Learning event 2019
Africa Program Learning Event
05 - 08 February 2019
Malawi
Themes
- Experiences in implementation of the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework
- Systems research for agriculture in practice
- Common understanding of terminologies used within the Africa RISING program
| Date | Activity |
| 4 February | Participants arrival |
| 5 February |
|
| 6 – 7 February | Field visit to Africa RISING project sites
6 February
7 February
|
| 8 February |
|
| 9 February |
|
4 February [Day 0]
- Participants arrival
5 February [Day 1]
08:00 Registration
08:20 Participant intro’s
08:50 Welcome & opening remarks
- -Alene Arega - IITA Malawi Country Representative
- -Siboniso Moyo - ILRI Director General’s Representative in Ethiopia & Africa RISING PCT Co-Chair
09:10 Agenda overview & housekeeping issues
09:25 Updates from Africa RISING PCT meetings Media:Boni.pptx – Siboniso Moyo
09:55 Systems Research for Agriculture – a call to action.Media:Pt.pptx - P. Thorne
10:30 Break & participants group photo
11:00 Experiences with implementation of the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework [SIAF]
- [11:00 - 12:00] Case studies from Africa RISING projects. 3 Posters by Lulsegad Desta [Ethiopia], Lieven Claessens [ESA] , Nurudeen Abdul Rahman [WA]
- [12:00 - 13:00] Perspectives from FtF SI Innovation Lab [SIIL] – Vara Prasad, Director SIIL
13:00 Lunch
14:00 Experiences with SIAF cont’d..
- [14:00 - 14:30] Lessons from the SIAF Workshop 29 Oct – 02 November 2018 in Accra, Ghana Media:Mateete.pptx - Mateete Bekunda
- [14:30 - 15:30] Mainstreaming implementation of the SI Assessment Framework discussion - what have we learnt so far?
15:30 Break
16:00 Plans for next day’s field trips
- What to expect in the field - Regis Chikowo & Christian Thierfelder
- Assignments for participants to follow up on during the field trips
- Logistics - departure time, buses, agenda for the field trip, any other business + ethical guidelines?
16:30 Day 1 summary and wrap-up
16:45 End of day 1
19:00 Welcome cocktail by the poolside
6 - 7 February [Day 2 - 3]
Field visit to Africa RISING project sites
- 6 February
- 07:30 - Depart hotel, visit project sites in Linthipe EPA, Dedza
- 13:00 - Lunch in Dedza
- 14:00 - Drive to Liwonde, spend night at Hippo Lodge
- 7 February
- 07:30 - Visit project activity sites in Ntubwi EPA
- 12:00 - 12:30 - Lunch on transit - by the mountain side with a nice view of Zomba mountain and the dry Lake Chirwa!!
- 12:30 - 15:00 Visit to more project sites at Matandika EPA
- 15:00 - Return trip to Lilongwe
8 February [Day 4]
08:00 Reflections on the field trips
08:30 Cross-learning and harmonization in Africa RISING - Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon
09:00 Common understanding of terminologies across Africa RISING – Haroon Sseguya
10:00 Break
10:20 Monitoring and Evaluation session
- General M&E presentation - 15 mins. pres. + 20 mins. Q&A
- Break-out discussions led by regional M&E officers - 30 mins.
- Reporting back in plenary [led by regional M&E officers - 15 mins.
11:40 Communication session
12:40 Lunch
14:00 How can research partner with development partners better? Insights from Africa RISING - Micter Chaola,CRS-Malawi; Likawent Yehyis,ARARI-Ethiopia
14:45 Closing – Siboniso Moyo
15:00 Africa RISING ESA Project Steering Committee meeting // Other parallel meetings & discussions
9 February [Day 5]
- Participants departure
Meeting notes
Welcome & opening remarks
- -Alene Arega - IITA Malawi Country Representative
- Welcome to the Africa RISING learning event and
- One success leads to other success that is why Simlesa join after AR did a successful work. In phase one AR ended very well and the phase two is the result of that.
- In sustainable intensification frame work AR works beyond increasing production and productivity
- Partnership was the main issue which comes through the course of Africa RISING
- He calls country directors, CG center, advanced institution and thanks for coming to participate and contribute for the success of the learning event.
- He ends his welcoming speech by wishing all the participants to have a an active participation and learning including the field visit.
- -Siboniso Moyo - ILRI Director General’s Representative in Ethiopia & Africa RISING PCT Co-Chair
- She welcomed again the participants and had the following remark speach
- We all gathered for very interesting program, we welcome sincerely in looking forward your future contribution
- Africa RISING is a flagship program by CG centers; the output from Africa RISING is important in achieving the goals set for other CGIAR Program outcomes.
- Phase two is an opportunity to learn from phase one and use technologies to reach more beneficiaries.
- Documentation of the phase one successful stories is one of the focus areas
- Finally, she thanks national and international institutions for their contribution for the success of the project
- She appreciated the donor, USAID and other co-supporting organization
- Lastly she noticed the meeting participant to interact engage, learn and share during the whole learning events.
- -Felix Chipojola - Malawi Department of Agric. & ESA Steering Committee
- The Malawi government through its ministry of agriculture has been closely working with all CGIAR center
- You will visit some of the works of the ministry of agriculture during the filed visit
- Malawi is a peaceful and peace loving country be free to go outside of your hotel and enjoy
- At the end he thanks, CG centers for organizing the learning events.
Updates from Africa RISING PCT meetings
- Move the role of communication and knowledge management form ILRI to IITA
- Recruit M&E specialist in the three regions
- Data management plan
- Science advisory groups-revisit the role of SAG and see how how best to engage them in phase two.
- Internally commissioned external review
- SI assessment framework
- Community of practice
- Next to her presentation the PCT members are called to stand with here and assigned to sit in respective of their tables to give clarification
Internally commissioned external review
- How many days to give reviewer to end the plan should be decided?
- West Africa and Ethiopia to interview key peoples will be from June to October
- Still no contacted the potential reviewer
- We need reviewer with plenty of time
- We can not contract reviewer, because of budget
- There was a lot of complain from USAID about for reviewer?
- Reviewer need go to the field and asked peoples
- In the team there should be male and women, there should be Africans
- System research, management, M&E and livestock specialist should be among the reviewer
- How much time is required for each reviewer? -each reviewer will need 5-10 days for each country including traveling
Systems Research for Agriculture – a call to action
- Plot scale system research in Ethiopia
- Example forage legume-(traditional, Improved, and redesigned)
- The contrast between system research and component research
After Peter Thorne presentation participants were grouped into 4 groups to discuss on the following questions:
- Discussion
- Q1. What is our definition of system?
- Responses-System is a generic term something to control.
- Q2. What systems are required for sustainable intensification?
- Example: Plot-scale research in Ethiopia. It comprises of the traditional and the improved, and then leading to the redesigned. It should be a combination of the Component research and the System Research
- Q3. When you talked about system you changed the traditional way example the row planting of the Faba bean you bring another research problem to maintain the spacing so how you deal it?
- Q4. In your example, improved practice where feed is coming?
- Response- in the improved practice the feed from the crop residue only
- Discussion
- Q1. What do you understand about System research and component research?
- A view a kind of research which considered different comments of farming which are interrelated
- The different components of farming are interlinked in negative of positive way at different level/scale
- System research is an investigation of how different components of agriculture affect each other
- System is a boundary and within the boundary there are many things,
- System research is a wholistic approach to address certain number and categories of problems.
- Cause and effect, inter-relation, positive and negative interrelation are basic terms related with system research
- Q2. What are aspects/characteristics of system research?
- Boundary, many sub systems, interrelated Components and relationships are complex.
- Forward and back ward feedback/interaction
- A system can be the sub system of another bigger system
- System is dynamic based on space and time
- Some effects are measurable
- Boundary is the constitution of System
Feedback from different tables
- -Table 1 - Captured by Elirehema Swai
"Question addressed: What Do You Understand By the Term System Research and What Are Its Key Characteristics"
What do you understand by term systems research?
- -Is a research which comprises with different components of farming which integrates both livestock and crops at varied scale ranging from farm level, clusters and landscape level.
- -Is a research which is investigating how different components of agriculture can affect each other both positively and negatively?
- -Research which integrates different disciplines separately.
What are the characteristics of system research?
- -It has boundaries in terms of what constitutes the systems an example conveyor system with an amplified inter boundaries interactions.
- -Many sub systems and components.
- -Interrelated component.
- -Relationship is complex in terms of effects which could be negative and positives with back and forth linkages.
- -It is always a subset of another bigger system.
- -Some of interactions can be measured and others may not be measured.
- -It is dynamic i.e. space and time.
Table 2 - Captured by Carlo Azzarri "Question addressed: Are there aspects of research on SI that specifically require a more systems-oriented approach?"
- -Systems research (SR) has boundaries and different integrated sub-components that interact, creating synergies
- -The sub-components could also compete, bringing about the need to analyze trade-offs
- -SR needs multidisciplinary researchers working as a team (e.g. anthropologists, sociologists, agronomists, biophysical researchers, economists)
- -SR is dynamic, changing over time based on external characteristics (markets, climate, population and livestock pressure)
- -SR is more important for smallholder farmers in mixed farming systems. Big farmers may be more interested in specific sub-components
- -SR looks at multiple inputs for multiple outputs
- -SR is very important for agro-biodiversity, dealing with multiple crops, varieties, livestock, NR, other components, and even different uses (selling residue, straws)
- -SR can maintain and eventually improve indigenous knowledge and skills
Table 8 - Captured by Beliyou Haile
- -There is lack of expertise within the program to adequality address some dimensions of system research (e.g., study design, data analyses, and interpretation). Even when we manage to bring together different teams and partners, keeping the partnerships may require additional cost that we have not budgeted.
- -There is a significant farm diversity in the systems we are working in, thereby making the tailoring of research activities to the needs of specific farm types challenging/costly.
- -Measuring impact is difficult not only because of the different domains/dimensions of interest, but also time lags between the research activities and the when farmers start fully benefiting from the research activities.
- -There is too much focus on farming systems (crop and livestock) and less focus on other broader issues that may affect the performance of the system (e.g., access to input and output markets, innovation systems, livelihood systems).
- -Farmers sometimes tend to prefer technologies that are singular in nature (improved cultivars or fertilizers) while our research mostly involves integrated innovations that may require more expertise/cost to implement. This merits more socioeconomic research on the drivers of adoption decision.
Table 9 - Captured by Sadat Salifu "Question addressed: Are there aspects of research on SI that specifically require a more systems-oriented approach?"
- -When you adopt a systems approach, you are looking for linkages between the components; it’s all inclusive approach
- -Barriers
- -Different actors (farmers, politicians, institutions and researchers) have different ideas of what the “system” is. Coming to a common understanding of what the system is can be challenging. [It would be good for AR to create a glossary of terms and their definitions in the context of the AR project to guide researchers].
- -Skill/capacity constraint: you need human and institutional skills which is usually a problem in Africa.
- -Time constraint: you need a lot of time to contextualize issues. It takes a lot of time for everyone to get a common understanding of issues at stake.
- -Resource constraint: You need a lot of money for systems research.
- -Overemphasis on components that may not be that important in the system.
- -Risk of spreading resources too thin resulting in superficial research.
- -Striking the balance between trade-offs and synergies is difficult in systems research.
- -Barriers
- -When you adopt a systems approach, you are looking for linkages between the components; it’s all inclusive approach
Experiences with implementation of the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework [SIAF]
Case studies from Africa RISING projects in Ethiopia, East and Southern Africa and West Africa
- -Lulsegad Desta [Ethiopia]
- -Lieven Claessens [ESA]
- -Nurudeen Abdul Rahman [WA]
General reflection on the poster presentation
- For applicable infrastructure to dams and to set a certain standard to construct dam, there should be a team of specialists
- SIAF framework indicators are very important, but I see some gaps. Some are adequately address but the other not.
- We should consider the impact at the household level, and weighting should be used properly.
Perspectives from FtF SI Innovation Lab [SIIL] - a celebrity interview with SIIL Director - Vara Prasad
- Q1. Why it is important to come together and to use the SI?
- Response - He said all the innovation labs focus on a single SI. The innovation that has to be adopted should be good for the household. It is not a new concept, but it broadens the system.
- Q1. Why it is important to come together and to use the SI?
He said innovation is not innovation if it is not adopted. Since 2014, there has been a lot of discussions on going concerning SI. In 2015, resources were put together. Through several interactions, they came up with the 5 domains.
- Q2. In some collected data, the information may not be enough to address all the five domains, so in that case can we use some of the SIAF indicators while doing research?
- Response - You must use all the five domains to get a good picture. But for the rest indicators, use data from literature review.
- Q3. SI faces many challenges. It is an extra piece of work, cos it’s new. Do you encourage people on the SI framework?
- Response - fund can’t be attracted if the value of SI is not shown, thus, its use is widely encouraged. We have to make sure the systems integrated, we need to show the system is valuable so that we can attract funding from donors.
- Q2. How do we use multi-disciplined teams?
- Response - Example food security and hunger it is beyond research it has high meaning for policy makers. In multidisciplinary team we learned always. Each specialist measure well the outcome indicator/SIA if multi-disciplinary team is involved.
- Q2. The data to measure/estimates the indicators are in the hand of different scientist so how it possible/handle the issue?
- Response - collecting the information through organizational approach. Bringing scientist together. Students to do experiments in the areas of their specialization on one or two indicators. SIAF needs team of specialist to measure properly and effectively
- - The SIAF is not to evaluating the success of the project. It helps to consider the tradeoff and opportunities. It helps to do research in areas where system approach is needed.
- Q1. Why risk analysis is not included in the framework?
- Response-risk analysis is in all indicators/five domain. Risk in many redevelopment projects is included as resilience.
- Q2. Collecting required data for SIAF need multidisciplinary teams and this approach needs need money so how can we look it from cost perspective?
- Response-if resource are very limited, we can use few of the indicators and the plot level data
- Q3. Talking among scientist is a challenge, so how the program insures to bring/communicate the scientist?
- Response-for research we are using IP. The technology developed in one area to be talked in different areas.
- Q4. How do you consider the interaction among indicators?
- Response-survey, identifying the model to transfer the technologies. Depending on the technology we must be used the right peoples to be a part/user.
- Q2. In some collected data, the information may not be enough to address all the five domains, so in that case can we use some of the SIAF indicators while doing research?
Lessons from the SIAF Workshop 29 Oct – 02 November 2018 in Accra, Ghana
- Comment: Recommendation A is a good idea, the chief scientists should mobilize to do that. But the recommendation of using the framework at landscape level is not clear.
- Question: We can move below landscape level. For every system, there are sub-systems that may be more meaningful. Otherwise landscape level approach is what we already have been doing in AR.
- Question: I agree with using systems approach. My question is the how, where do we start? I see components of a system have been addressed in our past work. Now it looks like we are being recommended to do all component works all together. How and when do we do that is not clear.
- Question: Recommendation B, I have a bit concern. All from 1-6, we have been doing already. What is new that we are being asked to do now?
- Answer: The recommendations are observations from outside of AR. The external observers recommended us to do this. We claim to be doing systems research but we do not document and write them. Hence, they are not obvious for external observers.
- Answer: When the recommendations were given, it does not mean that nothing was done. The framework is supposed to help us to bring together different component researches. It should inform us to identify gaps where we are missing to reach to sustainable intensification. We have the data on most of the domains, but we haven’t given enough attention to extract well integrated assessment.
- Question: From the point B, 2-4, diagnosis stage is missing. Without proper diagnosis, conducting a baseline work, it is difficult to come up with proper intervention.
- Answer: For the Ethiopian highlands team, it appears we do not have enough level of understanding of the framework. We need to invest some more resource to make sure that all team members are made to come to equal level.
- Question: It appears that there is a gap between those who attended the Accra training and those who does not attend. There must be a mechanism in place to make sure that we are speaking the same language.
- Answer: In phase one we did a lot of baseline. That should also be used as diagnosis. We need to use that information to plan our interventions. There are also documents on the frameworks. Some people do not read the documents. Even after a training people forget it. They should read those documents.
- Answer: I have been in the communication list of AR for the last seven years. I have seen the kind of data being collected over time. That data is enough to do the SIAF assessment. The system we are talking about in the framework is mainly on the five domains. Not broader systems. That means we have all the data we needed. If we go through the SIAF manual, we will be able to see that there are no new things to do, but to use our existing data. We do not need to do another baseline or diagnosis. We rather could use our existing data from the past as a diagnosis.
Mainstreaming implementation of the SI Assessment Framework discussion - what have we learnt so far?
- -Group 1
- -Emerging issues
- -Varying levels of understanding and interpretation of SIAF by different scientists
- -Scientists have data – there is potential for using available data that could meet SIAF requirement.
- -Scientists still focusing on individual components
- -Action points
- -Capacity building to bring scientists to same level
- -Need for collective platforms e.g. write-shops where scientists can share data, analyze and come up with joint manuscripts.
- -Program could think of an internal mechanism of incentivizing scientists to come together for write-ups e.g. introduce proposal calls.
- -Recommendation
- -Chief scientists could identify/ initiate thematic areas led by a champion to bring scientists together. The thematic areas should have well defined output. Capacity building on SIAF could be embedded within these thematic areas
- -Emerging issues
- -Group 1
- -Group 2
- -Training for all grantees on the framework, it could be an online training. The PCT team could make it a requirement. Those who are trained should be obliged to train others.
- -Seminars on technologies which are working
- -A need for a matrix to measure adoption
- -Having a postdoc to synthesize data from different projects
- -Group 2
- -Group 3
- -Uploading all the data we have
- -A need for short term training on the framework
- -The baseline surveys might not have captured all the domains. We need to revisit our baseline surveys and fill the gaps.
- -Monitoring and evaluation, we need serious work around this. Professional M and E people need to capture and enforce the framework during planning, implementation and reporting of results.
- -The results also need to reach various audiences, we need to various communication methods to reach out our audience.
- -Group 3
- -Group 4
- -What we have observed and heard:
- -Community of practice in not working
- -There is requirement to submit our data
- -We understand how complicated is the use of SIAF, especially the social and human domains
- -People are picking indicators that are easy to measure. We should not take the easy ones. We need to choose indicators that are useful. We have a clearer understanding of SIAF after all the presentations
- -Is there a way to aggregate the five components in to one index so that we will be able to compare different technologies?
- -Most of the indicators are plot level. We are not urged to do landscape level assessment.
- -There is an assumption that scientists are having similar understating of the SIAF
- -The word system does not seem to be clear understood between scientist, external observers and the framework developers
- -So what?
- -We need to submit our data
- -We may need mixed methods to validate and verify the indicators
- -It is important to make sure that we picked relevant indicators. We also may need some peer review process to make sure that relevant indicators are chosen
- -We need to reanalyse our data to review where we are
- -There is a need for training of researchers on the framework
- -What Next
- -Common protocols to be developed with stakeholders to be able to collect relevant data
- -To work together to clarify the social and human dimensions
- -Capacity building to bring scientist on common ground
- -Organizing write-shops to help scientists to write their data down
- -This could be done through champions who would take some lead
- -What we have observed and heard:
- -Group 4
- -Group 5
- -The framework needs to be mainstreamed to national research system
- -Prioritization of indicators needs to be aligned to be weight given not only by researchers but also by farmers
- -To bring actors together to same level through training
- -Capacity building need to include national partners as well
- -Group 5
- -Group 6
- -Someone could lead to produce a YouTube video to help others learn about the framework
- -It may also be important to embed professional who would help in designing effective tools to capture the domains
- -Try to align the framework to what farmers consider as important
- -Group 6
- -Group 8
- Emerging issues
- -Posters attempted to conceptualize the SIAF but the process of indicator selection has not been clear in all the posters.
- -We are not sure if there is a convergence between the researchers thought process and that of the farmers. While the SIAF approach based on the five domains is important, there is a need for understanding the drivers of farmers’ adoption decisions. Not all domains are equally important to farmers (e.g., productivity versus gender equity). Is our minimum data requirement informed by what farmers perceive are important for their farming practices and livelihoods (e.g., legumes not consumed as much, crop-legume integration having yield implications, but farmers doing it anyway)?
- -We need to go beyond our comfort zone of component research and exert more effort on understanding how our individual research fit into the system, also a need for conducting behavioral research.
- -Group 8
- What did you conclude?
- -Lack of complete understanding of the SIAF
- -Enough attention has not been given to study design to ensure reproducibility of our research products (e.g., sample size, data quality, etc.)
- What is/should be next?
- -Researchers should carefully read the SIAF and make sure that everyone in their team is familiar with the different concepts
- -The program should commission a video on SIAF using creating and attractive ways for communicating the complexities in measuring SIAF
- -Researchers should exert more effort to integrate researchers from disciplines into their research planning, data collection, and implementation for better research design and collection of quality data on relevant indicators to measure impact.
8 February [Day 4]
08:00 Reflections on the field trips
Ethiopia Highlands Project
- Strengths: (a) Good maize-legume system (b) Clean and well - designed experimental plots
- Weaknesses: (a) Lack of clear components connectivity to define system, (b) Limited technology options, (c) Weak livestock component, (d) Less use of irrigation potential, (e) Lack of utilization of traditional practices (ridge making)
- Lessons: (a) Vibrant women participation in farm activities, (b) Farmers’ tied ridge making practice to arrest soil erosion is something extraordinary
08:30 Cross-learning and harmonization in Africa RISING - Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon
Discussion
- Minimum standard formats to document SIAF at different levels
- Document experiences of different project countries
- Demand of development partners and capacity building issues
- Bring partners together for cross learning
- Regular scientist meeting
- How to ensure gender balance
- Sustainable seed system and regulatory mechanisms
- How to reach expected targets its attributions as this is done with the participation of multiple actors
09:00 Common understanding of terminologies across Africa RISING – Haroon Sseguya
10:00 Break
10:20 Monitoring and Evaluation session
- General M&E presentation - 15 mins. pres. + 20 mins. Q&A
- Break-out discussions led by regional M&E officers - 30 mins.
- -There has been a gap b/n researchers and M & E due to absence of M & E staff in Ethiopia
- -A lot of data still to be uploaded and need the help of Beliyou
- -Age disaggregated data from huge no. of targets is a challenge – need for a simpler mechanism to enter such data
- -May be easy to capture hard research data but how to capture knowledge and skill changes as a result of AR interventions is still a grey area
- -How to track scaling and SIAF outcome needs to be worked out
- -How to measure spill over
- -Need of training to site coordinators on scaling data capturing
- -Can SIAF serve as an M & E tool? Yes/no. depending on site context
- Reporting back in plenary [led by regional M&E officers - 15 mins.
11:40 Communication session
Plenary feedback
- Question: On the reports and briefs I wonder to what extent you support in terms of putting the labels, typesetting and making them ready for publication. What sort or magnitude of support can we expect?
- It is also not clear the process of accessing those services as my chief scientist says I cannot reach you out before his approval
- Jonathan: The chief scientists is responsible in making sure the quality of the science aspect of your work. Hence, he is in the right position to give you an approval. However, once every technical aspect is done, you can forward us and we give it the necessary formatting and we put it online.
- Peter: The website is now working to give a comment
"The Ethiopian Group Meeting"
- Kindu: For the web page, we were shouting for many years. It was difficult for users to access publications and reports. It is a good move and I am happy.
- When you go to the field, we write small reports. But usually we do not capture this either in a wiki or other formats. How can we capture them for the future?
- We also take various photos. We need to put it online as fast as we took them.
Sometimes when we have products, we submit for online publication. However, this often take long time to appear online. We need to improve this.
- Peter: We have ongoing challenge of important messages back to the field. We also need to facilitate our site coordinators and researchers to provide our partners updates and progresses. We can also use feedbacks from these to feed into the program/project report.
- Abera: I also struggle to publish blog posts. We need to do more to document our field activities.
- Saide: We missed opportunities of capturing our work with video. Last year we missed the opportunity of getting our nice wheat work to be captured with video. We can focus on few technologies and capture some videos.
- Simret: We can put an action point to training researchers to write blog post
- Kindu: We need to make sure that we write few pages of meetings reports and communicate them on regular basis. For example, a summary of the international learning event could be communicated to our partners.
- Mohammed: We need to capture things as they happen on daily basis. If you could give us some training on how to do that, that would be a good thing.
- Simret: That is planned and ToR is prepared and we may have it soon.
12:40 Lunch
14:00 How can research partner with development partners better? Insights from Africa RISING - Micter Chaola,CRS-Malawi; Likawent Yehyis,ARARI-Ethiopia
- Simret: Apart from the challenge you mentioned Mikta, that of funding, What other challenges do you see working with Africa RISING?
- Mikta: The first challenge is funding. When we are working with our projects, during planning, we did not factor in Africa RISING. Now taking Africa RISING in is a challenge.
- What I have noticed also is that, when we are working as partners, we work through the government system. In terms of monitoring, with our partners, sometimes NGos and researchers may have their own priorities. Having a common plan is essential.
- Simret: What did you look for when you were deciding to work with Africa RISING.
- Likawint: The highland area in Ethiopia is a challenging area for agricultural development. The fact that Africa RISING was coming to work in the Ethiopian highlands, I was happy to partner.
- Simret: Mikta, what was the unique feature of AR that attracted you to you to work with the team?
- Mikta: The focus on climate smart agriculture by AR attracted us. The double up legume, the intercropping of maize with legumes, the conversation agriculture, integration of livestock-crop integration, these were areas that we are also interested in. That was why we volunteered to join hands with the researchers.
- Simret: What else should researchers do to better in partnership?
- Likawint: Researchers need to focus on priority issues in their intervention areas. They also have to engage local partners starting from the planning up to exiting strategy.
- Mikta: I have three points. First, on proposal development. I understand that researchers have their own proposals for funding. NGOs also have their own funding. Both institutions need to factor in partnership costs in their proposal. Second, sharing information. Researchers need to share information on their products for their partners. NGOs may not have the capacity to do scientific impact assessment, we can do that together.
14:45 Closing – Siboniso Moyo
- We spent 4 days together
- We agreed to share, learn together. I hope we did that.
- Let us continue with the conversations. We covered some key topics.
- The SIAF, as we go forward let us give it new energy and work as teams with the data management and M and E teams to see what we can do with the framework.
- The need for additional effort to push ourselves for better result in our second phase. We need to make sure that we prove that we are progressing in the right direction. This is important for our donor and the community that we are working for.
- We also need to strength our M and E
- Harmonization and learning across the program is also essential. Much is needed in this area
- Let us help the communication team with improving the dummy website development .
- Communication and Knowledge management also provides an opportunity for cross program engagement.
15:00 Africa RISING ESA Project Steering Committee meeting // Other parallel meetings & discussions
