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

Africa RISING East and Southern Africa Project - Tanzania Country Meeting
08 - 10 July 2019
Arusha, Tanzania
[edit | edit source]


  1. Mateete Bekunda, IITA
  2. Ben Lukuyu, ILRI
  3. Yasinta Muzanila, SUA
  4. Elirehema Y.Swai, TARI-Hombolo
  5. Francis Muthoni, IITA
  6. Ancient Sambala, IITA
  7. Julius Manda, IITA
  8. Lieven Claessens, IITA
  9. Fred Kizito, IITA
  10. Bundula Fischer, IITA
  11. James Mwololo, ICRISAT
  12. Leonard Marwa, ILRI
  13. Mawazo J. Shitindi, SUA
  14. Christopher Mutungi, IITA
  15. Job Kihara, CIAT
  16. Chrispinus D. Rubanza, UDOM
  17. Anthony A.Kimaro, ICRAF
  18. Justus, IITA
  19. Jean-Mare, IITA
  20. Bright Jumbo, CIMMITY
  21. Eveline Massam, IITA


This report includes highlights of the two pre-planning meetings held at Arusha, Tanzania July 2019. The meeting brought together project partners from AR Eastern and Southern Africa (Tanzania & Malawi) to discuss and agree on the presentation templates for the project review and planning meeting in September 10-11. Partners also discussed a series of activities and timelines for producing materials and content to be presented during the upcoming review and planning meeting.
To start of the meeting, Bekunda gave a presentation.

Review and response to suggestions from SIAF workshop (Ghana 29-02 Nov.2019) and Learning Event Malawi (5-8 Feb 2019)

Lessons learned from the SIAF Workshops in Malawi and Ghana

Presentation by Job Kihara/CIAT
Job Kihara explained among of the key things he learnt were mainly on the intensification and mapping of the innovations, social integration and support to capture different path through social work for-example focus group discussions and discussion with individual farmers. Which according to him, it was the biggest lessons he learned from Ghana. He also shared an example presented on the water management data which for him gave interesting insights . He noted that with such kind of information partners could assess farmers’ perspectives on production, economics and social domains.
Question:How should The question of engaging farmers to practice the technology. The duration of time enough for farmer to interact with the technology, and the leaving part, is it the farmer being at the side or giving the knowledge and let the farmers implement the technology according to how she or he understands. How it is being handled.
Sharing her experience from Ghana where the project works with Nurudini (a farmer) on Maize technologies, Gundula explained the leaving period for farmers to implement the technologies were two seasons. “For the two season farmers are still experimenting the technologies with the input provided, where the third season the input (s) are not provided. Moreover, she noted assessing sustainability of technologies to farmers is difficult if farmers are provided with inputs.
Presentation by Ben Lukuyu/ILRI.
Ben Lukuyu from ILRI shared his observations from the experiences from Ghana SIAF workshop. According to him, there is a need and an opportunity to work further on data for human and environment domain because there are still gaps on data for the two domains compared to productivity, profitability and social domain. Moreover, he expressed the significance of integrating data on nutrition for poultry in the system.
Ben also presented his observations on data quality, where according to him lots of data collected were disintegrated; he recommends consistency in reporting pointing out it could be possible for the project team to work closely together.
Another lesson learnt was on social domain; according to him, for the system to be effective there should be a system that allows farmers to interact and evaluate the technologies, and support toward rating the feedback and respond accordingly.

Insights and perspectives of sustainable intensification: The case for West Africa

Presentation by Fred Kizito CIAT/IITA
He gave perspectives about how SIAF is operating and scales on data assessment and helpful resources allocations.
He learnt that there are several misinterpretations and confusions about the domain particularly with regards to domains, metrics and indicators.
“It is important for the team to tell on which scale are the measurement done. Identify the scale of which they are operating”.
According to him there should be comparison where they introduced control value in Kiteto and Kongwa, which would allow researchers to look at the domain and see how those communities can be compared. The framework will allow flexibility to researchers at the extent when they could explain what they were implementing. Where he noted time, space, performance indicators and scales were important to consider”.
He explained it was important to discuss and look for answers of the sustainability of the land scales, farm and landscape scales. The questions on how scientist can achieve sustainable intensification at the farm and landscape scales, how can we ensure different policies complement each other at different scales?
Another question focused on incentives design that recognize small scale farmers as able stewards of the land resources, the question was on how the team could operationalize the SIAF under field conditions, and some of the critical aspects which needs to be considered?
Fred had also discussed on Sustainable Agricultural Intensification framework SIAF indicators and its measurement; where for productivity indicator, the team are measuring the crop yield, animal production and variability of the production, for the social indicator; there was equity/gender collective action, human; nutrition, food security, healthy, and for economics; profitability, variability of profits, and labor requirements.

Missing information

Understanding SIAF: Where are we at, and heading? Presentation by Lieven Classens, IITA
His presentation included a poster that he presented at the learning event to have the same information. The poster summarized the current experiences, with SIAF and ESA, recommendations and observations. He presented brief the SI tool kit.
The Kongwa Kiteto (TZ) example - an attempt at multi-discipline, multi-indicator presentation (farm system performance) the team discussed and had feedback about the SIAF, and some progress made so far:::
  • Influence and system diagrams developed
  • Data available for productivity and economic domains
  • Data largely lacking for other domains
  • Communication and sharing data among scientists should be improved
  • Need for ‘stocktaking’ and ‘legacy’ workshops and training on data collection and indicator assessment
  • Need stock taking of the legacy data to fill the gaps and see where the gaps are in terms of future works
The Babati (TZ) example - Comparing technologies within one discipline – single indicator per domain
  • Maize-pigeon pea, 5 ISFM treatments
  • Environmental domain is missing
  • Indicator selection (feasible vs useful) and weighting
  • 'Win-wins’, no tradeoffs
  • There are data of five integrated soil fertility management treatment, what was noted environmental domain was missing. There was a perceive problem of indicator selection.
  • What we want is selecting useful indicators.
  • They were using the feasible indicators which were not necessary the most important because they were lacking data
  • Mainly wins wins and no tradeoff identified
  • Majority of scientist do not have the data yet to meet the need of the SIAF framework
  • Most of the data are in plot level , the team should consider to answer how to scale the data to the farming system, community or the land scape level and how it can be visualized?

Malawi example

They used 15 indictors for four different technologies. It the indicators were on trials, surveys and crop models (environmental indicators, long term, e. g carbon, social were related to the focus group discussion).


  • To consider how the single discipline SIAF data can be converted into system SIAF data( there are still discussions on this issue).
  • If we are all bring our own discipline based activities, like in Ghana each discipline talks about its own about SIAF
Experience from Malawi
  • It is an example where the team would bare the technologies within multiple domains. And they use multiple discipline and multiple indicators for domain
  • Data analysis based on combination of the trail and survey data but also some group simulation data (he data that create the spider diagram).
Observations ::
  • Most of sites do not have the data yet to meet the needs of the SIAF. It was proposed data generation should be substituted in the work plan.
  • Discipline approach dominateReflection of the SI toolkit-steps
SI toolkits involves four steps; engaging stakeholder, indicators that are important to stakeholders, and identifying critical tradeoff and synergies, and selecting metrics.
Observations were on the first and fourth steps of the SI toolkit. According to L. Classesn, the first step of the toolkit, which is engaging stakeholders is not done properly in many cases, while for the fourth steps of selecting metrics it was noted that there are difficulties to indicate the metrics in many cases.
  • Share and reflect output with stakeholders; for-example the tool website ( Wide dissemination and sharing of output can lead to re-identify sort of indicators.
  • A lot of indicators are focuses on crop production, and there is a lot of livestock data are missing for example livestock productivity which talks much about yield.
  • There is a need to revise the indicators to bring in some of the key livestock aspect, Ben agreed to share some of the missing -livestock indicators with metrics.
QuestionsEngaging farmers perspectives, guidance on how to integrate the tool with the farmers perspective on yield changes and the measurable perspectives on the new changes on indigenous technology.
  • Gundula responded that there was some work done on the social sciences, she gave an example of forage chopper, where scientific data are available and both perspectives are considered; farmers and scientific perspective.
  • In addition, Fred explained that sometimes farmers perspectives give perspective on why data behave the way it is.
If it could be possible Gundula should work through the team like the way they did for West Africa so as the team could concretize on the two domains (social and human) which are considered as the domains hammering most of scientists, unless they see and hear from the expertise to help them to express the two domains. According to Gundula, there is a research study so far that she is working on and recently she and Swai are preparing research at Kongwa Kiteto about the natural resource management in the end of July. The whole framework of the research is available and includes different domains and different questions that the team could rise. She then had invite the team to engaging in the study by providing their feedback and encourages the team who were in Dodoma, to pick an example of the experiences they had for Fanya juu technology in Dodoma, and see if they could do the same for the tied ridges work through different questions that they could pause including the question on productivity etc.
Questions on presentation of qualitative data in spider diagram raised by Swai (TARI).
The observations were on social domain the nature of data is mainly qualitative and suggests that there is a lot of qualitative information’s however, SIAF is very quantitative and researchers shall investigate the way they would present and include qualitative information For-example not to force to put in metrics where there is no metrics. For example, where the narrative information is needed then there shall be represented.

Discuss and agree on presentations templates for the review and planning meeting schedules for September 10-11 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

The project team discussed and selected themes for presentations accordingly. This exercise involved grouping based on activities. Groups were formed, and each group appointed their champions (representative) whom shall present during the planning meeting and to ensure that all assigned group tasks are completed in time ahead of the review and planning meeting. The below table 1. Below shows the selected theme and the champions.

Table 1. Selected themes and the champions

· S/N · Theme · Champion
· Group 1 · · Case study of a farmer-Moshi Maile, Lukumani and Monica Pascal' · Lieven Classens
· Group 2 · Animal integrated livestock feed intervention · Ben Lukuyu
· Group 3 · ISFM innovation: example of maize and pigeon pea in Tanzania · Job Kihara
N:B The team shall expect presentation template from the Africa RISING communication team

Agree activities and timelines for producing populated presentation formats and implementing other identified custom products

Each group members was tasked to provide material from their activities as follows:

Meeting products

Data generation tools

The team agreed on the data generation tool, the tool was designed and developed by the team (attached PPT No.1 Slide 13)
i)Presentation of data available and gaps per theme
Output 1: Data collection tool for Farmer Moshi Maile, Lukumai, and Monica Pascal (Attached Data inventory table (an Excel Doc) by group no. 1 lead by Lieven Classens.
The team agreed on the theme which selected were case studies of three farmers who had adapted/adopted the Africa RISING technologies, where case study engages farmers Moshi Maile, Lukumai and Monica Pascal. For farmer Moshi Maile selected technologies; varieties (maize, sorghum, pigeon pea, groundnuts), intercropping, poultry, SWC counters, Glicidia, fodder and grass. For Lukumai (a farmer) selected theme focused on poultry (feeding, housing, breeding), dairy and vegetables (screenhouse) while for Monica Pascal selected theme were Poultry (feeding, housing, breeding) and vegetables (screenhouse).
Output 2: Data collection tool group two; Animal integrated livestock feed intervention led by Ben Lukuyu (to be shared to Prof. Mateete Bekunda).
The team had also constructed an integrated livestock product (ILPS) framework describing livestock technologies including livestock innovation, improved chicken genetics, housing, climate smart forages and better use of crop residue (attached PPT Doc; Animal production system theme 2019, slide 2 &3).
Ben Lukuyu explained there were still gaps for the Land management component of the animal Integrated livestock feed interventions. He referred three researchers (Fred, Antony and Shitike) whom would bring in inputs to the missing data as per SIAF indicator domains. Other gaps identified were on economic domain and decision that farmers make in growing the fodder, where for missing data on economic domain, Julius Manda was assigned to work on and Antony for Kongwa Kiteto for data concerning decisions that farmers make in growing the fodders.
He also brought into discussions issues on feed wastage in Babati and forages production. He further recommended that data generation on manure and analysis of how it impacts the yield of bio-forages, where he is willing to work closely with Job Kihara to work on proposed.
Ben had also presented two thoughts from the gaps observed and proposed for the workplan; Gaps on land management component, according to him data on land management side was conducted to four farms in Babati, and he thinks there is a need to provide the data under different landscape.
While on the other side he called upon little bit more work on the economics of those land management technologies in relations to fodder, and to expand the scope.
He urgued colleagues to perceive livestock as the crucial entry in the intensifying system of Babati, because it provides the good opportunity for us to intensify with the focus within the livestock.
Output 3: Data collection tool from group three; lead by Job Kihara
Group three selected theme on ISFM innovation; an example of maize and pigeon pea in Tanzania (attached PPT file)

The focus is on ISFM innovations including verities, fertilizers, soil and water conservation, healthy soil and productivity and intercropping.

The team described a spider diagram on the selected theme with and without the ISFM also variables that they would provide data as per the SIAF domains. From the radar chat, the indicator domains selected were: dietary diversity, calories, food safety, for economics ; gross margins, market participation/quantity sold and labor requirements, for social ; environment N- fixed soil moisture, soil erosion/retention, chemical usage (veg) and disease incidences and social; labor requirements ,collective action , access to information , rating technologies, income by gender.
The team had also presented the conceptual framework that clarifies the technologies, techniques, practices and different constrains of the techniques which has an influence to the domains.
  • The data which has appeared should be scientific proven data.
  • Radar chart, it needs to be fixed in the presentations and was hiding a lot of information and there was a need to re- think the chat.
  • Radar chat must have a strength to visualize a sustainable intensification at a glance. Fred gave an example of Job’s team's radar chat which according to him was doing well on human domain and reflected dietary and food safety in human angle was doing well in calories however for dietary diversification aspect is low .He argued the team to use the radar chat in such a way that they could improve it add more emphasis for the team to communicate about issues related to resilience.
Output 4: Data collection tool for Progress on 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. The data collection tool aimed at guiding researchers when presenting data progress for the project activity 5.2.2 for scaling.
  • Whereby by the planning meeting, researchers will be tasked to identify one or two of partners interested in any of the technologies and start discussion with partners how to take the technologies to scale.
  • Researcher be able to describe or provide the extent of engagement with the partner (e. g if there is already an MoU)

Present the technologies that the partner is interested in

  • Also provide information on host farmers, how many farmers does the project team researching with and how may the researcher will be engaging in the activities not necessary research

Prof. Mateete clarifies on the tool components of the tool, according to him the key components includes the systems on how they are bringing the information’s from different partners, and how they inform data system. The presentations will include the how questions, where team leaders will present how the partners are working, how the data are obtained and inform the system.

Way forward

The Team agreed to submit the draft of their presentations on 1st of September 2019 where the draft work plan for every one that will be sent to Prof. Mateete by the group Champions with the Identified gaps (data) and then be person responsible to fill in on 1st September 2019.


Prof. Mateete appreciated the team inputs and their significant participation. He encouraged the team to work on the agreed and meet timeline such as providing the workplan on time.
He appreciated the project manager Dr. Irmgard support to the pre-planning meeting and noted that it was her request for the presentations to be shared before they are presented at the Sept planning meeting.