Ethiopia planning oct2013

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

Ethiopia Review and Planning Meeting 31 October - 1 November 2013 Addis Ababa

Meeting Objectives • Review project progress and results • Synthesize the ongoing diagnostic work • Agree outline workplans for 2013-2014 and general responsibilities of partners

Agenda[edit | edit source]

31 October 2013

Time Activity
0830 Registration
0900 Aims, Objectives, introductions Peter Thorne and Peter Ballantyne
0930 Project update
* Activities
* Actions from last planning meeting
* Actions from learning event
* Emerging findings
* Partnerships
* M&E
* Comms
Peter Thorne and Kindu Mekonnen [and activity leaders]
1030 Break
1100 Project progress review (SWOT exercise) Simret Yasabu
1230 Break
1400 Update on ongoing/completed diagnostic work
Group exercise / Generate key messages (constraints and opportunities) from each diagnosis
* Impactlite; PCA; SLATE; AKT5; VCA; Phone surveys
IFPRI baselines, FEAST, digital stories
* Gap analysis in plenary
Peter Thorne
1630 Partner perspectives on progress Sultan
1700 Review and plans for day 2
1715 Close
1800 Social activity

1 November 2013

0845 Review day 1
Introduction Day 2
0915 R4D Planning for the project

* Review, clustering and prioritization of the diagnostic activity products and key messages
1000 Break
1030 R4D Planning for the project

* Planning work on the prioritized activities (use standard planning template)
1200 R4D Planning for the project

* Quick reports back to plenary
1230 Break
1400 R4D Planning for the project

* Cross-cutting work: IPs, M&E/indicators, comms, scaling, partnerships, capdev, nutrition, gender, management/coordination
1530 Break
1600 Synthesis
1700 Close

Day one: 31 October 2013 Peter Ballantyne started by giving an overview of the agenda which is planned for the two days and invited Peter Thorne ,to give a welcoming remark as well as the aim and objective of the two days review and planning meeting . This was followed up by introduction of every participant by going around and shake every participants hands. Peter Thorne and Kindu Mekonnen then gave a presentation on project update. This was accompanied by Africa RISING Cg partners and communication update.

Break After the break the participants were divided in to five groups (Oromia ,Amhara,Tigray,SNNPR and national) to do a SWOT analysis Simret Lead this session and explained to the participants to look in to the international strength and weakness and the external opportunities and threats. Synthesis of the group discussions Strength

  1. International ,national and local partners, technologies and experience
  2. Holistic system approach
  3. Adopt participatory ,demand driven approach
  4. Commitment of partners
  5. Participatory and demand driven
  6. Financial and logistics
  7. Multi stakeholder and Multi-disciplinary
  8. Communication
  9. The experts (the team-AR has great specialist)
  10. The combination of research and development in the AR project
  11. The integration approach used- research components
  12. Partnership and capacity building
  13. The cross team learning
  14. The site coordinators
  15. Team composition –local and international
  16. Diagnostic survey followed by action research
  17. System approach
  18. Frequent meeting (communication and different views /ideas)
  19. Recruitment of the site coordinators
  20. Good attention to logistics and facilities for all sites
  21. Communication tools


  1. Low activity integration e.g ATA
  2. Gap on project finding ,updates to community and partners
  3. Limited time allocation on lead partners activities
  4. Weak M7E-no clear indicator (outputs, outcomes)
  5. Delay in project implementation
  6. Failure to establish the required bureaucracy y line (e.g MOU with the regions )
  7. Lack of joint field planning among CG centers and partners
  8. Small area coverage
  9. The low incorporation of nutrition aspect in the project
  10. Poor linkage of the different diagnosis work done by the teams
  11. Clash of interest between agriculture (crop) and forestry intervention e.g CIP
  12. Clash between the market oriented intervention and nutrition oriented
  13. Integration of differ institutions (CIP,IWMI..)
  14. No defined owner for social –cultural issues
  15. Less attention for livestock in demonstrations
  16. Less attention to government bureaucracy e.g MOU
  17. Less stakeholders integration and information
  18. Delay of MOU with stakeholders
  19. Budget delivery system
  20. Lack of capacity building and logistics
  21. Lack of contact person at institution or stakeholder level


  1. High demand in technology gap in intervention
  2. Project activities in line with government development agenda
  3. Community based and local institutions +ARDPLAC
  4. Farmers awareness and participation
  5. Existing government structure
  6. Current policy
  7. Diversifies farming system
  8. Presence of technologies
  9. Availability of research centers and universities
  10. The government policy
  11. Leverage of the existing knowledge
  12. The 1-5 network
  13. Divers partnership (private-public)
  14. The long term project (commitment of donor)
  15. The cross cutting M&E
  16. Recommended research outputs …which are available
  17. Trained local partners
  18. High demand for agri –techs by farmers
  19. Conducive government policy


  1. Climate change
  2. Partners’ time availability and turn over
  3. Government role on input supply on sustainability
  4. Climate change effects
  5. Staff turnover of partner institutions
  6. Different incentive approach y different institutions
  7. Great expectation
  8. Lack of harmonized incentive policies among CG center
  9. Input supplies on time (where the farmers can access the promoted inputs)
  10. Access and connection to internet
  11. Timely availability of technologies /inputs
  12. Quarantine for seed/starting materials
  13. Unexpected pest outbreaks
  14. Accountability of partners –turn over
  15. Mono cropping farming system
  16. Farmers resistance to adopt labor intensive technology
  17. Mechanization
  18. Sudden outbreak of crop disease
  19. Less attention of farmers for livestock feed

Lunch Break After lunch Break Peter Ballantyne takes the participants through the next exercise which is to discuss on the diagnosis approaches used so far. Leader from each diagnostic work lead the world café type of discussion where by participants get the chance to contribute to the discussion on every diagnostic work. The exercises focused on generating key messages ,challenges and opportunities and also coming up with possible research themes/ topics which the project could take up for next year

  • PCA-Gebrehiwot
  • SLATE-Peter Thorne
  • AKT5-Aster
  • Phone surveys-Kindu
  • Value chain –Eluid

Break Key research questions emerging from the Diagnostic work discussion.

  • Forage development and improving utilization
  • Improved management of communal grazing land
  • Feed supply system (forage cooperatives)
  • Water and land management –upstream and downstream
  • Water development and management utilization technology
  • Integrated soil and water management at community level
  • Community based seed multiplication
  • Improving seed system
  • Promotion of small-scale farm implementation –mechanized
  • Promotion of agroforestry practices
  • Knowledge management, information sharing and capacity building
  • Identifying skill gaps and capacity building
  • ICT for market information
  • Rural energy
  • Establishing and strengthening market linkages
  • Insects, disease and weeds control
  • Testing innovative financing for market oriented producers and input suppliers
  • Improve livestock breads and productivity and link to VC
  • Breeds (Lis) system
  • Pest disease, VET services -effectiveness
  • Collective action for processing and marketing
  • Crop-livestock –tree integration
  • Post harvesting technologies
  • Platforms
  • M&E
  • Nutrition availability, diversity and processing
  • Climate change
  • Evolution farming system
  • Introduction and promotion of high value crops
  • Developing optimal integrated –on farm experiments on integrated tree-crop –livestock

END of Day One Dinner and Mesheta

Day Two: 1 November 2013

Peter Ballantyne started the second day of the review and planning meeting by asking reflection from the participants of the first day if there are issues they would like to reflect on. This was then followed by a presentation from Peter Thorne on the world café discussion outcomes from the first day. Aster from ICRAF then presented the thematic area where the question which were identified on the second day from the discussion of the diagnostic workfalls . Accordingly thematic areas are identifed

  1. Feed and forage development
  2. Land and water management
  3. Knowledge skills and capacity development
  4. Improved varieties and management of field crops
  5. High value crops
  6. Farming system integration

Based on the thematic areas identified the participants were asked to plan for the next 18 month and a maximum of three years. Peter Thorne presented the planning sample template to help and guide the groups on how they needs to work on the planning . The participants where divided up in to six groups.

Lunch Group discussion on cross cutting themes - facilitated by Ewen Le Borgne Key thematic topics were picked up for group discussion. Group Leaders were identified to lead the discussion and report back. the discussion focused on key issues, questions that needs clarification and suggestions

Group discussion feed back

Communication and knowledge management

Issues - how to involve farmers - how to widely share what Africa RISING is doing particularly those partners who needs the information from Africa RISING Questions/ Clarification - those who access web and other tools , how can they give /share their questions and comments - Which knowledge are we talking about? local /indigenous knowledge suggestions - To involve farmers: participatory group discussion ,leaflets in local languages - Use existing mass media-TV ,Radio to address the wider audience

Capacity development Issues - Focus and type of capacity development (target group ,type of job ,long term..) - Scope of capacity building (width and depth ) - Access/delivery to training inputs (farm tools ,computer and access) - Knowledge management center (establish..) - System integration (various practices and efforts) - Awareness creation on specific use of agro chemicals ,livestock vet services Questions/clarification - What are the focus and scope of capacity building of the project - Who are the beneficiaries of the project intervention - What are the role of partners on capacity building - What are the candidates tools for capacity building?(demo.)

Suggestions - Relevant training tools should be used - Capacity building should target all relevant stakeholders - Capacity building components : practices ,technologies ,maintenance , infrastructure development

Gender Issues

- Less involvement and participation of women in program level - Most of the technologies are gender biased - Poor identification of the targeted beneficiaries - Women are most vulnerable in the project (water scarcity ,fuel ,nutrition /food for children)


- What is the gender strategy in the AR project (gender mainstreaming ) - How do we make sure the AR intervention are gender sensitive - How do we target the key beneficiaries better in our interventions - How do we empower women ,youth ,aged and disadvantaged


- Gender disaggregated M&E - Gender focal person on the sites(Per) - Involving community women group in the research and implementation process - Involve men in gender work to understand women burdens - Gender mainstreaming and sensitization across the partners - Encouraging attendance of husbands on training workshops - Having incentives to encourage women participations for example nursing mother ,pregnant


Issues - M&E key tools - M&E should go at every phases of planning, implementation but not seen - M&E outputs and outcome indicator need to be identified and communicated - Baseline survey need to be conducted - M&E integration with the other tools

Questions/clarifications - From where M&E tools start, by whom it is conducted - How can the project impact is evaluated


- Baseline survey should be conducted - Responsible institutions should committee to undertake M&E - M&E should be participatory and time frame based

Management and partnership Issues - Decision making - MOU /contracts - Incentive for staff and farmers - Financing inputs - engagement with development partners - integrated Knowledge management

Questions/clarification - With whom , duration ,amendment ,level - Fine tuning /compensation ,field days - Harmonization across partners - Why pays/credit /cost recovery/collective measures - Communication /funding ,rules /disbursement

Suggestions - Establishment of steering committee - Discuss with steering committee and prepare proposals

Innovation platforms Issues - Information , knowledge ,experience generated and transferred ,M&E joint planning implementation Questions/clarifications - Among what issues? levels ,leadership ,facilitation ,financing ,sustainability , incentive (individual , institutions ,group ,organization ) - Staff turnover

Suggestions - Explore existing platforms /networks at different levels - Working modalities - Lessons from other projects - Stakeholder analysis at different levels - Need based platforms –incentive identified - Institutional linkages not individual

Scaling up Issues - Questions/clarifications - Inputs to jumpstart scaling without jeopardizing economic sustainability - Consequences of up scaling

Suggestions - Capacity development - Integrating farming system - Agroforestry synergies

Nutrition Issues - All food are not nutritional rich - Low awareness on consumption and feeding - unavailability of high nutritious foods - Inadequate technology for food processing - Inappropriate access distribution of food - Hidden hunger (micro nutrients deficiency)

Questions - How can we address these problems Suggestions - Nutrition education - Introduction and evaluation of existing technology (adoption ,accessibility ,affordability ) - Value additions (time ,place and form utility) - Promotion and consumption of micro nutrients rich food - Bio fortification – focus on micronutrients - How gardening production - Evaluation of indicators of key nutrition and health. Break Presentation : sustainable intensification discussion Reflection - Our main partners are the AGP woreda and they should have been involved to know what they want - AR is moving deeper than expected - What needs to be improved- progress reports should have been presented e.g the on farm activities - Consideration of Non AGP and pastoralist areas - Gender, nutrition and value chain needs to be linked - We have discussed a lot on the planning but didn’t get the time to finalize and also integrate the different thematic areas - It would have been good to know the result of assessments which could have helped the planning - A lot of emphasis has been on technologies- link reporting to the final project - Communication systems needs to be improved among partners - M&E should be strengthen closing : Peter Thorne

In his closing remark Peter gave thanks for all those involved for their active participation and said the work plans proposed by the different groups will be merged to have one work plan for the coming year and will be sent for their comments one week later .

particpant list File:Registration list.docx