Esarevplan2019 - Revision history

J Odhong at 10:29, 3 October 2019

2019-10-03T10:29:03Z

J Odhong at 10:02, 3 October 2019

2019-10-03T10:02:22Z

J Odhong at 09:42, 3 October 2019

2019-10-03T09:42:53Z

J Odhong at 08:56, 3 October 2019

2019-10-03T08:56:53Z

J Odhong at 07:49, 3 October 2019

2019-10-03T07:49:12Z

J Odhong at 07:44, 3 October 2019

2019-10-03T07:44:04Z

J Odhong at 07:42, 3 October 2019

2019-10-03T07:42:46Z

J Odhong at 07:41, 3 October 2019

2019-10-03T07:41:08Z

J Odhong at 07:39, 3 October 2019

2019-10-03T07:39:51Z

J Odhong at 11:35, 25 September 2019

2019-09-25T11:35:13Z

@@ Line 200: / Line 200: @@
 [https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-mutenje |     '''Farm level systems case studies (MW)'''] – M. Mutenje <br/>
+'''''Comments:'''''
+*Withdrawing from some of the farmers (who has been receiving inputs for beyond three years) would be a good treatment to study.
 [https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-sambala |     '''M&E Changes and achievements'''] – C. Azzarri/B. Haile/A. Sambala <br/>

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:02, 3 October 2019
Line 172:		Line 172:
	*If the scientists were not trying to address systems within their presentations, then you would see presentations that refer to data for the logframe. So it is because of this focus on systems that you aren’t able to see the data that directly responds to the logframe.		*If the scientists were not trying to address systems within their presentations, then you would see presentations that refer to data for the logframe. So it is because of this focus on systems that you aren’t able to see the data that directly responds to the logframe.

		+	[https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-claessens \| '''Farm level systems case studies (TZ)'''] – L. Claessens <br/>

−	~~[https~~:~~//www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-claessens \|~~ '''~~Farm level systems~~ case studies ~~(TZ~~)'''~~] – L~~. ~~Claessens~~ <br/>	+	'''''Question:''''' What do you mean by data collection tools design for the three farms, why are the data collection tools not generalized to all the three farmers (from the selected case studies) and what was the rational for selecting the three specific case studies?
		+	:'''''Response:''''' The farmers were selected because different disciplines were conducting activities on the selected farms. It is sort of validation on what is happening (if different disciplines are conducted in one farm, the question to address will be how these different disciplines are contributing to the totality of those farms). They provide a good opportunity for looking at the tradeoffs.
		+	The tool that was developed was to get information from the disciplinary scientist working with individual farmers. This tool allows the scientist to provide data, these data will be used to perform the analysis.<br/>

		+	'''''Question:''''' Why do you use random maximum number, while there are potential attainable, for example from the data we collected e.g. the most efficiency guy, we could benchmark to the most efficient guy instead of many picking numbers
		+	:'''''Response:''''' For productivity (on data received form the one farm) I would not like to use the random maximum number, I would also not know how to get it from the survey? For example, how far do we take agroecology, do we take the maximum of whole base line survey as the benchmark for these individual farms?
		+	Response: Maybe you could consider conducting a frontier analysis?<br/>

		+	'''''Question:''''' Why are you not using data from the Tanzania baseline survey conducted in 2015 (for Tanzania)? It has a lot of information for all the five SI domains. Because what you presented is focusing on the farm scale outcomes or variables, and we do have farm scale data form the baseline survey, and it has richer information and had included at least hundreds of farmers for Africa RISING and control farmers.
		+	The data is available and free, and it is Africa RISING free public good and it will be much more solid because it included other farmers instead of only three farms or one. These information’s are available, there are social, human. At the farm level, we have diversity of data
		+	:'''''Response:''''' If there is a baseline data from selected three farmers, it is fine. however, if the disciplinary scientist execute the actual data collection from these three farmers, we feel that they would have more accurate data compare to the available baseline data. That is why we chose the three farms, this approach will allow us to conduct the complete validation on what may be happening.<br/>

		+	'''''Question:''''' We cannot treat all farms with this level of intensity! so is this realistic if we scale-up? Are these 3 farmers representative?
		+	:'''''Response:''''' The case studies (three individual studies) is not for scaling. The question could be what made the farmers (Maile, Monica and Lukumai) willing to embark on a substantial process of change on their farms, what made them ready? However, the data cannot be generalized, but it is an exploration into that as well. Not all studies have to be representative, as for social science you can make a small case study then we move to the other level.<br/>

		+	'''''Comments:'''''
		+	*It could be good to have a table to document the extracted information for all efficiency yields data, economics and get efficiency cases. The table can be used as the benchmark towards what needs to be worked upon. Other information’s to be included (in the table), could be the least efficiency cases. The table will help to clarify the range in which the technologies should be, also easy to identify the gaps in terms of efficacy of the yields. For example, where there are reductions and recommends, we could be able to apply inputs hence attain the highest efficiency case.
		+	*Instead of generating new set of data, it would be better to get data from the published literature (s) over the past seven years, by doing so It would save the costs (time and finance).
		+	*The approach selected (case studies) should have consider effectiveness in term of scaling the technologies.
		+	*Regarding the comment on the (systems, SIAF) data should now be part of the workplans, consideration should be on profiling each of the farmers who hosts the technologies at the farm scale, this influence more of realistic data instead of extrapolating from the plot level.
		+	*It was recommended that the team should look on the trials and find the potentials within the agroecology and find out what can be potentially produced, realistically and proceed to the farms scale level (consider the farms proportion relating to the technologies). The economics out of this approach will be more realistic while the obtained information(s) could narrow the questions of why farmers are not adopting the technologies. When it is at the farm scale level, the results might have been different
		+	*This is exactly on what we need to address we are tracking the missing information from the three case studies at individual farms scale selected and profiling these farmers. For now, we just have data from the plot level. We are yet to bring that to the farm level along with the system level (that Job is working on) with the individual farmer.

@@ Line 151: / Line 151: @@
 *I am disappointed. I told presenters to identify the gaps missing, but I didn’t see that in your presentation.
 *There was a gap on the integration of the nutrition component.
 [https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-lukuyu |     '''Animal production – based systems (TZ)'''] – B. Lukuyu<br/>
+'''''Comments:'''''
+*For scaling out the technologies, we will need to go beyond just writing the MOU’s. There is a need to think about the environment that the MOU could work and succeed for certain specific technologies. For-example for technologies that do not necessary give quick return on investments and yet they have other benefits, do not necessary attract the private sector partners.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:56, 3 October 2019
Line 125:		Line 125:
	[https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-chikowo \| '''Maize-grain legume intensification system (MW)'''] – R. Chikowo <br/>		[https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-chikowo \| '''Maize-grain legume intensification system (MW)'''] – R. Chikowo <br/>

		+	'''''Question:''''' You’ve said that you have SI technologies that work but looking at the spider diagram presented you haven’t collected much data on some of the domains. I have seen for example on one of the technologies you said you haven’t included labour analysis. You also haven’t included/showed integration with nutrition.
		+	:'''''Response:''''' Maybe it wasn’t clear from the way I presented it. Somehow the spider diagram I presented didn’t do justice to the 5 domains. However, this was implied in one of the slides I presented. We are looking at the SI domains as the templates for validating our technologies. I accept however that this was an omission on our parts. When I talked about labour as a factor, this was in reference the CA where there are tradeoffs with labour going into ridging. However, those are high level systems research questions when you look at some of these technologies. The past 2 weeks I was at MSU in the USA training partners about application of SIAF…So we are working on this.<br/>

		+	'''''Question:''''' What is the space between the ridges (particularly for groundnut planted in double rows)?
		+	:'''''Response:''''' This is a function of agroecology and what are the stressors. The architecture of the variety also plays a key role. We therefore want farmers to also continue being part of evaluating the product. While we gather data on yield, farmers can also tell us what the other effects like diseases and pests are. We also know that there is a problem with single row spacing, where you kind of limit yourself too early. For ground system we are not using boundary ridges because we plant the groundnuts on the flat surface. The spacing for the Malawi context is 37.5 row spacing and planted on the flat. By doing that we are able to double the yield, just by better plant arrangement. We are planting of the flat surface and by doing that, we can double the yield on the single row planting considering the better planting arrangements.<br/>

		+	'''''Question:''''' What is the optimum plant population when the crops are planted in double or single rows?
		+	:'''''Response:''''' There is the problem of the single row spacing, it has limitations particularly on sub-optimum population, plants yields responds to certain biological coefficient.<br/>

		+	'''''Question:''''' Considering the land terrain where the slope is 5-7%, do you expect CA to perform well in that condition without tied ridging? You should expect run-off in that kind of terrain.
		+	:'''''Response:''''' It is not necessary to have the good physical structure to prevent erosions rather than when we apply good agronomy practices such as the plant arrangement. This increases infiltration and less erosion. In our program we have an area of about 15%-20% slope in a mountainous area in Malawi, we have ridge systems and have them planted , there are some vegetable barriers, during the heavy rainfalls the ridges systems always collapse on the other side we have crops planted on flat and are evenly distributed CA systems, they have higher infiltration that why they are barely to erosion and run-off. So, for us in this environment it is not necessary to have a physical barrier to prevent erosion, but when you do good agronomy it helps.There is a physical challenge in Malawi in terms of cropping. The ridges in Malawi were designed to suit maize - which is the main crop. So, we are not changing the 75 x 25 cm ridging doesn’t suit legumes. We therefore try to adapt in this way.<br/>

		+	'''''Question:''''' What lessons have you learnt from the regional interventions such as SIMLESA to enhance the technologies you have presented?
		+	:'''''Response:''''' We are not starting from scratch, but through Christian’s activities in southern Malawi we are building on certain aspects of things that had been done in SIMLESA.<br/>
		+
		+	'''''Question:''''' Please comment on how your work is integrated with other teams for cross-site and regional integration?
		+	:'''''Response:''''' Of late we have been having more of these meetings (cross-country learning) and an outcome of those has been transfer of some of the technologies like doubled-up legume to Zambia and Tanzania. <br/>
		+
		+	'''''Response:''''' For example, with IFRI we have been working to collect results and analysis (research out outputs) conducted from the targeted project areas. The results have been combined with the GIS, remote sensing, and some economic modeling. This has enabled us to identify the recommendation domains and quantify the ex-ante impact of doing some research activities in some other areas, we have developed a research paper for Zambia and currently, we are working on one for Malawi. So we can now identify recommendation domains and also quantify the ex-ante effects of introducing some of these technologies to larger domains and environments and farmers beyond the areas where we work. These research outputs and the technologies are not just localized in plot level neither a specific community.<br/>
		+
		+	'''''Question:''''' How do you calculate the calories and the stability (ranks)? From what you’ve presented it looks to me like calories and maize yield are strictly related so you could just present one of them. Because this is not just calorie intake from an individual, but rather from the farm?
		+	:'''''Response:''''' Yes, they are very linked, but some slight difference based on how much legume component. This data analysis is not one year, but several years and sequenced planting. So, you tend to look at it more longer-term effects on a system. This is because what shows between one year and the next could be very variable therefore people can even conclude that this systems works for calorie production but not cropping etc. This can then later explain adoption.<br/>
		+
		+	'''''Comments:'''''
		+	*I am disappointed. I told presenters to identify the gaps missing, but I didn’t see that in your presentation.
		+	*There was a gap on the integration of the nutrition component.

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 <br/>
 [https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-bekunda |     '''Project implementation updates & developments'''] – B. Mateete <br/>
-'''''Comment:'''There is a challenge noted with the theory of change for phase II. It was assumed that development partners have the common vision with Africa RISING and therefore this would lead to a lot of mutually beneficial collaborations. However, this is not the case, considering the interactions with a majority of development partners so far. Some of them actually expect Africa RISING to provide them with funds for scaling.''<br/>
+'''''Comment:'''''There is a challenge noted with the theory of change for phase II. It was assumed that development partners have the common vision with Africa RISING and therefore this would lead to a lot of mutually beneficial collaborations. However, this is not the case, considering the interactions with a majority of development partners so far. Some of them actually expect Africa RISING to provide them with funds for scaling.<br/>
-'''''Comment:''' The funding uncertainity situation affects the extent on what can be delivered, and it’s a part of challenges affecting project performance. It is important that this is noted as one of the major reasons for the inability of the team to deliver on all things that were promised in the proposals.''<br/>
+'''''Comment:'''''The funding uncertainty situation affects the extent on what can be delivered, and it’s a part of challenges affecting project performance. It is important that this is noted as one of the major reasons for the inability of the team to deliver on all things that were promised in the proposals.<br/>
-'''''Question:''' how many chapters are still pending for the handbook to be complete?''
+'''''Question:''''' how many chapters are still pending for the handbook to be complete?
-:'''''Response:''' The plan was to have ten chapters, but we have 1.5 that aren't complete.'' <br/><br/>
+:'''''Response:'''''The plan was to have ten chapters, but we have 1.5 that aren't complete.<br/><br/>
 [https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-kihara |     '''ISFM - based systems (TZ)'''] – J. Kihara<br/>
-'''''Question:''''' Why did you not consider averaging the productivity domain, even though there will be some variability between the systems? The data presented (with and without the ISFM-maize/ vegetables) do not seem to have much differences? <br/>
+'''''Question:''''' Why did you not consider averaging the productivity domain, even though there will be some variability between the systems? The data presented (with and without the ISFM-maize/ vegetables) do not seem to have much differences?
-'''''Response:''''' It is the first time we are advancing the ISFM tool at this level. There was assessment of the system on the shifts so far, however, due to some circumstance, it appears that there was no significant shift regardless of the environment we still have the same results. This is something that we consider as we move forward.<br/><br/>
+:'''''Response:''''' It is the first time we are advancing the ISFM tool at this level. There was assessment of the system on the shifts so far, however, due to some circumstance, it appears that there was no significant shift regardless of the environment we still have the same results. This is something that we consider as we move forward.<br/>
-'''''Question:''''' The spider diagram presented shows that the systems has no gross margin (and some of the domain have low value), does it mean that there is no gain for farmers? If yes, then should farmers practice the technologies?<br/>
+'''''Question:''''' The spider diagram presented shows that the systems has no gross margin (and some of the domain have low value), does it mean that there is no gain for farmers? If yes, then should farmers practice the technologies?
-'''''Response:''''' It probably on the issues of scaling, for example if say in one case we get $2500 of income and the other case you are making $100 or $200, once we do the scaling then value becomes low.<br/><br/>
+:'''''Response:''''' It probably on the issues of scaling, for example if say in one case we get $2500 of income and the other case you are making $100 or $200, once we do the scaling then value becomes low.<br/>
-'''''Question:''''' From the radar chart, what was the bench for the yield variable? Because even with-ISFM, the values that were presented were lower than the benchmark? <br/>
+'''''Question:''''' From the radar chart, what was the bench for the yield variable? Because even with-ISFM, the values that were presented were lower than the benchmark?
-'''''Response:''''' We consider the maximum that is observed and use the maximum as our benchmark. For the productivity domain, we considered the maximum productivity that was observed across the population in the dataset, that may be far from the mean, since there will be huge difference from the mean, then the value for the ISFM become low.<br/>
+:'''''Response:''''' We consider the maximum that is observed and use the maximum as our benchmark. For the productivity domain, we considered the maximum productivity that was observed across the population in the dataset, that may be far from the mean, since there will be huge difference from the mean, then the value for the ISFM become low.<br/>
-'''''Response:''''' It is the question of the scaling, and method that we used, we considered average value that we are averaging and then we identify the maximum from across the average group. The maximum is not the average rather than a value that is achieved by one person across the population and is considered as the achievable and can be a model.<br/><br/>
+:'''''Response:''''' It is the question of the scaling, and method that we used, we considered average value that we are averaging and then we identify the maximum from across the average group. The maximum is not the average rather than a value that is achieved by one person across the population and is considered as the achievable and can be a model.<br/>
-'''''Question:''''' With the ISFM, data on yield reflects low value, what else is missing at least to push the yield to some reasonable level?<br/>
+'''''Question:''''' With the ISFM, data on yield reflects low value, what else is missing at least to push the yield to some reasonable level?
-'''''Response:''''' As a team we are working to brainstorm on the kind of intervention(s) and act to reach the reasonable yield level.<br/><br/>
+:'''''Response:''''' As a team we are working to brainstorm on the kind of intervention(s) and act to reach the reasonable yield level.<br/>
 '''''Question:''''' The difference between with and without the ISFM, nutrition outcomes will be three to four times better or higher than the origin, is that really the case, or something that shall be expected?<br/>
 '''''Comments:'''''
-*The project team should consider removing some noise (for radar diagram) and bring the meaningful and clear radar graph for example most of the variables has a lot of external factors that cannot be controlled, the team should be careful with variables like stunting , wasting and underweight because it create much noise, if are removed then there would be more meaningful radar diagram.
+:*The project team should consider removing some noise (for radar diagram) and bring the meaningful and clear radar graph for example most of the variables has a lot of external factors that cannot be controlled, the team should be careful with variables like stunting , wasting and underweight because it create much noise, if are removed then there would be more meaningful radar diagram.
-*The outcomes from the presentation (on with and without the ISFM) should focus on the direct impact of the interventions.
+:*The outcomes from the presentation (on with and without the ISFM) should focus on the direct impact of the interventions.
-*The approach used as outcome measure for the nutrition needs to be changed as opposed to standard underweight wastage, the team should consider the diet quality
+:*The approach used as outcome measure for the nutrition needs to be changed as opposed to standard underweight wastage, the team should consider the diet quality
-*The presentation appears to have data quality issues. For-example there was a huge difference between the benchmark data without and with ISFM data as presented in radar chart, the team should have identified what needs to be addressed and do it better.
+:*The presentation appears to have data quality issues. For-example there was a huge difference between the benchmark data without and with ISFM data as presented in radar chart, the team should have identified what needs to be addressed and do it better.
-*The expectations from audience would be to see there are more crossovers between the tradeoffs because of benefits and tradeoffs in the farm and cropping systems, the team should have considered overall the factors holistically. For example, if there were comparisons between the two systems with the fertilizers and without the fertilizer, yield will have increased on the fertilizer systems, on the other hand there should be effect on the gross margin, this effects on the cost of buying the fertilizers will increase, but such data were not presented in the radar graph.
+:*The expectations from audience would be to see there are more crossovers between the tradeoffs because of benefits and tradeoffs in the farm and cropping systems, the team should have considered overall the factors holistically. For example, if there were comparisons between the two systems with the fertilizers and without the fertilizer, yield will have increased on the fertilizer systems, on the other hand there should be effect on the gross margin, this effects on the cost of buying the fertilizers will increase, but such data were not presented in the radar graph.
-*The team should have regard combining the two variables (runoff avoided, and soil loss avoided) for the environmental domain as presented in technology benefits with-without ISFM. The two variables are both addressing soil water conservation.
+:*The team should have regard combining the two variables (runoff avoided, and soil loss avoided) for the environmental domain as presented in technology benefits with-without ISFM. The two variables are both addressing soil water conservation.
 [https://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/esa-rp19-chikowo |     '''Maize-grain legume intensification system (MW)'''] – R. Chikowo <br/>

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 '''''Comment:''' The funding uncertainity situation affects the extent on what can be delivered, and it’s a part of challenges affecting project performance. It is important that this is noted as one of the major reasons for the inability of the team to deliver on all things that were promised in the proposals.''<br/> <br/>
 '''''Question:''' how many chapters are still pending for the handbook to be complete?''
-'''Response:''' The plan was to have ten chapters, but we have 1.5 that aren't complete. <br/><br/>
+'''''Response:''' The plan was to have ten chapters, but we have 1.5 that aren't complete.'' <br/><br/>