Difference between revisions of "ESApreplan2019"

From africa-rising-wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "__NOTOC__ =='''Africa RISING East and Southern Africa Project Pre-Planning Meeting <br /> 10 - 11 September 2019 <br />Arusha, Tanzania'''== '''Participants''' #Mateete Beku...")
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
#Eveline Massam, IITA
 
#Eveline Massam, IITA
  
'''Introduction'''<br/>
+
 
 +
----
 +
'''Introduction'''
 +
----
 
This report includes highlights of the two pre-planning meetings held at Arusha, Tanzania July 2019. The meeting brought together project team from Eastern and Southern Africa to discuss and agreed on the presentation templates for the project review and planning meeting in September 10-11. Also engaged project stakeholders to discuss and agree on series of activities and timelines for producing presentation formats and implementing other identified custom products.<br/>  
 
This report includes highlights of the two pre-planning meetings held at Arusha, Tanzania July 2019. The meeting brought together project team from Eastern and Southern Africa to discuss and agreed on the presentation templates for the project review and planning meeting in September 10-11. Also engaged project stakeholders to discuss and agree on series of activities and timelines for producing presentation formats and implementing other identified custom products.<br/>  
  
'''Review and response to suggestions from SIAF workshop (Ghana 29-02 Nov.2019) and Learning Event Malawi (5-8 Feb 2019)'''<br/>
+
----
 +
'''Review and response to suggestions from SIAF workshop (Ghana 29-02 Nov.2019) and Learning Event Malawi (5-8 Feb 2019)'''
 +
----
 
''Lessons learned from the SIAF Workshops in Malawi and Ghana''<br/>
 
''Lessons learned from the SIAF Workshops in Malawi and Ghana''<br/>
Presentations by Job Kihara/CIAT<br/>
+
::'''Presentation by Job Kihara/CIAT'''<br/>
Job Kihara explained among of the keys things he learnt were mainly on the intensification and mapping of the innovation, social integration and support to capture different path through social work for-example focus group discussions and discussion with individual farmers. Which according to him, it was the biggest lessons he learned from Lujumbula, Ghana.  He also shared an example presented on the water management data which for him it was important perspectives. He explained with such kind of information’s they could be able to assess farmers’ perspectives on production, economics and social domains.
+
:::Job Kihara explained among of the keys things he learnt were mainly on the intensification and mapping of the innovation, social integration and support to capture different path through social work for-example focus group discussions and discussion with individual farmers. Which according to him, it was the biggest lessons he learned from Lujumbula, Ghana.  He also shared an example presented on the water management data which for him it was important perspectives. He explained with such kind of information’s they could be able to assess farmers’ perspectives on production, economics and social domains.
 +
::::Discussions
 +
:::::'''Question:'''The question of engaging farmers to practice the technology. The duration of time enough for farmer to interact with the technology, and the leaving part, is it the farmer being at the side or giving the knowledge and let the farmers implement the technology according to how she or he understands. How it is being handled.
 +
:::::'''Response:'''Sharing her experience from Ghana where the project works with Nurudini (a farmer) on Maize technologies, Bendula explained the leaving period for farmers to implement the technologies were two seasons. “For the two season farmers are still experimenting the technologies with the input provided, where the third season the input (s) are not provided. Moreover, she noted assessing sustainability of technologies to farmers is difficult if farmers are provided with inputs. 
 +
::'''Presentation by Ben Lukuyu/ILRI'''<br/>
 +
:::Ben Lukuyu from ILRI shared his observations from the experiences from Ghana SIAF workshop, according to him, there is a need and an opportunity to work further on data for human and environment domain because there are still rarely gaps on data for human domain and environment as compares to productivity, profitability and social domain. Moreover, he expressed the significance of integrating data on nutrition for poultry in the system. <br/>Ben also presented his observations on data quality, where according to him lots of data collected were disintegrated; he recommends consistency in reporting pointing out it could be possible if the project team ensures they do work closely together.<br/>Another lesson learnt was on social domain; according to him, for the system to be effective there should be a system that allows farmers to interact and evaluate the technologies, and support toward rating the feedback and respond accordingly.<br/>
 +
 
 +
'''Insights and perspectives of sustainable intensification: The case for West Africa'''<br/>
 +
::'''Presentation by Fred Kizito CIAT/IITA'''
 +
:::He gave perspectives about how SIAF is operating and scales on data assessment and helpful resources allocating.
 +
He learnt the miss interpretation and confusions about the domain. He explained  circumstances shows there are confusions between domain, metrics and indicators.<br/>
 +
“It is important for the team to tell on which scale are the measurement done. Identify the scale of which they are operating”.<br/>
 +
According to him there should be comparison where they introduced control value in Kiteto and Kongwa, which would allow researchers to look at the domain and see how those communities can be compared. The framework will allow flexibility to researchers at the extent when they could explain what they were implementing. Where he noted time, space, performance indicators and scales were important to consider”.<br/>
 +
He explained it was important to discuss and look for answers of the sustainability of the land scales, farm and landscape scales. The questions on how scientist can achieve sustainable intensification at the farm and landscape scales, how can we ensure different policies complement each other at different scales?<br/>
 +
Another question focused on incentives design  that recognize small scale farmers as able stewards of the land resources? Can we operationalize the SIAF under field conditions, if yes, what critical aspects should we consider?<br/>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
----
 +
Missing information
 +
----
 +
 
 +
::'''Understanding SIAF: Where are we at, and heading? Presentation by Lieven Classens, IITA'''<br/>
 +
:::His presentation included a poster that he presented at the learning event to have the same information. The poster summarized the current experiences, with SIAF and ESA, recommendations and observations. He presented brief the SI tool kit.<br/>The Kongwa Kiteto (TZ) example - an attempt at multi-discipline, multi-indicator presentation (farm system performance) the team discussed and had feedback about the SIAF, and some progress made so far:
 +
::*Influence and system diagrams developed
 +
::*Data available for productivity and economic domains
 +
::*Data largely lacking for other domains
 +
::*Communication and sharing data among scientists should be improved
 +
::*Need for ‘stocktaking’ and ‘legacy’ workshops and training on data collection and indicator assessment
 +
::*Need stock taking of the legacy data to fill the gaps and see where the gaps are in terms of future works
 +
 
 +
::'''The Babati (TZ) example - Comparing technologies within one discipline – single indicator per domain'''
 +
::*Maize-pigeon pea, 5 ISFM treatments
 +
::*Environmental domain is missing
 +
::*Indicator selection (feasible vs useful) and weighting
 +
::*'Win-wins’, no tradeoffs
 +
 
 +
::'''Experience from Malawi'''
 +
::*It is an example where the team would bare the technologies within multiple domains. And they use multiple discipline and multiple indicators for domain
 +
::*Data analysis based on combination of the trail and survey data but also some group simulation data (he data that create the spider diagram).
 +
:::'''Observations'''
 +
::*Most of sites do not have the data yet to meet the needs of the SIAF. It was proposed data generation should be substituted in the work plan.
 +
::*Discipline approach dominate
 +
::'''Reflection of the SI toolkit-steps'''
 +
:::SI toolkits involves four steps; engaging stakeholder, indicators that are important to stakeholders, and identifying critical tradeoff and synergies, and selecting metrics.<br/>Observations were on the first and fourth steps of the SI toolkit. According to L. Classesn, the first step of the toolkit, which is engaging stakeholders is not done properly in many cases, while for the fourth steps of selecting metrics it was noted that there are difficulties to indicate the metrics in many cases.
 +
:::'''Comments'''
 +
::*Share and reflect output with stakeholders; for-example the tool website (www.sitoolkit.com). Wide dissemination and sharing of output can lead to re-identify sort of indicators.
 +
::*A lot of indicators are focuses on crop production, and there is a lot of livestock data are missing for example livestock productivity which talks much about yield.
 +
::*There is a need to revise the indicators to bring in some of the key livestock aspect, Ben agreed to share some of the missing -livestock indicators with metrics.
 +
:::'''Questions'''
 +
Engaging farmers perspectives, guidance on how to integrate the tool with the farmers perspective on yield changes and the measurable perspectives on the new changes on indigenous technology.
 +
:::'''Response'''
 +
::*Bendula responded there were some work done on the social sciences, she gave an example of forage chopper, where scientific data are available and both perspectives are considered; farmers and scientific perspective.
 +
::*In addition, Fred explained that sometimes farmers perspectives give perspective on why data behave the way it is.
 +
:::'''Recommendations'''
 +
::::If it could be possible Gundula should work through the team like the way they did for West Africa  so as the team could concretize on the two domains (social and human) which are considered as the domains hammering most of scientists, unless they see and hear from the expertise to help them to express the two domains. <be/>According to Gundula, there is a research study so far that she is working on  and recently she and Swai are preparing research at Kongwa Kiteto about the natural resource management in the end of July. The whole framework of the research is available and includes different domains and different questions that the team could rise. She then had invite the team to engaging in the study by providing their feedback and encourages the team who were in Dodoma, to pick an example of the experiences they had for Fanya juu technology in Dodoma, and see if they could do the same for the tied ridges work through different questions that they could pause including the question on productivity etc.
 +
 
 +
:::'''Questions on presentation of qualitative data in spider diagram raised by Swai''' (TARI).
 +
::::The observations were on social domain the nature of data is mainly qualitative and suggests that there is a lot of qualitative information’s however, SIAF is very quantitative and researchers shall investigate the way they would present and include qualitative information For-example not to force to put in metrics where there is no metrics. For example, where the narrative information is needed then there shall be represented.
 +
 
 +
----
 +
Discuss and agree on presentations templates for the review and planning meeting schedules for September 10-11 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
 +
----
 +
The project team selected theme for presentations accordingly. This exercise involved randomly selections of the project team where three groups were formed, and each group appointed their champions (representative) whom shall present during the planning meeting and ensure all assigned tasks by group members completes on time. The below table 1. Below shows the selected theme and the champions.

Revision as of 03:23, 16 August 2019

Africa RISING East and Southern Africa Project Pre-Planning Meeting
10 - 11 September 2019
Arusha, Tanzania

Participants

  1. Mateete Bekunda, IITA
  2. Ben Lukuyu, ILRI
  3. Yasinta Muzanila, SUA
  4. Elirehema Y.Swai, TARI-Hombolo
  5. Francis Muthoni, IITA
  6. Ancient Sambala, IITA
  7. Julius Manga, IITA
  8. Lieven Claessens, IITA
  9. Fred Kizito, IITA
  10. Bundula Fischer, IITA
  11. James Mwololo, ICRISAT
  12. Leonard Marwa, ILRI
  13. Mawazo J. Shitindi, SUA
  14. Christopher Mutungi, IITA
  15. Job Kihara, CIAT
  16. Chrispinus D. Rubanza, UDOM
  17. Anthony A.Kimaro, ICRAF
  18. Justus, IITA
  19. Jean-Mare, IITA
  20. Bright Jumbo, CIMMITY
  21. Eveline Massam, IITA



Introduction


This report includes highlights of the two pre-planning meetings held at Arusha, Tanzania July 2019. The meeting brought together project team from Eastern and Southern Africa to discuss and agreed on the presentation templates for the project review and planning meeting in September 10-11. Also engaged project stakeholders to discuss and agree on series of activities and timelines for producing presentation formats and implementing other identified custom products.


Review and response to suggestions from SIAF workshop (Ghana 29-02 Nov.2019) and Learning Event Malawi (5-8 Feb 2019)


Lessons learned from the SIAF Workshops in Malawi and Ghana

Presentation by Job Kihara/CIAT
Job Kihara explained among of the keys things he learnt were mainly on the intensification and mapping of the innovation, social integration and support to capture different path through social work for-example focus group discussions and discussion with individual farmers. Which according to him, it was the biggest lessons he learned from Lujumbula, Ghana. He also shared an example presented on the water management data which for him it was important perspectives. He explained with such kind of information’s they could be able to assess farmers’ perspectives on production, economics and social domains.
Discussions
Question:The question of engaging farmers to practice the technology. The duration of time enough for farmer to interact with the technology, and the leaving part, is it the farmer being at the side or giving the knowledge and let the farmers implement the technology according to how she or he understands. How it is being handled.
Response:Sharing her experience from Ghana where the project works with Nurudini (a farmer) on Maize technologies, Bendula explained the leaving period for farmers to implement the technologies were two seasons. “For the two season farmers are still experimenting the technologies with the input provided, where the third season the input (s) are not provided. Moreover, she noted assessing sustainability of technologies to farmers is difficult if farmers are provided with inputs.
Presentation by Ben Lukuyu/ILRI
Ben Lukuyu from ILRI shared his observations from the experiences from Ghana SIAF workshop, according to him, there is a need and an opportunity to work further on data for human and environment domain because there are still rarely gaps on data for human domain and environment as compares to productivity, profitability and social domain. Moreover, he expressed the significance of integrating data on nutrition for poultry in the system.
Ben also presented his observations on data quality, where according to him lots of data collected were disintegrated; he recommends consistency in reporting pointing out it could be possible if the project team ensures they do work closely together.
Another lesson learnt was on social domain; according to him, for the system to be effective there should be a system that allows farmers to interact and evaluate the technologies, and support toward rating the feedback and respond accordingly.

Insights and perspectives of sustainable intensification: The case for West Africa

Presentation by Fred Kizito CIAT/IITA
He gave perspectives about how SIAF is operating and scales on data assessment and helpful resources allocating.

He learnt the miss interpretation and confusions about the domain. He explained circumstances shows there are confusions between domain, metrics and indicators.
“It is important for the team to tell on which scale are the measurement done. Identify the scale of which they are operating”.
According to him there should be comparison where they introduced control value in Kiteto and Kongwa, which would allow researchers to look at the domain and see how those communities can be compared. The framework will allow flexibility to researchers at the extent when they could explain what they were implementing. Where he noted time, space, performance indicators and scales were important to consider”.
He explained it was important to discuss and look for answers of the sustainability of the land scales, farm and landscape scales. The questions on how scientist can achieve sustainable intensification at the farm and landscape scales, how can we ensure different policies complement each other at different scales?
Another question focused on incentives design that recognize small scale farmers as able stewards of the land resources? Can we operationalize the SIAF under field conditions, if yes, what critical aspects should we consider?



Missing information


Understanding SIAF: Where are we at, and heading? Presentation by Lieven Classens, IITA
His presentation included a poster that he presented at the learning event to have the same information. The poster summarized the current experiences, with SIAF and ESA, recommendations and observations. He presented brief the SI tool kit.
The Kongwa Kiteto (TZ) example - an attempt at multi-discipline, multi-indicator presentation (farm system performance) the team discussed and had feedback about the SIAF, and some progress made so far:
  • Influence and system diagrams developed
  • Data available for productivity and economic domains
  • Data largely lacking for other domains
  • Communication and sharing data among scientists should be improved
  • Need for ‘stocktaking’ and ‘legacy’ workshops and training on data collection and indicator assessment
  • Need stock taking of the legacy data to fill the gaps and see where the gaps are in terms of future works
The Babati (TZ) example - Comparing technologies within one discipline – single indicator per domain
  • Maize-pigeon pea, 5 ISFM treatments
  • Environmental domain is missing
  • Indicator selection (feasible vs useful) and weighting
  • 'Win-wins’, no tradeoffs
Experience from Malawi
  • It is an example where the team would bare the technologies within multiple domains. And they use multiple discipline and multiple indicators for domain
  • Data analysis based on combination of the trail and survey data but also some group simulation data (he data that create the spider diagram).
Observations
  • Most of sites do not have the data yet to meet the needs of the SIAF. It was proposed data generation should be substituted in the work plan.
  • Discipline approach dominate
Reflection of the SI toolkit-steps
SI toolkits involves four steps; engaging stakeholder, indicators that are important to stakeholders, and identifying critical tradeoff and synergies, and selecting metrics.
Observations were on the first and fourth steps of the SI toolkit. According to L. Classesn, the first step of the toolkit, which is engaging stakeholders is not done properly in many cases, while for the fourth steps of selecting metrics it was noted that there are difficulties to indicate the metrics in many cases.
Comments
  • Share and reflect output with stakeholders; for-example the tool website (www.sitoolkit.com). Wide dissemination and sharing of output can lead to re-identify sort of indicators.
  • A lot of indicators are focuses on crop production, and there is a lot of livestock data are missing for example livestock productivity which talks much about yield.
  • There is a need to revise the indicators to bring in some of the key livestock aspect, Ben agreed to share some of the missing -livestock indicators with metrics.
Questions

Engaging farmers perspectives, guidance on how to integrate the tool with the farmers perspective on yield changes and the measurable perspectives on the new changes on indigenous technology.

Response
  • Bendula responded there were some work done on the social sciences, she gave an example of forage chopper, where scientific data are available and both perspectives are considered; farmers and scientific perspective.
  • In addition, Fred explained that sometimes farmers perspectives give perspective on why data behave the way it is.
Recommendations
If it could be possible Gundula should work through the team like the way they did for West Africa so as the team could concretize on the two domains (social and human) which are considered as the domains hammering most of scientists, unless they see and hear from the expertise to help them to express the two domains. <be/>According to Gundula, there is a research study so far that she is working on and recently she and Swai are preparing research at Kongwa Kiteto about the natural resource management in the end of July. The whole framework of the research is available and includes different domains and different questions that the team could rise. She then had invite the team to engaging in the study by providing their feedback and encourages the team who were in Dodoma, to pick an example of the experiences they had for Fanya juu technology in Dodoma, and see if they could do the same for the tied ridges work through different questions that they could pause including the question on productivity etc.
Questions on presentation of qualitative data in spider diagram raised by Swai (TARI).
The observations were on social domain the nature of data is mainly qualitative and suggests that there is a lot of qualitative information’s however, SIAF is very quantitative and researchers shall investigate the way they would present and include qualitative information For-example not to force to put in metrics where there is no metrics. For example, where the narrative information is needed then there shall be represented.

Discuss and agree on presentations templates for the review and planning meeting schedules for September 10-11 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania


The project team selected theme for presentations accordingly. This exercise involved randomly selections of the project team where three groups were formed, and each group appointed their champions (representative) whom shall present during the planning meeting and ensure all assigned tasks by group members completes on time. The below table 1. Below shows the selected theme and the champions.