ESA review meeting2014 15
- 1 East and Southern Africa review and planning meeting9-11 September 2014Ngurdoto Lodge, Arusha, Tanzania
- 2 Workshop notes and minutes
- 2.1 General review and update
- 2.2 Review of progress - Research output 1
- 2.3 Review of progress - Research output 2
- 2.4 Proposal development
- 2.5 Fishbowl discussion on 'where are we at with the ESA-Africa RISING project'?
- 2.6 Introducing the proposal development process with Feed the Future indicators and PMMT
- 2.7 DfID call for proposals
- 2.8 Open Space results
- 2.9 Closing words by Irmgard
- 2.10 Communication sessions
East and Southern Africa review and planning meeting
9-11 September 2014
Ngurdoto Lodge, Arusha, Tanzania[edit | edit source]
- To review the work developed since 2012
- To develop work plans for the year 2014 until 2016
Tuesday 9 September
08:30: Welcome (Victor Manyong, Jerry Glover) and workshop introduction (Ewen Le Borgne)
09:00: General review and update (Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon) - See the presentation
09:20: Review of progress - Research Output 1 (IFPRI / Wageningen UR/ R4D and IP platforms)
Presentation IFPRI - See the presentation [http:www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/ar-esa2014-groot| Presentation Wageningen UR.//] (Very brief) presentation of progress with the platforms (R4D and innovation platforms) by Per Hillbur / Regis Chikowo / Jens Andersson / Patrick Okori * See presentation Per Hilbur * Presentation by Jens Andersson. * See presentation Regis Chikowo Short discussion about platform work, progress, challenges and opportunities by local platform coordinators * See presentation by Babati R4D coordinator Questions and Answers 10:30: Break
11:00: Research of progress - Research Output 2 (Babati / Kongwa-Kiteto)
See presentation Fen Beed on lost and poisoned food See presentation by Ben Lukuyu on feed improvement. [http:www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/ar-esa2014-kizito| See presentation by Fred Kizito on crop productivity and NRM].// 13:00: Lunch 14:00: Review of progress - Research Output 2 (Malawi / Zambia) 16:00: Break 16:30: Impact of sustainable Intensification on landscapes in Zambia (Irmgard Hoeschle Zeledon, on behalf of Robert Richardson) - See presentation
- 17:00: Introducing research proposals and planning (chief scientist) / discussion - See presentation on proposal development
- 17.30: Close
- 18.30: Dinner
Wednesday 10 September
- 08.30: Seeking Wisdom: Where we are with research, and expectations
Comments – Jerry Glover, Victor Manyong & Other Steering Committee Members Discussion
- 09.30: Introducing 2014-2016 log frame as basis for developing plans (Mateete Bekunda)
Emphasizing the FTF Indicators (Carlo Azzarri) - See presentation by Carlo Azzarri
- 10.30: Break
- 11.00: Research team work -- In parallel: Project steering committee meeting
- 13.00: Lunch
- 14.00: Research team work -- In parallel: Project steering committee meeting
- 16.00: Break
- 16.30: Taking stock of progress (15 min per team)
- 17.30: Briefing from the Steering Committee (15 min)
- 17.45: Close
Thursday 11 September
- 08.30: Market place for peer support / parallel peer review
- 09.30: Research team work continued
- 10.30: Break
- 11.00: Research team work continued
- 13.00: Lunch
- 14.00: Presentations of team plans and indicators
- 16.00: Break
- 16.30: Evaluation, closing and thanks
Friday 12 September (tentative)
- 09.00: How to access, share, use, improve Africa RISING information and communication (Communication platform/channel training)
- 11.00: Generating content for the Africa RISING website and other channels
- 12.00: Close
Workshop notes and minutes[edit | edit source]
Welcome and introduction
General review and update[edit | edit source]
See presentation by Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon. See the presentation
Review of progress - Research output 1[edit | edit source]
Presentation IFPRI on M&E progress[edit | edit source]
- Q: [ADD HERE]
- A: Data are from 1 year. What we also collected was e.g. assets etc. strategies for households buying large lands etc. Some experts advise against collecting data at the beginning of the project because some sites are abandoned after year 1 etc.
- Q: Your results do not share any information about vegetables although your team came to interview us and collect data.
- A: About vegetables, yes we collected, we have the data but haven’t shown the data on cereals yet. We have data about production and consumption.
- Q: Difference between control and activity. How were beneficiaries selected?
- A: We collect data. The research teams will tell you about the parameters we used.
- Q: (on card) Who is the Montpellier team with whom you shared the ARBES?
- A: Institut Agronomique Mediterranee de Montpellier (IAMM / Guillerme Flichmann)
Presentation Wageningen UR about farm typology[edit | edit source]
- Q: About typologies,
- A: We worked with participatory typologies. We try to analyse what type of typologies we use. It’s dynamic. What variables we used: hh size, labour ratio… IFPRI used similar variables etc.
- Q (on card): Can we find ways to link typology work to the on-farm evaluations and innovation systems work we do in Zambia, that is, to use it in stakeholder interactions and for planning / interventions?
- Q: (on card) It is about the SDIs - you mentioned vegetation and water. I wonder why you don't have soil, on which the vegetation grows! It is even mentioned in the SDG's program.
- A: This is a good point and definitely an issue/addition to consider. The original reasoning was that biomass production/cover and water quantity/quality are indicators of soil health (e.g. WHC, fertility, non-pollution). On the other hand, biomass cover will positively impact soil health through for instance organic matter inputs and enhanced porosity & nutrient cycling.
- Q (on card): Farm typologies: WUR vs. IFPRI - which ones we use?
- A: Stay tuned! IFPRI and WUR will work together to find a common methodology. For now, IFPRI is focusing on Malawi and Tanzania, not Zambia.
- Q: How do we make use of the farm typologies established?
- A: It depends on the user and his/her needs. We can also think on building different typologies for different objectives.
Presentations about the innovation and R4D platforms[edit | edit source]
See presentation Regis Chikowo about platforms in Malawi. The presentation by Jens Andersson is currently too large, we will link it here later. See presentation Regis Chikowo about platforms in Malawi See presentation Per Hilbur about platforms in Babati Patrick Okori gave a verbal introduction to platforms in Kongwa-Kiteto. See presentation by Babati R4D coordinator
The Malawi platform coordinator gave a verbal presentation about her platform coordination work.
Questions for presenters These questions were collected on cards:
- Q (on card): What procedure did you follow to establish innovation platforms?
- A: In Zambia we linked up to existing multi-stakeholder meetings in agriculture. There are no general rules but usually it is rallying around a common interest that entices stakeholders to join.
- Q (on card): Do these platforms have generalised rules of operation (contributions)?
- Q (on card): R&D platform hypothesis: early, significant participation by journalists/media is critical [Participate as members!]. If so, how can they be engaged and integrated?
- A: For R4D platforms, they can be more or less formalised. In Babati we try to establish an independent institution. Elsewhere they are part of an existing org/institution. Constitution, membership, contributions becomes an issue when formalising.
Review of progress - Research output 2[edit | edit source]
Kongwa-Kiteto session[edit | edit source]
See the Kongwa-Kiteto presentation
- Q: Key characteristics include high yield but high yield in one place are not the same as in another one. Access to water and nutrients dictates this. Pigeon pea has been intensified. Wilting problem has been increasingly a problem. In order to intensify pigeon pea we need to integrate other disciplines to think beyond just high yield.
- A: Yield is a component of a mix, which includes plant height, moisture etc.
- Q: You highlighted differences between women and men and you also focused on
- A: Before we do a participatory trial farmers decide the criteria. We have some interventions and disease resistance is only one package.
- Comment: If you have sufficient time to look at research to impact etc. you will realise that potato disease has been followed up and we have come up with recommendations for problems of diseases etc. There are problems coming up along the way. The best seeds do not overcome all diseases etc. We have to address these challenges.
- Q: Crop variety in the field: do you have any plans to evaluate post-harvest results? Did you manage to quantify the crop losses in post-harvest? Production may be huge but from harvesting to consumption there are many risks of losses.
- A: That's right. Production without access to market is not useful. We are looking at all these areas. We are looking at market access etc. and we've only presented one of the topics on aflatoxins but we are working on... The Babati team has taken a lead on storage components. We are working together to
Babati session[edit | edit source]
See presentation Fen Beed on lost and poisoned food See the presentation by Ben Lukuyu. See the presentation by Fred Kizito
- Q: To a farmer who's growing many crops and legumes, is he going to invest in soil fertility? Are we encouraging him? Is there a package to promote improvements on soil fertility?
- A: We introduced different technologies (e.g. fodder trees) but didn't show the results of those though we have data for those. These technologies can help address soil fertility issues. We are also looking at areas with soil erosion on sloppy lands, soil erosion etc. and we will introduce forages in those areas. We'll have to manage soil erosion and address soil fertility. We are aware of the tradeoffs between high yields and soil fertility.
- Q: About aflatoxins, I really wonder if the messages we have heard have been disseminated with farmers.
- A: We have wanted to avoid reinventing the wheel. A lot of people have had their awareness raised and we have received different responses. We are working on a living document and we hope that e.g. the national committee for mycotoxins in Tanzania is better placed to pass on these messages and champion awareness-raising around these... We also need some testing. Quite a few people assume that once we have the messages the job is done but we need to be much more systematic in terms of how we explain this issue and how people deal with it. Then we don't want to bore people with 'why' they should do it, but focus on 'what to do'. TFNC does a great job at working on this.
- Q: Push and pull in using grass. The challenge is with scaling up of these technologies. How do you use push & pull? What challenges and ways forward did you find?
- A: Yes I (Ben Lukuyu (have worked on this. You first need some things in place e.g. you introduce it where there are problems with stem borers (in Babati we don't have that problem). We are looking at forages as a land management strategy, not as integrated pest management strategy. We need to have seeds available. We have set up materials in the past few years and we hope that these materials help farmers. At this point, the project is backstopping farmers by sourcing fodder seeds. Through the platforms we hope to engage the private sector supplying seeds for food crops to also consider forage seeds.
- Q (on card): Babati, is there a systematic approach (including site selection) to link the various studies at district scale?
Malawi session[edit | edit source]
See the presentation by Regis Chikowo and Malawi team.
Questions and answers
- Q: Have you considered using baby trials as the Babati team?
- A: For now our goal is to increase productivity. We have been focusing on how the season functions. It's a challenge to invest in these trials in Tanzania.
- Q: Biomass added to the soil: how about beneficial fauna to improve soil fertility?
- A: Nice question. We always get research questions around ?? We miss questions about species that improve system functioning.
Zambia session[edit | edit source]
See the presentation by the Zambia team.
Questions and answers
- Q: Which parameters did you use?
- A: The inputs (fertilizers, seeds, agro chemicals) and labels we used.
- Q: On inter-cropping, what about... ?
- A: We relied a lot on colleagues.
- Q: (We went on site and the soil was very poor. What did you do to restore it?
- A: We replanted.
- Comment: You're the ones to use legumes and... cow peas and pigeon peas seem to be complementary. We have to try different combinations, and it's a great start.
When you compare pigeon peas with groundnuts against cowpeas... * Yes, but did you also try different varieties of pigeon peas?
- Q: In one of the slides, we saw the devastation. What were the factors influencing this?
- Q: I saw an adoption study at the beginning. Adoption is different from trial. We have only 3-4 years with Africa RISING. How do you look at this?
- A: We tested 3 varieties and they are different. One of them has a climbing habit etc. but all 3 were adopted. In areas where there's a seed bank, rotation might be a ...?
In Simleza it may not be too early. We have to think about the reasons why farmers are not adopting. Studies monitoring adoption are not rigorous enough.
- Comment: Observing the presentations from the morning, there's quite a bit of emphasis as yield that does not measure success. Sometimes the yield may not be good but there are lots of other surrogate indicators that could indicate other good areas e.g. around storage etc. but this is not necessarily captured because we tend to focus on the yield. We need to identify teams that are capable to capture these surrogate/complementary results.
I agree with you, but farmers want yield. If we do research for development, the focus has to be on the yield. All other factors integrate into the yield. * Sure but the issue is that we should think beyond the yield. It's good to share other information than just yield to tell us how the system is performing. A lot of the other information is important for us. The agronomic rigour needs to be there. ' That's why we have long term trials so that other parameters make it into our research, and that's also why we have students that come into play. '* (Jerry) Indicators of success are important. Feed the Future focuses on food security, productivity increases etc. (despite poverty reduction and increasing nutrition). Sustainable intensification was strongly introduced in USAID as an integrated concept that includes environmental sustainability. At farm level productivity is important but we DO have to think about longer term impacts. Even if farmers have specific needs, we need to meet those needs but also to look beyond that, further down the road etc. on the social impact...
The impact of sustainable intensification on landscapes and livelihoods in Zambia See presentation by Martin Richardson (given by Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon)
Proposal development[edit | edit source]
Second day notes
Fishbowl discussion on 'where are we at with the ESA-Africa RISING project'?[edit | edit source]
J. Glover I would like to find out what the impact of this program is on the ground. J. Fussi AR is doing capacity building of our students. More focus on crop production but food security is guaranteed by livestock so we need to do more on this side because they’re equally dependent. Thank you for involving us in this program. J. Glover What would you like: more research on feeds, on practices etc. what practices would you like us to take up? JF: the feed side is the highest priority from my perspective. Pastoralists conflict with farmers so we need to improve that side to avoid conflicts. F. Myaka It is great to get an opportunity to share. I would like to commend all who have participated in the formulation of this program/project. It’s very good and in the right direction. Thank you USAID for supporting us. If you take Babati, in the past I was very active in research. This time, the added value of this project is crucial for the livestock component. More efforts are needed. In the past we didn’t use these initiatives including crop and livestock, working together. It’s a very good beginning. Another good thing is the multi-stakeholder nature of this project. It is unique because it is multi-stakeholder, multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary, very well balanced and covering the whole value chain. In the presentations I attended I heard almost all reps talk about value addition, the livestock component, intensification etc. The problem of communities: I can see some more effort, compared with past efforts, for involving communities in the implementation of this program. I would like to suggest some things to increase efforts: We should think of the communities which are out of the target areas. More efforts should be put on scaling up horizontally and making sure that this SI moves to other areas. In the Babati case, we need to look at the weaknesses but that system is very perfect. It’s a model, as we are working on it and incorporating the livestock component we should start scaling it out. If I look at Malawi, the maize-based system is not like Babati even though they put maize as monocrops. I haven’t seen the local component here. In Malawi there is maize almost everywhere. Which is better? We need to make sure that we facilitate the spillover that we facilitate.
B. Lukuyu One of the things I’ve noted since we started the project is the stepwise effort towards integration. I know what happened in the first year, protecting our interest. Mateete was talking very hard about integration. The 2nd year was different. From the presentations you saw yesterday you can see a lot of move towards integration. The disciplines are less evident. That’s the point I want to commend the project about. The other point I want to reinforce is what my colleague Fussi said. Feeds are a problem in Babati but there are other areas where livestock farmers are having issues: breeds… It’s easy to realize when the breeds are becoming a constraint. If the productivity remains stagnant it means breeds are a constraint. AI is not an obvious component in sustainable intensification. Commercialization: it’s less evident in this work but we need to take stock of what we are doing from the market side: how do we integrate priorities. There are technologies where private sector is best-placed to intervene.
(Chrispinus?) On documentation we need to do more. We need small documentation materials e.g. flyers etc. technologies that are coming out. How integration has brought out some combinations for extension services to take on board. At the moment I’m seeing less documentation on the program.
Peter One of my concerns is to see how package 1 trickles down to support the other work packages. It’s sthg that should come up and how we use information to design research on the ground and to help in terms of scaling out. The other thing is that as it’s the 2nd year we come out with technologies we should pinpoint best bet technologies for scaling out, to identify areas that can be scaled out and to document especially with CA to come up with science-based knowledge.
Hassan ?? I’m impressed with the research. To move into another phase. I want to see the results. I’m most impressed with the development platforms, it’s sthg that is very important for scaling out etc. to use agricultural systems as a basis for scaling out, where policies translate into action etc. It’s going to be very exciting in the near future.
Sieg We were all together in Dar es Salaam and it was all exciting. My colleague talked about the enabling environment. Imrgard reminded us about some principles of SI: closing the loop (resource efficiency), b) hypothesis: is it just one crop or is it a mixture/complementary lifeforms etc. with early varieties, nutritious varieties etc. Do we need to test these hypotheses?
Catherine Communication has been mentioned by two speakers. I’ve been involved for 2 years and I see a lot of exciting work coming out. Yesterday we heard some good presentations. Some were really great with significant results etc.Some we were still lost. Lots of data was presented but there was no story behind. We need to work on improving this. Communication is a challenge for all of us, in an interdisciplinary way. It's good to focus on communication. There's a lot of scaling going on.
|Aston Mulwafu (ICRAF)||One speaker|
|How has CA waken and failed in Malawi?|
|Tephrosia… this is one of the things I want to come back to.|
|If we do CA properly we have to work with trees too.|
|Regis Chikowo||The discourse is on sustainability and making sure that the technologies are feeding the sytem|
|In Malawi there are challenges… to put that as a message will confuse.|
|We want to identify niches/places where some of these silver bullets are likely to work, and this should not apply only to Malawi but also to the other AR sites.|
|What technologies are promising and what evidence do we have. We want evidence to as a way to invest our dollars.|
|We need to use evidence to show that our technologies can have a good result on the ground.|
|Fidelis Myaka||There's a challenge I wanted to pose to you. The project is funded. Is it going to go to a 2nd phase.|
|The challenge for this phase: people are going where things are working well, but if you go to those other areas, the situation is very different. When are we going to those areas|
|Ms. ??||If you look at communities, and do A/Research it will allow you to integrate the importance of crops and livestock.|
|Where crops have been addressed in isolation from livestock there have been issues, but if you integrate them you can make benefit of the attributes of livestock and increase your knowledge about productivity etc. Let's keep the action research approach and learn from farmers. Let's integrate from the context of the farmers. We need to improve productivity...|
|Within the context, we need to improve productivity…|
|Patrick||The context of AR is to be able to provide evidence but that there are opportunities for scaling out. That means you need the farming system typology to be very clear. Within that nexus you need to have clarity on the socio-economic construct because it's those 2 that will inform livelihood strategies. What will change is endowment (socioeconomic construct) and the general ecological context.|
|In K-K the constraints are different from Babati but the farmers have similar objectives. Is it possible to scale up? Yes but what is critical is to have a robust model that you can roll out and test the effects of everywhere|
|As scientists we make one big mistake: we think that the key information is technology adoptoin but we need to start addressing the technology dissemination (a very aggressive market drive) issue.|
|Anthony||Some of the technologies that are not rapid cash services tend to be specific. From our design, we have not given due emphasis that this is the basis for production.|
|We can have a balance with NRM and build sustainability aspects.|
|Jeroen||What we are doing is a lot of technology development, push and house scaling. How does the farmer see that? The good farmers they balance their system, they can put emphasis on yield but also immprove their fields for future generations.|
|I would like to ask everyone: what does the farmer neeed to improve the system in the context of the next generation and the constraints of his household and beyond.|
Introducing the proposal development process with Feed the Future indicators and PMMT[edit | edit source]
See presentation by Carlo Azzarri on the PMMT
The Africa RISING-HarvestChoice team at IFPRI has produced three tools trying to evaluate the impact of agricultural technology and R&D interventions on profitability, benefits, and yield gap closure.
The web-based AgriTech toolbox models the impact of 10 technologies (no till, precision agriculture, water harvesting, drip irrigation, sprinkler irrigation, heat tolerance, drought tolerance, nitrogen-use efficiency, crop protection) on farm yields, food prices, natural resource use, hunger, malnutrition, land used and global trade. The tool was inspired by the book "Food Security in a World of Natural Resource Scarcity: The Role of Agricultural Technologies", launched by IFPRI in February 2014.
The second tool, the profitability calculator, is a spreadsheet model assessing the profitability of fertilizer application in Ethiopia. It estimates the production area over which fertilizer use is profitable andthe aggregate net revenue increase under a range of price assumptions modifiable by the user.
A third tool has been developed, looking at assessing the economic impacts of agricultural research and development (R&D) interventions. The DREAM (Dynamic Research EvaluAtion for Management) tool is a menu-driven software package that simulates a range of market, technology adoption, research spillover, and trade policy scenarios based on a multi-market, partial equilibrium model. DREAM has also been successfully applied to analyze the effect of past research (ex post assessments), alongside ex-ante assessment of R&D investments.
See tools Carlo mentioned ("These below are very useful link to model profitability, yield gap closure, and benefits of agricultural technologies"):
Q&A after PMMT presentation from IFPRI
Q1: How many people registered to access the data and who entered the data?
- A: For this year we just provided the training and we didn't registered users
- The team leader are allowed to enter data but still manual work exists to aggregate the indicators.
- Different community can be treated in different package, we need to sort out that the number should adopted to mega site
Q2: Who manage the data and aggregated the result
- A: the team leaders should and analyze, aggregate and explain the result.
- This year the M&D team does the analysis and the project coordinator in each mega site.
- Wen you enter the data for this year automatically note will appear and explain you to explain
Comments from Jerry
- The most important successes indicators for this project are not the feed the future indicators
- I would assume there are at least 100 variables the science council in the Africa RISING indicated to measuring
- We need to focus on the indicators that could work for the project
Third day notes
DfID call for proposals[edit | edit source]
DFID (Research and Evidence Division) is seeking a Service Provider, or Consortium, to establish a new research programme on sustainable intensification of agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. This programme aims to address one of the most intractable problems facing small-holder farmers in Africa - how to engage in the market economy and to deliver sustainable intensification of agriculture, that is, which avoids negative impacts on the environment. It will generate new evidence to help women and poor African smallholder farmers develop environmentally and financially sustainable enterprises and boost productivity. The research will focus on Sub-Saharan Africa, with a particular emphasis on Ethiopia, Tanzania, Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Zambia, complementing other research efforts in these regions, i.e. Africa Rising (http:africa-rising.net/), Vital Signs(http:vitalsigns.org/) and Humid Tropics (http://humidtropics.cgiar.org/). The Service Provider will be required to commission and manage competitive research grants, ensuring close links with stakeholders, decision makers and the complementary research programmes and the uptake and communications of the research outputs generated. They will ensure that research is made available and accessible to decision makers at local, national and regional levels. They will work to ensure that the knowledge and decision making tools generated by the programme are available to all investors who seek to help women and poor smallholder farmers to overcome barriers to participation in the market economy. As a minimum, the Service Provider will be expected to demonstrate extensive expertise in the management of research for development in relevant countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and particularly in relation to research in agriculture. They should have experience in managing competitive research calls and adding value to research programmes. They should be able to provide evidence of success in communicating research outputs to stakeholders (including to policy stakeholders). The Service Provider must have a clear governance and management structure in place for the programme which is viable, feasible and represents value for money. The Service Provider will manage a grant fund of £6.5m. The contract is scheduled to commence in March 2015 and will run for a period of 5 years until February 2020. An extension of up to 1 year may be granted subject to resources and need. This prior information notice (PIN) is to allow interested parties to review the draft Terms of Reference and share commentary or questions with DFID prior to the requirement being procured via the OJEU restricted procedure. Any comments or questions can be directed to Wasonga Misumi - W-Misumi@dfid.gov.uk. The intention is to allow one week from the advertisement of this PIN notice for suppliers to express interest and ask questions. Thereafter the requirement will be advertised as a Restricted OJEU procedure with requisite timescales allowed.
Response Required By Fri 12 September 2014 at 14:00
Open Space results[edit | edit source]
An 'Open Space Technology' session was organized to let participants come up with 'parking lot issues' and 'requests for help' related to the last session on the previous day (review of group work). The following topics were proposed by participants.
- R4D platforms and innovation platforms
- Typology work
- What if farmers don't want to sustainably intensify
- How do we make the market work for smallholder farmers?
- Trajectories of sustainable intensification: Linking typologies to agronomy
The documentation follows here: R4D/IPs - The terms can mean the same. There is confusion about terminology - What is important is how they operate - Organisation of feedback (loops) is important (See picture on the right hand side).
Typology[edit | edit source]
- How to match technology ßàapproach which technology for which farmer? - Target groups - Different typologies - Different approaches to introduce technologies and to scaling - Best-bet? Best-fit? - We recommend:
- Start using typologies
- Target analysis
[edit | edit source]
What if farmers don’t want to sustainably intensify?[edit | edit source]
- Net benefits? - Who benefits / who pays? - More time, labour, cost, risk? - Global needs vs. household needs.
[edit | edit source]
How do we make market work for smallholder farmers?[edit | edit source]
- Value addition at farm gate - Do market research
- Establish market information - Introduce warehouse receipt system - Farmers’ empowerment to negotiate contract farming - Link farmers to export traders, millers/processors - Government enabling good policy (environment) for marketing- Formation of farmers group
Trajectories of sustainable intensification: Linking typologies to agronomy[edit | edit source]
(See picture on the right hand side).
Final group work (soft copy pending on participants).
Closing words by Irmgard[edit | edit source]
There is good evidence that good research is coming out. Our teams are doing better too, there is also a lot of cross-learning/fertilisation going on between teams...
- Finalising these proposals by 15 October 2014.
- After going through them, these will be sent to the steering committee and then new grants start.
- All contracts expected to be signed by 15 November 2014.
- Late February and into March... an external evaluation will take place. We need to develop ToR for this and this review requires some work. I will come back to you for inputs.
- The exchange visit from one site to another. It's really useful for learning and I have budget for such an exchange visit.
- Coming back to our team building, I really encourage to continue or start regular meetings with team members to follow up on what is going on.
- Some of you I will see tomorrow and quite a large number I will see in 2 months' time for the annual learning meeting and the M&E meeting.
- FtF indicators are required by the end of the month (the numbers, with justification!). Your proposals should indicate what these figures will be.
Thank you very much for your hard work and dedication. Hopefully you found this event useful and had some time to socialise a bit etc. I didn't have much opportunity to talk about other things than Africa RISING.
Fourth day notes
Communication sessions[edit | edit source]
Communication tools and processes (Tsehay Gashaw)[edit | edit source]
- Q: How do we know statistics about our communication channels?
- A: We collect views, visitors etc.
- Q: Are all these materials downloadable - viz copyright issues.
- A: CGIAR is going for open access so we are using Creative Commons licences. All is open and downloadable and usable by others so long as they give us due credit...
- Q: It is difficult to find information on CG Space... How can we avoid giving up?
- A: You can find the topic, author etc. by selecting it on the right hand side.
Contributing content (Catherine Njuguna and Jeffrey Oliver)[edit | edit source]
Presentation and public speaking skills[edit | edit source]
The following presentation was given: media type="slideshare" key="85551" height="356" width="427" Some other resources were used for the preparation of this session:
- No excuse for boring an audience: Advice on giving technical presentations
- 10 most common rookie presentation mistakes
- And the presentation above: Death by Powerpoint
And a list of do's and don'ts was collected with participants:
- Every 7 to 10 minutes, do something with your audience
- Less is more (quality prevails over quantity)
- Be audible
- Speak to be understood and remembered
- Tailor appropriate content for your audience
- Show passion / enthusiasm!
- Present what you know (not what you don't know)
- Prepare and practice in time
- Keep time for presentation (time limits)
- Speak appropriately
- Stay focused on the message
- Ensure the presentation has a structure
- Overcrowded slides
- Copy/pasting old materials
- Present if audio / the sound system is not working
- Look at the screen at all times