Science event17

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

Africa RISING Science for Impact Workshop
White Sands Hotel, Dar es Salaam
17-19 January 2017
[edit | edit source]

Event photos[edit | edit source]

media type="custom" key="28976497"

Objectives[edit | edit source]

  1. Present and critically assess the major science and technology results of the Program, with an emphasis on innovations that can be taken to scale
  2. Discuss and agree important Program-wide implementation arrangements necessary to achieve the Program’s goals

Presentations and posters

Presentations are linked here. Posters will all be accessible via Slide Share.

Blog from the meeting

Agenda[edit | edit source]

Tuesday [17 January]
08:30 Registration
09:00 Opening, welcomes, objectives, process [Bernard Vanlauwe/Facilitators]
09:45 Africa RISING phase 2 in a nutshell

-Africa RISING phase 2

10:00 Program-wide approaches

– introduction
– SI framework [Sieglinde Snapp and Peter Thorne]
– Typologies and targeting [Jeroen Groot]
– Communications and knowledge sharing [Peter Ballantyne]

10:15 COP proposal [Bernard Vanlauwe]

– Program-wide analyses and research questions [Carlo Azzarri]
– Capacity development [Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon]

12:15 Phase 2 – synthesis and common understandings [Guided plenary]
12:45 Technologies and innovations 2 scale session introduction

-Intro to the session after coffee; process; group forming. Facilitators

13:00 Lunch
13:30 Technologies and innovations 2 scale session 1

-Innovation adoption for scaling
-‘Bus stop’ process: 6 small groups tour different thematic stations. Each group has a specific assignment.

14:00 Gender

    • Innovation/R4D platforms
    • Value chains, markets and economics
    • Nutrition
    • Targeting and trade-offs Discussion
    -At each station, 2 or 3 scientists briefly ‘present’ innovations and technologies for potential scaling from the 3 projects. Roughly 8-10 minutes to present; then in-depth discussion and questioning by the groups on the evidence, the science, the opportunities, the challenges. After 30 mins; the groups rotate to a new station.

15:30 Break
16:00 Technologies and innovations 2 scale (continued)
17:30 Take-away insights from the bus stops [Participants]
18:00 Close
19:00 Workshop dinner

Wednesday [18 January]
08:30 Recap day 1 and plans day 2 [Facilitators]

  • Technologies and innovations 2 scale session 2
- Genetic intensification
- Crop ecology
- Natural resource management
  • ‘Bus stop’ process: 8 small groups tour different thematic stations. Each group has a specific assignment.

08:45 At each station, 3 scientists briefly ‘present’ innovations and technologies for potential scaling from the 3 projects. Roughly 8-10 minutes to present; then in-depth discussion and questioning by the groups on the evidence, the science, the opportunities, the challenges.

- Soil and water managements and landscapes
- Conservation agriculture
- Livestock
- Post-harvest and food safety
- High value crops

10:45 Break
11:00 Technologies and innovations 2 scale (continued)
13:00 Lunch
14:00 M&E - activities, results and achievements from phase I
14:15 M&E - planned activities and expected results phase II
14:30 Discussion/Q&A
15:00 M&E –Monitoring data guide (activities, timeline, responsibilities)the PMMT and CKAN (Core elements)
15:30 Break
16:00 M&E –the BTTT (brief hands-on demonstration) and other tools monitoring tools
16:30 M&E –Impact Assessment opportunities in Phase II
17:10 Final remarks (Ewen)
17:30 Close

East & Southern Africa - see the presentation (Mateete Bekunda)

PPP models (Endalkachew Woldemeskel) - see the presentation Mission-funded development projects (Haroon Sseguya) - see the presentation Reaching farmers with weed management technologies: Approaches that work (Godwin Atser) - see the presentation Participatory radio campaigns: a cost-effective alternative to the scale-up challenge (Jonathan Odhong for part 1, Karen Hampson for part 2) - See the presentation of part 1 and the presentation of part 2

Thursday [19 January]
08:30 Recap day 2 and plans day 3 [(Mateete Bekunda)
08:45 East & Southern Africa - see the presentation (Mateete Bekunda)

-West Africa - See the presentation (Asamoah Larbi)

09:30 Synthesis: Take away lessons from Technologies and innovations 2 scale sessions (Guided plenary)
10:15 Break

  • see the presentation
-PPP models (Endalkachew Woldemeskel) - see the presentation
-Mission-funded development projects (Haroon Sseguya) - see the presentation

10:45 Reaching farmers with weed management technologies: Approaches that work (Godwin Atser) - see the presentation

- Participatory radio campaigns: a cost-effective alternative to the scale-up challenge (Jonathan Odhong for part 1, Karen Hampson for part 2) - See the presentation of part 1 and the presentation of part 2

12:15 Workshop synthesis, next steps, actions Then workshop close
13:00 Lunch
14:00 Participants free to depart
14:30 PCT and chief scientists meeting


World cafe session - cross-cutting components[edit | edit source]

Communications and Knowledge Sharing Group1:

  • A face to face meeting is really important with the government officials, extension workers, and scientists.
  • Think tank with high level officials are very important, these group can guide and advise us with policy engagement and influence.
  • Q: How does the program link with local research institutions?
  • A: in Ethiopia highlands, we have innovation platforms where we bring different actors together (government, extension officers, researchers and others). The local issues should be addressed with local research institutes. In Ghana, we contracted some of the research activities with local research institutions and that is how we work in West Africa.
  • We organized a number of events in phase 1 and we are doing do the same in phase2, we need to have a synthesis from the outputs of the events. Lets translate that in to local language and circulate that.
  • We need to translate our publication into local languages.
  • In Ghana and Mali the comms team is not at the ground. At the moment it as the program level. The comms team needs to have a network to help us engage at the ground.
  • We need to have more posters in phase 2 for public awareness purposes. People have to see the validated technologies at kebele and university level.
  • We need cross project forum or platform to share some important questions, learning and give feedback to each other.

Group 2 feedback:

  • Q: You are such a small team how can you do all these different activities?
  • A: it is not done only with comms team, it is done in collaboration with scientist and with embedded communication people.
  • Do you have a Metrix of responsibilities? Who to involve at what stage and the capacity.
  • I want to congratulate the comms team, the project has a good output.
  • When we organize a meeting we have to give an opportunity to participants to visit field activities.
  • Q: what is the composition of the comms team, is it purely ILRI or other organization too?
  • A: The program comms led by ILRI but we have Jonathan works for IITA and Simret for the project. We didn’t go to IWMI, ICRISAT and CIAT and ask comms team to support the project, this something we may need to consider for phase2.
  • In terms of visibility, it would be good if the comms team travel to different regions to cover some of reginal stories.
  • We need gender sensitive communications. We need to target audience and find the right channels to communicate with those target groups.
  • We need to consider media like radio, video, drama to communicate to the people at the ground.

Group 3:

  • We have IPs but it doesn’t seem we co-develop with farmers. We need to have feedback loop for technologies we are generating. Lets get away from traditional way of pushing and lets co-create. In Ethiopia we are using the IP to share feedback.
  • In Ethiopia, we have farmers filed day where we invite farmers to tell us their problem and also we co-create solution with them.
  • In Tanzania, we have IP but the challenge is how to facilitate the IPs to server the purpose. We need to look in to this in phase 2.
  • Countries need to consider communication budget at the beginning of their planning.
  • Africa RISING needs to force scientists to produce different materials than focusing only on publications. Scientist need to produce outcome oriented products not only publications and articles.
  • Consider ICT tools to talk to farmers, looking for AR WhatsApp group.
  • Lets consider phone as a scaling tool to reach farmers.
  • Consider radio programs and other means to communicate with farmers, we should be working with extension works, we can use them to translate our work to farmers.
  • Training of trainers.

Group 4:

  • Infographics is missing and we need to have that component.
  • Calendar of the different activities happening in all the regions.
  • How to participate on other partner’s event, and show our products, if we work with districts and mission funded projects we can do that.
  • In terms of getting messages to communities, we can use traditional media like playing dram and use radio, etc.. do we have skills to do? We can use farmers groups to do that we can partner others. We can organize farmers field day and play the role.
  • Film documentary with involving the stakeholders and other partners will also help to message our work.
  • We need to package our products to different audience.
  • In Tanzania we use the whatsApp group, we need to sale up at the program level.

Group 5:

  • When we translate to local language, we should a simple language.
  • Let’s synthesis our production with concrete recommendation.
  • Dramatization by farmers with audio visual is very useful.

Group 6 feedback

  • We need to come up with strategy who to target.
  • We need implementation plans per country.
  • Develop technology sheet and that will be translated to local languages by extension officers. And then it will go to the grass root people.

Communities of practice[edit | edit source]

Proposed Communities of Practice

Socio-economic Assessment of Technological Innovations
(Proposed Champion: Asfaw Negassa, ILRI): We need a clearer idea of the economic feasibility of the technologies we think are scalable for different farmer typologies. Many of the technologies that have been analyzed in this respect have not necessarily taken all aspects into account or differentiated amongst various farm household situations. There is no clear consistency regarding the correct methodologies to use for economic analysis. Moreover there is a concern that cost benefit accounting alone is not adequate for participatory, demand-driven research that is trying to change and positively affect farmer’s behavior. This CoP should aim to identify and apply appropriate experimental and non-experimental scientific approaches that will allow us to identify economically viable options for increasing productivity, improving nutrition and reducing poverty in the real world.

Nutrition (Proposed Champion: Caroline Sobgui, WorldVeg): All three projects have struggled to engage fully with quality research teams in this area. The activities that we have conducted have been handled in very different ways within each and, unlike gender for example, there has been little cross-fertilisation. A common approach to nutrition across the regions could allow us to build a critical mass of research in nutrition and be helpful in demonstrating that we are a true programme. It would also allow us to compare achievements towards improved nutrition. Nutrition will become more important to USAID with the new program that will replace Feed-the-Future.

Private Sector Engagement for Better Linkages of Farmers to Input and Output Markets (Proposed Champion: Patrick Okori, ICRISAT): All projects have had very limited engagement with the private sector (PS) during Phase I. To some extent this is understandable because the PS wants validated and proven technologies and these were the major outputs of the first phase. However, we have them now and the risk is that we will not make best use of the opportunities that are out there because we do not know how to engage with the PS. Some strategic thinking and activities are needed otherwise we are unlikely to achieve much adoption of our technologies and markets for the anticipated surplus produce.

Livestock intensification and integration (Proposed Champion: Augustine Ayantunde, ILRI): This is a bit like the case for a nutrition CoP. We do different things in different places based on interest and availability of researchers and partners (feed, health, housing, ruminants, pigs, poultry). Livestock are not only important for the integrating role that they play in farming systems but also for the contribution that livestock intensification makes to nutrition outcomes, income generation and poverty alleviation. They can also provide an entry point for improving gender equity. Moreover, and integrated approach to livestock across the projects was a key recommendation of the external review that was strongly picked up by the donor.

Translating Research Outputs into Scaled Innovation (Proposed Champion: Haroon Sseguya, IITA): There are few projects that start from an open-ended systems diagnosis and get to the stage of promoting the scaling of tested, validated and adapted research outputs. Africa RISING is now moving beyond this stage to a situation where we can gather the evidence that these R-in-D approaches can really catalyse adoption and even generate impact at scale. This CoP should aim to identify promising approaches to scaling and promote them throughout the Africa RISING research teams. It should also ensure that the process is properly documented and analysed; to some extent this could overlap with the first CoP. Most importantly of all, this CoP will need to consider and synthesize the lessons that we will be learning on how and how not to take research outputs to scale. Discussion points Science Meeting – World Café – Dar Meeting – 17 Jan 2017

Other themes: A number of additional topics were proposed that could be turned into COPs (e.g. environment, innovation platforms, climate issues, soil fertility management); it was explained that we would start with above 5 themes but (i) that (any AR colleague would be free to set up additional COPs (without direct support for facilitating these) and (ii) that such extra COPs could become a formal component of the Program at a later stage and after evaluation of initial progress made.

Terms of Reference[edit | edit source]

These terms of reference should apply across all CoPs. One of the early tasks of the established CoPs will be to clarify their specific aims and deliverables based on the above outlines.

  1. Establish a community of researchers with common aims and interests relating to the CoP mandate;
  2. Formalize aims, deliverables and milestones to address the CoP mandate over the five year lifetime of Africa RISING’s second phase;
  3. Maintain regular interactions amongst CoP members (including circulation of relevant materials, virtual and face-to-face meetings);
  4. Promote best practices relating to the CoP topic across all Africa RISING projects and partner organizations for greater harmonization of approaches and methods;
  5. Disseminate learning experiences and successes related to the CoP mandate to the wider research and development community;
  6. Consider, as / if appropriate, mechanisms for maintaining the CoPs beyond AR-II for suitable exit strategies to ensure that their deliverables persist.

Discussion points Science Meeting – World Café – Dar Meeting – 17 Jan 2017

  • Embedding COP outputs in Project planning: A recurring issue was the required processes to embed outputs from the COPs into Project-specific planning and implementation.
  • Goal: The goal of COPs could be related to knowledge sharing, learning, etc; important to note is the COPs do not have an implementing function with AR (implementation is done by the country/regional teams) but a scientific oversight role.
  • Focus in relation to goals and deliverables: COPs should in first instance identify short term and tangible deliverables that are critical to AR to ensure that results will be available in the shortest possible time; longer-term goals and deliverables could be added on.


  • CoPs should be free to determine their own processes (for ToR 3. above), but we might want to encourage a minimum of two relatively formal meetings per year (of which at least one in-person).

Each CoP will have a small budget for meetings and joint activities.

  • Discussion points Science Meeting – World Café – Dar Meeting – 17 Jan 2017
  • Second facilitator: The need for a co-facilitator was expressed; COPs should be managed without vertical reporting lines and through facilitation.
  • Terms of engagement: It was proposed that subscribers to a COP should confirm a minimal level of commitment to make these work, though the level of engagement above such minimum could vary; multiple membership should be possible; members should include NARS partners and other AR partners directly engaged in implementing activities.
  • On-line forums: It would be important to have on-line forums for posting progress with the delivery of COP outputs; all AR colleagues should have access to all COP proceedings, independent of their respective membership.
  • Review: A process to review and evaluate progress with COP implementation should be set up, related to changes made to Project activities based on the integration of COP outputs.
  • Cross-cutting issues: How will the issue of cross-cutting expertise be handled? For instance, gender expertise could be relevant for all 5 COPs but there’s only 2 gender experts within the AR constituencies.
  • Facilitation: The COPs will need backstopping support from the AR communications team which has the expertise in-house to facilitate COPs.
  • Communication: The success of the COPs will depend on communication; cost-effective communication tools will be required to guide such processes (with support from the AR communication team).
  • Interactions between COPs: While there could be value in facilitating interactions between COPs, it was felt that in their initial phase, COPs should advance independently.

SI framework[edit | edit source]

  • Simple, context-appropriate reference is valuable
  • Should it have a minimum dataset?
  • Not an M&E tool. Could be used as a basis for one but threshold issues )will there be detectable changes across all domains)?
  • Linkages across domains are not explicit enough
  • Indicator x domain matrix to show cross=linking / multi-use indicators
  • Strengthen the framework treatment at landscape scale (e.g. for water)
  • Knowledge + skills (hu). Difficult to "quantify" but essential
  • Implications of context in which measurement takes place
  • Measurement practicalities. Appropriate proxies. Particularly with respect to shocks + resilience
  • Efficiency ie. storage to reduce waste
  • This is not quantitative. No 'gold standard' evidence but a contribution to evidence base
  • What do we want to say with this in five years time? It depends!
  • At site level, explore opportunities for a deeper analysis around specific indicators
  • How can this help us to improve the methods for farming system research?
  • Can it be used as a decision support tool? Ex ante assessment (Tricky because of the importance of context)
  • How does the framework deal with integrated / stepwise intensification?
  • Are indicator domains mapped to specific CoPs? Should they be?
  • How do we advise on interpretation for different contexts
  • No standard set. Need guidelines for indicator selection for context
  • Training needs / standardised data collection

Targeting and typologies[edit | edit source]

  • Beyond the endowment and constraints of farms and households it is important to look at the specific needs from the different categories
  • We should not come with single, individual technologies and practices, but with an array of options to choose from. Africa RISING with its multi-disciplinary approach should be particularly equipped to do so.
  • Often strong contrasts are observed between the initially stated preferences and ambitions of farmers to implement innovations, and the things that they can really afford and will actually implement in the field.

- Quality of survey data is always a concern. - It is expected and experienced that “linked technologies”, which are packaged together, are more efficient than individual technologies. - It is good to assess the role of markets and other external factors in technology scaling. Answer: The signaling system proposed in the FarmMATCH approach can facilitate the mobilization. - How do we link the typology and targeting approach to the goal of lifting people out of poverty? Answer: It is important to start at the household level and see the household goals and options. Is farming the primary income source, or are there alternatives? - The typologies and data of IFPRI have not been clearly communicated yet, particularly in Ethiopia, this could be done in the second phase. - We want to know what the probability of success is for a technology (mentioned for the Ghana situation). - It is important to make typologies useful for researchers in the field.

Program-wide analyses and research questions[edit | edit source]

Program-level research questions (on page 20 of the umbrella document) and analysis (on page 16 - 18 of the umbrella document)

  • Q1: Trade-off and synergies
  • Q2: Adaptation/adoptability
  • Q3: Livelihood
  • Q4: Enabling environment
  • Q5: Equity

Highlights/Questions from the table:

    • How does the program-level analysis influences (and is influenced) by project-level analysis?
    • How did the program-level research questions come about?
    • How does the program ensure that research teams (adequately) address as many of the program-level research as possible? Also because research teams do not have all the skills needed to address all the five research questions
    • How do you operationalize the research-level research questions?
    • If the program-level research questions is meant to provide some sort of evaluation evidence, we need to have a formal conceptual framework/theory of change (…we had/have a theory of change)
    • May be Q1, Q2, Q4 and Q5 should all fall under Q3 about livelihoods?
    • How does the scaling fit into the overarching program-level questions? Well, the scaling comes after the SI technologies are vetted along the SI dimensions?
    • Some of the program-level research questions are too broad/vague? For example, under the livelihoods question below, which specific aspect of livelihoods one is interested in should be spelled out clearly!

“How do changes in the management of specific activities or combination of activities within a farm (e.g. a field or a livestock unit) affect overall livelihood conditions for different farmer typologies?”

    • Are the five research questions answering the bigger picture that the program aims to address? We don’t really know how to take a successful project to scale? Research to better understand the mechanics of scaling up should be the 6th program-level research question!
    • Research teams were not as strong on some of the research questions (e.g., trade-off analysis as well as equity) during Phase I.
    • There was limited work on equity maybe due to limited work (and operationalization) of the typologies. This is expected to improve in Phase II
    • Need some clarity on how project-level research questions fit into the program-level research questions?
    • Individual research activities have bits and pieces of the 5 program-level research questions…to different extent
    • Some topics of research could fall into multiple program-level research questions. For example, capacity building could be crucial for both adoption/adaptability of technologies (Q2) AND enabling environment (Q4). Same is true for Innovation Platforms
    • We need to have a proper documentation of which research question is addressing which program-level research questions (more discussion during tomorrow’s M&E session)
    • Available data, especially on Q5 is mostly quantitative, how do we make sure that enough qualitative data are collected to understand the “how” of it?
    • How does the SIIF world café session fit into the program-level research world café session?
    • AR has limited resources, we cannot do everything (e.g., including landless rural households for the sake of equity). So, we really need to prioritize

Capacity development[edit | edit source]

Irmgard (table host): started by explaining the “why’ and ‘what’ – need the right mix of skills amongst scientists and partners (incl dev and boundary partners) to achieve the AR2 goals. Phase 2 builds on, but is different from, phase 1 – so we need to look at new/additional skillsets to deliver. We’ll develop a CapDev strategy (listed a few components) based on a needs assessment. Design and deliver materials and approaches for the various audiences. Partnering is a skill in and of itself, will need to have the right capacities for that. Develop NARS capacity to conduct research that can be taken to scale. Extension services are critical when approaching scaling, which needs to be context-specific based on the ‘starting point’ and a range of environmental factors. Document is silent on the ‘HOW’ we will implement it… that’s what we need to figure out now.

Group 6:

  • Haroon (IITA): Design and delivery can be part of the ‘how’.
  • Sharkar (CIP): how much time for the different aspects? Is there a time horizon? Irmgard: We need to move ASAP, otherwise won’t help guide phase 2.
  • Regis (MSU Zimbabwe): How much confidence do we assign to the phase 1 ‘legacy’ products?
  • Kifle (Makarere Uni): CapDev was implicit in phase 1, and ad-hoc – and we can really learn a lot from phase 1 in terms of how to approach CapDev in phase 2.
  • Anthony (NARO): We have products from phase 1 – but we now need to take them to scale. In-house (core research partners) capacity to do this will be key. How to partner for effective scaling.
  • Mahma (UDS Ghana): Phase 2 we need to involve people. For instance, at community level, we need to do better at social mobilization and advocacy.
  • Vara (Kansas): Need to identify the target audience and focus efforts on these.
  • Haroon: If we have people with experience, draw from their experience.

Group 5:

  • Polly (ILRI): Do you have a strategy for identifying which capacities is more important where. (Iddo – CapDev need assessment must be based on the impact pathways)
  • Joakim (ICRAF Mali): Need to identify the stakeholders before assessing the CapDev needs.
  • Harry (USAID Zambia): What did we learn from Phase 1 – are there solid results we can scale up? (Irmgard – we did not do M&E of CapDev, so evidence is a bit anecdotal)
  • Patrick (ICRISAT Malawi): Science of delivery is critical. Knowledge and technology are not identical – we need the right capacities to deliver the right things. Must have a delivery modal (guided by impact
  • pathway) for each of the technologies. Need to assess AR comparative advantage for delivery (Irmgard: but we also need CapDev for our own and NARS research capacities).
  • Ho-Young (IFPRI): Try to find best existing tools and adapt for AR2. Irmgard: CapDev is costly – how much are we prepared to invest? Polly: Back to Iddo’s point about the impact pathway – it’s about achieving
  • program objectives, not an end in and of itself.
  • Patrick (ICRISAT Malawi): Go back to past activities and identify what was done in phase 1 – then can be collated, and we have a picture of how these activities contribute to the CapDev needs. Keep the budget for things that are more strategic.
  • Job (CIAT): Capture what did we do, and how well did we do it. Iddo pointed out the cost and difficulty of objectively assessing this.
  • Polly: How? Are we starting now? Irmgard – we need a strategy soon, and then follow up on it throughout the 5 years.

Group 4:

  • Funke: We can work from our outcome – what we want to achieve in terms of targets, people, actors – from there, work backwards on what gaps we need to fill.
  • Kissa (MAFS Tanzania): To know the needs of the target groups, we need to conduct needs assessment, then follow up with awareness creation , especially with extention officers. (later also added: add exposure visits between sites
  • Kalifa (Mali): Is it academic or practical? Irmgard: At all levels. Iddo: It is CapDev for project objectives, not in and of itself. Gave example of past project, had a MSc looking at adoption of results, which w as helpful
  • Caroline(WorldVeg ): Get a person to work on this, but needs to match program
  • Funke: Think outside the box. Not just fellows. For scaling, you have to think about production systems, holistic solutions, smart partnerships, policy-level actions etc.
  • Aster ) Ethiopia: CapDev is at different levels – need to focus from policy to farmer.
  • Zelalem (ILRI): In phase 1, engaged boundary partners in social learning processes. Developed videos and learning materials etc. Now we can engage with SARILA program, national learning alliance, policy etc.
  • Goodwin (IITA): Need to understand knowledge, attitude and behavior (KABs) of farmers for intervention to be successful. Must address real gaps.
  • Melaku (ILRI) Engage CapDev specialist at program levels to guide this process.

Group 3:

  • Petra (IWMI): How is CapDev integrated in the AR CoPs? Because some of the CoPs will need CapDev support. Similarly, how is it aligned with CKM? Iddo - and also to the CGIAR CapDev CoP
  • Kindu (ILRI): Need more than need assessment, also find organizations (Iddo: did not understand)… Need to work at different levels.
  • Annet (ILRI): We talk about capacities of actors – but need to follow up and see how it has influenced (Irmgard - that’s the MM&E)
  • Tilahun (ICRISAT): Research for development is the gap we need to fill. Researchers from different locations need to work together (Irmgard: and that’s what the CoPs will aim to achieve).
  • Nigusse (ICARDA Ethiopia): Need assessment is very important, provided that we have the muscle to implement.
  • Assanhu (IITA Ghana) All CG institutions have CapDev units. We need to be selective in what we need to do. And CapDev requires investment. We have to tread carefully and link up with other initiatives.

Group 2:

  • Bekele : Have you identified areas for work? Irmgard – at all levels, and along e
  • Makette (IITA Tanzania): Start with country assessments before you jump into thing.
  • Adebayo (IITA Tanzania): Can fellows continue to be part of this CapDev? Can we have scholarships? Scaling and the numbers we want to reach, we’d need effective strategies to work with extension agents.
  • Gundula (IITA(: Thought a question is missing. Who can support us? Is it the IITA training unit? Can we can other experts to take this over and lead it? Other comment is that we’ve done a bit on Gender Capacity.
  • Fitsum (IWMI): The issue of budget. CapDev is important but requires budget to make it a success.
  • Lulsged (CIAT Ethiopia): When doing needs assessment, need to prioritize.
  • Noel (USAID): Very glad you’re thinking about CapDev. CapDev is hard to do effectively. Gave example of a GHG monitoring capacities, and stressed the need for dedicated human capacity to support the CapDev process. Is it seconding people? A short term training? Both are CapDev but look (and cost) differently… If you can have an assessment of barriers – and then focus. Iddo mentioned the impact pathway as a driver.
  • Adebayo (IITA Tanzania): To what extent are we developing the next generation of farmers (youth)?

Group 1:

  • Christian (CIMMYT): Well appreciated that we need new skills, especially those who have not done much on scaling (and maybe also new tools). Concern is WHO does it and HOW it will be funded.
  • Ben (ILRI Uganda): Scaling out are increasing using IPs and there is a big gap on facilitation of these. We need to enhance out own capacities to do that.
  • Fred (Mali): 1. Look at exchange visit to develop capacities. 2. A local facilitator can sometimes be better – support them. 3. The “How”, can we set up mentoring with private sector?
  • Adelakchu (ILRI): Like CapDev at all scales – from policy, partner to farmers. Partnerships can help deliver this.
  • Jean Baptiste: Make sure that knowledge transfer is effective, and ToT can be a good example in this. Can engage NGOs and the private sector, we can relay on them to help disseminate.
  • Ben: Also, ToT is one example – but need to frame this as innovative community-based approaches.
  • Ben: ICT for CapDev is critical, we should include this.

Bus stops on cross-cutting themes[edit | edit source]

[edit | edit source]

Innovation /R4D platforms[edit | edit source]

See also this report Innovation platforms
- IP are essence they bring stakeholders together
- Right tool in engaging stakeholders in addressing farmers need
- Guide role out technology
- Researchers plays across the selected value chain actors
- They have multi stakeholders
- Share common vision in agriculture
- We cannot reach the targets by ourselves but through partners , which we engage in platform
- Better to organize people across a common objective
- In Babati –it was initiated by Africa RISISNG –ESA project as a strategic tool for considered joint effort among it active stakeholder in response functional JUMBA through capacity building and facilitation of stakeholder meeting

Private sector[edit | edit source]

- Is there a way that the private sector could make a money out of being a member of the platform
- Through interaction the business man could identify where the need is for instance TZ case
- In the case of Ethiopia the private sector are not that much strong and inputs are provided by the public institutions
- The directions come from supply side
- IP are dynamic process
- IP must be visionary and engage these stakeholders
- Are there a real private sector which are not subsidized
- Sometimes the private sector are not willing to take risks

Government officials[edit | edit source]

- How do you sustain after the project life time
- Turned over of IP member of government officials is a challenge everywhere so how do make sure the transfer of knowledge
- Have you seen any technology uptake differences between members and non-members
- Ans: the turnover is everywhere and we have a structure to make sure there is a continuation and transfer. we cannot stop people to move but we need to make sure there are people that stays
- To make it sustainable – it may be an option to make sure they involve in terms of commitment, budget. We need to build the capacity of staff to make sure it stays there . So designing an evolutionary capacity we can make sustainable addressed. we can use them to achieve our objective and let them evolve

Farmers[edit | edit source]

- How do farmers engage ,share information and get information , what is their benefit
- Ours are bottom up which makes them sustainable however in up- bottle approach it will help
- What is the problem of going on various ways then through IP

Scientists[edit | edit source]

- Are their point where we can say soothing worked in somewhere and didn’t in other
- To what extent this IP influence research
- What are the benefits for members
- What was the reason to pick these platforms

- They have at various levels but as a common ground working at a grassroots level at various extent. the other different is that in some cases they are being constitutionalized and being accepted by by laws

NGOS[edit | edit source]

  • Sustainability???
  • Generic lessons of working environment in these IP
  • Have they articulated demand

ANS - We use them to focus on how we do our researches
- Do they have to be really sustainable? They were established to make sure our researches goes in line with government priorities of the needs of our partners. they are there to create synergies
- Let it go and evolve by itself- we want it to be alive and be used by another organization
- What challenges have the other projects face

Extension people[edit | edit source]

  • R4D are set up to increase efficiency
  • We do nice things but independently. it is a way of knowing who is working on what and where , it is a way of reaching a lot of beneficiaries
  • Each stakeholder bring the strength to the platforms

- They survive until the projects exist
- Do we need to make them sustainable and why?
- What have you put in for facilitation

Typologies and targeting[edit | edit source]

  • How useful are typologies for researchers that develop individual technologies? What is the potential usefulness for them?
  • Shouldn’t the typology development be done first, and then develop technologies? Answer: No, we should develop a learning project with emerging new approaches and methods.
  • Is the tradeoff analysis only formalizing what is already being done? Answer: No, it brings the evaluation to the systems level (farm and landscape).
  • In Ethiopia a participatory needs assessment has been conducted already in t he first phase, with evaluations at the landscape level. There is a report available.
  • What can be the role of positive deviants in scaling? A multi-disciplinary effort is needed to allow scaling following this mechanism.
  • Develop technologies in recommendation domains (production potential, market access, population density).
  • A vision-oriented approach is needed, to avoid lock-in in poverty traps. Ethiopian farmer: “Who told you that I would remain poor? Of course I can plant fodders this year, and next year I will have a cow.”
  • Describe in guidelines how researchers can use typologies.
  • Are there targets for nutrition and gender included? Answer: not specifically.
  • Can a link be made of the trade-off analysis with value chains?

Feedback from the functional groups[edit | edit source]

(Participants had been assigned a 'hat' or 'lens' to critique the work that was presented to them as farmers, scientists etc. At the end of the day they gave their impressions).

Scientists[edit | edit source]

  • We need to think that how is it my research fits into program level research questions and how it informs decision making in AR and at scaling up stage how is it that evidence I generate informs that work? That applies to all research teams and themes.
  • We present evidence in all posters but there are a lot of implicit assumptions and if those don’t hold the policy conclusions also may not hold. We discussed that around willingness to pay etc. Are we missing assumptions so that policy makers can use our work?
  • Finally, here talking about nutrition etc. we wondered about gender impact and at the gender table we wondered how to work to ensure some level of integration in the different pieces…

Extensionists[edit | edit source]

  • From the different groups we learned that e.g. from nutrition we didn’t hear what was missing from interventions. What are we missing etc. We need to analyse the system etc.
  • We learned that if we grow more profit we’ll have a negative effect on environment so where are options to make money and improve the environment
  • On water saving/lifting tech we heard about options for it but what are we doing about water?
  • Application of inputs: applying fertilisers, seeds etc. are good but we didn’t know where to get the money (the capital) to get these inputs. What to do with the minimum capital we have.
  • On IPs we heard that coming together is important but usually it happens only when there are per-diems and there appears to not be good incentives except good lunch etc. What are the incentives.

Private sector[edit | edit source]

  • We aspire to grow our business through findings from your research and we were largely disappointed except in one station where we had very rich discussions. There were some opportunities
  • In most stations, presenters were talking to themselves as researchers or producers for opportunities for farmers.
  • In the platforms station, it seemed that in most cases there were very few VC actors except farmers and policy makers. Presneters were not talking to us about investment opportunities.
  • In gender they didn’t talk to us either but gave us opportunities to discuss information about innovations that are mostly used by men etc. and as an investor we could train women to use these technologies and that could be an opportunity to seize.
  • In one station we were told “that is your problem”. Perhaps the implication is that more interaction in one thematic area could use more business sense.
  • On targeting, there was an appreciation that looking beyond biophysical tradeoffs into VC tradeoffs would be worth exploring.
  • Innovation adoption was the richest conversation we had. They had it worked out reasonably well.
  • In the VC one we didn’t really have a business talk but they appreciated that opportunity to improve.
  • At what point of going forward will we mostly have entrepreneurs and investors and be able to move with investments.

NGO implementers[edit | edit source]

  • We are going to be involved more in the scaling and what was presented were innovations ready to be taken forward. We saw that quite a lot had been done. Congrats to the research team.
  • We are missing specific insights about how we can scale up these innovations and integrated solutions for SI. As NGOs when we go to communities etc. we have to bring holistic solutions, not just talking about ‘nutrition’ etc. We missed that integration that allows us to present holistic solutions to the communities.
  • We also feel that some of the sessions are talking about scaling up but we need some tools to achieve scaling up to 100.000’s
  • Those tools have to be packaged as guides because we don’t want to look at guides etc. We want simple-to-use guides.

Government officials[edit | edit source]

  • We found some exciting technologies but across all tables the invitation to speak to the government was missing. We didn’t hear how they would involve us in scaling up.
  • The question we’re asking is: “what will you bring on board that the gov’t is not doing?
  • We are not recognizing some of the roles of the government in certain areas. You appear to be operating in a vacuum without recognizing the efforts of the government. How are you working on that scaling intention?

Farmers[edit | edit source]

  • Do we understand the messages and how can we access the information? What is in it for us?
  • The messages were quite complex and it wasn’t always clear what we could do with that information.
  • Lots of interesting innovation examples but how can we access these technologies?
  • Market access: why bother with value chain if the market is not developed in our areas?
  • How can our willingness to pay change if there is information flowing back to us?
  • IPs: some are bottom-up, some are top-down. How can we access information generated in those?
  • Gender: the issue of culture, religious beliefs etc. into technology adoption. There’s a lot of things to do.
  • Which technology to choose for us?

Day 2 Conservation agriculture

  1. Is mechanization practical for smallholders with +/-0.5Ha land?
  2. After how many years does a farmer reap benefits from conservation agriculture?
  3. What drives adoption of conservation agriculture?


  1. Suitability in different landscapes
  2. Role of finance (what is needed from the government?)
  3. How to do better previous mechanization approaches/initiatives?
  4. Increased pressure on land use change/forest clearing? How strong and how to address?
  5. Will increasing mechanization lead to farm consolidation + urban migration? Implications for different parts of the government?
  6. Intercropping --> competition and pest control?

Natural resource management[edit | edit source]

  • Mapping of recommendation domains for the technologies
  • Fine tuning fertilizers / recommendations to landscape positions
  • Extension materials are needed!
  • Measurement of variables in the sustainable indicators framework
  • Targetting of microdosing/fertilizer application to farm typologies
  • Maize after cowpea ==> soil changes?
  • Variability in fertilizer responses. What explains such variability
  • Chemical fertilizers, NOT organic agriculture. Why we need to import and use ForEx
  • Mechanization to support row planting
  • Where to prioritize NRM. What other options are tested and what should we prioritize. To address NRM primarily rather than mainly agronomy
  • Have the technologies been validated in all zones or to what extent are they applicable?
  • How to produce on the contour bund?
  • How the government can help extending the technology (CB)?
  • What do you have for extension as document or message?
  • Recommendations for other crops beside the dominant ones tested e.g. beyond maize
  • Spacing of contour bunds

Post harvest and food safety[edit | edit source]

  • How is the duration of storage, as farmers do not have warehouses (plastic bags, drums)
  • How is the financial planning when mechanized threshing is scaled
  • What scale (the economies of scale) is needed to cover the costs of investment (particularly for threshing machine)
  • To introduce at community level is the appropriate approach, rather than individual farmers.
  • The cost of the bags. Recovery period 2-3 years use of plastic bags off sets the cost
  • How available are the bags?
  • Is there any possibility to process potato into powder?
  • What is the rate of return for grain-process storage technologies?
  • The supply network for scaling shellers and aflatoxin technologies

Shelling machines manufactured by companies Manufacturers need to take into account the demands - for example spare parts

  • Afla safe material production
  • Targeting important commodities according to country priorities
  • What type of policy should governments implement to reduce post-harvest losses?
  • What is different now with your approach? The technologies have been tested over the past 20 years?
  • Which pest are you addressing with Actellic?
  • How did you manage to get the trust of farmers to bring their grains to a common warehouse for storage?
  • Have you tried traditional structures with the improved practices?
  • Availability of bags and other technologies for ordinary farmers?
  • How affordable are the shelling machines?
  • Are plastic bags made locally? --> Yes
  • Is the drum used in Ghana an ordinary one? --> Yes
  • What is the level of moisture percentage in the grain (maize) for safe storage? Up to 13%
  • Why are you not working for the manufacture of smaller bags?
  • The bags are suitable for use by farmers who produce more than what they need for the family
  • Are you working with cooperatives and private companies who have warehouses - YES in Tanzania and Ghana.

Genetic intensification[edit | edit source]

  • Access to new varieties: what is the plan / activities going on / or planned to improve access?

Public-private partnerships Seed systems strengthening Improving early generation seed production for hybrids.

  • Open pollinated materials
  • Vegetatively propagated crops
  • Strengthening informal seed systems. Community-based initiatives
  • Leverage inputs supply systems for access to especially fertilisers and pesticides
  • Leverage CG systems: to move material across regions e.g. MLN resistant maize to Zambia via CIMMYT Zimbabwe
  • Agro ecological / production / end use contexts: How to do these new varieties relate to agro ecological, production and end use contexts of Africa RISING
  • Testing involves characterisation for ecological / production needs
  • New varieties e.g. OFSP and QPM are tailored to nutrient and production needs e.g. drought
  • Seed encompasses traits locked in grain. Therefore these varieties will achieve their utmost being integrated with natural resource management and gender and nutrition parts of Africa RISING
  • Information and related resources on varieties. How have we packaged the information for use by different scaling out agencies - extension seed companies etc.
  • The team to compile extension bulletins for the new varieties together with other teams
  • Develop an infogram that shows varieties, suitable ecologies, yield potential and production requirements
  • Highlight comparative advantage of new materials - yield, nutrient content and other agronomic traits
  • Variety turn over in relationship to changing ecological needs, consumption / market need: how are the efforts responding to the above?
  • Response:
  • Strengthen breeding pipelines with:(a)New genotypes for evaluation for emerging needs, (b) Releasing new varieties, and (c) Supporting early generation seed production (hybrids / open pollinated varieties)

Crop Ecology

  • Crop sequencing is important, what is the best sequence?
  • Identify means for private sector involvement in the FABA based mixed farming system.
  • PIGEON-PEA /Ground Nut intercrop may be good but pigeon Pea market is not developed in some countries.
  • What is the yield on penalty on maize, maize inter crop system.
  • Quantify Livestock products from forage trials.
  • Des crop ecology compliment conservation agriculture and natural resource management?
  • Consider crop-livestock integration and cereals legume intercropping studies.
  • There is a need to monitor labour input in maize intercropping.
  • Are there differences in yield among farms managed by men, women or both (gender).
  • Market access is necessary for adoption of a technology, eg. Legumes
  • Depending on the soil organic matter content the mineralization of mineralization may vary.
  • How long does it take farmers to start seeing benefits of the inter crop system.
  • Is there any attempt to analyze the economics and water productivity in the cereals legume system?

Land and water management and landscapes Functional groups response. Private sectors

  • ICT platform; is it comprehensive to offer further advice for farmers?
  • Practical aspects on supplemental IRRIG. Is it cost-effective?
  • Support from private sectors
  • Improved water harvesting vizavis
  • Ground water extraction? Opportunities for capturing flood waters shallow groundwater
  • Depends on context of water resources availability
  • Land scape options help replenish ground water
  • Highlight how /where private sectors can invest in natural resources.


  • Linking technology to other tools – ICT
  • How do you link water use/scarcity to nutrient deficiencies
  • Costs of implementation of SWC measures
  • Contaminated water – salt dry conditions
  • What advice?
  • Remediation , crop resistance, drainage, water re-use, water harvesting

How does hydrology inform extension agents?

  • Brochures, training and manuals

Drip irrigation out performs other interventions Policy makers / Gov

  • How do we link the interventions not to overburden farmers?

Varying conditions Integrated approaches Co-location of activities

  • Water are the long term sustainabliyt implications of ground water extraction?

Smart tools that save water Using shallow groundwater Use of Apps for guidance

  • What message do you have in relation to scaling solar pumps?

Are these in mass production? Kenya Cost? 650 USD can payback , 2-3 YRS Lifespan: 10:15 yrs Govt policy can subsidies pumps Advice to govt for guidance

  • • What approaches are you using to scale up

Mass mobilization ICT tools

  • Looked at communal shallow wells, production of wells to increase water yield
  • Provides strategies for MGT
  • Invest in DRIP irrigation.

High value corps system

  • Availability of production manual to farmers in local language
  • Involving government when varieties released.
  • How to ensure sustainable availability of healthy seedlings/tree seedlings
  • Important to also focus on other SI indicators such as environment/nutrients ,etc
  • What number of trees do you need to change livelihoods?
  • Market availability for these crops: responsibilities , issues of the vegetable
  • What is the price of the seedlings, compared to what the farmers produce (purchase vrs own)
  • What are the potential areas to scale there technologies?/ targeting
  • New varieties of OKRA cannot be dried (Needs further confirmation)
  • Problem of fake inputs (seeds/pesticides)
  • What types of species used for controlling ecology


  • Approach should consider strategies to returned mined nutrient (in terms of forage and crop residues) back to the land to make it environmentally friendly.
  • ILRI should develop protocols for opportunities to help national adoption of forage cultivation.
  • Forage conservation should consider the use of PPB (storage bags)
  • Further research should consider the option of introducing improved animal breed into the improved forage cultivation
  • ILRI should canvass for government intervention through subsidy for the procurement of forage chopper.
  • Assessment of technology adoption rate should be included in the next phase.

Day 3

Synthesis impressions[edit | edit source]

Most significant insights from the science that you heard over the past 2 days? - I appreciate that the program is capturing a lot of stakeholders. The potential to upscale is big with this. But some observation is that some of the research you are doing is what was being done a long time ago. It should have been documented at the time. That was my key observation. Some new but a lo t was already happening.
- Very impressive body of science and a lot of technologies and analyses. The big picture is the supply of knowledge. ... between what’s happening among scientists and farmers.
- There’s many good studies but it’s very difficult to understand what is core in these many good studies. For phase 2 we need to think about how to integrate all this good stuff into short and easy answers for us and for policy makers.
- Waste! We need to have indicators to reduce waste and using storage etc. as in Ghana. Three gaps: non organic matter. No adoption anywhere so perhaps we need to look at adoption studies. Seed systems: we need this to understand the research gap. Efficiency and waste are not articulated well enough.
- We have a lot of studies for livestock but most are not looking at adoption enough. How to handle all of them. Maybe the PI can help us.
- Nice insights presented and some new work. Water harvesting technologies and the discussion we had there was that when you treat underground water it goes down and that’s not a sustainable way to use water. We need to think of water harvesting ways that are more sustainable.
- I was really impressed that all of you are devoting your time to disseminate technologies for our farmers. Very impressive presentations. I’ve learned about so many technologies. The issue is to translate into local languages (Amharic, Swahili, Shona etc.) so it’s useful for farmers.
- We talked about post harvest loss (‘40% loss’ gets thrown around frequently but it’s encouraging to see that AR is trying to gather more data about this etc.). Good to strategically look at where we need and can reduce post-harvest loss.
- Really impressive the diversity of approaches and technologies, agro-ecologies, the partnerships, the networking etc. there’s a lot done and a very efficient project. Water harvesting and post-harvest are very important.
- In ESA we dealt with El Niño and La Niña. We’re looking at the work that’s been done. There’s a lack of attention to the climate patterns.
- Matching technologies with contexts. I like the avocado work in Ethiopia as they identified it as an appropriate context.
- I learned a lot from this science event and I’m taking home the work from Northern Ghana about intercropping pepper with maize. This might be very important for the Northern part of Ethiopia.
- Mateete: There’s a lot of science going on. The only thing we have to do is to make it scientific and published.
- Many posters. I was a bit worried about design etc. We need experimental design for some of the work we’re doing and we need to publish articles etc.
- I saw a lot of potential to publish…
- What I notice is that our focus has been on the supply side. Our science is focused on production but we know that production doesn’t always work. We need to pay attention to market research but there’s no real direction for this. If you look at the CoPs, socio-economics doesn’t attract many people. Is it because we focus on production, because we don’t have enough people working on socio-economics?
- I’m still worried because we’ve been talking about disaggregated data but we’re still not addressing this and one of our indicators is equity but how will we say we closed the gender yield gap without
disaggregating data? - The heterogeneity is so great. The technologies we’ve taken should be targeted. We have worked on targeting.
- I’m amazed by the volume of work but on documenting the impact, the focus is on household level but for private sector etc. we need to think about the impact along the value chain and aggregate impact from hh to national/regional level so we can clearly see the impact at scale.

Foreign service officers have short terms so key decision makers at USAIS missions ???
No element of the private sector
Takes scientist time for development
Sustainability? Needs project funds
The culture of listening to the radio is going down
SI Scaling session
Pros Cons
Mission-funded development projects Working with missions is a good way to connect with development partners

Collaboration with partners
Adequate resources
Close the science-development gap (with validated evidence)

Participatory radio campaigns Radio can reach wider audience

Very good for awareness creation
High speed, high transfer
Many stakeholders are reached
Potential to reach large numbers
Combining radio with ICT allows for large reach + M&E
Depends on network infrastructure
Running costs for the program
Costly for a research project
Can’t stand alone need to be combined with other model
Need ‘best practice’ guidance for the kind of info to broadcast and the complementary outreach needed

Government-led scaling Massive potential reach (once they adopt)

Good buy-in by government that enhances sustainability
The right partners à scaling
NGO: have resources (staff, human resources)
Government is the only institution powerful enough to ensure that public interest is protected
Short term reaching out to many farmers
Ensures sustainability
Governments and NGOs are able to embrace externalities in decisions about what to support/promote
Government policy institutionalizes practice à long term impact
Strong participatory engagement

Capacities in gov’t can be week

Blanket promotion misses diversity
Limited capacity in the public sector

PPP model PPPs reach more numbers faster

The PPP example from Ethiopia is a good example of scaling up legume technologies – involvement of NGOs and private sector
All players in sector are engaged towards a common set of goals
Collaborate, share and responsibility
Profitable technologies work through PPPs
Link with farmers – disseminate input distribution
Value addition packaging

Private sector has no motive to protect long-term interests of farmers, most of the time

Poor coordination
Low staffing
Many expectations but low commitment
Does strengthening a focused value chain drive simplification and reduce resilience
Heavy membership
PPPs working is dependent on the product
Must be a tangible benefit
PPP may not always move (strategies may not be appealing to them)
Managing PPPs

Reaching farmers with weed management technologies Works well for ‘simple’ technology (aslo has markets)

Many farmers reached
Potentially sustainable
Many farmers are reached
Clear scaling up strategy
Good use of media
Good PP approach
Works on key crop/demand
500 Ha/year weeding about 2h. day assume ? kids à 15 min / kid / day
Widely available online communication platform enables leadership from all involved parties

Relying on herbicides is relying on poison

Service providers need to diversify otherwise income is limited to a couple of months
No clear strategy on how to make it sustainable
Precondition for social media: literacty
Large groups attending field days
Herbicides effect on the environment
Has data for impact on livelihoods?
Need to moderate ideas on social media
No evidence of the number of farmers reached

Words of thanks and closing[edit | edit source]


It was one of the very good workshops we had over 5 years. I liked this workshop and we could interact with everyone, not just the people from my two regions. It’s different from emailing all the time.

We have organised this workshop by giving a lot of attention on scaling because it’s THE major new element compared with phase 1. We need to strike a balance on research and scaling. I’ve heard a lot of enthusiasm – what’s wrong with M&E? Are we not thinking of the 2nd steps before we figure out the first steps? For ESA and WA, where are our scaling partners already? We have some.
We talked about cap dev. Developing that strategy needs to happen soon. Peter and I have ideas and a roadmap for the next 6 months. We hope to have a CapDev strategy by August. CoPs: we need to make them happen. They need to work very soon if you want to take advantage of them.
Put more emphasis on comms and KM in the phase 2 for scaling etc. The program coordination team has decided 2 months ago to be serious and recruit an additional person at program level to support the current comms team. The advert is out and we hope to have that additional expertise in comms/KM and project management in the next few months.
West Africa team, we’ll have our review & planning meeting in 2 weeks.

Peter Thorne:

I see 5 key elements for phase 2 that came out of the PCT etc. Everyone appreciated what we tried to do in developing this proposal.
  • Research in development model. AR is still a research project, it’s not just a scaling project. We are approaching new scaling partners now and we’re developing the process for doing that. We have a clear roadmap.
  • We have some interesting ideas about scaling approaches. I would flash up the last slide of my presentation on day 1 about the graph with research/engagement and # of farmers reached. That’s the challenge we have before us. We’ve seen some good numbers coming out this morning.
  • Irmgard talked about CoPs. We can improve cross-project collaboration and CoPs are a very serious attempt to do that.
  • Program-wide analysis: our donors want to know that we did this. We need to have evidence that we are in the ballpark of number of beneficiaries etc. We started off with diagnostic studies.
  • IFPRI: M&E is embedded in everything you do so we need to make sure our M&E is done in the right kind of way.


we should already have the numbers of farmers we want to reach. It’s embarrassing to meet senior officials from USAID without these figures. We need to get there and we need to track. If we Don't communicate and monitor it won’t work. We’ll soon have someone based in Bamako and someone in Ethiopia. Soon also someone in ESA.

the AR program has been a journey that started 5 years ago. We had an extensive synthesis in the first phase. You’ll all appreciate that there are great achievements in the first phase but we also have to learn from some challenges. We are at a critical point, transitioning from one phase to another. We are confident that we have good foundations to build on. We can visualize together and commit to delivering on set objectives of the program which we will all come back to in 5 years’ time and check that we have delivered. A lot has been done and as we transition we need to talk about road map, key deliverables etc. I hope you are all enthuse as I feel today. Phase 2 has been a journey that started with reality in June 2015 when the PCT met in DC with USAID to begin the brainstorming on the vision of success for phase 2 and the strategy on how to develop the phase 2 proposal. We had to come up with a convincing proposal. Thank you all for contributing to the proposal development phase. Do you still remember the comments from the review team? Now coming to this meeting we met on Tuesday with 2 objectives. Please reflect on them and see whether we achieved them. We had an extensive synthesis process to reflect on achievements of phase 1. Thank you all for your participation that allowed us to achieve the 2 objectives.

Personally my reflections’ keywords: We still need more integration across all components; we need to absolutely disaggregate our data by gender; In scaling we heard someone advising us to target better our beneficiaries and which technology to introduce; we still need publications in highly rated journals (but we continue with other media); scaling models pros & cons – I hope we can learn from that and deliver in this phase.

Phase 2 started in October. I hope we are all ready to act and deliver on what we set ourselves to do. The 3 famous words from Carlo: Is the environment right? Is the command there? What about the pleasure? I leave this with you. In closing I want to give some thanks: the IITA team at different levels. They agreed to host this meeting. Thank you very much Irmgard and team. Special thanks to Devotha for her logistical support. Sandra and Beauty from IITA Dar office.

Amos and ILRI office in Dar. We had some courageous men and women who hosted bus stops. They worked tirelessly to prepare for it. Thank you for your contributions for hosting these stations. Many thanks. We all had beautiful posters around so thank you for the poster owners. They really delivered.

There’s the team that kept us on our toes and kept us in the room and try to be together. The facilitation and comms team. We have many partners that really engaged with us, some are here for the first time. Thank you very much to partners for your active engagement. Thank you to the hotel team for preparing the room. To all of us I want to say thank you.

Ministry official
Thank you organisers and donors for the workshop. It’s my first time. On behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock I thank you. What you are doing is very fruitful for farmers. Research technologies you developed can be disseminated to farmers. I wish you a safe journey and all the best with scaling up.
Thank you very much.

Bernard about Peter

To keep meetings active and engaging etc. is not easy. Well done Peter. You have one job remaining: make sure that the transition to the next level works out for the communication team.

Peter Ballantyne

We invented the name of Africa RISING in this room. Where will Africa RISING be 5 years from now?

Monitoring and evaluation session (notes)[edit | edit source]

Highlights of round-table discussion about M&E-related challenges and activities that AR researchers would like to see more of.

- o Monitoring related challenges:
- o Monitoring is time consuming and expensive, need more training on the FtF indicators, filling up the new monitoring templates will take time partners’ time
- o We lack baseline data to assess the scaling up
- o There is a need to properly manage AR data (tools, data entry, etc.)
- o Lack of a standard on what should be monitored—SIIF could be of help
- o Lack of understanding of the monitoring roles of dev. partners and AR research
- o Internet connectivity challenges in using the PMMT
- o Monitoring-related tools and activities AR researchers would like to see more of in Phase II?
- o Improvements to previous/existing tools, instead of introducing new ones
- o More resources (financial and human) for monitoring
- o A clear guideline from IFPRI on why we need to collect the different data types and the corresponding tools (there is already a guideline)
- o There is a need for capacity building, monitoring of expert knowledge
- o There is a need for collecting qualitative data
- o Data on sustainable intensification indicators


  1. We need to separate the personal identifying information from the other data before uploading data onto CKAN: YES
  2. Do we know if FtF indicators data uploaded in the PMMT are over- or under-reported?

Gender[edit | edit source]

Questions and responses from hosted stakeholders and the hosts.

Extension[edit | edit source]

  1. How does mechanization transform division of labor and access to machines?
  2. Some of the technologies are regarded as fit for men e.g. machines are considered to be operated by men. Hence women hire men to run the machines.
  3. What does “low technical skills” of women specifically mean? What did the women specifically lack?
  4. What is the role of extension in this work [gender related work]?
  5. What is the underlying factor behind training husband and wife?

Response: You improved the competence of the husband and wife and either of the two can undertake the activities in absence of the other. It also minimizes conflicts that may arise when deciding to apply new practices/technologies that could require extra time.

  1. How do the results affect the incentive to use choppers?
  2. Would you recommend giving machines to husband and wife?

Response: We work with groups and not households

  1. How can you capacitate me to do gender mainstreaming?

Response: Beyond class room training that we normally do, I can coach you to implement the activities that you’re interested. You can come up with a work plan, indicating what you want to learn and I will advise you on how to go about it. We will set goals, activities and timelines. Extensionists would like to get coaching on how to reach the right target groups with the right innovations (without creating conflicts on the household and community level.

Private sector[edit | edit source]

  1. What advice would you give those who want to make money at household level?

Response: It’s quite expensive to buy the choppers as individuals but it’s feasible for a group.

  1. Can a female farmer afford that machine?
  2. Should we organize ‘small’ activities for women on use of these machines to enhance their skills?
  3. Are there any series of technologies that you have identifies that benefit women?
  4. What would be important for us as private sector?

Response: There is demand for the chopper hence increase production, make them affordable and accessible

  1. The key messages of research should also include perspectives of interest for off-farm actors e.g. agri-business. As private sector, it will be important to look at what will give me more money, what is the affordability of machines, what kind of design is needed.

Government officials[edit | edit source]

  1. Change in culture and tradition is very sensitive and it takes a long time to realize. How do you go about it?

Response: Yes: Change in culture is sensitive and it may take years to realize. However, there are approaches that have been used by other organizations to change culture and have worked. For instance the household transformative approaches used by Send a Cow (an NGO) in Ethiopia. Change can be realized after 6 months. But also depends on who you target to create change. Begin champions such as community leaders who are positive and determined. The household approach is better.

  1. As government officials, what do you want us [gender experts] to do for you to be able to mainstream gender?

Response: We need tools to advocate for gender dialogue. There are tools used by other NGOs but they alienate other groups. We need simple tools to initiate gender dialogues at community level.

  1. Is improving livelihoods alone important to address gender?

Response: Improving livelihoods alone may not be enough to address gender dynamics. Many other issues emerge when the benefits accumulate for instance when men take over women-led enterprises that become lucrative. This elicits conflicts intra households.

  1. How can we use champions to increase women’s participation?
  2. How best can gender experts backstop research to increase women’s participation?
  3. NGOs have introduced many technologies but they have not worked for women. Can you show use the technologies you have that are benefiting woman? How do you want government officials to support gender experts to ensure that the technologies promoted benefit women?

Farmers[edit | edit source]

  1. In Nigeria, how can we get more women participation especially in Moslem communities? How do you get the 30% women participation?

Responses: use female extension workers to work with women. Include local authorities in gender work and include their wives.

  1. Why do men claim that women have low technical skills?

Response: Different models of machines were introduced. In some villages, men said women have low technical skills, in others it was the reverse. We need to do more analysis.

  1. Scaling should go beyond women to include other categories of farmers.
  2. We need to present the advantages of the technologies as well.
  3. Do we know the effect of all the technologies in Africa RISING on men and women?

Response: Not all the technologies. We still have a long way to do this. The effect of some technologies such as irrigation and home gardens have been assessed.

NGOs[edit | edit source]

  1. At what stage do you do gender analysis?

Response: It was be done at all stages – before, during and after implementation of a project

  1. How does gender relate to all the other groups e.g. typology? We need to move beyond this.

Response: It can be done but its current not done well. There’s also few gender experts. We can use the SI framework to integrate bits and pieces. Provide tangible data on gender specific interventions. Gender experts can initiate simple interventions that can be learned from. Try capacity development approaches used by other projects.

  1. What do you, as NGOs, need from us [gender experts]

Response: capacity development, simple actionable interventions, guidelines to implement gender responsive interventions, look at all disadvantaged groups e.g. youth

Scientists[edit | edit source]

  1. Can we select just a few people to train and assign them the responsibility to do gender analysis?

Response: we are creating awareness training for all.

  1. You mentioned training husband and wife. How do you deal with households with many wives? How far can we go?

Response: This has moral issues. It has to be dealt with by involving the community and leaders.

  1. How do you get research partners (farmers) to engage?

Response: we need to bring the cultural aspect in the typologies.

  1. What approaches are we using in our projects? Accommodative or transformative?
  2. Training husband and wife can create conflicts. When a wife comes to that same training with the husband and she challenges the husband, it can create conflicts. How do you deal with it?

Response: You do not necessary have to bring them to the same training. You can train them separately. When brought together, you need good facilitation skills.

  1. What are your needs as researchers?

Response: capacity building in involving women 50/50, awareness creation of policy makers, how to involve of youth and capacity to challenge local practices.