Difference between revisions of "Esarevplan2019"

From africa-rising-wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 93: Line 93:
 
<br/>
 
<br/>
 
[https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-bekunda |    '''Project implementation updates & developments'''] – B. Mateete <br/>
 
[https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-bekunda |    '''Project implementation updates & developments'''] – B. Mateete <br/>
'''''Comment:'''There is a challenge noted with the theory of change for phase II. It was assumed that development partners have the common vision with Africa RISING and therefore this would lead to a lot of mutually beneficial collaborations. However, this is not the case, considering the interactions with a majority of development partners so far. Some of them actually expect Africa RISING to provide them with funds for scaling.''<br/> <br/>
+
'''''Comment:'''There is a challenge noted with the theory of change for phase II. It was assumed that development partners have the common vision with Africa RISING and therefore this would lead to a lot of mutually beneficial collaborations. However, this is not the case, considering the interactions with a majority of development partners so far. Some of them actually expect Africa RISING to provide them with funds for scaling.''<br/>  
'''''Comment:''' The funding uncertainity situation affects the extent on what can be delivered, and it’s a part of challenges affecting project performance. It is important that this is noted as one of the major reasons for the inability of the team to deliver on all things that were promised in the proposals.''<br/> <br/>
+
:'''''Comment:''' The funding uncertainity situation affects the extent on what can be delivered, and it’s a part of challenges affecting project performance. It is important that this is noted as one of the major reasons for the inability of the team to deliver on all things that were promised in the proposals.''<br/> <br/>
 
'''''Question:''' how many chapters are still pending for the handbook to be complete?''<br/>
 
'''''Question:''' how many chapters are still pending for the handbook to be complete?''<br/>
'''''Response:''' The plan was to have ten chapters, but we have 1.5 that aren't complete.'' <br/><br/>
+
:'''''Response:''' The plan was to have ten chapters, but we have 1.5 that aren't complete.'' <br/><br/>
  
 
[https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-kihara |    '''ISFM - based systems (TZ)'''] – J. Kihara<br/>
 
[https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-kihara |    '''ISFM - based systems (TZ)'''] – J. Kihara<br/>

Revision as of 03:41, 3 October 2019

Africa RISING ESA Project Review and Planning Meeting
10 - 11 September 2019
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Objectives

  • Review of main research and development achievements and challenges of the project.
  • Plan activities for 2019/20 season, with a special focus on farming systems research, collection of data on SI indicators and documentation of project outputs.

Agenda

Day 1 [10 Sept.]
08:00 Registration
08:30 Introduction of participants
09:00 Welcome & Opening remarks
  • V. Manyong – Director, IITA Eastern Africa Hub
  • G. Mkamilo – TARI Director General/Representative
09:20 Overview of agenda for the day & housekeeping
09:30 | Project implementation updates & developments – B. Mateete {15’ pres. + 15’disc.}
10:00 Break & participants group photo
10:30 Review presentations {20’ pres. + 15’ disc. for each}
13:00 Lunch
14:00 Review presentations cont’d.
15:15 Break
15:45 Bus stop process for review of 3 posters for cross-cutting {25’ each stop X 3 rotations}
17:00 25/10 crowdsourcing to reflect & learn from what is observed during each of the review presentations
17:40 End of day 1

Day 2 [11 Sept.]
08:30 Briefing back on 25/10 crowdsourcing exercise from previous day
08:45 Communications and knowledge management – J. Odhong/E. Massam
09:15 M&E needs at IITA – S. Adebayo {20’ pres. + 10’ disc.}
09:45 Draft 2019/20 plans for the cross-cutting {10’ pres. + 10’ disc.}
10:30 Break
10:50 draft cross-cutting plans cont’d
11:30 Aligning to project systems approach - B.Mateete
11:35 Break out groups for workplan development (per listed groupings)
  • ISFM - based systems (TZ)
  • Land management (TZ)
  • Maize-grain legume intensification system (MW)
  • Land management under CA (MW)
  • Animal production – based systems (TZ/MW)
Farming Systems Specialist, Gender, GIS,Econs. M&E, Comms. to integrate & rotate within these groups
13:00 Lunch
14:00 Break out groups cont’d
15:00 Presentation & feedback on draft group work plans {10’ pres. + 10’ feedback per group}
  • Working break (tbd)
16:40 Next steps
17:00 Closing remarks - M. Bekunda
17:10 End of review & planning
19:00 Closing cocktail

Day 3 [12 Sept.]
08:30 – 11:30 Project Steering Committee Meeting
{Agenda for SC meeting sent to members separately}

MEETING NOTES


Welcome & Opening remarks Victor Manyong, Africa RISING ESA PSC Chair & Director IITA Eastern Africa Hub

  • Welcomed the partners and project team as the Chair of the steering committee
  • The project has been successful
  • Partners and other stakeholders including donors are impressed with the project results and admirable team efforts.
  • Welcomed the new partners and stakeholders and encouraged them to contribute to the project with zeal.
  • There is a need to show evidence of the project achievements in phase II.
  • The team shouldn't relax even if everything is going well.
  • There is a need to start thinking about how to piston this project for what is to come next after the second phase.
  • Project partners to be prepared for the internally commissioned external review in early 2020. He explained that it was important for the team to work and prepare some important documents which will support the review team
  • Partners should prepare to showscase the evidence of achievements and some changes that has been taking place so far
  • The team needs to be conscious about the funding issues.
  • Legacy documents for the project like the handbook are vital for people who will want to later refer to the projects achievements.
  • Project partners to continue working closely with the Chief Scientist. Great collaboration will only serve to enhance project performance.
  • Colleagues from all Africa RISING program locations attending this meeting are very welcome. We hope to interact with you and gain some insights from you all as well.

Everest Makene, TARI (re-presenting TARI Director General Dr. Mkamilo)

  • The multi-disciplinary integration witness within the Africa RISING project is very commendable.
  • Having the economics, systems and gender aspects of technologies in addition to biophysical data is a feature that is unique only to Africa RISING.
  • Keep up the scientific rigor within the project even as the team also aims for other development goals.


| Project implementation updates & developments – B. Mateete
Comment:There is a challenge noted with the theory of change for phase II. It was assumed that development partners have the common vision with Africa RISING and therefore this would lead to a lot of mutually beneficial collaborations. However, this is not the case, considering the interactions with a majority of development partners so far. Some of them actually expect Africa RISING to provide them with funds for scaling.

Comment: The funding uncertainity situation affects the extent on what can be delivered, and it’s a part of challenges affecting project performance. It is important that this is noted as one of the major reasons for the inability of the team to deliver on all things that were promised in the proposals.

Question: how many chapters are still pending for the handbook to be complete?

Response: The plan was to have ten chapters, but we have 1.5 that aren't complete.

| ISFM - based systems (TZ) – J. Kihara

Question: Why did you not consider averaging the productivity domain, even though there will be some variability between the systems? The data presented (with and without the ISFM-maize/ vegetables) do not seem to have much differences?
Response: It is the first time we are advancing the ISFM tool at this level. There was assessment of the system on the shifts so far, however, due to some circumstance, it appears that there was no significant shift regardless of the environment we still have the same results. This is something that we consider as we move forward.

Question: The spider diagram presented shows that the systems has no gross margin (and some of the domain have low value), does it mean that there is no gain for farmers? If yes, then should farmers practice the technologies?
Response: It probably on the issues of scaling, for example if say in one case we get $2500 of income and the other case you are making $100 or $200, once we do the scaling then value becomes low.

Question: From the radar chart, what was the bench for the yield variable? Because even with-ISFM, the values that were presented were lower than the benchmark?
Response: We consider the maximum that is observed and use the maximum as our benchmark. For the productivity domain, we considered the maximum productivity that was observed across the population in the dataset, that may be far from the mean, since there will be huge difference from the mean, then the value for the ISFM become low.
Response: It is the question of the scaling, and method that we used, we considered average value that we are averaging and then we identify the maximum from across the average group. The maximum is not the average rather than a value that is achieved by one person across the population and is considered as the achievable and can be a model.

Question: With the ISFM, data on yield reflects low value, what else is missing at least to push the yield to some reasonable level?
Response: As a team we are working to brainstorm on the kind of intervention(s) and act to reach the reasonable yield level.

Question: The difference between with and without the ISFM, nutrition outcomes will be three to four times better or higher than the origin, is that really the case, or something that shall be expected?

Comments:

  • The project team should consider removing some noise (for radar diagram) and bring the meaningful and clear radar graph for example most of the variables has a lot of external factors that cannot be controlled, the team should be careful with variables like stunting , wasting and underweight because it create much noise, if are removed then there would be more meaningful radar diagram.
  • The outcomes from the presentation (on with and without the ISFM) should focus on the direct impact of the interventions.
  • The approach used as outcome measure for the nutrition needs to be changed as opposed to standard underweight wastage, the team should consider the diet quality
  • The presentation appears to have data quality issues. For-example there was a huge difference between the benchmark data without and with ISFM data as presented in radar chart, the team should have identified what needs to be addressed and do it better.
  • The expectations from audience would be to see there are more crossovers between the tradeoffs because of benefits and tradeoffs in the farm and cropping systems, the team should have considered overall the factors holistically. For example, if there were comparisons between the two systems with the fertilizers and without the fertilizer, yield will have increased on the fertilizer systems, on the other hand there should be effect on the gross margin, this effects on the cost of buying the fertilizers will increase, but such data were not presented in the radar graph.
  • The team should have regard combining the two variables (runoff avoided, and soil loss avoided) for the environmental domain as presented in technology benefits with-without ISFM. The two variables are both addressing soil water conservation.

| Maize-grain legume intensification system (MW) – R. Chikowo




| Animal production – based systems (TZ) – B. Lukuyu





| Farm level systems case studies (TZ) – L. Claessens




| Farm level systems case studies (MW) – M. Mutenje




| M&E Changes and achievements – C. Azzarri/B. Haile/A. Sambala



| Quantifying trends of rainfall and temperature extremes over Central Tanzania to guide targeting of climate smart technologies - F. Muthoni




| Spatial assessment of land degradation in semi-arid zone of central Tanzania - F. Muthoni




| What fits where? FarmMATCH: Matching Agricultural Technologies to Context and Household - J. Groot



| Digital transformation of agriculture: A game changer for sub-Saharan Africa - H. Sseguya