From africa-rising-wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Africa RISING ESA Project Review and Planning Meeting
14 – 16 September 2021 [4/5-hour sessions on each day]
[edit | edit source]


  • Agenda based on East Africa Time (EAT)
  • Meeting start time; 13.30 EAT each day


  1. Review progress, activities, and results for 2020/21 season.
  2. Plan for implementation of activities in 2021/22 season.
  3. Share updates with partners about project implementation and future direction.


Day ONE [14 September]

  • 13.30 Meeting start, logistics, and housekeeping – E. Massam/J.Odhong
  • 13.45 Welcome and opening remarks
  • Hoeschle-Zeledon, Africa RISING ESA & WA Project Manager
  • L. Tripathi, IITA Eastern Africa Director
  • 14.00 Project implementation updates & developments - M. Bekunda
  • 14.15 Start of Review Session [progress with implementation of ESA workplan sub-activities]
  • Click on the link below to view list of Sub-activities, presenters, and presentation time

  • 5 mins. allocated for each sub-activity
  • Total of 67 sub-activities to be presented during the review session
  • 30 sub-activities to be presented on day one
  • 10 min. break in between [at 16.15]
  • 18.20 End of day one

Day TWO [15 September]

13.30 Quick recap of day one
13.40 Reporting session continued
  • Click on the link below to view list of Sub-activities, presenters, and presentation time

  • Cover 37 sub-activities
18.30 End of day two

Day THREE [16 September]

13.30 Quick recap of day two
13.40 Progress with impact evaluation studies in ESA – C. Azzarri
14.00 Work planning break-out preparations – M. Bekunda
14.20 Structured plenary discussions around the following topics:
  • Ranking of specific farming systems’ priorities and gaps for guiding future SI research in ESA - led by S. Snapp, J. Kihara; G. Fischer [60 mins]
  • Surveys specific to research and scaling partnership activities/Surveys specific to long-term research - led by J. Manda [20 mins]
  • Foresight/dynamic modeling and simulations WA example - led by F. Muthoni [20 mins]
16.00 Break
16.10 Structured plenary discussions around the following topics cont'd:
  • Developing materials for Empowering extension - led by J. Odhong [20 mins]
  • ICT for scaling - led by F. Kizito [20 mins]
16.50 Brainstorming plenary discussion - Possible partnership with RUFORUM – Graduate core module on SIAF - led by R. Chikowo [30 mins]
17.10 Brainstorming plenary discussion - On-going scaling partnerships with development institutions [20 mins]
17.30 Reflections, including thoughts on key phase 2 close-out activities, and next steps
18.00 Closing remarks - I. Hoeschle-Zeledon


Participants list

  1. A. Kimaro, ICRAF
  2. B. Zemadim, ICRISAT
  3. C. Azzarri, IFPRI
  4. C. Thierfelder, CIMMYT
  5. D. Mgalla, IITA
  6. E. Swai, TARI-Hombolo
  7. F. Kizito, IITA
  8. F. Muthoni, IITA
  9. G. Fischer, IITA
  10. I. Hoeschle-Zeledon, IITA
  11. J. Kihara, Bioversity-CIAT
  12. J. Manda, IITA
  13. J. Odhong, IITA
  14. L. Claessens, IITA
  15. M. Bekunda, IITA
  16. M. Mutenje, IITA (consultant)
  17. P. Okori, ICRISAT
  18. R. Chikowo, MSU
  19. E. Temu ( ICRAF)
  20. J. Kihara, Bioversity-CIAT
  21. J. Manda, IITA
  22. E. Massam, IITA
  23. Y. Muzanila (SUA)
  24. M. Shtindi, (SUA)
  25. M. Mutenje, IITA (consultant)
  26. M. Mulundu
  27. R. Chikowo, MSU
  28. J. Mwololo, ICRISAT-ZW)
  29. w. Gichohi (ICRISAT-Malawi)
  30. B. Jumbo, (ICRASAT-ZW)
  31. C. Azzari (IFPRI)
  32. D. Songinge (Wolrdveg)
  33. R. Wanyama, (Worldveg)
  34. R. Chirwa, (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT)
  35. M. Wezzi
  36. M. Agnes,LUANAR
  37. B. Beliyou, IFPRI
  38. S. Snapp ( External)
  39. P. Okori,(ICRISAT-Malawi)
  40. C. Mankhwala,(Alliance Bioversity-CIAT
  41. M. Cavicchioli (IITA)
  42. K. Mekonnen (ILRI)
  43. J. Okonya


  • Review progress, activities, and results for 2020/21 season

Project implementation updates & developments - M. Bekunda
ESA Project implementation updates and developments: 2020-2021-B.Mateete


  • Juliana. Mateete, How have you used the Africa Rising Project to inform policy?
  • Mateete. We have been working and engaged together with the local district. Also, the material we are producing for scaling is part of documents that inform policy at the local level.By this year our plans are to developing materials to inform policy

Review [progress with implementation of ESA workplan sub-activities]

Outcome 1. Productivity, diversity, and income of crop‒livestock systems in selected agroecologies enhanced under climate variability
Output 1.1 Demand-driven, climate-smart, integrated crop‒livestock research products (contextualized technologies) for improved productivity, diversified diets, and higher income piloted for specific typologies in target agroecologies
Activity 1.1.1: Assess and iteratively improve resilient crop-crop and crop-livestock integration systems


  • Irmgard. Regis, have you been able to do monitoring visits to the field?
  • R.Regis. The big problem is we are not allowed to assemble farmers due to Covid. Though things are changing, the primary field works, the trials; case study survey; characterization, harvesting, and social economics mode are implemented
  • Irmgard. Which are the most SI technologies experienced by farmers?
  • Regis. We emphasized more on the doubled-up and systematic rotation and so on. However, off the light, we were looking at a simple work that Wezi in LUANAR aiming at closing the yield gaps of legumes through the appropriate density. Also, part of the survey and model two of cases of studies documented the whole farmer analysis evidence farmers who are performing the double-up experiences density experiences better yield. This work has been adding up to our work Intensification approach. On the other side, we are interested in improving climate-smart and made it a point other than nutrient management, suitable germplasm, and others. The tied ridges are one of the water conservation which can improve the efficiency on the farms. At the moment, we are looking at the data we obtained from the survey to understand the proposition of farmers.


  • Mateete.Kimaro. Please provide an update on FtF and Dataverse uploads
  • Kimaro. All indicators were submitted besides field activities completed in the last year 2020. However, the update focus on the information on the work done this year 2021. And there are followups with the M& E personnel
  • Comment. Mateete. All members should note publication is part of the TFT indicators. You were supposed to have for the FtF
  • Christian. Implementing the gliricidia scheme, some argue for the virtual, more distant shading on planting -and urges is much easier adopted. What are your experiences with the planting patterns Kimaro?
  • . Kimaro. At the moment, proportionally more farmers intercrop than those who took Gliriciad as part of either component of SWC mainly contours because the countors establishment is easy to intercrop, so it's a matter of exposure. The Gliriciadia came later after the contour had been established
  • Christian. Okay, have you asked farmers what they are there preferences?
  • . Kimaro. That will come out of the data that the M& E personnel are working on.


  • Juliana. Dr. Shitindi, are there any significant misconceptions among farmers regarding weather variability & its impacts on maize and legumes? What are they?
  • R. Shitindi. Yes, there are some misconceptions, e.g., 1. Failure to differentiate weather from climate hence treating current season weather conditions as a long-term average of two. Inability to distinguish the impacts associated with wither variability from social economics such as underutilization of improved inputs 3. The application of weather data in planning crop calendars as coping strategies is also not well understood by most farmers
  • Juliana.Thank you, Dr. Shitindi, for the response
  • Irmgard. Important point by Shitindi

Activity 1.1.2: Evaluate and implement pathways that are effective at improving access to seeds and clonal materials of modern varieties of legumes, cereals, vegetables, forages, and livestock
Output 1.2 Demand-driven, labor-saving, and gender-sensitive research products to reduce drudgery while increasing labor efficiency in the production cycle piloted for relevant typologies in target areas
Activity 1.2.1: Support local partners through training on appropriate drudgery-reducing technology delivery. No sub-activity was planned for 2019-2020.


  • Daniel. Swai you have shown FTF data sharing for 2021 as completed. Are you referring to 2020? I think for 2021 is research rack up data that you have shared already
  • Swai. Yes, the FTF data I am referring to is for 2020

Output 1.3. Tools (including ICT-based) and approaches for disseminating recommendations in relation to above research products, integrated in capacity development
Activity 1.3.1:Conduct extrapolation domain analysis based on GIS, agroecology, and crop model-generated information to establish the potential of technologies for geographical reach


  • Christian. Francis, you finally submitted the first manuscript. How far are we with the second Geo-hub manuscript that we have been working with you?
  • Francis. The current manuscript is under finalizing the Analysis, and the people on the Geo hub are yet to complete the write-up on the methodologies, etc. We can have discussions. Also, there will be follow-up meetings too.
  • Comment. Mateete. Lieven, on sub-activity 1.3.1 you should not be putting anything because all the activities were done and completed

Outcome 2. Natural resource integrity and resilience to climate change enhanced for the target communities and agroecologies
Output 2.1. Demand-driven research products for enhancing soil, land, and water resource management to reduce household/community vulnerability and land degradation piloted in priority agroecologies
Activity 2.1.1: Characterize current practices in ESA through identifying formal and informal arrangements for access to and use of water and land resources
  • Sub-activity Assessing buffer and adaptive capacity to harness resilience of different farm types]] - J.Groot

Output 2.2 Innovative options for soil, land and water management in selected farming systems demonstrated at strategically located learning sites
Activity 2.2.1: Set up demonstration and learning sites in target ESA communities


  • Daniel. Regis. You have not shared a status on the FTF indicator, and research rackup data for 2021 as you did for the database. Kindly update!
  • Regis. Thank Daniel, please, note we will be working on completing the FTF


  • Irmgard: Shitindi, why were you not able to acquire the sediment traps?
  • Shitindi: Delayed access to year one budget for sub-activity and dropping off the work plan for 20219/20 made it impossible to manage the three sub-activities I was implementing

Outcome 3. Food and feed safety, nutritional quality, and income security of target smallholder families improved equitably (within households)
Output 3.1 Demand-driven research products to reduce postharvest losses and improve food quality and safety piloted in target areas
Activity 3.1.1: Conduct packaging and delivery of postharvest technologies through community and development partnerships with an iterative review, refining, and follow-up


  • Mateete.Agnes, Where can one access the recept? Also, from your presentation, is there a missing report on the FtF database compliance
  • Agnes. Mateete, we just completed data collection in July; the data is yet to be cleaned!. Due to Corona, last year, it was impossible to implement this task. About the recipes, we have three recipes we are working with in terms of Analysis, acceptance. That the data we have at the moment
  • Jonathan. Would you document these recipes and publish them?
  • Irmgard. How will the recipes publish?
  • Jonathan. Well, Imgard, there are two aspects; first, like a flyer/brochure. In terms of nutritional composition, acceptability, and the like, we might opt for the manuscript.

Comment. Irmgard. Agnes should consider documenting the recipes as the next activity


  • Irmgard. What was the research presented about?
  • Chirwa. The research presented looked at the cropping systems for plot and then intercropping of the two bean varieties
  • Irmgard.16 Kg g of the seed was distributed to the 283 farmers. Would you please clarify what was the area that a farm could plan with that input?
  • Chirwa. The 16 Kg of distributed seeds to farmers were used to plant in half an acre of land
  • Mateete. You mentioned that the manuscript on quality maize is available and under review. Is this one manuscript or several?
  • Chirwa. Yes, Mateete. This is one draft manuscript in QPM, and there is the opportunity to daft another one
  • Mateete. If it is, the manuscript wasn't supposed to be submitted in October?
  • Chirwa. I can share the manuscript today with Mateete
  • Irmgards. Chirwa, do you mean there have been no research activities in this current year since October 2020?
  • Chirwa. Yes, Irmgard, and this is because of transitions from CIMMTY to ICRISAT. I might get some activities this season
  • Irmgard. Okay, did complete value chain analysis for maize
  • Chirwa. Yes, I did complete the value chain analysis for maize.

Day TWO [15 September]-Review [progress with implementation of ESA workplan sub-activities

Outcome 4. Functionality of input and output markets and other institutions to deliver demand-driven sustainable intensification research products improved
Output 4.1 Access to profitable markets for smallholder farming communities and priority value chains facilitated
Activity 4.1.1: Conduct comprehensive value-chain analysis with a specific focus on SI technologies

Outcome 4. Functionality of input and output markets and other institutions to deliver demand-driven sustainable intensification research products improved
Activity 4.1.2: Conduct a value chain stakeholder analysis (stakeholder mapping)
Activity 4.1.3: Develop a value chain enhancement strategy (including collective action approaches, contractual arrangements, and standardization)
Activity 4.1.4: Identify and evaluate existing mechanisms that inform farmers about dynamic market needs
Activity 4.1.5: Conduct an analysis of the existing baseline survey data and supplement them with qualitative surveys from target regions

Outcome 5. Partnerships for the scaling of sustainable intensification research products and innovations
Output 5.1 Opportunities for the use and adoption of sustainable intensification technologies identified for relevant farm typologies
Activity 5.1.1: Farmer participatory experimentation with crop and soil management and integrated crop-livestock technologies in on-farm situations


  • Mateete.Christian, If CA is both in Malawi & Zambia, why write them separately per country?
  • Christian. The systems that we are implementing in Zambia and Malawi are very diverse. We initially did just the Zambian one; now that we have developed the methodology, we could expand this to Malawi.

Activity 5.1.2: Use farm trial data to apply crop simulation models and assess performance over space and time, including assessment of climate-smart technologies to establish the potential for adaptation and mitigation


  • Mateete.Patrick, How are you working with the Kimaro team? I see the ICRAF student doing similar analyses," Analysis of rainfall variability and trends for better climate risk management in the major agro-ecological zones in Tanzania," you presented
  • Patrick. Yes, I am aware. We are working with them. We interacted with them last year to get the joint publication to work forward. Conversations were going on, and that is why you could see the contribution toward ICRAF work
Activity 5.1.3: Establish adaptive field experiments with mineral and crop/animal-derived organic manure


  • Mateete. Shitindi, do we have reports of these farmer field days and meetings? fertilizer micro-dosing on crop yield, water, and nutrient use efficiency in the Kongwa District?
  • Shitindi. Mateete, I will check with ICRAF on what was not reported about the joint field day we conducted. The meetings presented include the review and planning meetings conducted by ARESA in which I attended using the budget received for my first work plan and was not required in addition to work plans. In addition to the planning meeting, we also participated external review meeting and one research partner meeting GIS expert who was supposed to be reported as part of sub-activity
  • Daniel. Do you plan to submit any FTF & database data in the 2021 reporting period?
  • Shitindi. Mgalla, I will submit weather data for data verse but FtF
Activity 5.1.4: Demonstrate the use and impact of crop residues, forages, and other organic resources as animal feed and nutrient resources
  • Comment.Irmgard. There were significant investments under these particular activities; however, the outcomes were not successful


  • Mateete. Regis. You presented that the Survey data ended in 2021 and publications in 2020. Please explain
  • Regis. There were legumes surveys this first season in April because we established huge gaps, especially on cowpea where farmers substantially harvest. We did the very comprehensive data on grain legumes. This year, we plan a survey focusing on yield carts for legume crops; what we reported is nothing to do with maize and yield for panels
  • Mateete. Regis, how may development partners/farmers/policy benefit from this?
  • Regis. By design, data are complicated and responds to difficult research questions. The data can provide insight into making one of the most critical reach data sources that you may find in Africa
  • Comment. Sieg. I think sequence matters once we have influential publications and are engaged with policy institutes, for example, MWAPATA, integrate with the parliament via our connections. These lessons, especially on groundnuts, Gender ( which could be considered on the fertilizer policy) are essential for a large area. The point taken is we have strong evidence from multiple areas, substantial quantitative regression. We can bring these to the attention of policymaker contact
  • Comment.Julius. To add up to Mateete comments about how we could research development partners. There are a lot of publications; however, the layperson could be hard to understand. Some of these publications are lead by policymakers, for example, the current leader of MWAPATA. We need to focus on how best we can make recommendations from these kinds of publications presents the opportunity for us to see how best we can make some of the recommendations from these papers to reach the policymakers
  • Mateete. Regis, Can we use that MWAPATA to reach policymakers outside Malawi?
  • Regis. MWAPATA is the policy think tank based in Malawi. Besides, I have insight from the MWAPATA team that the similar MWAPATA like policy think tanks are in other countries like Zambia, and there are plans to extend to other countries like Tanzania
  • Comment. Christian. Reaching policymaker- farmer level. How can we translate the technical information we have to farmers in a disgested way, provide them with the technical guidance, expand the knowledge to farmers that we directly interact with? For example, the handbook's purpose goes a little further, but we need something with simplifier language, drawings? , are planning to do something like that as well.
  • Comment. Patrick. To add up on a statement from Prof. Mateete comment on benefiting policy, farmers, etc. We need to have micro and macro arguments on engaging in approaches because policymakers are at different levels, such as user policy and higher decision-makers. One of the activities is to carefully think about how to engage at the micro and macro level. I would propose we could think about the things that can be easily caught. The fertilizer story is good, as it connects with the coming summit with the UN and others. It would be even best when it comes across the regions.
  • Comment. Munyaradzi. I used some of the Africa RISING products in the 2063 strategy. Policymakers showed interest in the cost-benefit assessment at the macro-level. For scaling of the AR technologies, I propose we translate the results of our impact to the macro-level. Also, using different platforms to disseminate policy impact is essential. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Food and Nutrition Security in Malawi - Technical Report

Activity 5.1.5: Use crop-livestock models for trade-off analysis
Activity 5.1.6: Disseminate best-fit integrated crop-livestock technologies to reach and have an effect on small-scale farmers in a landscape context
  • Sub-activity Small-scale piloting of FarmMATCH – a framework for typology-based targeting and scaling of agricultural innovations. (Matching Agricultural Technologies to Farms and their Context)-J.Groot
Activity 5.1.7: Conduct cost-benefit and gender analysis coupled with other socioeconomic analyses to identify and quantify adoption constraints and opportunities for different farmer contexts


  • Mateete. On sub-activity 5176, "Determine Africa RISING research on household welfare and return on investment," can this type of work be applied to no so big scaling sub-activities? Suppose all sub-activities are invested. Can we get the Return on that smaller sub-activities which did not expand the AR NAFAKA
  • Julius. Yes, I shall give the comments during the planning

Output 5.2 Strategic partnerships with public and private initiatives for the diffusion and adoption of research products
Activity 5.2.1: Map and assess relevant stakeholders to establish dialogue for the exploration of mutual synergies for scaling delivery of validated technologies
Activity 5.2.2: Leverage/link and integrate (engagement and outreach) with existent initiatives including Government extension systems to support and encourage the delivery pathways


  • Comment. Irmgard. Some activities like training for farmers and field days were affected because of Covid. Have we thought of an alternative to capacitate farmers? Otherwise, we will have a gap which will lead to unsatisfactory results of our work
  • Christian. For Malawi, we integrated features including roadshows and radio programs to reach farmers, which reached a large among of farmers
  • Comment.Irmgard. Others should think of alternatives when planning for their activities this year
  • Comment.Mateete. The roadshows have reached significant numbers. However, there should be an estimate on the number. To estimate how many people have been reached
  • Comments. Regis. In Malawi, we have such a robust extension system that LUANA supports. We should think we should look at adoptions by extension systems, like how they have documented the farmers. One way to document the old MOU, which we do have, is through an innovation platform
  • Regis. ICT the Mwanga is tell come and direct response to deliver the technology, in Malawi-Southern Malawi, we saw a behavior change. Investing into the Mwanga platform to create the platform with the local mobile company and share messages to farmers at a larger scale

Interfacing with extension worked, we have piloted again in the one district in Malawi on the handheld reflector meter. These are alternatives for delivering technologies in the absence of physical gathering of farmers and extensions work. The approach has proven effective

  • Mateete. What is the roadshow? Also, estimating the radio listeners?. Also, I think that depending on the Radio only to determine coverage and assess the number of farmers reached is not as informative as it is when NGOs investigate how many farmers have been reached with the message from the radio program
  • Christian. The national agricultural system has trucks that go to villages and park somewhere they display or air some program, these attract people, and usually, the extension officers do what they advertise
  • Mulundu. There is an incentive for people to come. They call out the drama group performing you are getting the mixture of the comic plus the technical message
  • Daniel. Christian. Can we get the number reached specifically through radio coverage only? we may have the number added to others we received from AR NAFAKA & Lead Foundation
  • Christian. Daniel, You will have to get back to Mulundu and Mphatso. They should be the ones helping

Sub-activity Partnership with Islands of Peace for increasing the adoption of good agricultural practices (GAP) in vegetable production and improved nutrition - S.N'Danikou


  • Irmgard. Swai. You reported that at least 50 LEAD Foundation staff, lead farmers, and extension personnel are capacitated on installing Fanya juu terrace techniques, and the venue was Dodoma hotel. Wouldn't it be appropriate to have the training in the field instead?
  • Swai. There was a follow-up demonstration, and we started with a familiarization meeting, then a practical session took place
  • Juliana. Have you considered sending translated extension messages directly to farmers' mobile phones? Was this effective?
  • Mateete: Juliana, these messages to farmers through mobile phone sent in their local languages. For last year we reached at least 20,000, and our expectations are when scaled to another district we would get many farmers
  • Comment.Swai. We have initiated the talk with Job Kihara on how to enroll the ICT in the Kongwa Kiteto works
  • Comment. Swai. The Swahili training manual is with the communication team. It went through translations and then submitted for final approval. Once it is done, it will become a public document for sharing
  • Comment.Jonathan. About the get the exact reach through Radio. A government agency called a communication agency releases quarterly figures for reach based on the survey of people reached per data. These data /figures are considered neutral

Output 5.3 Gender-sensitive decision support tools for farmers to assess technology-associated risk and opportunities used by partners
Activity 5.3.1: Identify and communicate gender-sensitive decision support technologies in the context of different farm typologies

Output 5.4: A technology adoption, monitoring, evaluation, and learning framework for use by the project team and scaling partners released [led by IFPRI and used by project partners]
Activity 5.4.1: Monitor and modify the progress of technology adoption process towards scaling


  • Irmgard. The data on the target number of beneficiaries achieved, in his report Mateete, marked the target reached are 300000 households, but we achieved the 300000 individuals. The individual and household are not

the same. Would you mind clarifying if the number of beneficiaries reported is household or individual?

  • Daniel. Irmgard. Report on achievements is for the individual, for target was for households
  • Comment. If that is the case, we can't say we have achieved the target?! We need to be precise, specific about the targets and individuals reached
  • Comment. Mateete. Conclusion. We can put the two-scale one for individual and household
  • Comment.Azzarri. The program document indicated the household and target were households. However, the individuals are within the household. If we keep out the individual, we never know how individuals are counted. There are different ways of counting, and we need to stick with the household. But we are interested in reaching as many households as possible
  • Irmgard. So Carlo, How can we compare our actual achievement and our set target
  • Azzarri. We need to know which individual belongs to which household. However, it is doubtful that two beneficiaries exposed to the AR technologies belong in one household
  • Comment. Mateete: I think we should assume that we reached the households because it is challenging to get more than two members attending, such as the training, etc. There can be errors
  • Comment.Gundula: I think the decision to decide for households marks a lot and makes it difficult to see how many men /women we have reached and if the women could use the technologies. I am not in favor of using the household approach. We should have considered involving more than counting a certain number of household members, e.g. Identify a decision-maker in households to see how many people were reached. Also marks the people in the households might take a different decision. I think we can look at the downside of the household approach
  • Comment.Regis.Depending on the activities, e.g., access to germplasm seeds, etc., we have worked with the household as a unit. If we count as individuals, we are undercounting. Of course, we mark the division of

labor, activities within the household. There is a minor error we consider calculating based on the household

  • Comment. Job. To be more realistic, we could trace attendance records and identify or model the number how is more practical in terms of household
  • Comment. Daniel. Can the number of households be claimed to form the existing number of individuals? Scientists could assist identify the names of codes per household

Surveys specific to research and scaling partnership activities/Surveys specific to long-term research - led by J. Manda

[[File:| ]] - J. Manda(IITA)


  • Irmgard. Julius, what is smallholder agriculture commercialization stand for?
  • Julius. This is market participation. We are looking at the ratio of what has been produced by the farmer and what has been sold
  • Irmgard. Also, about the Return on investment, is there harmonization in the approach across the Africa RISING? I have noted you worked with Bekele in West Africa. What about Ethiopia?
  • Julius. I don't think we have talked to the Ethiopia team. Also, Bekele and I can follow the kind of approach they use and try to compare
  • Irmgard. Julius, the calculation on the Return of investment was it over a single technology or combination of the technology/agriculture practices
  • Julius. I will give, for example, to evaluate the benefit of the crop rotation technology will also evaluate the complementary technologies that go with the crop rotation
  • Comment. Job. Julius, if you consider the survey you recently conducted in Babati and Kongwa, and looked at the impact of our footprint in that environment. Can't the data collected be used to calculate the Return of investment that we have been doing in Babati and Kongwa couple of years, or issues used of improved technologies varieties, fertilizers, integrated ISFM approaches. It looks like it's a good data set for that kind of study, even though it won't cut across Malawi
  • Julius. Yes, that Data set can be used. That is the reason we included questions that could provide answers that could be used in the future. The data set is very comprehensive
  • Mateete. Some light son what Ethiopia uses, but we do not apply them in East and West Africa Carlo?
  • Azzarri. We are partnering with them to collect data in Ethiopia collected. Some agree to survey between Romy's and the follow-up, it is something that is yet to happen, but the data is still ongoing.
  • Comment. Azzarri. The promotion with Romy's is something that we need to discuss, and either to consider, as we are approaching the end of the project
  • Comment. Irmgard. I think it is too late probability, but I am aware the figures on the Return on investments came from Romy's survey. Maybe you may consider doing it differently. However, the communication between the team carrying out this task is crucial to ensure we have figures that we can compare
  • Comment. Mateete. Let us agree on the technologies. Members should submit the technologies and justification on that technology
  • Julius. I would appreciate wif members could suggest the technologies we can look at and move forward. The consultant enrolled to put the data together, which would speed assure us with the data before the end of the project
  • Action. Member agreed to submit selected technologies with justifications by 30 September

Day THREE [16 September]

Progress with impact evaluation studies in ESA – C. Azzarri

Household Characterization, Africa RISING Evaluation in East and Southern Africa…and monitoring! - C. Azzarri(IFPRI)


  • Julius. For did DID did you convert for other covariance?
  • Azzari. We did control for other variables, and I did not include all the questions, use matches for DD
  • How did you incorporate the nearby control framework for farmers located in AR village vs. the distant control villages?
  • .Azzarri. For other covariance, we controlled for time, market, and locations. These differences were accounted for in the estimates. It is only on condition to DD, but it is conditional on covariance
  • Can one identify below the benefit
  • Azzarri.In theory, yes. The following steps I put were the more urgent. The one we are looking at right now. Next year is a no-cost extension year. It should have a cost below the benefits
  • .What will you do with the findings
  • Azzari. We will first produce the reports and discuss them with all. For example, in the case of Ghana, we consulted the USAID headquarters to have their perspectives and looked at the results. We haven't done for Malawi, but that the plan
  • Christian. AR looks at systems, for example, double-up systems that consist of a range of technology. Did you have a chance to look at the systems that we had or can not be done?
  • Azzarri. We tried to single out specific technologies /components of the system. But then the systems or package of the intervention can be interpreted summing algebraically coefficient parameters of the single components because it is an average across all the farmers. But then the system is evaluated when we consider all of them on time. We can think of constructing the outcome variable that is the combination of all of them
  • Comment. Christian. Some of the technology presented will influence household food security. What are uniques and highlighted for AR is we should not look just at the single components in isolation but combine them in the bundles/package instead. It would also be good to know what was that bundle will have to offer in terms of improved household security e.t.c
  • Regis. In past seasons, we followed 200 farmers and asked them how much fertilizer they use, visited each of the fields where they used fertilizers, and tried to look at the extent measured the area where fertilizer is used. We are currently analyzing the data, but there is a big miss-match on what farmers said and the reality of where the fertilizers were used.
  • Comment. It's a good topic for the research paper Regis, using the recall period vs. the actual measurement.
  • Comment.Sieg. It's also good to pay attention to understand the resilience of the farmers too.

Foresight/dynamic modeling and simulations WA example - led by F. Muthoni
File:F.Muthoni ESA Review& Plan 2021.pptx - Dr. Francis Muthon(IITA)


  • Comment.Mateete. Identity a few technologies which will have sufficient data to enable the modeling and validation of that modeling
  • Christian. You have all my data, can you do something with that
  • Francis. Yes Christian
  • Comment.Mateete. I have two technologies in my mind. However, I am not sure how Job synthesis activities could fit in the Analysis -the ISFM theme
  • Job. Yes Mateete, we have all data set of ISM and different levels of ISFM. They can be applied to other kinds of Analysis. At this level, Francis can decide if he can use them to drive the Analysis
  • Comment. Mateete. To simply do this, I would ask Francis to work with Regis, Christian, and Job

Action. Job. should share with Francis the kind of information collected/ integrated from within the synthesis activities

Developing materials for Empowering extension - led by J. Odhong

File:J.Odhong ESA Review & Plan 2021.pptx - Jonathan Odhong(IITA)


  • Comment. Irmgard. Given the stage we of the program. Everyone should plan to prepare the communication materials in their work plan for the coming year
  • Comment. Regis. Medicine labels can be tailor to an extent at a different level. There is a need to repackage some of those at other labels
  • Comment. Mateete. When the publication is sent to Jonathan, it should be shared with Mateete too. And also, scientists should consider incorporating scientific information in the publications
  • Comment. Irmgard. I agree with Mateete that our publications should be science-based, but I think the technologies brief/medicine labels can be used for extension purposes. Out of medicine labels, they could also be used to make fliers for farmers. But in addition to producing the extension/ policy supporting materials, we also have to think of the strategy and get the publications to the intended targets
  • Comment. Christian. I agree with Irmgard that the publications should be science bases, but we should also consider describing them so that a farmer can understand them. That can be the language or the way we use the language
  • Action. Jonathan. Colleagues who are planning to prepare the kind of materials should communicate with the communication department
  • Action. Followup on the publication that was yet to be submitted. We are taking stock of what has and has not been submitted

ICT for scaling - led by F. Kizito

[[File:|File:]] - Dr. Fredy Kizito (IITA)


  • Job. We hearing farmers say how this platform helped them in the previous session but was dropped in subsequent modeler groups. We need to keep them in a group
  • Fred. Thank Job, we can discuss who was dropped. And assess the benefits of utilization of the MWANGA platform for agronomy and postharvest
  • Mateete. Why do we have few people interested in the MWANGA platform? Once we determine this, we can have the way forward
  • Swai. Fredy, how visible is Mwanga to be replicated to our research areas in Kongwa and Babati
  • Fredy. It can be replicated Swai. You need to share the contact information of farmers, the number of farmers you need to reach, and the message. We are available to offer support
  • Comment. Mateete. We need to write the success story. We can survey the farmers and have those who adopted and write a success story back up with numbers
  • Daniel. Do you think there is a need to change the system design so the platform can have a broad impact on farmers also, more researchers should integrate with the platform so as we have a wide impact.
  • Fredy. One way is to integrate agro-dealers, processors since they have huge interaction with farmers. Once agro-processors, farmers can adapt the platform. Also, Job we can think of people like MINJINGU to have them on the board. So private sector inclusion in the platform, and engaged with the system
  • Comment.Job. Revisit development partners, unlock the adoption of the technologies, and introduce the technologies we have and how they could benefit them. In the case of the MWANGA platform, how can use to help more farmers?
  • Comment. Mateete. Fredy, what Job is commenting above, could be the sub-activities to plan for
  • Action. Fredy and Job will take lead to a plan for the suggested sub-activity

Ranking of specific farming systems’ priorities and gaps for guiding future SI research in ESA - led by S. Snapp, J. Kihara; G. Fischer

Click the links below to view presentation slides File:Sieg ESA Rev&Plan2021.pptx - S. Snapp ( External)

  • Click the below link to see results from the discussions;!!HXCxUKc!ixMpHZYh2wRezyn1NvDV12lLQWTwdGJxKZ2jxtVSnH9GQl-UiM36c_Q9RBiN$

Reflections, including thoughts on key phase 2 close-out activities, and next steps

  • Partners/ESA team to develop at least half a page concept notes in on plan research activities for the next year in two weeks after the review and planning meeting
  • Partners to submit next year workplans by mid-October 2021
  • Partners to be keen with the deadlines for submitting the Rack up data

Closing remarks - I. Hoeschle-Zeledon

  • There is good progress in filling the data gaps from the presentations, and there are bright plans for the future
  • We need to focus also documentation of our experiences
  • Brainstorming meetings shall be between the Project Manager, Chief Scientist, and Knowledge management personnel what to be documented who will do that and how and when
  • Irmgard. The reminder for partners to share the research recap data to be submitted on 1 October
  • The problem last year, we submitted information about our very few technologies and percent of should be done. Let us have more effort to have more complete data this year, with the complete information they need