AR-NAFAKA rev&plan July 2016
Africa RISING, NAFAKA and TUBORESHE CHAKULA (TUBOCHA) Scaling Project
Annual Review and Planning Meeting
4 – 5 July, 2016
Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania[edit | edit source]
- Share updates on project activities implemented and results for year 2
- Discuss lessons learnt and reflect on these for year 3
- Share updates on plans for implementation of project activities in Year 3 in light of end of NAFAKA project in its current form
- Develop draft plans for year 3
Expected meeting outputs
- Draft plans for third year
- Meeting report
Day 1 (4 July)
08:00 Participant’s registration - Devotha Mawole
08:45 Overview of agenda for the day – Jonathan Odhong’
09:00 Welcome & Opening remarks
- Mateete Bekunda - Chief Scientist Africa RISING East and Southern Africa
- Thomas Carr - Chief of Party NAFAKA
09:20 Overview of year 2 of project activities reporting back on requirements from USAID - Haroon Sseguya
09:40 Presentations by teams on implementation progress (20 minutes presentation for all teams except maize + 20 minutes discussion for each team)
10:00 Group photo and networking break around coffee/tea
10:30 Presentations by commodity teams continues….
12:30 Lunch Break
01:30 Lessons learned
03:00 Discussion about protocols and training materials – Mateete Bekunda/ Haroon Sseguya
04:00 Tea Break
04:30 Strategies for project implementation in year 3 - Haroon Sseguya (moved to day 2)
06: 30 Reception cocktail
Day 2 (5 July)
08:00 Overview of agenda for the day - Catherine Njuguna
08:05 Recap of day 1 proceedings - Gloriana Ndibalema
08:10 Using GIS to delineate sustainable recommendation domains for scaling agricultural technologies - Francis Muthoni, Africa RISING GIS Specialist
08:40 Strategies for project implementation - Haroon Sseguya
09:10 Gender integration framework - Gloriana Ndibalema
09:20 Presentation by each team of their draft work plans for the year (2016/2017) (10 minutes presentation + 10 minutes discussion for each presentation)
- Vegetable team draft /span work planspan styleline-height: 1.5
- Maize team draft /span work planspan styleline-height: 1.5
- Post-harvest team draft /span work planspan styleline-height: 1.5
- Rice team draft /span work planspan styleline-height: 1.5
10:20 Tea Break
10:50 Refinement of team work plans based on feedback received // Project Management Team meeting (running in parallel)
01:00 Lunch Break
02:00 Communication Session: focus on success stories generation
- Sharing experiences on success story documentation – Andreas Gramzow (tbc)
- A presentation by the communication team on guidelines for success stories – Catherine Njuguna
03:00 Feedback from Management Team meeting to the whole group – I. Hoeschle – Zeledon
03:30 Reflections/Meeting evaluation
04:00 Way forward and Closing
04:15 Tea & depart
Welcome & Opening remarks
Mateete Bekunda – Africa RISING East and Southern Africa, Chief Scientist
- Africa RISING-NAFAKA is a three-year partnership. Both projects are closing this year but partnership project ends next year.
- This partnership project is being cited by the USAID mission in Tanzania as a best case of how researchers and development partners need to work together. However it is still in theory; we do yet have the actual fruits to show.
- As a project we are now of our second year of implementation so we need to show positive results.
- As Africa RISING we had an evaluation as part of USAID and one of the comments was on this partnership and how it has succeeded.
- During this meeting, we need to show the technologies coming from researchers are being utilized by development partners. And show how the farmers are reacting to the technologies – positive, adoptions. So there has been a survey and this should be the one to show. It’s an exciting time to prove we are succeeding and to prove to stakeholders we are doing the right thing.
Tom Carr – NAFAKA Chief of Party
- USAID is proud of this collaboration and uses it as an example of good collaborations. NAFAKA 1 (phase 1) was a 35 million USD project ending in 2016 instead of 2017 as scheduled. The reason is because we had an aggressive program in 2016. In NAFAKA 2 (phase 2), while we will be maintaining presence in the 4 districts where we were working in NAFAKA 1 (with staff and offices), we will also expand to four more districts.
- NAFAKA 2 will start in September. Unfortunately we will only have half the budget we had in NAFAKA 1, but still maize and rice value chains will be part of NAFAKA 2.
- NAFAKA 2 will have the following objectives:
- Increasing productivity through private sector delivery of inputs
- Development of farmer organizations capacity
- Trade markets, finance and agribusiness – also include strong component on youth and women
- Also adding aspect of bio-fortifications at the miller levels, climate change agriculture and financing.
Overview of year 2 of project activities & reporting back on requirements from USAID - Haroon Sseguya Click here to download presentation by Haroon Sseguya
- We are making good progress towards to our targets. This year our target was 13, 000 households and we are close to 9000.
- We need to improve on scaling and develop a winning project's exit strategy.
- Project needs to also identify more partnerships/ actors such as NGOs to reach more farmers.
- There is good progress in legume distribution due to N2Africa which has brought many partners on board
- There is need for clarity in communicating the purpose of this project among farming communities - some farmers see it as a source of seeds and fertilizers, while other see it as a government subsidy program and expect giveaways.
- We need cost-benefit information of the commodities we are proposing. we will agree on protocols for this.
- The project teams have made good effort towards capacity building. project meeting quarterly as a directive from USAID.
- Some food for thought: NAFAKA and Africa RISING are all moving to phase 2 - what are the implications? In the current year we are expected to increase our target 5 times, how do we strategize to achieve this?
Presentations by teams on implementation progress
Maize team presentation – Bright Jumbo Click here to download presentation by Bright Jumbo for the maize team
- Highlights of the past year:
- - Established several mother and baby trials in each of the project intervention villages – see presentation for breakdown.
- - Identified about 6 farmer preferred maize varieties
- - The team have organized several field days in Babati, Kilosa, Kilolo and Kongwa – Kiteto (5 in Babati; 4 in Kilolo; 7 in Kongwa – Kiteto)
- - The team implemented various community empowerment trainings (134 farmers sensitized in Babati; Kilosa 586 farmers sensitized; Kilolo 353 farmers sensitized; Kongwa Kiteto 402 farmers sensitized). The sensitization meetings are on good agricultural practices and other topics of benefit to the farmers.
- - Various trainings also held on various sites for the farmers as a follow up to the sensitization meetings. Topics varied from good agricultural practices; nutrition deficiency; how to deal with certain crop pests; fertilizer application
- - The team also organized exchange visits for farmers in Kongwa Kiteto as a means of fostering farmer – farmer learning
- - To support next field season (year III), the team is working to produce OWN SEEDS ON SITE BY Meru Agro in Mbeya for both maize, beans, groundnuts and soyabeans
Feedback and observations:
Question: You focus a lot on varieties for maize; can you specifically elaborate on what you have on the shelf for GAP more specifically on Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease? Response (B. Jumbo): The project has not been focusing on Aflatoxin but on NAFAKA phase 2 there will be a focus on aflatoxin. The MLN research is happening through the mother Africa RISING project, mostly we advise on host resistance and combined with good agricultural practices from farmers but work on tolerant varieties is still ongoing.
Response (G. Chacha): MLN is a serious topic at the moment in Tanzania; according to the Min. of Agriculture feels there is an urgent need to address this. Meru Agro has a moderately tolerant variety that is likely to be released next year. There is also currently a quarantine enforced by the Min. of Agriculture from Northern Tanzania to Southern Tanzania, the ministry is trying to enforce this quarantine at the moment.
Comment: There is a slightly difference on the technologies being promoted for scaling from district to district. For example in Mvomero we do rotation and spacing/varieties; Mbozi and Kilolo we work on rotation and also fertilizer use
Question: You have a target of 60,000 for this team and its beyond stated overall project target of 47,000 Response (H. Sseguya): The 80,000 farmer target was initially in the proposal; however after review this was revised
Question: What are you doing about access to seeds? How do we ensure farmers access seeds after year 3? Response (F. Baijukya): Given the budget available, we can’t do much with regards to access. However on the ground there are several initiatives dealing with this issue. As a team we are therefore looking at the alternative of establishing partnerships to address this issue. In some cases we already have some partnerships with different organizations. During our sensitization campaign we therefore move with them and let them talk to farmers.
Response (F. Kizito): In the case of Babati, we learnt that it’s important to have agro-dealers with us on the field during the field days.
Comment (Irmgard): In our reports we need to also remember to keep reporting on whatever little efforts we have to address the issue of access to seed despite the limited budget challenge.
We have not been able to see in the presentation what are the deviations from original targets set?
Vegetables team – Andreas Gramzow Click here to download presentation by Andreas Gramzow for the vegetable team
- Highlights of the past year:
- - Our approach is intense with training we give to every farmer. We train the farmers on: improved varieties, healthy seedlings, GAP, seed multiplication
- - The team therefore doesn’t use field days as a core methodology in its approach
- - The team works with a group of farmer trainers who (baby trials) and the trainers in turn train their neighbors (other farmers/grandbaby trials)
- - Team is active in 23 villages
- - Trained 538 farmers in 2015/2016 through the training of trainer approach
- - Trained 73 farmers in seed multiplication
- - Distributed 1056 seed kits in 2015/2016
- - Introduced agribusiness and record keeping training
Feedback and observations:
Question: In Iringa are you connected with the NAFAKA network? Response (A. Gramzow) : In Iringa we only work with the public extension services, and to be honest we are not well connected with NAFAKA. We would love to, but we do not see any direct partners yet. It would be great if you could suggest.
Comment (M. Bekunda): There is lee way for AVRDC in NAFAKA 2 because there will be a focus on nutrition. If the AVRDC team can look at it from the perspective of nutrition then this is possible.
Comment (H. Sseguya): The team is under-reporting some of their results. For example, can you also include the CRS staff trained too in the list of trained people.
Post-harvest team – Gaspar Audifas Click here to download presentation by Gaspar Audifas for the post-harvest team
- Highlights of the past year:
Implemented trainings on nutrition for community level service provider Held trainings on post-harvest handling of cereals Offered trainings on fortification process Develop a booklet for complementary foods for under five children to be used by community health workers
Feedback and observations:
Comment (F. Baijukya): There are other initiatives that promote these products e.g CRS is really involved in this. The team should explore possibility of linking up with other initiatives. So availability may not be a challenge, but rather the access.
Comment (C. Nyangi): The problem could be awareness as opposed to price/cost of hermatic bags. The team should therefore consider o include some work on the awareness aspect too because once farmers know the benefits of the bags then they may not view the costs as expensive.
Comment (T. Carr): How big is the post-harvest team? It seems to me that you are working on areas that we are also focusing on in NAFAKA 2. Can we plan to coordinate better on these issues which include nutrition and fortification that we are both working on?
Comment (H. Ssseguya): The challenge of duplication goes back to how we make entry on our activities. There is probably therefore a need for stakeholder mapping to determine the other stakeholders working in the areas where we are implementing activities.
Rice team – Rajabu Joseph Kangile Click here to download presentation by Rajabu Kangile for the rice team
Highlights of the past year:
- Established a total of 21 demonstrations . The demos have focused on fertilizer and rice varieties
- The team has held on site trainings and in-house/class room trainings focusing on- land preparation , GAP trainings, bund preparation, basal application of fertilizers etc
- The team managed to train 702 farmers
- The farmer field days have been aired in the media
Feedback and observations:
Question: How do you intend to deal with the issue of limited seed access since the project is expanding? Response (R. Kangile): The rice team started late, but we are going to use the existing QDS systems that NAFAKA has to make sure that seeds are available to farmers.
Question (F. Kizito): Have you explored the leeching requirements to flush out the salt levels in those areas affected by salt? Response (R. Kangile): We are using the blanket recommendation and the ability of farmers to purchase gypsum, but there are currently no site specific recommendations.
Comment (F. Baijukya): In soils where our technology appears to be limited, should we be working there? Probably this is a problem best left for the mother Africa RISING project to research on the solutions.
Lessons Learned in year 2 of project implementation Participants took part in a VIPP card session to identify lessons learnt, after which they grouped them based on similarity. The following broad groups of lessons learned from the past year were identified:
- Integration required across the value chain
- Partnership with the private sector and government is critical in outreach
- Collaborative partnerships help increase scope and reduce time to achieve deliverables
- The project needs to start involving more stakeholders , especially development partners and the civil society
- It is absolutely critical going forward for the project to continue leveraging on the existing partnerships
- Actively engaging local institutions improves efficiency
- Engaging with national partners and private sector would greatly help the project to reach more numbers while also reducing operational costs
2. Effective coordination
- Planning activities prior to commencement of the season remains key to ensuring a good take-off
- Maize theme is big, but not effectively managed
3. Communication and knowledge sharing
- Information and skills are needed not only at farmer level, but also at extension service level
- More needs to be done to ensure farmers have the correct expectations about the project and what it will do
- The teams should aim to use simpler/easy to understand method/language for the farmers to ensure better adoption
4. Access to inputs
- Quality Declared Seed (QDS) - Legume seed is an issue that we need to think carefully think about. Last season in Arusha farmers in Arusha and Kiteto had difficulty finding seeds.
- Related to the QDS discussion, the overall point is that seed access is a challenge for most farmers. More can therefore be done to improve the issue of access because availability as has been intimated in discussions during the meeting isn't a challenge.
5. Stop experimenting, focus on scaling
- Partners should concentrate on conducting demos and not research trials
6. Exit and sustainability strategy
- The project needs to have a clear exit strategy considering that this is year 3
- Having and utilizing champion farmers/community leaders ensures accelerated project delivery. Each team should consider this approach
- Using active/participatory approaches that involve farmers (learning by doing) leads to improved adoption of technologies
- Patience with actors on adoption strategy
7. Cost benefit analysis
- We need to evaluate the technologies we are offering farmers from different dimensions including the cost benefit analysis. This mess that we have to compare the performance of the improved seed the project is offering to farmers versus the normal farmer practise, but CBA should be done at pre-dissemination stage.
- Partners need to do better in documenting qualitative information about the project’s activities too!
- The data collection forms are too many and they collect repeated data. They should be merged to fewer forms
Discussion about protocols and training materials During this session, participants noted that there was no clarity of what nature/form the protocols they were expected to present at the meeting were to take. The following outline was therefore agreed on as the standard outline to be used by all the commodity teams to develop the protocols describing each of the technologies being scaled by the project. The protocols are supposed to be two page materials that can be used to "showcase" the technologies we have to the USAID missions.
Agreed format: - Title/Name of Technology - Why the technology is important - Description of the technology (accompany with photo) - Benefit of technology (include data showing this...economic benefits, yield increase, environmental benefits etc....talk about the appropriate benefits for each technology) - How to get started/implement the technology
- Two page protocols to be developed by all commodity teams by 15 August, 2016. Submissions to Haroon.
- Detailed field guides by teams to also be finalized and submitted to Haroon in September, 2016.
Day 2 (5 July)
Using GIS to delineate sustainable recommendation domains for scaling agricultural technologies Click here to download presentation by Francis Muthoni
Feedback and observations: Question: The presentation was very interesting. Can this information be simplified to four major domains as follows? This will help us also determine better what technologies to take where. a) High agro-ecological potential, low market access, b) Low agro-ecological potential, high market access c) High agro-ecological potential, high market access d) Low agro-ecological potential, low market access
Response (F. Muthoni): What I did is to disintegrate the data at the most basic level. And from the wide web diagram where I showed the criteria for disintegrating those domains, we know where every class is coming from. I did that because when you are targeting the technologies you may not look at all the 20 domains. So your suggestion is technically very possible and it is one of the intentions for disintegrating data (aim of this work). The next thing is (why I am soliciting for data from the teams) is allocating technologies to zones i.e. Where what technology works best where. Once we can get this information about all our technologies then we will be able to objectively allocate zones to specific technologies by the project.
Comment (T. Carr): I am impressed. We have been trying to install this capacity (GIS) at NAFAKA, but so far haven't been successful. I would like to talk to you after the meeting to know what is it I haven't done well so far to build this capacity among the NAFAKA team.
Question: What is the margin of error of this method compared to the other methods you've explained? Response (F. Muthoni): The accuracy of this work is at 89%, so that margin of error is about 11%.
Question: Where did you get this data on land cover? And what is the resolution of your maps-is it 1:30 or 1:10? Response (F. Muthoni): I derived the data from different sources that are online and also other organizations like CIAT, Harvest Choice from IFPRI. Land cover data was from the Chinese government which is the best in the market at the moment released last year - so it's of very high resolution.
Strategies for phase 2 implementation – Haroon Sseguya & Silvanus Mruma Click here to download presentation by Haroon Sseguya on strategies for phase 2 implementation
Salient issues tackled in this presentation by Haroon Sseguya were as follows:
1. Engagement: a) Ethical engagement of actors (externally and internally) We have so far not been clear as a project in explaining and providing the correct expectations to farmers. In some of the sites we are seen as a seed distributing project, while in other places we are viewed as government subsidy program. b) Ensuring community selection is inclusive and transparent The project teams need to start working with the community leaders/village leadership for better community buy-in. We need to also deliberately aim to ensure we include the youth. c) Incentives for farmer communities We are not expected to offer farmers money when they come for trainings. This is a USAID guideline that as a project we should adhere to coming from our donor. This issue also links back to the expectation we offer farmers by clarifying what we will offer or not offer. However there are exempt cases - if training is residential or involves transport the refunds for these can be offered. d) Inputs Are they free? This issue was discussed in the mother Africa RISING project and concluded that there are no free inputs in the research context which the mother project works in. From a development perspective, NAFAKA the approach has been that we map out the network of suppliers up to the village levels (VBAA’s). The role of the VBAA’s is demand aggregation. So these VBAA’s receive supplies directly from the big agro dealers. The farmers at village level therefore purchase from these VBAA’s who also keep records that they share with us.
2. NAFAKA 2 – how do we proceed? Issues that need clarification: Switchover to phase 2 implies a scale down of NAFAKA staff, but this year the expectation is that Africa RISING – NAFAKA project will scale up? The other issue is the change in geographic focus areas in NAFAKA 2 which don’t include the areas where NAFAKA 1 was concentrated.
Discussion on NAFAKA 2 and implications: S. Mruma: These challenges (with staffing) have been there for some time now. The key to success has always been to leverage the existing partnerships with farmer associations. Also working with Village Based Associations offers another method of responding to this challenge. I think we therefore have a chance to overcome these challenges by continuing to work with MVIWATA as well as the local government staff.
F. Baijukya: We pay the local government staff (VACO’s) an allowance of USD 45 monthly for fueling their motorbikes etc. as a means to try and overcome the challenge of short staffing in the villages. This has so far worked to great effect. An important lesson is that local governments (extension staff) are quite well respected and the influence they have with the farmers can’t be taken for granted.
C. Chuwa: The rice team pays the VACO’s USD 20 per month
F. Kizito: In Babati the maize team offers nearly similar amount (USD 40 per month) to pay the extension agents.
T. Carr: One thing that should be pointed out is that most of the NAFAKA changes start occurring in 2019 – we will change our focus activities from zone 1 to zone 2. However we will not be dropping our partners/beneficiaries in those zones per se. The only thing that will happen is a reduction of our physical presence in zone 1.
E. Swai: Most of the villages have no extension staff in Kongwa Kiteto; however the expectation is that you have to get a farmer in each village. On the other hand some of the villages have an officer assigned to them and they are quite well equipped. So there are these disparities that exist. It is therefore critical for implementing partners to use their intuition to read into these situations to decide how to deal with the staffing challenge. I also advise that it is very important for us to work with the District Agricultural Office.
Gender integration framework Click here to view the gender integration framework template presented by Gloriana Ndibalema
Presentation of draft work plans 2016/2017 season
Feedback and observations: Comment (H. Sseguya): Your indicators are low and there is no trainee numbers expected. So you may want to consider revising the indicators.
Comment (S. Mruma): With those target numbers it will not be possible to reach all of them through demo plots alone. So you have to work with agro-dealers and then anybody who purchases the inputs we provide (mop , ammonium sulphate) can be considered a beneficiary. Also there needs to be agreement/discussion on strategy to ensure SATO 1/2 seeds available to farmers.
Question: Did you implement a demo in the same areas last year? Are you therefore still working with the same farmers in the demos or are you changing?
Response (R. Kangile): No, we are not changing the farmers taking part in the demos. There is a scaling model used by the project that cascades from year one to 3rd season whereby beneficiary farmers in year 1 are expected to train 15 farmers in year 2 and the 15 farmers from year 2 subsequently train 5 other farmers in year 3.
Feedback and observations: Comment (S. Mruma): It would be good to have a discussion about how to collaborate on aflatoxin interventions.
Comment (S. Mruma): We may want to have meetings with suppliers of some of the technologies like the PICS bags and shellers to discuss the methods / strategies in place for distribution/ access by farmers to these technologies. The issue of quality is important.
Comment (F. Baijukya): We need to be careful not promote specific businesses but rather the technologies. For example the PICS bags have been approved by Tanzania Bureau of Standards. We can negotiate with manufacturers to make sure PICS bags are available at affordable prices to the farmers.
Question: Is it possible for the team to also consider going beyond warehouse storage with the PICS bags and also go into household storage. Possibly the team should consider using both approaches?
Response (G. Audifas): There were several challenges experienced with using the PICS bags at household level. Some of the farmers used the bags for something different; others even consumed the stored maize just one month in.
Comment (I. H-Zeledon): Which crops are we considering with regards to the pesticide analysis activity – is it vegetables? Is this an activity that should be done within this scaling project?
Feedback and observations: Comment (A. Gramzow): We shouldn’t limit our view of cash crops, more and more now leafy vegetables are falling into this category of cash crops.
Question: How are you preparing farmers for exit of AVRDC? Response (A. Gramzow): Through seed multiplication we train them how they are able to reproduce their own vegetable seed. With these intensive trainings we are quite optimistic that our exit will be ok. Linking them up to our seed companies is also an option that the team will consider.
Question: Will you(the vegetable team) go back to the communities to make follow up on adoption? Response (A. Gramzow): Yes, we’ll do this.
Feedback and observations: Comment (H. Sseguya): The indicators presented in the work plan are not realistic/ uniform. Check the first year/ year 2 sites, some of the targets are too ambitious.
Question: Is it possible for the team to incorporate Behaviors Change Communication (BCC) as an activity to promote farmer adoption and use by the maize team. Response (H. Sseguya): We can consider printing flyers, radio talk shows, film displays, educational videos etc.
5 tips to writing success stories - Catherine Njuguna Click here to view the presentation
Closing of Workshop & Way forward - B. Mateete
- This has been a good review and planning meeting
- We received the (not so good) news that the budget for the project has been reduced. We will work with Irmgard based on this new information and send each team a revised budget ceiling to all the teams by 8 July, 2016. This will have implications also on revisions to the work plans.
- All teams are expected to submit their revised work plans to Haroon (with copy to M. Bekunda) by 31 July, 2016