Pct31

From africa-rising-wiki
Revision as of 12:06, 22 October 2018 by J Odhong (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Africa RISING PCT #31 and extended PCT meeting
01 - 02 October 2018
Lilongwe, Malawi

Africa RISING extended PCT meeting participants

Expected outputs from extended PCT

  • Common understanding of how the program approaches systems research
  • Identification of common things that we can do together as a program
  • Resolutions from the meeting need to feedback immediately into the ESA review and planning meeting


Participants

  1. Siboniso Moyo (SM) - Chair
  2. Bernard Vanlauwe (BV)
  3. Peter Thorne (PT)
  4. Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon (IHZ)
  5. Carlo Azzarri (CA)
  6. Jerry Glover (JG)
  7. Jonathan Odhong' (JO)


Extended PCT

  1. Regis Chikowo (RC)
  2. Fred Kizito (FK)
  3. Mateete Bekunda (MB)
  4. Kindu Mekonnen (KM)
  5. Lieven Claessens (LC)


Apologies

  1. Sieg Snapp
  2. Jeroen Groot
  3. James Hammond
  • PCT page-[1]
  • PCT follow-up action points-[2]


Agenda

Day 1 [Oct. 1]

Regular PCT meeting – starts 08:30

  • Discussion points
  • Follow-up of action points from the previous meeting
  • Implications of the funding situation on the three project regions
  • Data upload and sharing + random data upload test session
  • Overview of Africa RISING web presence and outreach - blog, CG Space, wiki, Yammer etc.
  • Discuss opportunities for integration of ICT tools/platforms into Africa RISING R-in-D approaches
  • Re-engagement of SAG
  • Re-engagement of the Communities of Practice
  • SRA advocacy document
  • Any other business
    • ongoing proposals development
    • handover of the role of Chair from ILRI to IITA

13:00 Lunch

Extended PCT meeting – starts at 14:00
14:00 Introduction of participants
14:30 Welcome & opening remarks

  • S. Moyo
  • J. Glover

15:00 Farming systems research perspectives - L. Claessens {20’ pres. + 40’ disc.}
16:00 Scene setting/ background for the meeting - B. Vanlauwe {20’ pres. + 40’ disc.}
16:30 Working Break
17:00 Pres. about AR program-wide approaches [Review the Africa RISING systems research model so far] - P. Thorne {20’ pres. + 40’ disc.}
17:30 End-of-day 1


Day 2 [Oct. 2]
08:30 Recap of day 1 emerging topics and prioritization of issues for discussion
9:30 Step-wise discussion & resolution of emerging issues/ priorities generated [plenary]
10:00 Break
10:30 Step-wise discussion & resolution of emerging issues/ priorities generated [plenary]
13:00 Lunch
14:00 Step-wise discussion & resolution of emerging issues/ priorities cont’d
15:00 Closing


Oct. 3 – 5 ESA review and planning meeting starts, see agenda at - http://africa-rising-wiki.net/ESA_rev_planning_Oct2018


Regular PCT

Follow-up of action points from the previous meeting
Update on funding situation

  • SM thanked JG on behalf of all PCT members and Africa RISING partners for keeping the team updated about the funding situation at USAID.
  • PT pointed out that the new funds that came into the program in June was highly welcome & appreciated. He also added that despite the new tranche of funds, there was still some reluctance by ILRI Finance Department to release funds to the project team due to the uncertainty that still exists about when the next funds will come through.

Action:
  • JG to follow up and request Eric Witte to send an ‘authorization to spend’ to the Africa RISING lead centers to ease internal spending restrictions for 2019 as soon as that is possible.


Related updates by JG
JG gave an update about 3 emerging initiatives which Africa RISING should respond to / get involved in.

  1. Bureau for Food Security is transforming to Bureau for Resilience and Food Security. This means that most programs will be viewed through the lenses of resilience and food production. AR would therefore need to align itself with this change by starting to develop ways of measuring how it is helping farmers to reduce their vulnerability to extended dry spells and flooding. There is opportunity to [in collaboration with the SI innovation lab] get maybe four indicator statements along the lines of “If the farmer uses practice/intervention A, then they have an 80% chance of being able to successfully survive an extra day of dry spell,”. The SI Innovation Lab will initiate this and approach Africa RISING and others on this. In the meantime, AR teams can starting working on how feasible it is to come up with these resilience statements.
  2. Soil Health Initiative/Consortium led by IFDC and Kansas State University will soon be unveiled. The initiative will have a budget of $1 million/year. The goal of the consortium is to get all centrally funded [by USAID Washington] investments in soils, fertilizers and soil health better coordinated and integrated so that better progress can be made across the different production regions in West Africa initially and later in East Africa. It will consists of both biophysical, socio-economic, and policy areas. Key collaborating partners from US Universities will also include Universities of Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas State and Michigan State. Africa RISING should be able to contribute and get involved in this consortium by nominating a contact person for this.
  3. The mechanization consortium led by University of Illinois will soon be leading efforts to streamline the mechanization agenda by all USAID funded projects. The aim of this initiative is to: reduce duplications/unnecessary transaction costs in the processes of machinery development, testing and deployment to smallholder farmers; streamline the machinery models developed; and to avoid development of very context/location specific machinery. The initiative will aim to identify 4 – 5 machinery models/designs for different categories e.g. maize shelling, bean thresher, planters etc. that are easily adaptable across various locations and contexts for the benefit of more smallholder farmers. The selected designs will go through a certain validation process that will ensure specifications and data [incl. socio-economic] are easily accessible and transferrable. Africa RISING has developed/validated some machinery prototypes and should therefore feedback their data into this initiative once it gets underway.


Annual learning event and SI Assessment Framework Workshop
IHZ reported that after discussions with PT and JO, they had made a decision to push the learning event to February 2019 in Lilongwe, Malawi. A field visit to AR project sites will be part of the learning event agenda. The SI Assessment Framework Workshop will now be held at the end of October [29 Oct. – 2 Nov.] instead of the learning event.


Closure of the wiki
JO explained that migration from Wikispaces [which hosted the previous AR wiki site] to media wiki [the new platform] was complete. The migration process was done by the ILRI CKM team. The new wiki platform needs a bit of formatting, and some trainings are needed for project partners before it is fully operational. JO will oversee this restoration process completed by


Implications of the funding situation on the three project regions
Summary:
PT noted that the one year funding gap to Africa RISING projects had in certain ways affected achievement of the project’s and program vision of success/targets set in the proposals. How should this reality be dealt with?


Conversation:

  • JG explained that Africa RISING failing to meet the targets as set out in the proposal with very valid explanations will be understandable for USAID. It is however important for the team to ensure that data is properly entered into the FtF monitoring system, is disaggregated properly and is consistent with textual reporting.
  • IHZ - the funding gap led to a loss of momentum among the partners in both Africa RISING ESA and WA. Hopefully the partners can pick up now that the previous funding levels have been restored.


Action:
  • No need to revise project/program targets as set out in the proposals. However, IHZ, PT and CA to ensure that data entered to the FtF monitoring system this year is clean, well explained [where necessary], correctly disaggregated and is consistent with technical reporting.


Revised Data Management Plan
Summary:
The revised data management plan draft had been shared with PCT members in April. PCT members had provided feedback/suggestions for improvement. What is the latest update regarding progress?


Conversation:

  • CA noted that the revised plan had been updated based on latest comments by BV and IHZ – which were the last comments received on the document. The latest version of the document will be circulated to PCT members again shortly.
  • IHZ noted that she had four concerns:
-More clarity needed within the document that partners are required to upload their data annually regardless of whether data had been cleaned or not.
-Who is going to be responsible for tracking which/what data has been uploaded by the partners?
-Data upload is our main problem, so I suggest this requirement is expressed upfront at the beginning of the document.
-There needs to be a clause on sharing of non-confidential data within Africa RISING.
  • JG – could you rephrase the section about partner requirement to upload data to something less ‘authoritarian’? As currently expressed it may make partners jittery about uploading their data.
  • PT - we need to also find a way of making sure the issue of data security is more explicitly addressed so that partners are clear that their data can’t be ‘stolen’/used without their authorization.
  • JG – The plan should also have a clause that expressly states that partners are required to indicate the data to be collected and uploaded during the work plan development stage. Also add a clause to the plan, that also indicates that subsequent funding will be dependent on the status of data upload.
  • MB – It is important that the document emphasizes that data for all experiments should be uploaded to data verse annually.
  • BV - Viewing rights for what data sets have been uploaded by each partner should be granted to the Chief Scientists for monitoring purposes.


Action:
  • CA to revise the data management plan based on the feedback received from PCT members and then circulate it one again for approval at the next PCT meeting.
  • MB and KM to revise the workplan templates for partners to ensure that it is clear at the work planning stage which data sets partners will collect.
  • PT and IHZ to ensure all partner contracts/agreements have a budget line that indicates the cost of data upload.



Overview of Africa RISING web presence and outreach
Summary:
Africa RISING program has used a variety of web based tools to support different facets of its communication strategy since 2012. How are the tools working out for the program?


Conversation:

  • CA – The program wiki and website need to be better integrated going forward. The two platforms seemed so separate and not talking to each other. Probably you could also consider having a private section for team members only as opposed to having a separate platform.
  • PT – I agree with Carlo that the website should be well integrated with the other platforms that we have been using like CG Space, SlideShare, YouTube etc.
  • SM – It would help if the CKM team can increase efforts to synthesize and popularize the peer reviewed publications and posters etc.


Action:
  • JO to implement a website revamp taking into account all the comments by PCT members when doing the website revamp.
  • JO to work on getting the new wiki fully operational by end of December 2018.


Opportunities for integration of ICT tools/platforms into Africa RISING R-in-D approaches
Summary:
Different ICT tools are being deployed/used by project partners in Africa RISING countries to support R-in-D efforts within the program. The PCT is aware about some and not so much about others. What are the opportunities for probably in future adopting program-wide focused ICT approaches within Africa RISING? Are there new tools/opportunities we can tap into? Regis Chikowo and Fred Kizito’s activities in Malawi [VIAMO platform] and Tanzania [MWANGA platform] respectively provide examples of how some of these ICT tools are being deployed by Africa RISING in different contexts.


Conversation:
Presentation by Regis Chikowo
We are working with VIAMO in Malawi on the 3-2-1 platform to investigate whether it is lack of knowledge/ awareness is what keeps farmers from applying recommended fertilizer application practices. We will be working with 400 farmers who will access targeted messages on fertilizer and we will assess the differences in their farms before the service and after the service. This is a pilot activity and we’d like out of this work to demystify the myth that lack of appropriate knowledge limits how farmers implement recommended fertilizer recommendations. One of the challenges at the moment is the navigation within the platform.


Feedback - to Regis Chikowo’s presentation
  • IHZ - Are the 400 farmers you have selected part of the Africa RISING farmers?
    • Some may be, but this is not a key issue for us in this instance.
  • IHZ the targeted lines is solely for messages coming from this project? How do we you make sure that your messages are not at odds with the information from the other channels?
  • BV – Another project I’m involved [African Cassava Agronomy Initiative] is also working with VIAMO on fertilizer recommendations for cassava agronomy. I will link you [Regis] and Peter Pypers who is leading the work with VIAMO on the cassava agronomy project. To me, sustainability [who would update it after Africa RISING closes?] ,costs [with a capital investment requirement of $ 30k] and who will pay for the 3-2-1 service are key issues that will still need to be resolved.
  • JG – Would it not be better to also try this in Tanzania to increase the robustness of the information that is being gathered?
    • JO – There is opportunity for that [broadening Regis’ engagement with VIAMO to other countries]. At the moment VIAMO works in all the Africa RISING program countries and we could possibly negotiate a rate that can even include all our project countries.
  • PT – The real question about this is whether you can encapsulate the information required for an SI innovation for a farmer to completely grasp the content. Lack of visuals is also another potential barrier.


Presentation by Fred Kizito
The MWANGA platform covers northern Tanzania, specifically in Babati District with about 150 farmers. There are plans currently underway to extend this to the southern highlands of Tanzania. Our focus is on promoting better agronomy, market service and price services amongst farmers. We currently use simple messaging platform that allows us to push messages to farmers who are registered on the platform. Currently the platform is being run by Eco-mobile based in Nairobi. The challenges still exist with farmer perception/ reading of the messages whenever they receive. Some may even think it is a hoax. We also have an issue with crowding of the platform. We are planning to beef this up by adding light videos – which could allow us to send an additional educative videos that would add a visual component to the messages hence probably improving how farmers understand the messages. At the moment, due to costs, we are also exploring the possibilities of migrating the platform to other service providers who are more cost-effective.



Feedback – to Fred Kizito’s presentation
  • CA – Integrating videos implies that farmers will need to have smartphones. So you may need to watch out for that.
  • JG – We now see a lot of development community projects exploring these ICT tools and it’s great to see Africa RISING involved. I wonder if we can maybe even move beyond that? For example, 8 out 100 farmers having a smart phone actually can provide a valuable service to their community and we also talk now about youth engagement, service provision/new opportunities of service provision like the Hello Tractor model. There is also another opportunity that I haven’t seen utilized in the agricultural development community and that is these new global systems of financing along the lines of go-fund-me etc. Is there some way that Africa RISING can explore the development of these kinds of business models, particularly for the youth? This is something I haven’t within the USAID and if it is feasible, then it would be a big leap forward. Some research could be integrated into these of course as part of the R-in-D approach. Soon I will be meeting one of the experts in this field Tom Archibald about this. If any of you come up with anything along these lines then, yes please let me know.
  • IHZ – Looking at the timeframe we have now [year 3 of Africa RISING phase II] then we are probably better off exploring these kinds of opportunities now.
  • JG – We could move forward with this, but probably also consider starting by collaborating with other partners like the SI Innovation Lab.
  • BV – It seems there is some rapidly increasing interest on the application of ICT tools for R-in-D. Probably we should consider it as a community of practice rather than the others we had that weren’t so well received.
Action:


Re-engagement of SAG
Summary:
During PCT 30, it was agreed that PT [on behalf of PCT] should keep touch [informally] with the Chair of the SAG [Jim Ellis-Jones] with bits of updates to him here and there about the program’s progress. A decision about whether Africa RISING still needs to keep a SAG was necessary.


Conversation:

  • PT - from interactions with Jim Ellis and a couple of other SAG members, the team still has an interest in being involved with the Africa RISING program at the scientific advisory level.
  • JG - can the SAG be re-envisioned/combined with other external advisory boards across other similar programs that are funded by USAID like SIIL etc.? This could probably help a lot with cross-learning/harmonization.
  • BV – Before we decide to continue/discontinue the SAG we need to establish what is the biggest value add of the SAG to Africa RISING?
  • PT & IHZ – In response to BV question, probably the exercise that has most impacted how we do things in Africa RISING phase I was the internally commissioned external review. Perhaps instead we can plan to have a similar exercise for phase II and then probably involve some of the SAG members in that.
  • JG – an internally commissioned external review would be helpful and next year [2019] is year 3 of AR Phase II so probably the team could consider doing that.
Action:
  • Internally commissioned external review of the program to be organized from July - October 2019 [in Ethiopia & West Africa], and between December 2018 - February 2019 [in ESA].Some members of the SAG could be approached to be part of the review team.
  • PT & IHZ to work on the terms of reference for the review team.
  • PT to communicate the message [informally] to the SAG Chair before an official email to SAG members from the PCT Chair goes out.


Re-engagement of the Communities of Practice
Summary:
The 6 CoPs unveiled by Africa RISING in 2017 didn’t take off as anticipated. Whilst project partners self-selected themselves into the CoPs, the level of activity and interactions within the communities has been almost non-existent. This is contrary to what had been envisioned by the PCT when the CoPs were unveiled as a means of achieving the goals of better harmonization and cross-learning across the Africa RISING program. Were CoPs the right approach to achieve these aspirations? Is it time to take stock and re-strategize to other approaches?


Conversation:

  • IHZ – If we want CoPs to take off then it means we have to go back to the champions who volunteered to lead each CoP and ask whether they are still interested. But this is one year down the line and they may have already lost interest and we have to find new ones?
  • PT – It seems/feels like the way the CoPs were set-up were rather top down and not bottom-up. Maybe that could have affected their operation?
  • JG – It is sometimes very disappointing whenever we visit one regional project site/country and to see some really great achievements and outcomes and then visit another and see the exact opposite within the same issue/challenge. Why isn’t it easier to just transfer a technology from one Africa RISING project site to another? The other aspect that probably also needs some harmonization would be our research methodologies.
  • PT – Since the CoPs haven’t been successful, maybe it is time for us to try an alternative approach of creating a task force that would be responsible for identifying the relevant issues that need to be transferred across the project sites/regions and then make recommendations which then the Chief Scientists can follow up on with partners in the respective projects.
  • IHZ – Our collaboration with SIIL is still a bit weak. Are there avenues through which we can formalize it?
Action:
Harmonization is still an important goal/aspiration for the Africa RISISNG program. Since the CoPs haven’t been effective for achieving this, the PCT and the Chief Scientist will take up this role through taskforces that will be set-up to focus on specific aspects of harmonization like technology transfer, common approaches, methodologies, ICT and definitions. On a case-by-case basis the taskforces may also incorporate external experts from other projects/programs like SIIL.
PT, IHZ and the Chief Scientists to hold a follow up discussion on how to operationalize these taskforces and report during the next PCT meeting.


SRA advocacy document
Summary:
The SRA document draft was sent to Green Ink for revise writing, however a majority of the writing team members weren’t satisfied with the latest version that came back from Green Ink. What should be the next steps with this document?


Conversation:

  • JG – The document seem to be written by people who know too much. The document tries to cover audiences who know a lot and those who know just a little about SRA. The original intention was to target people who know little about SRA. We probably need to sit together in one room and write this together instead of emails/virtual.
  • BV – We could probably aim to make this document a position paper on systems research for agriculture.
  • SM – We could engage Peter Ballantyne to help with review of the document/provide feedback which then we can use to revise the draft.
Action:
  • JG, PT, BV, and Ken Giller to meet on 2 – 3 November in Accra after the SI Assessment Framework Workshop to revise the document. The revised document version would then be shared with Sieg Snapp and Daniel Rodrigues for an additional look.
  • BV to extend invitation to Ken Giller.
  • Revised document from this round of reviews/revisions to be resubmitted to Green Ink for editing, infographic design and layout/design.


Any other business

  1. ongoing proposals development
    1. ACIAR proposal
      • PT – This proposal has its roots from SIMLESA. Its focus is along the lines of sustainable intensification of crop-livestock systems in a climate smart manner. University of Queensland will lead this project, along with partnership from CIMMYT, and ILRI. The partners will have different roles as follows: CIMMYT will lead on M&E , ILRI on crop-livestock research and University of Queensland will lead on resilience work. A series of partner meetings have been held to get the project going. The project will be implemented in Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, and Mozambique with the addition of Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. The project budget is $8 million over 5 years. SI Assessment Framework will be embedded into this project.
    1. Horizon 2020 proposal
      • BV – This proposal is still being developed and still requires a lot of work. IITA and ILRI are involved. If funded, the project will also embed the SI Assessment Framework.
    1. GCRF proposal
      • PT - Still being drafted, but also if funded will also be focused on further development and implementation of the SI Assessment Framework.
  1. handover of the role of Chair from ILRI to IITA
      • SM handed over the PCT to BV for the coming year. Members congratulated SM for leading the team successfully despite the very challenging times faced by the program.


Any other Business

  1. BV and Fred Kizito to represent Africa RISING on the soil health consortium.
  2. Next meeting to be held virtually 15 November 2018 at 17:00 East Africa Time



Extended PCT meeting

  • Welcome remarks – Siboniso Moyo [Chair, Africa RISING PCT]
    • I want to officially welcome all of you to this extended PCT meeting.
    • During this meeting we will be discussing the topic of systems research in Africa RISING.
    • We’ve not met face to face as PCT for a while, but we’ve had regular virtual meetings. Last year [in June 2017], we met with some of you in Arusha when we had the PCT-SAG-CoP Champions meeting.
    • This morning’s PCT meeting touched on various agenda items and we will come back to you on some of those before determining certain directions that we’d like to take as Africa RISING program.
    • In one of our previous PCT meetings, we discussed and agreed that it would be worthwhile for us to come together and review the topic of systems research in agriculture. You will recall also that more recently [in March 2018] – some of you may have been present – we had a joint meeting with the SIMLESA project to discuss the issue of systems research in agriculture.
    • So we are coming together as Africa RISING family once again to clarify our understanding of systems research within the program. For us to do that, we need to go back and review what we have done, what is the thinking out there etc. So todays presentations will be geared towards clarifying our understanding of this topic.
    • There is also an expectation by others [beyond Africa RISING] that we would provide an opportunity for case-study on systems research. So if we can reflect on what we are doing, what we can do going forward and plan on how we will take it forward.
    • There are some questions that we brainstormed on, as the PCT that provide the basis of this meeting:
        • Is Africa RISING on track in the systems research in agriculture question?
        • Do we need to do more in terms of systems research?
        • Do we need systems research to have sustainable intensification?
    • Finally, I would also like to take the opportunity to welcome Fred Kizito in his new as the chief Scientist for West Africa.



Opening remarks - Jerry Glover, USAID

    • First, I would like to thank you all for enduring the past year when funding situation has not been stable/predictable. I appreciate that the situation presented a lot of problems with partners and your staff/teams, I wish things could have been different, but thank you for keeping your focus.
    • We do expect funding to roll through around January. That is when our Bureau is aiming for.
    • We really do need to clarify and articulate what we mean by systems research and the value it brings. This is not just for the sake of Africa RISING which is currently in year 7, but it’s well beyond Africa RISING to other development partners [e.g. Gates, ACIAR] who are interested in seeing what systems research can do and even developing some common science agenda.
    • Many people are therefore looking to Africa RISING to clarify this because it is one of the larger systems research projects still operating.
    • Within USAID the implication for this is that we are currently undergoing a re-organization of the Bureau for Food Security which is being transformed to the Bureau for Resilience and Food Security. This is not yet publicly official yet, but thanks to the perceived success of projects like Africa RISING and others, the sustainable intensification program is being elevated into a department.
    • This means that we will be ideally, much more influential to the mission programs and of course those mission funded program are what ultimately have the most impact on farmers lives.
    • So our articulation of systems research, what it can do and what it can achieve will really lead the way for an area that will now become an operating unit on its own and therefore opening up the possibility of directly influencing missions and their work.


Farming Systems Research in Africa RISING – Lieven Claessens


Discussion

    • What is the correct terminology to use – Farming Systems Research, Agricultural Systems Research, Systems Research in Agriculture, Systems Research for Agriculture?


Decision #1:

    • For the purpose of Africa RISING we will use the Systems Research for Agriculture.
        • CA – Which socio-economic data do you consider Africa RISING is missing that sort of prevent it from making a good system research case study?
        • LC - That was a general point/observation. Not specifically talking about Africa RISING, but as a general point that you need to have socio-economic data in addition to biophysical data in order for the systems research picture to be complete.
        • FK – Probably the program need s to come up with generic instruments to ensure that socio-economic data are collected / stipulating the minimum data sets that have to be collected when surveys are done.
        • JG – Thank you for your presentation Lieven, One key question for us [from the perspective of the USAID Mission staff] – How can we operationalize /translate systems research and the SI domains into tangible development outcomes?


Perspectives on systems research – Bernard Vanlauwe


Discussion

    • JG – The example in your presentation that illustrates the ‘changes in maize production systems’ and how that affects changes in farmers livelihoods represents an important message that systems research work should represent for any technology that we decide to work on.
    • JG – There has been a paper that clearly illustrates that to achieve sustainable intensification, then data has to be collected across all the five domains.
    • RC – Is it really possible to collect data across all the SI domains to achieve SI?


The Africa RISING Approach to Systems Research - Peter Thorne

    • IHZ – We need to determine the relevance of these indicators for all the systems in which Africa RISING works. This is probably something we can focus on in more depth at the upcoming SI Assessment Framework Implementation Workshop in Accra.
    • MB /PT – We shouldn’t pre-select relevant indicators before we implement the SI Framework.


visualization of changes in livelihoods


    • JG – Is it possible for Africa RISING to develop visualization of changes in livelihoods [show people below the poverty line/people below the calorie line as shown on the slide from Peter] from the panel data we hsave from the past?
    • JG – From your presentation [Peter], it shows that component research is critical for systems research. This is markedly different from what we had in the initial draft of the SRA document, where it came out as if we were pitting component research vs. systems research.



Day 2 [02 Oct]

NB: participants went through a list of issues / discussion points emerging from presentations given the previous day to agree on which ones deserved to be prioritized by the Africa RISING team for discussion and determination. The following top line issues were identified:

    • How do we translate Africa RISING systems research outputs into tangible development outcomes?
    • How do we operationalize systems research within Africa RISING?
    • Do we need systems research for sustainable intensification?


How do we operationalize systems research within Africa RISING?

Summary:
The goal to implement systems research has been intentional within Africa RISING since inception. This is clear from the initial program framework and diagram depicting Africa RISING’s operational niche. To all project partners, too, this has been clear considering the demands for integration of R4D/R-in-D activities across different specializations. However, this awareness by partners has not translated into concrete systems research outputs on the ground / at the farmers level – where it matters.


Conversation:

    • MB – When we are working Based on a presentation by Mateete regarding the process through which the Africa RISING program has gone through over the years to aim at sites we usually have the chance to do integration because we have all the partners together…also when we look across sites there is barely any communication.
    • IHZ – In previous planning meetings, partners have drawn influence diagrams meant to show interactions between different components of the systems research. Everybody at these meetings says yes, the influence diagrams are useful, but afterwards during implementation all the systems research elements represented in the influence diagrams is discarded. Recently at the retreat for Africa RISING core staff from IITA we resolved that we should make it compulsory that all partners submit the influence diagrams as part of their workplans to show clearly how their work is contributing to the systems/SI perspective. It seems that our researchers are yet to fully internalize that their interventions have a role in the 5 SI domains.
    • BV – We can consider having a group of 3 – 5 people to act as ‘guardians’ or ‘stewards’ for each SI dimensions across the program. Can we also consider investing in modelling work that will allow us to visualize the data as represented in each arrow with the accompanying data as depicted currently in the influence diagram shown by Mateete.


Action:

Decision #2:
Going forward, to operationalize the SI Assessment framework, all partners have to be obliged to collect data across all the SI domains when evaluating a specific technology.



Decision #3:
To follow up and ensure compliance/better implementation of the SI Assessment Framework, a group of scientists within the program will be mandated to act as stewards for each SI domain [plus data management]. A detailed terms of reference for this group of ‘SI domain stewards’ will be developed by PT and BV and circulated to members of the PCT for comment and ratification before the scientists are approached to take up this role. Scientists nominated for stewardship across different domains are as summarized in the table below. A training will also be organized for the stewards to prepare them for the role.



How do we translate Africa RISING systems research/SI outputs into tangible development outcomes?

Summary:
For the Africa RISING systems research/SI outputs to make sense to development partners and make a strong case for increased investments, the outputs need to be translated to tangible development outcomes that change the livelihoods of farmers.


Conversation:

    • JG – If data were collected to fill up the SI framework fully, would it help? I think it would. I can suggest to you the key indicators that USAID missions are interested in and in that way we can make a head start with ensuring that our systems research/SI outputs translate to development outcomes. So for example, under productivity domain they are interested in yield, under human domain they are interested in nutrition, under the social domain they are interested in gender preference, under economic domain they are interested in cost benefit ratios and finally with environment they are just keen that you measure something there. To me, these are 5 indicators that answer directly the questions USAID missions are interested in.


Action:


Decision #4:
Adapt some minimum data sets that have to be collected for all Africa RISING technologies being evaluated by partners. It should be clarified to all partners that these data sets are to be collected in addition to all the other data sets they would like to collect under each SI domain. This will at least help to initially meet the USAID interests.



Closing remarks – Siboniso Moyo

    • Thank you every one for your contributions to these discussions.
    • Out of this meeting we now have an action plan and I hope that when we meet a year later we can see progress on the issues which we have discussed at length.
    • Thanks to the PCT members for organizing this extended session!
Retrieved from "https://africa-rising-wiki.net/index.php?title=Pct31&oldid=1808"