recently talked about new technologies. We brought in all 25 community-based associations etc. some opportunities for women farmers to exchange ideas.

In Ethiopian Highlands: We looked at extension, identifying implementation plans for the long rainy season for scaling. In October 2016 we had different visitors and we presented research findings. We invited partners (research, NGOs, universities etc.) and we discussed opportunities for the upcoming season. We had visitors from West Africa (Asamoah and Irmgard) to collaborate). In December we had a big workshop to popularise our research outputs and findings with a couple of other projects (LIVES, N2Africa). We tried to identify development partners e.g. InterAide France (large NGO) and we agreed to work with them. They came to us, we went to them etc. they're becoming a good development partner in Southern Ethiopia working on crop-livestock interactions etc. They asked us to generate evidence and started implementing scaling e.g. watersheds, livestock feeds, post-harvest handling, potatoes, high value crops such as apples and avocadoes. We also have other development partners such as Send A Cow, Ethiopian Catholic Church etc. In Tigray the Government is our major development partner but we are also working with USAID-funded development projects etc. and we developed a template to circulate with them to list our technologies and we ask them which they are interested in and where they might scale them up with how many farmers etc. and what they're expecting from Africa RISING (e.g. capacity building, seeds system research etc.). We presented several posters at the science symposium. In March we had a DfID-supported program (SAIRLA) in 6 countries and we are participating in their national platform to align our activities. After compiling needs from our development partners, capacity building was in high demand so we organised training of trainers in our 4 regions. These are photos from ToT in SNNPR, Tigray, Oromia and Amhara regions. We tried to familiarise our tecehnologies with different development partners. One day was field visit to see the farmer conditions. We participated in other events organised by the Ministry of Agriculture about their 'sustainable land management (program) knowledge fair' and we tried to present our work there. We also participated in the Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock stakeholder meeting with a field visit about landscape management in Amhara etc.

• Q: Do you ask them what is missing from your list that AR should develop?
• A: Yes and we are now expanding e.g. other forage species, working on poultry, bee keeping etc.
• Q: Do these partners ask for money?
• A: No they don't but they ask for capacity development (e.g. extension etc.) so they can implement technologies properly... In some cases they asked us for started seeds.
• Q: You developed a template and are checking on potential development partners. Is this a one-time event or will you have a dynamic assessment?
• A: It's dynamic assessment. Every year we need to review this with them.
• Q: 2 elements that didn't come out in this presentation: partnerships with the private sector - and on financing all of this (micro-finance institutes as potential partners?). On the platforms, are there financial partners and who are the members?
• A: We have platforms at woreda (district) / 'strategic platforms' and at kebele level 'operational platforms'. There we work with market dealers etc. and even finance institutions. We had about 23 institutions at woreda level to make decisions etc. Now in the 2nd phase we're expanding and going out of districts to other zones etc. and we want to establish zonal level platforms. At national level we're using SAIRLA as our intermediary.
• Q: Are you targeting partners on nutrition?
• A: Nutrition is cross-cutting, we are not focusing on specific institutions except the federal body mandated for nutrition and present in the regions. Associated with health centres.

In East & Southern Africa: This is our cropping season so we started our planning early. We used influence diagrams to influence each other (between crop and livestock etc.). Planning in early October. Training on statistics and farming systems approach. We introduced new crops (e.g. ground nuts etc.). In maize-based systems we introduced sorghum, millet etc. and usually the seed companies are not ready so we start by producing seeds. We introduced community-based seed systems (sweet potatoes etc.). In Zambia, when we started we worked with SIMLEZA and we did conservation agriculture. In certain areas we still need fertilisers. We did doubled-up legumes. We are looking at typologies to find out where each system fits best. We do vegetables with drip irrigation. This has attracted markets. They use fewer chemicals etc. We used drudgery mitigation, ox-draught ripper, land management; we'retrying to see if we can engage local communities to institute by-laws to work at community level. On livestock we worked on poultry (local chickens). We're looking for the best strains, we cross them, manage them etc. We have Afla-SAFE in Zambia. So that 's the cropping season. We have expanded platforms to village level. Nutrition started off with sweet potatoes but we are also adding values to other crops and are targeting children. On livestock we're introducing forages into the systems and they must be multi-purpose. We are enhancing forages. On economics, we are working on evaluating technologies on the ground. We did capacity building. On scaling, we are working in Malawi on web forms. In Tanzania we are working to see how our technologies can work better. We work with CRS in 3 countries (e.g. on vegetables in Tanzania). We work with youth in their youth programs.

• Q: (answering question from Ethiopian highlands about partners in the platforms)
• A: On platform engagement, we didn't have an entry point in TZ so we started at district level and in Babati they have taken this platform to their council. Then we go down to villages. In Malawi, we didn't start new ones but worked with existing ones. In K-K, they invited us without initiating it. So it's different arrangements. Finance institutions are not very integrated in our platforms in TZ and Malawi. Even private sector actors are difficult to involve.

That's an opportunity. That's why we have a CoP on private sector involvement. I appreciate that private sector partners can be useful if they are interested but hearing "we need to engage the private sector" but some scaling initiatives are not really amenable to private sector in early stages. It's not a case of 'we have to have private sector involved'. It's not a box-ticking exercise. Seed multiplication is a challenge across the whole region so we can look at that and financing, multiplying etc. of seeds. The purpose of the CoP interaction is to delve into this. Our technologies are in different phases and we have to make better decisions. Private sector is interested in profit. If you don't have a good market base it's not going to happen. In the afternoon I'll share some initial thoughts about that. Including how micro-finance institutions are fitting in. We had an MoU with Nafaka that didn't work for a very long time. With others we didn't have MoUs and it worked. CRS don't need an MoU.

• Q: During those other meetings, did you get opportunities to share among yourselves?
• A: Yes we had a summit. We try to attend each other's meetings and activities too.

Communities of practice

Scaling up:

• Getting the CoP moving - maybe collaborate / focus on one theme/item
• Need to make our research products demand-driven
• Clarity of scaling focus (R in D)
• Processes, lessons, approaches.models (evaluation / validation)
• Action plan / work plan shouldspecify outputs
• Yammer --> some members claim they do not receive messages
• Potential for merging 2 CoPs (private sector + engagement)
• Work in tandem with other actors (NGOs, public etc.)

Nutrition:

• Malawi and Zambia missing - need to address directly
• Engagement of people who signed up in Malawi meeting
• Regularly communicate
• Link with national program
• I initiate the conversation to get people engage
• Harmonize approach to nutrition
• Initiate the conversation on a paper
• Share experiences

Private sector engagement:

• Howe we link outputs to planning
• 1 ps to be integral in operations
• Communities and adoption
• Finance and insurance + risk >> value chain approach (VCA)
• Other major investments e.g. AGRA >> VCA
• Use A.R. technologies as attractions for private equity
• Refine what private sector is
• Community groups - part of social engineering

Livestock:

• Consider WhatsApp group
• Why low participation in WA? And yet ILRI leads livestock
• Liaise with communication on Yammer (rethink strategy)
• What is livestock CoP about? May be it is so big?
• Livestock themes - 1 or 2 [entry point]
• Strategy to make it attractive. Trigger incentive
• Initially organizing it around a research question / research paper?
• Data mining > from the baseline
• Crop/livestock integration
• Summary

1. 1. Platform of engagement
   2. Scope of CoP
   3. Triggering incentives for CoP

• Q:
• A:
• Q:
• A:
• Q:
• A:

Reach / adoption / use etc.

[https:www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/ar-pct-sagharoon2017-77694923| See presentation] by Haroon Sseguya.// After

In a world cafe session the participants pondered the following three questions: a) Are these definitions ok? What needs to be changed or added? b) What practical steps can we take to move this conversation forward and further develop good definitions c) How do we implement 'this' and who can help us with it?

Are the definitions adequate?

• Fully: not well defined (e.g. CA). Does it refer to the full package of a specific innovation or is it referred to the scale?
• Use is missing
• Data/information will be collected routinely on 2-3-4-5
• All groups should be captured by BTTT
• 1 might be studied by specific adoption research
• Sequencing of use/adoption
• Typology overtime (who uses and when?)
• Innovation diversity: how are farmers who are just testing over time defined? e.g. when the process of developing the technology takes > 5)
• Research trials vs. demonstration ==> how do we treat them?

Practical steps to take on the definitions

1. Review our institutional definition of 'terms'
2. Get a team of 3 socio-economists to define the terms
3. Develop a model showing the relationships between the terms
4. Circulate for inputs from wider Africa RISING community
5. Use donor definition as a good starting point
6. Strategically choose definitions to capture benefits of this program
7. Synthesis proceedings of discussion and seek inputs CoP! (ensure economists are supported by AR are engaged).
8. Raise CoP discussions with other impact economists
9. Facilitate CoP meeting on this topic (CoP + external experts) draft structure for the paper
10. Conceptual work on application of general concepts to SI: typology / complexity of technologies

How to implement this and who can help us with it? How to implement it:

• "Reach" is part of standard M&E
• Quality/intensity of reach is dependent on methods used
• We monitor reach, use
• Sustainability not considered
• Methods 'reach': counting
• Methods 'use': BTTT, outcome surveys with proper controls
• Panel studies, we decide the questionnaires
• IP's
• National statistics from local surveys
• FtF indicators
• E must go on, who adopts, why not

Who can help:

• Development partners if right methods are used
• It's not easy to do
• Big development partners have experience
• Novel tools are available (geo-spacing tools) we need to get and use them (supra household, landscape level)
• IFPRI is instrumental
• Private sector

Day 2

Coming back together and recap

Some of the things that are working well/seem well set for success in Africa RISING:

• Some of the phase II elements (that are different from phase I) are in place in certain areas.
• The partnership work is going on quite well, there are a number of seemingly healthy/functional development partnerships.
• The program seems to be 'gelling' as a whole program, it seems it's no longer just a collection of regional projects.

Some of the elements in the room:

• Make sure that we have publications describing the innovations to scale etc. from phase 1 - more publications accessible for all
• How to make the CoPs more functional and engaging actively?
• Our 'science of delivery' is still very unclear, foggy and we can't yet rely on CoPs as they are babies.
• Is Africa RISING really integrating the potential external shock of the political climate in certain governments (eg. USA), in the countries where we work etc.?

M&E

• Q: How is the monitoring of monitoring tools done?
• A: There isn't, as such, monitoring of the monitoring tools but with the extended guide summarising tools we hope to assess how the tools are being used and can be improved
• Q: How do you integrate different monitoring data to learn lessons?
• A: It is impossible to have one repository for everything (e.g. FtF indicators are very different from the data reported through AgTrials) so we need to use different data collection methods. In any case, the data is uploaded onto DataVerse with a password, for sharing. Using these tools requires training, which has been organised in the regions
• Q: Do you use your theory of change (ToC) to hint at impact? There are lots of assumptions linked to M&E which emphasize the use of data
• A: There was no ToC in phase I. In phase II we want to focus more on monitoring.
• Q: How to capture exposure vs. direct beneficiaries when it's a contradiction in the design?
• A: We collaborate with Haroon and import the Nafaka project data. So we use two different tools to capture: a) exposure to events (without capturing the identity of respondents) and b) other data related to the BTTT. Exposure is about the people that are in touch with Africa RISING but it's different from scaling. BTTT is only for actors/beneficiaries. AgTrials will capture agronomic data.
• Q: How accurate is the data? How takes the records of attendance at field days?
• A: We have research assistants who record before, during and after and we (chief scientists) verify that information. We also have lead farmers and extension agents so we have different means to ensure it works. We need to use the forms that IFPRI put together.
• Q: The data from the surveys was shared extensively. What was exciting about it?
• A: The custom slicing and dicing and the fact that we'll be using that information for papers

Coming back together

CoPs

• Each PCT member should also be part of the CoP - It was an oversight
• There is a different list of CoPs so have you changed it? --> we could merge scaling and private sector engagement. We also think that socio economic CoP may not work so that could serve all other CoPs. We propose an additional one on landscape management to represent crop.

This was agreed in the PCT. There's no good potential in leadership or critical mass of membership. So we invite watershed/landscape management and virtual farming also.

• Enough capacity for socio economics work across? --> we have some but we'll have to ensure they participate in those
• I'm still wondering about the name 'CoP' - we are addressing sthg else here. And I'm amazed that this is dropped because it's important...

See presentation by the CoP champions: File:Community of Practice Champions Meeting.pptx

PCT

• In phase II we're moving away from a pure research project to a hybrid development project and so we'll strengthen our efforts to engage more with scaling partners.
• Publication guidelines: you are looking at the process and quality control including internal review process? --> Yes.
• Re: the SAG, did you discuss more about what you expect from the SAG --> No
• SI Innovation lab and timing of when that would be available? --> we don't have much contact with the SIIL. The framework is available for a while but it's not finalised. There is a manual coming up, there will be an online platform etc. for the end of the year. What USAID expects is that all funded projects adopt that sooner or later.
• There are 5 domains in this and there are also some methods associated etc. the methods (what to use etc.) are proposed.

Who will implement this? --> the AR partners etc. Each and every researcher will have to collect this data. It's already happening.

• What we'll do differently from phase I: the way we go about preparing our work plans hasn't changed much and we need to look critically at hypotheses etc. and a better part of this new phase should be about scaling etc. So where is the balance? --> in our logframe we have sthg on scaling etc. <-- but the engagement budget is about 15-20%.

SAG

• Jim appointed as chair
• We like the Africa RISING project and think it's a good project. We hope you see us as a useful mechanism, not a platform...
• ToR: generally ok but may need some internal review
• Priorities:

moving from phase I to II Harmonization Scaling Lessons learning >

• Moving from phase I to phase II:
• Technologies validated and tested (?) Typologies, gender
• Synthesis of key lessons
• Use the theory of change for mapping projects/activities of Phase II + indicators (how quickly will they be available). We hope the logframe feeds into the ToC, even from an individual project level.
• Interlinked areas of scaling / communication / capacity building

Scaling: clear guidelines for extension Communication: at farmer level + development partners + different extension tools Capacity building: at all levels

• Partnerships: government, NGO, private sector + (secondary) farmer organisations (e.g. NASFAM in Malawi)?
• Platforms: village, district, zone, region, national - probably some interesting learning across regions etc.

Monitoring on the performance of the platforms? Learning? How sustainable are they? Have task teams? M&E: process monitoring community, landscape Research management: chief scientist --> SAG (harmonisation). Who does the SAG interact with now? Deal directly with chief scientists etc.?

• CoP:

Socio economics: Jim/Nancy Nutrition: Eva/Brigitte Private sector: Moses/Eva Livestock: Brigitte/Colletah Scaling: Nancy/Jim Virtual farming: No expertise to offer there (not discussed at SAG meeting) Landscape: Moses/

• SAG involvement:

Learning events Skype discussions: immediate. 6 months +/- Work plans (?) Offer support on this

• Scaling: engagement guidelines with extension: In some cases we don't have the capacity to do some of that. Some of our development partners have clear guidelines on this. E.g. we use the Nafaka guidelines and have adapted them... We shouldn't consider that we have to do it all ourselves. --> Sure, but get permission to share it with others in other regions... Ok. And technical guidelines and capacity development needs to come from research.
• We mentioned backstopping research as one of our approaches for Phase II and the backstopping to scaling partners is information that should come back to us and feed our research to improve our technologies...
• On farming organisations, we were explicitly asked not work with NASFAM...
• On platforms, AR has to stop somewhere --> we just mentioned that the platforms should interact at various levels. There are many opportunities for learning. Some projects have platforms in 4/5 countries.
• There are so many platforms that the choice to attend is not a problem but the people are struggling to find their time...

Critical thoughts: we need to speed up and add a lot of clarity

Final words

Thank you for coming here from Latin America, from the US etc. it's a big effort for you and you came here and we really see that you are interested in advising us in doing our job better so we are very grateful and we are keen on getting your support. We look forward to that support. I would also like to thank the CoP champions who came here with an update knowing that it would be critical because not much has happened. I was very surprised to hear there's very little enthusiasm for scientists to be involved etc. There was, back in October, a lot of enthusiasm. So where has it gone? And also thank you for the chief scientists with your busy schedules. It was a unique opportunity to become familiar with the SAG and vice-versa etc. You are science advisors and chief scientists are guiding the science. Jim you mentioned that you're not yet fully clear who is your contact point. We said in the morning that you report to the PCT and your point of contact is the chair of the PCT. I speak for myself but there's no objection to interact directly with chief scientists etc. but I'll bring this up to the rest of the PCT and we need to formally tell the PCT that on top of the SAG chair there's no such objection. There are a few other things that we'll tackle at the PCT to see if we agree and can implement your recommendations. That's one of the next steps. Our next official PCT Meeting is in September will be a critical one to review the evolution of CoPs and publication guidelines etc. and we have internally discussed whether to keep calling them CoPs. We didn't want them to be so formal and rigid but we expect important outputs etc. and if it doesn't work on a voluntary basis we may need to change it. Nothing works if it's imposed. I wanted to look at our expected outcomes from the meeting and whether we achieved them.

Everyone understands the program etc. - we know you won't be able to understand it all etc. and we haven't synthesised the phase I to make it understandable etc. internally we understand very well but not externally in the right way. It's too much in one meeting to understand fully what happened. We haven't fully achieved. On Phase I vs. Phase II, I think you have a better idea and you know how different we are. The rationale of the CoPs and the M&E architecture became relatively clear. We had a good discussion on reach, use, adoption etc. and Haroon and team have a good program ahead. Objectives of the parallel meetings have been met. We have also seen that the SAG members are adequately supporting CoPs.

I'm very happy that you found this meeting useful and well organised, that we brought the CoPs here to ask for more help etc. That's all I can say. The spirit is always there in Africa RISING with enthusiasm. When we go back home, it's more difficult but we'll get there.

Thank you very much for coming and for your contributions etc. Follow our minutes and events calendar and you'll be included on Doodle for the learning event. We rotate to another program country.

Have safe travels etc.

Preparing for this meeting

• Africa RISING: Getting SAG members acquainted with the program so they are clear about:

What Africa RISING is (what kind of program etc.) high level technical overview [IHZ/PT] The relation between SAG, PCT, chief scientists - institutional arrangements etc. [IHZ/PT] The main recommendations from external evaluators for phase 2 [IHZ/PT] (Homework: read umbrella and regional proposals, M&E plan)...

• Phase II so far... Getting SAG members to understand:

The clear differences and choices made between phase I and II that went into the umbrella/regional proposal documents [BvL] * R4D / RinD * CoPs and regional harmonization * etc. table on the differences (data management, research focus, capacity building) What has happened in the first nine months of phase II in each region and at program level so far [BvL + chief scientists]

• CoPs:

Getting SAG members to understand the rationale behind these CoPs [Bv] and what each of them has done so far and who their members are [CoP champions to prepare this] Getting each SAG member to affiliate with one of the CoPs

• Engagement with scaling partners:

Getting SAG members to be updated on current plans and progress with activities with regards to (scaling) partnership management [Chief scientists]

• Reach, use, adoption etc. (1 hour)

Having all reviewed and given feedback on tentative definitions for these unclear terms - based on current working definitions provided by Scaling CoP, giving examples from Haroon's project [Haroon / Scaling CoP] Having a collective clear plan for how to add more clarity on these topics and engage people with it

• M&E:

Making sure that SAG members understand the key messages about the M&E architecture + what kind of surveys and analysis are planned [CA/BHaile]

Conversation with IHZ/CA:

• Need to appoint SAG chair before (otherwise PCT should do it for year 1) - IHZ to contact Bernard
• R4D/RinD in action - anything else we need to discuss about this or is this sufficiently addressed here?
• Reach / use pushed after 'regional harmonization' in the agenda
• Invite CoP champions to share ideas about agenda - as stressed by Bernard at PCT meeting
• Possible leads on reach/use etc. conversation: JG / BvL - in line with decision rule
• Check what to do with Jeroen, Lulseged and Augustine for presentation - or Tunde (or Ben now)
• ELB to prepare some ideas about having a clearer and possibly sounder decision-making process for the PCT and specifically for the conversation on the reach/use etc. (otherwise risk that it goes well overtime)...

- Reviewing the first nine months of phase II - Identifying the differences between phase I and II that went into the proposal documents - Discussing specific issues such as e.g. engagement with scaling partners; R4D/RinD in action; mainstreaming CoPs as R moves to D; capacity development; regional harmonization; M&E etc.