ESA Review&Planning meeting/September 2021

From africa-rising-wiki
Revision as of 11:12, 13 October 2021 by EveMassam (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Africa RISING ESA Project Partners Meeting
3 June 2021
Virtual via Ms TEAMS

Participants

  1. A. Kimaro, ICRAF
  2. B. Zemadim, ICRISAT
  3. C. Azzarri, IFPRI
  4. C. Thierfelder, CIMMYT
  5. D. Mgalla, IITA
  6. E. Swai, TARI-Hombolo
  7. F. Kizito, IITA
  8. F. Muthoni, IITA
  9. G. Fischer, IITA
  10. I. Dominick, WorldVeg
  11. I. Hoeschle-Zeledon, IITA
  12. J. Groot, WUR
  13. J. Kihara, Bioversity-CIAT
  14. J. Manda, IITA
  15. J. Odhong, IITA
  16. L. Claessens, IITA
  17. M. Bekunda, IITA
  18. M. Mutenje, IITA (consultant)
  19. P. Okori, ICRISAT
  20. R. Chikowo, MSU
  21. E. Temu ( ICRAF)
  22. J. Kihara, Bioversity-CIAT
  23. J. Manda, IITA
  24. E. Massam, IITA
  25. Y. Muzanila (SUA)
  26. M. Shtindi, (SUA)
  27. M. Mutenje, IITA (consultant)
  28. M. Mulundu
  29. R. Chikowo, MSU
  30. J. Mwololo, ICRISAT-ZW)
  31. w. Gichohi (ICRISAT-Malawi)
  32. B. Jumbo, (ICRASAT-ZW)
  33. C. Azzari (IFPRI)
  34. D. Songinge (Wolrdveg)
  35. R. Wanyama, (Worldveg)
  36. R. Chirwa, (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT)
  37. M. Wezzi
  38. M. Agnes,LUANAR
  39. B. Beliyou, IFPRI
  40. S. Snapp ( External)
  41. P. Okori,(ICRISAT-Malawi)
  42. C. Mankhwala,(Alliance Bioversity-CIAT)
  43. I. Hoeschle-Zeledon, IITA
  44. M. Cavicchioli (IITA)
  45. K. Mekonnen (ILRI)
  46. I. Hoeschle-Zeledon, IITA
  47. M. Cavicchioli (IITA)
  48. K. Mekonnen (ILRI)
  49. J. Okonya



OBJECTIVES

  1. Review progress, activities, and results for 2020/21 season.
  2. Plan for implementation of activities in 2021/22 season.
  3. Share updates with partners about project implementation and future direction


AGENDA
https://africa-rising-wiki.net/ARESA2021

  1. Review progress, activities, and results for 2020/21 season.
  • Project implementation updates & developments - M. Bekunda


Discussion

  • Juliana. Mateete, How have you used the Africa Rising Project to inform policy?
  • Mateete. We have been working and engaged together with the local district. Also, the material we are producing for scaling is part of documents that inform policy at the local level.By this year our plans are to developing materials to inform policy.

|

  • Review [progress with implementation of ESA workplan sub-activities]
Outcome 1. Productivity, diversity, and income of crop‒livestock systems in selected agroecologies enhanced under climate variability
Output 1.1 Demand-driven, climate-smart, integrated crop‒livestock research products (contextualized technologies) for improved productivity, diversified diets, and higher income piloted for specific typologies in target agroecologies
Activity 1.1.1: Assess and iteratively improve resilient crop-crop and crop-livestock integration systems

Discussion

  • Irmgard. Regis, have you been able to do monitoring visits to the field?
  • R.Regis. The big problem is we are not allowed to assemble farmers due to Covid. Though things are changing, the primary field works, the trials; case study survey; characterization, harvesting, and social economics mode are implemented.
  • Irmgard. Which are the most SI technologies experienced by farmers?
  • Regis. We emphasized more on the doubled-up and systematic rotation and so on. However, off the light, we were looking at a simple work that Wezi in LUANAR aiming at closing the yield gaps of legumes through the appropriate density. Also, part of the survey and model two of cases of studies documented the whole farmer analysis evidence farmers who are performing the double-up experiences density experiences better yield. This work has been adding up to our work Intensification approach. On the other side, we are interested in improving climate-smart and made it a point other than nutrient management, suitable germplasm, and others. The tied ridges are one of the water conservation which can improve the efficiency on the farms. At the moment, we are looking at the data we obtained from the survey to understand the proposition of farmers.

---

Discussion

  • Mateete.Kimaro. Please provide an update on FtF and Dataverse uploads
  • Kimaro. All indicators were submitted besides field activities completed in the last year 2020. However, the update focus on the information on the work done this year 2021. And there are followups with the M& E personnel
  • Comment. Mateete. All members should note publication is part of the TFT indicators. You were supposed to have for the FtF.
  • Christian. Implementing the gliricidia scheme, some argue for the virtual, more distant shading on planting -and urges is much easier adopted. What are your experiences with the planting patterns Kimaro.
  • . Kimaro. At the moment, proportionally more farmers intercrop than those who took Gliriciad as part of either component of SWC mainly contours because the countors establishment is easy to intercrop, so it's a matter of exposure. The Gliriciadia came later after the contour had been established.
  • Christian. Okay, have you asked farmers what they are there preferences?
  • . Kimaro. That will come out of the data that the M& E personnel are working on.

---

Discussion

  • Juliana. Dr. Shitindi, are there any significant misconceptions among farmers regarding weather variability & its impacts on maize and legumes? What are they?
  • R. Shitindi: Yes, there are some misconceptions, e.g., 1. Failure to differentiate weather from climate hence treating current season weather conditions as a long-term average of two. Inability to distinguish the impacts associated with wither variability from social economics such as underutilization of improved inputs 3. The application of weather data in planning crop calendars as coping strategies is also not well understood by most farmers.
  • Juliana.Thank you, Dr. Shitindi, for the response
  • Irmgard. Important point by Shitindi
Activity 1.1.2: Evaluate and implement pathways that are effective at improving access to seeds and clonal materials of modern varieties of legumes, cereals, vegetables, forages, and livestock
Output 1.2 Demand-driven, labor-saving, and gender-sensitive research products to reduce drudgery while increasing labor efficiency in the production cycle piloted for relevant typologies in target areas
Activity 1.2.1: Support local partners through training on appropriate drudgery-reducing technology delivery. No sub-activity was planned for 2019-2020.


Discussion Q. Daniel: Swai you have shown FTF data sharing for 2021 as completed. Are you referring to 2020? i think for 2021 is research rack up data that you have shared already. Swai: Yes, the FTF data I am referring to is for 2020.


Output 1.3. Tools (including ICT-based) and approaches for disseminating recommendations in relation to above research products, integrated in capacity development
Activity 1.3.1:Conduct extrapolation domain analysis based on GIS, agroecology, and crop model-generated information to establish the potential of technologies for geographical reach


Discussion

  • Christian. Francis, you finally submitted the first manuscript. How far are we with the second Geo-hub manuscript that we have been working with you?
  • Francis. The current manuscript is under finalizing the Analysis, and the people on the Geo hub are yet to complete the write-up on the methodologies, etc. We can have discussions. Also, there will be followup meetings too.
  • Comment. Mateete. Lieven, on sub-activity 1.3.1 you should not be putting anything because all the activities were done and completed
Outcome 2. Natural resource integrity and resilience to climate change enhanced for the target communities and agroecologies
Output 2.1. Demand-driven research products for enhancing soil, land, and water resource management to reduce household/community vulnerability and land degradation piloted in priority agroecologies
Activity 2.1.1: Characterize current practices in ESA through identifying formal and informal arrangements for access to and use of water and land resources
  • Sub-activity 2.1.1.1: Assessing buffer and adaptive capacity to harness resilience of different farm types]] - J.Groot
Output 2.2 Innovative options for soil, land and water management in selected farming systems demonstrated at strategically located learning sites
Activity 2.2.1: Set up demonstration and learning sites in target ESA communities

Discussion

  • Daniel. Regis. You have not shared a status on the FTF indicator, and research rackup data for 2021 as you did for the database. Kindly update!
  • Regis. Thank Daniel, please, note we will be working on completing the FTF



Discussion

  • Irmgard: Shitindi, why were you not able to acquire the sediment traps?
  • Shitindi: Delayed access to year one budget for sub-activity 2.1.1.5 and dropping off the work plan for 20219/20 made it impossible to manage the three sub-activities I was implementing


Outcome 3. Food and feed safety, nutritional quality, and income security of target smallholder families improved equitably (within households)
Output 3.1 Demand-driven research products to reduce postharvest losses and improve food quality and safety piloted in target areas
Activity 3.1.1: Conduct packaging and delivery of postharvest technologies through community and development partnerships with an iterative review, refining, and follow-up

Discussion

  • Mateete.Agnes, Where can one access the recept? Also, from your presentation, is there a missing report on the FtF database compliance.
  • Agnes. Mateete, we just completed data collection in July; the data is yet to be cleaned!. Due to Corona, last year, it was impossible to implement this task. About the recipes, we have three recipes we are working with in terms of Analysis, acceptance. That the data we have at the moment
  • Jonathan. Would you document these recipes and publish them?
  • Irmgard: How will the recipes publish?
  • Jonathan. Well, Imgard, there are two aspects; first, like a flyer/brochure. In terms of nutritional composition, acceptability, and the like, we might opt for the manuscript.

Comment. Irmgard. Agnes should consider documenting the recipes as the next activity.


Discussion

  • Irmgard.What was research presented about?
  • Chirwa. The research presented looked at the cropping systems for plot and then intercropping of the two bean varieties.
  • Irmgard.16 Kg g of the seed was distributed to the 283 farmers. Would you please clarify what was the area that a farm could plan with that input?
  • Chirwa. The 16 Kg of distributed seeds to farmers were used to plant in half an acre of land.
  • Mateete. You mentioned that the manuscript on quality maize is available and under review. Is this one manuscript or several?
Chirwa. Yes, Mateete. This is one draft manuscript in QPM, and there is the opportunity to daft another one
  • Mateete: If it is, the manuscript wasn't supposed to be submitted in October?
  • Chirwa: I can share the manuscript today with Mateete.
  • Irmgards: Chirwa, do you mean there have been no research activities in this current year since October 2020?
  • Chirwa.Yes, Irmgard, and this is because of transitions from CIMMTY to ICRISAT. I might get some activities this season
  • Irmgard. Okay, did complete value chain analysis for maize
  • Chirwa. Yes, I did complete the value chain analysis for maize.


























  • Sub-activity 1.1.1.1: Validation of drought-tolerant maize (DT) hybrids under on-farm conditions in central Tanzania- B.Jumbo
  • Sub-activity 1.1.1.2: Investigations on the medium to long term impacts of SI technologies on crop productivity at multi-locational fields. R. Chikowo
  • Sub-activity 1.1.1.3: Determining the productivity of groundnut as a function of seed generation × variety × density interactions in two contrasting agroecologies, and rotational benefits to maize.R. Chikowo

Discussion

  • Irmgard. Regis, have you been able to do monitoring visits to the field?
  • Regis. The big problem is we are not allowed to assemble farmers due to Covid. Though things are changing, the primary field works, the trials; case study survey; characterization, harvesting, and social economics mode are implemented.
  • Irmgard. Which are the most SI technologies experienced by farmers?
  • Regis. We emphasized more on the doubled-up and systematic rotation and so on. However, off the light, we were looking at a simple work that Wezi in LUANAR aiming at closing the yield gaps of legumes through the appropriate density. Also, part of the survey and model two of cases of studies documented the whole farmer analysis evidence farmers who are performing the double-up experiences density experiences better yield. This work has been adding up to our work Intensification approach. On the other side, we are interested in improving climate-smart and made it a point other than nutrient management, suitable germplasm, and others. The tied ridges are one of the water conservation which can improve the efficiency on the farms. At the moment, we are looking at the data we obtained from the survey to understand the proposition of farmers.

|

  • Sub-activity 1.1.1.4: Exploring productivity of goats under controlled breeding and feeding regimes among young breeding female goats in the crop‒livestock system in Malawi
  • Sub-activity 1.1.1.5: Determining the productivity and resilience benefits of Gliricidia-based cropping systems . A. Kimaro

Discussion

  • Irmgard. Thanks, Shitindi, but do you mean input or output market?
  • Shitindi. I mean output market, Irmgard.
  • Swai. To contribute to Shitindi, Antony & Job’s comments on the issue of adaption, adoption is complicated because some of the ISFM technologies, like tied ridges, require massive labor. Hence the rate of adaptation cannot be similar when we compare the nature of labor requirements. Technologies such as mechanization are labor-saving. Currently, there is another survey going on where Kongwa is a part of it. The Kongwa Kiteto team may note that the current level of intensification, maize and pigeon pea component is becoming common like Babati. If we refer to the adoption level of ISFM using pigeon pea in Kongwa Kiteto, we can note the variations. The soil water technology is labor-intensive on one side, and mechanization technology is imperative for many farmers to pick up the technology.
  • Carlo. Job, how can the differences in yields computed among AR farmers be attributed to the AR project and not other intervening/confounding factors?
  • Job. It is unclear if it applies in this case but will use in the survey we are conducting. We have tried to categorize our intervention farmers and farmers whom we did not have an intervention with (the control farmers), and we have records of the list of all our farmers and use the data to set the proportion of the farmers that we will interact with and farmers how are not part of us from the project site to show the difference between those who have interacted with the AR project vs. those who have not. On the other hand, we want to access the initial farmers with the project and identify farmers who had been/ not been considered to see if there will be attributions that can be done. We are doing this with Julius Manda
  • Shitindi. Job, from the presentation, most of the domains are presented by the number of the ISFM components adopted by the farmers, but labor requirements also increase with the number of components adopted. We may establish the label of combinations of these components that people can see the most rewarding in terms of labor investment?
  • Job. I will consider that as something that we can interact with the data set and see how we can enrich our publication with what you have contributed to us.


File:June 3 Seminar presentations Lieven 3June ESAPPT.pptx - Dr. Lieven Claesse (IITA)

  • Download presentation from link in the title above.

Discussion

  • Carlo. Lieven, why did you conduct the study using the LSMS data that expand across full of Tanzania and not TARBES data? while the information is essentially the same, beside, data were collected among farmers in AR districts with and w/out AR technologies!
  • Lieven. In general, it is ambitious, and it’s the assumption that we had to take. Since the big goal is upscaling, I thought it was a nice try to bring this to the national scaling with all the uncertain things, and there was an assumption we had to make. But I would be happy to exercise with the TARBES data. However, TARBES data is still limited to those two study areas (Babati & Kongwa Kiteto) right?. .
  • Mateete. Yes, Lieven. It is essential for AR project before you go wide nationally. So, if the TARBES data are used to do the second analysis, I think it would be interesting for the project. Because scaling out even within Babati, we work in fewer areas than the full descriptions or even in Kongwa Kiteto. So, the TARBES data would work out okay.
  • Carlo. Lieven, why is this study called ex-ante impact assessment? It looks like scenario modeling to me.
  • Lieven. I don’t know the entail difference Carlo, but we did scenarios regarding the realist yields. For the impact assessment, we refer to the actual adaption rates or predictive adoption rates.
  • Comment. Mateete. There is a need to put all the presentations together and stragetical plan on how we could produce a project legacy docuement from the PPT slides presented. It can be of interest, so there is a need to look at the presentations again and discuss further.
Retrieved from "https://africa-rising-wiki.net/index.php?title=ESA_Review%26Planning_meeting/September_2021&oldid=487600"