ESApartnersmeet Sept2021

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

Africa RISING ESA Project Partners Meeting
2 September 2021
Virtual via Ms TEAMS
[edit | edit source]


  1. A. Kimaro, ICRAF
  2. B. Zemadim, ICRISAT
  3. C. Thierfelder, CIMMYT
  4. D. Mgalla, IITA
  5. E. Swai, TARI-Hombolo
  6. F. Kizito, IITA
  7. F. Muthoni, IITA
  8. G. Fischer, IITA
  9. J. Kihara, Bioversity-CIAT
  10. J. Manda, IITA
  11. J. Odhong, IITA
  12. L. Claessens, IITA
  13. M. Bekunda, IITA
  14. M. Mutenje, IITA (consultant)
  15. P. Okori, ICRISAT
  16. R. Chikowo, MSU
  17. E. Temu, ICRAF
  18. M. Mulundu, ZARI
  19. M. Shitindi, SUA
  20. H. Beliyou, IFPRI
  21. E. Temu, ICRAF
  22. j. Mwololo, ICRISAT-ZW
  23. Y. Muzila, SUA
  24. W. Mhango
  25. F. Michael, IITA
  26. E. Mwambo, IITA
  27. G. Wanjiku, ICRISAT-MW


  • Improving Competitiveness of Maize and Groundnut Seed Value Chains in Central and Northern Tanzania-Dr. James Mwololo (ICRISAT)
  • Women empowerment and associations with maternal & child nutrition outcomes in Dodoma, Central Tanzania-Dr. Gichohi Wanjiku (ICRISAT)

File:ESA PPT M.James.pptx - James Mwololo (ICRISAT)

  • Download the presentation from the link in the title above.


  • Daniel. James, please clarify; the 4,285 beneficiaries reached. Are they direct beneficiaries who participate in Africa RISING Project activities? Because I know Africa RISING direct beneficiaries reached in the villages, you mention sums up to only 1,070 and not more than 3300 for Tanzania from all researchers.
  • James. Daniel, the number is cumulative total beneficiaries from 2017-2019.
  • Patrick. Daniel, the number is the combination of the direct and second tail beneficiaries that why it is high.
  • Daniel. So, Patrick, by second tail means the scaling beneficial?
  • Patrick. To explain it in detail Daniel, we had the first direct beneficiaries who recruited the other farmers with the informal seed systems. The second lot are the beneficiaries and are getting the
same seeds of the same quality from the other farmers. For example, we give one farmer five kilograms and recruit two other farmers, and that makes three
  • Bekunda. What plans do you have for strengthening the VCs, i.e., implementing the proposals?
  • James. Within the current year, we are coming up with a value chain enhancement strategy. After the VCs is avail, we will be validated with the key stakeholders and look for options to push it further
  • Bekunda. Thanks, James. You know I asked that because there are some proposals that I consider impossible. From the suggestions, for example," It would be prudent for ASA to quit the marketing of improved seeds and focus on the timely multiplication of foundation seeds", it is workable, or you would be selective on what to do as straightening the VCs?
  • James. We know ASA is a government identity. What is highlighted is that for it to go through, it must take through government kind of process to be embraced. It is something that might take more than two years. We need to be selective and get the quick link that might transform the value chain and require a series of policy dialogues pushed forward by many other actors.
  • Patrick. Mateete, we identify two VCS that can be piloted and workable. We noted community-based organizations and some commercial farmers. Some of the seed companies already have a sort of setup for seed production.The idea is to use these groups to take up the quarto-non-quote formals, seed production of under-invested communities and pipeline, and then their chain.

That will have the vast footprints going up into the countryside and region. The second VCs is the policy one. Unfortunately, the seed thing takes longer. But, under the current farmer work, just by getting the semi-commercial entity like DASP and another that brings together the farmers, It should work.

  • Jumbo. Comment. The analysis identifies some key players actors in the seed value chain. Some of them are regulators like TOSCI, ASA (seed production unit). Take note there are types of seed that ASA will be requested to produce. For example, if you are dealing with OPBs, ASA could be asked to produce based on that year's government target. For instance, they are distributing the seed packages for seed Packs to the farmers in terms of release. In the same case for the legumes, ASA can be asked to produce seeds. In that sense, it is challenging to say ASA to move out from seed production. But when it comes to Hybrid, the seed companies take the significant role to do that under exclusive conditions. James mentioned some of the recommendations could be channeled to the government through policy. It can take quite some time. So, it cannot be all the recommendations, but we are trying to identify the weak points that slow down this value chain. In terms of regulators is beyond our control. But on areas where we can intervene, for example, farmers group, it could be easy to support.
  • Gundula. James, you have included some exciting gender information. When you presented the inclusive value chain maps, I was expecting some suggestions on equity as well. What are your recommendations in terms of making the VCs more inclusive and equitable in terms of gender?
  • James. In the Presentation, I flagged that women are the key in producing seeds and fully included and support seed production and food nutrition security. Equity is about building capacity or training about gendered mainstreaming in the region to ensure the families and local government leaders push forward the agenda on the value of women that should be embedded in these value chains. So, it is more capacity building, creating equal opportunity for women to be active in the seed production value chain to support its growth while benefiting the household to enhance food security.

File:ESA PPT G.Wanjiku.pptx - Dr. Gichohi Wanjiku(ICRISAT)

  • Download presentation from link in the title above.


  • Gundula. Do you have information on the male (remote) decision-makers in female adult-headed households? Migrant husbands? Other male relatives?
  • Wanjiku. Gundula, we did not collect that information because it is a preliminary analysis. Do we consider going back to the field and conducting focus group discussions to understand what is happening in female-headed households? Who are they referred to? Are there migrant husbands? Is it a father-in-law because most of them were widowed
  • Emmanuel. Some of the empowerment is culturally based, especially on control and ownership. What are your views on handling such kind of diversity?
  • Wanjiku. You are right, Emmanuel. We notice that when you looked at the question of self-efficacy is designed to focus on issues in South Asia. We consulted IFPRI the developer of the tools and restructured it to suit our settings in Tanzania. So, where questions did not apply, we did not administer the questioner, or we did adjust it to make sense. The tools were pretested and we made some changes
  • Bekunda. Recording where re-directing labor would be very informative and should be included in the study
  • Wanjiku. Okay, I have noted your point Prof.Mateete
  • Gundula. Sorry, Wanjiku, I would like to know whether you collected qualitative information in general? Mixed methods?
  • Wanjiku. Perfect point Gundula, we should have collected the qualitative information, but we ran out of funds. However, since there are preliminary studies in the area, we plan to do some focus groups. : : Also, we have quantitative and know precisely how to structure the qualitative information to filter out some information, particularly the time use and input in production decisions.
  • Job. Does the study include crops grown and the management used by the households? I am trying to see if we can link child nutrition indices with an intensity of ISFM. or if you know some publication you can share with me
  • Wanjiku. Thank Job. The study includes the crops grown, and the livestock kept, but we do not have data on management specific to ISFM. The information we collected was what farmers grew and what they do with the produces