Difference between revisions of "Pct47"

From africa-rising-wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "=='''Africa RISING PCT #47''' <br />'''10 March 2022'''<br />'''MS TEAMS'''== <br />'''Present'''<br /> #Bernard Vanlauwe (BV) - Chair #Siboniso Moyo (SM) #Zachary Stewart (Z...")
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 21: Line 21:
  
  
−
BV: Welcome, colleagues. It has been a long time since we last met. Per custom, let us review minutes and action points from our previous meeting. Jonathan, please share your screen.
+
BV: Welcome, colleagues. It has been a long time since we last met. I hope we can start to make the PCT meetings more regular once again. SM has requested me (via email) to continue chairing the PCT until September 2022. Maybe she wants to comment?
 +
 
 +
SM: I probably mentioned during our previous meeting that I have taken up new responsibility as the Deputy Director-General for Livestock Genetics and Feeds and Forage Program at ILRI. So that is why I relocated from Addis Ababa to Nairobi. Internally (within ILRI), I will continue in the PCT for continuity because of a long history with Africa RISING. And I am happy to do so.  
  
 
----
 
----
−
'''Review minutes of PCT 45'''
+
'''Get up to speed amongst ourselves on progress to date and next steps for 2022'''
 
----
 
----
−
*'''Agenda item/ Action (s):''' Publication of a paper about systems research conceptual framework/(i) PT and BV to develop draft policy piece; (ii) BV to approach Global Food Security Journal editors to check early interest in this kind of article. Share an update with PCT members at the next meeting; (iii) JG will approach the Science Journal editors to check for early interest in this article. Share an update with PCT members at the next meeting.
+
*FK: With the ESA and WA projects, things are going according to plan. The workplans for both projects have been compiled. Likewise, the sub-agreements with all partners are also in place. We are planning a series of close-out field days in collaboration with the communications team and also in the context of an end-of-program report for a broader audience with whom we would like to share our work.  
−
:'''Update:'''
+
*PT: Implementation of activities in the Ethiopian high is also progressing well. Our workplans were defined last November, focusing on legacy products, exit strategies, residual capacity building, and synthesis work. So, there is not a lot of fieldwork going on. The two main activities we'll have in the coming months will be (i) a repeat of the RHOMIS survey (we need some time series data) and (ii) a quantitative/qualitative study on the gendered impacts of some of the technologies of Africa RISING. The second study will interface with our RHOMIS studies as well. So there are many activities going on and other kinds of activities around the exit strategy. But I think this item also needs to be viewed in light of the 2nd agenda.  
−
:*PT: BV has sent some comments to me, which I am yet to develop further. Sieg and I also had a piece/chunk of it, which we submitted to the Special edition of Frontier, which they reviewed for about eight months and eventually rejected. So, I think we can try and put that on Outlook on Agriculture, but I am concerned that we might meet with the same level of antagonism to some of the ideas that will be presented.  
+
*CA: The main activities in terms of fieldwork are the Mali follow-up data collection that finished at the end of January. So, we are now preparing the data for analysis and sharing. Our second fieldwork activity will be in Tanzania. The fieldwork should start in mid/end of April. We are also working on several studies on the impact of SI interventions in various countries and the RoI, and we are collaborating with IITA and others. An update is that one of our research assistants, Arkadeep, has recently left, and we are seeking to replace him. He was primarily responsible for taking care of the data management and coordinating the survey.  
−
:*BV: This has been on the paper for quite some time. One of the objectives was to get some input into the One CGAIR process. Technically, does it still makes sense to go ahead with this? Of course, that objectives still make sense, or should it remain as a priority/something that we should keep working on? There are too many other things happening currently as well.
 
−
:*IHZ: I thought this paper would be in support of mainstreaming the farming systems approach. So I think it is still vital, although BV, you have indicated that now we have some systems thinking within the new CGIAR portfolio, but we don't know whether these initiatives will be funded or not.
 
−
JG: Yes, well, I think it is essential, but with the other things going on, I suggest it could be tabled at a learning event. At the moment, there are probably more pressing issues to make sure that we cover.
 
−
 
 
−
::'''Conclusion: Still important but consider including in the plan for the next learning event.'''
 
−
 
 
−
*'''Agenda item/ Action (s):''' Publication of a paper documenting AR experiences with scaling approaches and achievements/ Further updates to be given during the next PCT meeting.
 
−
Updates
 
−
:*IHZ: The paper is 95% complete; I will share a link once we get it from the Chief Scientists.
 
−
 
 
−
*Agenda item/ Action (s): A publication outlining and ranking specific farming systems priorities for specific geographies where AR works.
 
−
Updates
 
−
:*JG: From our side at USAID, we are very active on this issue. Zach is one of the main leads on working through the process of prioritizing the production systems and going through the different innovations that we have invested and matching those with the needs on the ground that have been identified through several different ways, and developing a prioritization of innovations approaches, etc. You guys would be the best sources of validating what comes out of this. So, we are focused on prioritization in terms of geographies and innovations.  
 
−
 
 
−
:*IHZ: We are planning to further follow up on this discussion during the ESA Project Review and Planning meeting starting tomorrow.
 
−
 
 
−
*'''Agenda item/ Action (s):''' Document outlining lessons from 8 years of implementation of Africa RISING, Impact, and RoI/ :*CA and JO to provide a suggested way forward on how to proceed with this activity – the timelines and if there are linkages to be done with the other outputs.
 
−
Updates
 
−
:*JO: This is ongoing. Some discussions have been with the IFPRI M&E team, Chief scientists, and the Project Data Officers. We will give a further update at the next meeting.
 
−
 
 
−
*'''Agenda item/ Action (s):''' Update nutrition indicators in the SIAF/ ZS & CA to have a follow-up discussion and advise on the proposed process for updating the SIAF indicators during the next PCT meeting.
 
−
Updates
 
−
:*CA: I had followed up the discussion, but then we felt that it was essentially too late and too complicated to include the dimensions of nutrition.  
 
−
::*BV: But it remains an issue that we need to keep on the agenda.
 
−
:::*PT: We have some of those indicators in RHOMIS, and it appears to have a number of those SIAF indicators. So, we might have an opportunity to may dig them out and see how it would work. Expandability of SIAF may be one of those issues that we may need to discuss further with Sieg, Cheryl, Mark, Carlo, and maybe with Vara. I don't see a real mechanical obstacle. For one, it shouldn't be a living, growing kind of framework. But the danger there is that you don't want it to be "anything goes. But I am not sure if that is a barrier.
 
−
:::*BV: It is an excellent point you make, Peter. There is still a lot of questions related to that. So could we make it like RHOMIS, which has a set of corpuses that you have to try and then add as you investigate, fail, try again, etc.? Maybe we should focus on developing a similar process for SIAF and let people experiment with other indicators? We could put this also as part of the learning event plan as a potential topic to discuss in more detail. Listening to some of the OneCGIAR talks is about tradeoffs and impact areas. All the SIAF domains directly relate to the OneCGIAR areas. So, I think it is not a good idea to dismiss it now.
 
  
 
----
 
----
−
'''Updates on progress with SI-MFS initiative design process'''
+
'''Africa RISING in light of rolling out the One CGIAR Initiatives, what do we need to know?'''
 
----
 
----
−
*IHZ: We have compiled a list of stakeholders that could be part of these country-based stakeholder consultations, but we are yet to hold any. Recently we thought that most of the stakeholders have already been part of other consultations. In general, our initiative is finalizing the description of the work packages and the theory of change. We are targeting to submit the proposal at the end of November 2021.
+
::'''''How can Africa RISING provide synergies towards a smooth transition into the Sustainable Intensification Initiative?'''''
−
:*BV: Is there space for you between the end of September and the end of November for PCT members to assist you with developing this initiative?
+
*BV: The last time we discussed how the new CGIAR initiatives are linked into Africa RISING and vice-versa. We know that AR will likely (to some extent) morph into the SI-MFS Initiative. Maybe ZS could tell us a bit of the view from the donor side about that. I will also present some insights from where I am involved in the process. What I would suggest, and I would be curious also to hear from FK, PT, and CA perspectives about how people/partners you work with daily are viewing this process - what are their worries/questions related to the transition? So maybe first, ZS, please share your perspectives. There is a System Science Council meeting ongoing, but if you have any insights, that would be great.
−
::*JG: I think the space between September and November could be critical because the other proposals will have much greater clarity and the initiatives that the SI-MFS relies on like EiA, livestock, plant health, etc. Those need to be clear, and therefore that period will be great to do some alignment. This is still one of the critical things missing between the farming systems-level initiatives and the thematic level initiatives. If some of the key people in each of these initiatives got together and helped to drive that last bit of the farming system, it would be a great help.
+
*ZS: There are still some ongoing internal discussions. We are keen to allow the process to develop organically and design how the activities need to interact. We still intend to invest the same funding levels from AR, CSISA, and other programs into the One CGIAR process. We are interested in ensuring continuity. An area that is still unclear to me is how the programs/initiatives will interact, e.g., SI-MFS – Excellence in Agronomy, etc. JG will have more insights to offer when he joins the call.
−
:::*BV: Agreed with JG. Could we book a meeting to have discussions with these other initiatives? That would be time well spent. The meeting will focus on the interactions and overlap between global initiatives dealing with thematic areas and systems initiatives focusing on agroecology, including system identification and sustainable intensification for maize systems.
+
*BV: Thanks for the update, ZS. You have made a key point about continuity. Discussions are still ongoing about the form and shape. All initiatives were reviewed by ISDC and were all scored on several criteria, and I think the point about interactions between the initiatives was raised. During the initiative design processes, it is true that we spent most of the time designing the initiatives and only a bit reviewing their interactions. There may be some links on the surface, but when you dig a little bit deeper, then it is hard to find sometimes.
−
*JG: I believe there is a group of donors that together recognize that the systems level and the agronomy and livestock are important within the RAFS. I hope there will be a process laid out for a revision to ensure coherence and coordination.
+
*FK: A. concern that has been expressed to me by colleagues has been about the level of time investment into the development of One CGIAR initiatives and whether this would be sufficient to support their work. Fortunately, we have a cushion/buffer for the moment for Africa RISING staff contributing, at least until September. This is also good for the Initiative because you have a chunk of stuff focused on contributing to the process.
 +
*PT: I think I recognize what FK has talked about, and even in Ethiopia, when we talk about an exit strategy, we give some thought to dovetail some AR funding into the SI-MFS. I haven't heard too much concern expressed to me regarding individual staff, but they may be there. I think that will change quickly as the more detailed planning for the Initiative starts next week with a view towards a formal inception meeting. Maybe we need to have a bit of a discussion about the actual /formal end date for Africa RISING. We have always talked about September 2022. We might want to think about whether it is advantageous to add on some 3 – 6 months, but I think that is a discussion we can first have offline and then have some suggestions 9with justifications) put forward.
 +
*BV: Is there anything important falling through the cracks/getting lost from Africa RISING's current content (in the work plans) and the objectives for the SI-MFS Initiative?
 +
:*PT: Not necessarily. If you think about AR, it is kind of like rails in it, (i) intellectual thinking around SI/ development of methods, and (ii) the development partnerships integration with the research agenda. Because of how One CGIAR initiatives are set up, I think it will be a big challenge to keep the second part going. At some point, we felt that this would be a role for the regional initiatives, but this will probably be clarified soon. The broadening of the geographical focus for the SI-MFS is a good thing in principle, but for the moment, it also means that we are spreading resources more thinly. I think the right people are involved in this to make it happen. We need to think about how we are going to preserve, which I believe was a unique and very positive aspect of Africa RISING.
 +
*SM: The One CGIAR regional initiative for East and Southern Africa held an inception meeting last week. Unfortunately, we were all away for ILRI Senior Management Meeting during that week. Was there any Africa RISING representation at the meeting? I participated in some of the earlier discussions of that Initiative, and at that time, they talked about scaling some of the Africa RISING technologies at some of their sites. I was just curious whether that carried forward.
 +
:*FK: Some Africa RISING colleagues took part in the meeting, like Francis Muthoni, who is also part of the SI-MFS team, and also Christian Thierfelder, who is leading work package 1 in that Initiative. There are a couple of other AR colleagues that are also involved.
 +
:*BV: Probably what we could do is ask them – what have they seen? How do they see these interactions (between AR – the RII) taking shape? Going back to the point by PT about the AR model for R-in-D, I believe that in some areas, we were pretty innovative. How we managed to let, development goals drive the research agenda was written into the second phase proposal for AR. We had similar discussions in Excellence in Agronomy – how do we respond to scaling demands from other initiatives? And how do we get our impact pathways? Depending on other initiatives for something critical like reaching scale and creating outcomes is very risky. Therefore, in EiA, we opted to mix both – have our internal impact pathways (the use cases), but we still work with other initiatives where it makes sense. I am not sure if SI-MFS has had this discussion, but I think it would be risky not to do so and build on what AR has been achieving over the past few years. Prioritization of who to work with on what is also key because you can't work with everyone.
 +
:*PT: That is a good point, BV. I was just making the point that it will be a challenge for us to make that happen with the breadth of expectations and with likely initial funding. So, I think FK this is something we discuss as we go forward. Other stuff from AR and others like CSISA has been nicely assimilated into the SI-MFS.
 +
*BV: Maybe that is a good point for follow-up with the two relevant regional initiatives. Find out exactly what/how do we reinforce transitioning of AR work with them.
  
−
<br />'''Action: JO, IHZ, and BV to organize the proposed meeting.'''<br />
+
<br />'''Action: BV to follow up with Christian Thierfelder, Francis Muthoni, and others involved in the RIIs about synergies and work transitions between AR and the initiatives. Report back at the next PCT meet.'''<br />
 
----
 
----
−
'''Program/Project funds'''
+
'''Possibility for making a program-wide close-out event for Africa RISING'''
 
----
 
----
−
*JG: We just spoke about this with the systems office/organization. In the area relevant to RAFS, we have $ 16.5 million that we put in each year. About $ 4 million in window two and the rest in Window 3. We would like to see all that amount going into RAFS, preferably in a very coordinated way. Frankly, it would be nice to have some coordinated body (akin to AR PCT) to oversee this process. The question then is - what is the funding modality, but I didn't into that very much with the systems organization today. We wouldn't want to just fund the SI-MFS by itself and just have it hanging alone with its agronomy team and other staff etc.; but instead, we would like to be part of a broader research agenda (above an initiative level). So we don't want to go it alone, but we also don't want to put just a little bit of money into anything. Regarding AR and CSISA, a no-cost extension is no problem; we will send an email out to your centers. The bigger question is whether the initiative structure will be in place and the appropriate funding modalities to put our money into the new modalities, and what that looks like? But I would say that we focus on the critical production systems that AR and CSISA cover. And the US Congress demands that we put a certain amount of money into the CGIAR. I don't know how this will look like. That is probably not a great assurance to you guys trying to ensure that your team members will be supported. So, we have the money and the strong interest to continue somewhere along what you have been doing within the teams. It is just how do we do it? How do we piece together these initiatives? We do not want to go forward without, for example, supporting the EiA initiative or the livestock initiative. Still, we would also like to get these linkages working systematically to harness those interactions.
+
*JO: Key questions about this topic are that if we are talking about a September 2022 end-date, it would probably be good to have a close-out event. So the word 'learning' is perhaps not appropriate. What shape/form would this event take? Should we have a virtual/in-person or hybrid? Is there value/ interest in having such an event? Underneath these questions was the suggestion that this event could be linked up with a seminar organized in collaboration with the USAID Agrilinks platform to get a bigger audience. And if we do that, what form of 'packaging' would be best and of interest.
−
:*BV: There is this contradiction that, on the one hand, we are making an enormous amount of effort to set up the new initiatives, but on the other hand, the budget hasn't changed. If that contradiction lasts for too long, it is likely to affect all these new changes we are working on negatively.
+
*FK: I would support having a close-out event for the program. The event can be a hybrid. This would be a good platform where we can harvest emerging insights from colleagues about the work that has been done and share amongst themselves and highlight the loose ends that are at risk of being dropped. It would also be a chance to identify low-hanging fruits for transitioning to the new initiatives. The last point I would like to mention is that maybe JO could also use this as a platform where we harness some ideas around the material you would like to have in the end-of-program report "strides in SAI."
−
:*PT: The NCE is based on the funds meant initially to cover until the end of September 2021. Is that correct?
+
*BV: I just saw a comment in the chat that virtual is not essential. Can we have an in-person event? Because the quality of virtual events is not usually so good. The linkage with Agrilinks can be done separately. The other question would be, what would be the agenda for the meeting? Usually, PT, FK, and CA put together some ideas that we can then look at during the next PCT meeting. We also need to think about the timing because the longer we wait, the less relevant it becomes as the Initiatives take off with their plans.
−
::*JG: I probably shouldn't have said that it is an NCE. It is just because that is the title of the agenda. What I meant is that if you have unspent fund balances, then a NCE is no problem.  
+
:*ZS: We are opening up for travels, and my preference would be that we try to make the event in-person as much as possible. There is still going to be likely some need for a hybrid arrangement.  
−
::*IHZ: IITA got the AR funds at the end of June/July; so, I am using these funds this year starting 01 October. So, I do not consider this coming fiscal year as NCE. It is a costed fiscal year.
+
*FK: I think September would be ideal considering that most people will be on holiday in June/July/August.  
−
:*PT: It appears that there is a possibility that the One CGIAR process is not complete by September 2022, and there is still no clarity. If we would therefore need to work longer, how would this then be handled?
+
:*PT: If the SI-MFS inception would hold somewhere around May/June (per the earlier proposals), we could also build in some kind of follow-up from that meeting into the AR close-out event in September.
−
::*JG: Plan A – The initiative process goes forward, and everything works out, and we put all our money into the RAFS area, and the same type of interdisciplinary work, SI, and systems work takes off in a very coordinated manner. Plan B – it takes longer to set up the modalities of One CGIAR operations, and we still have money to put in; we could continue. In plan B, I would hope that the same teams are still in place and working along with a similar model as we have had in the past.
+
:*CA: I think FK has made good points about the dates. Most of the lessons emerging from the studies we are conducting will be somewhere around May/June, so we could also possibly already feed these into the SI-MFS inception.
 +
 
 +
<br />'''Action: JO, FK, CA, and PT to develop a draft plan /agenda for the close-out event sometime in September. PCT to review the draft and help concretize plans for the event at the PCT meeting.'''<br />
  
−
BV: Since we have two minutes left and we haven't tackled three agenda items, I would suggest we listen to the update from Boni and then move the other two topics to the next meeting.  
+
*'''NOTE:''' JO, FK, CA, and PT did some additional brainstorming on this event and the notes are accessible here: https://africa-rising-wiki.net/2022closeoutbrainstoming
  
 
----
 
----
−
'''PCT Member updates – change of roles for Boni'''
+
'''Joint harmonization knowledge legacy products at the Program level'''
 
----
 
----
−
*SM: Starting on 1 July, there were some internal reorganizations in our Biosciences Directorate at ILRI. This unit deals with livestock technologies and innovations, including feeds, genetics, and health. The animal and human health pillars have expanded substantially under the leadership of D. Schillinger as Deputy Director-General. So, Biosciences has now been re-arranged; I will lead the pillar on livestock, genetics, and feeds and forages while Dieter heads the animal and human health, which includes the one health component. This is all during all the One CGIAR process and may still change again in January. Therefore, I am dual hatting; it came in after seven years in Ethiopia, and the bulk of that work (genetics feed and forages) is based in Ethiopia. So, there is the issue of linkages, but I will be relocating to Nairobi to change my role and station. For the PCT, I will be proposing to Ian to allow the new DG Rep to come in, but in the meantime, I will continue.
+
*FK: This agenda item was about bringing these knowledge products that would give thought leadership in SI, mechanization, and livestock. Management. Three of those paper drafts are ready for submission to journal papers. The material draws from all three Africa RISING regional projects. So, this is just an update, and no action is required from the PCT. We have had some challenges with livestock management, and this is not likely to progress further.

Latest revision as of 04:11, 6 May 2022

Africa RISING PCT #47
10 March 2022
MS TEAMS[edit | edit source]


Present

  1. Bernard Vanlauwe (BV) - Chair
  2. Siboniso Moyo (SM)
  3. Zachary Stewart (ZS)
  4. Fred Kizito (FK)
  5. Carlo Azzari (CA)
  6. Peter Thorne (PT)
  7. Jonathan Odhong' (JO) – Secretary


Apologies

  1. Jerry Glover (JG)


Agenda

  • Get up to speed amongst ourselves on progress to date and next steps for 2022
  • Africa RISING in light of rolling out the One CGIAR Initiatives, what do we need to know?
  • How can Africa RISING provide synergies towards a smooth transition into the Sustainable Intensification Initiative?
  • Possibility for making a program-wide virtual learning event
  • Joint harmonization knowledge legacy products at the Program level


BV: Welcome, colleagues. It has been a long time since we last met. I hope we can start to make the PCT meetings more regular once again. SM has requested me (via email) to continue chairing the PCT until September 2022. Maybe she wants to comment?

SM: I probably mentioned during our previous meeting that I have taken up new responsibility as the Deputy Director-General for Livestock Genetics and Feeds and Forage Program at ILRI. So that is why I relocated from Addis Ababa to Nairobi. Internally (within ILRI), I will continue in the PCT for continuity because of a long history with Africa RISING. And I am happy to do so.

Get up to speed amongst ourselves on progress to date and next steps for 2022

  • FK: With the ESA and WA projects, things are going according to plan. The workplans for both projects have been compiled. Likewise, the sub-agreements with all partners are also in place. We are planning a series of close-out field days in collaboration with the communications team and also in the context of an end-of-program report for a broader audience with whom we would like to share our work.
  • PT: Implementation of activities in the Ethiopian high is also progressing well. Our workplans were defined last November, focusing on legacy products, exit strategies, residual capacity building, and synthesis work. So, there is not a lot of fieldwork going on. The two main activities we'll have in the coming months will be (i) a repeat of the RHOMIS survey (we need some time series data) and (ii) a quantitative/qualitative study on the gendered impacts of some of the technologies of Africa RISING. The second study will interface with our RHOMIS studies as well. So there are many activities going on and other kinds of activities around the exit strategy. But I think this item also needs to be viewed in light of the 2nd agenda.
  • CA: The main activities in terms of fieldwork are the Mali follow-up data collection that finished at the end of January. So, we are now preparing the data for analysis and sharing. Our second fieldwork activity will be in Tanzania. The fieldwork should start in mid/end of April. We are also working on several studies on the impact of SI interventions in various countries and the RoI, and we are collaborating with IITA and others. An update is that one of our research assistants, Arkadeep, has recently left, and we are seeking to replace him. He was primarily responsible for taking care of the data management and coordinating the survey.

Africa RISING in light of rolling out the One CGIAR Initiatives, what do we need to know?

How can Africa RISING provide synergies towards a smooth transition into the Sustainable Intensification Initiative?
  • BV: The last time we discussed how the new CGIAR initiatives are linked into Africa RISING and vice-versa. We know that AR will likely (to some extent) morph into the SI-MFS Initiative. Maybe ZS could tell us a bit of the view from the donor side about that. I will also present some insights from where I am involved in the process. What I would suggest, and I would be curious also to hear from FK, PT, and CA perspectives about how people/partners you work with daily are viewing this process - what are their worries/questions related to the transition? So maybe first, ZS, please share your perspectives. There is a System Science Council meeting ongoing, but if you have any insights, that would be great.
  • ZS: There are still some ongoing internal discussions. We are keen to allow the process to develop organically and design how the activities need to interact. We still intend to invest the same funding levels from AR, CSISA, and other programs into the One CGIAR process. We are interested in ensuring continuity. An area that is still unclear to me is how the programs/initiatives will interact, e.g., SI-MFS – Excellence in Agronomy, etc. JG will have more insights to offer when he joins the call.
  • BV: Thanks for the update, ZS. You have made a key point about continuity. Discussions are still ongoing about the form and shape. All initiatives were reviewed by ISDC and were all scored on several criteria, and I think the point about interactions between the initiatives was raised. During the initiative design processes, it is true that we spent most of the time designing the initiatives and only a bit reviewing their interactions. There may be some links on the surface, but when you dig a little bit deeper, then it is hard to find sometimes.
  • FK: A. concern that has been expressed to me by colleagues has been about the level of time investment into the development of One CGIAR initiatives and whether this would be sufficient to support their work. Fortunately, we have a cushion/buffer for the moment for Africa RISING staff contributing, at least until September. This is also good for the Initiative because you have a chunk of stuff focused on contributing to the process.
  • PT: I think I recognize what FK has talked about, and even in Ethiopia, when we talk about an exit strategy, we give some thought to dovetail some AR funding into the SI-MFS. I haven't heard too much concern expressed to me regarding individual staff, but they may be there. I think that will change quickly as the more detailed planning for the Initiative starts next week with a view towards a formal inception meeting. Maybe we need to have a bit of a discussion about the actual /formal end date for Africa RISING. We have always talked about September 2022. We might want to think about whether it is advantageous to add on some 3 – 6 months, but I think that is a discussion we can first have offline and then have some suggestions 9with justifications) put forward.
  • BV: Is there anything important falling through the cracks/getting lost from Africa RISING's current content (in the work plans) and the objectives for the SI-MFS Initiative?
  • PT: Not necessarily. If you think about AR, it is kind of like rails in it, (i) intellectual thinking around SI/ development of methods, and (ii) the development partnerships integration with the research agenda. Because of how One CGIAR initiatives are set up, I think it will be a big challenge to keep the second part going. At some point, we felt that this would be a role for the regional initiatives, but this will probably be clarified soon. The broadening of the geographical focus for the SI-MFS is a good thing in principle, but for the moment, it also means that we are spreading resources more thinly. I think the right people are involved in this to make it happen. We need to think about how we are going to preserve, which I believe was a unique and very positive aspect of Africa RISING.
  • SM: The One CGIAR regional initiative for East and Southern Africa held an inception meeting last week. Unfortunately, we were all away for ILRI Senior Management Meeting during that week. Was there any Africa RISING representation at the meeting? I participated in some of the earlier discussions of that Initiative, and at that time, they talked about scaling some of the Africa RISING technologies at some of their sites. I was just curious whether that carried forward.
  • FK: Some Africa RISING colleagues took part in the meeting, like Francis Muthoni, who is also part of the SI-MFS team, and also Christian Thierfelder, who is leading work package 1 in that Initiative. There are a couple of other AR colleagues that are also involved.
  • BV: Probably what we could do is ask them – what have they seen? How do they see these interactions (between AR – the RII) taking shape? Going back to the point by PT about the AR model for R-in-D, I believe that in some areas, we were pretty innovative. How we managed to let, development goals drive the research agenda was written into the second phase proposal for AR. We had similar discussions in Excellence in Agronomy – how do we respond to scaling demands from other initiatives? And how do we get our impact pathways? Depending on other initiatives for something critical like reaching scale and creating outcomes is very risky. Therefore, in EiA, we opted to mix both – have our internal impact pathways (the use cases), but we still work with other initiatives where it makes sense. I am not sure if SI-MFS has had this discussion, but I think it would be risky not to do so and build on what AR has been achieving over the past few years. Prioritization of who to work with on what is also key because you can't work with everyone.
  • PT: That is a good point, BV. I was just making the point that it will be a challenge for us to make that happen with the breadth of expectations and with likely initial funding. So, I think FK this is something we discuss as we go forward. Other stuff from AR and others like CSISA has been nicely assimilated into the SI-MFS.
  • BV: Maybe that is a good point for follow-up with the two relevant regional initiatives. Find out exactly what/how do we reinforce transitioning of AR work with them.


Action: BV to follow up with Christian Thierfelder, Francis Muthoni, and others involved in the RIIs about synergies and work transitions between AR and the initiatives. Report back at the next PCT meet.

Possibility for making a program-wide close-out event for Africa RISING

  • JO: Key questions about this topic are that if we are talking about a September 2022 end-date, it would probably be good to have a close-out event. So the word 'learning' is perhaps not appropriate. What shape/form would this event take? Should we have a virtual/in-person or hybrid? Is there value/ interest in having such an event? Underneath these questions was the suggestion that this event could be linked up with a seminar organized in collaboration with the USAID Agrilinks platform to get a bigger audience. And if we do that, what form of 'packaging' would be best and of interest.
  • FK: I would support having a close-out event for the program. The event can be a hybrid. This would be a good platform where we can harvest emerging insights from colleagues about the work that has been done and share amongst themselves and highlight the loose ends that are at risk of being dropped. It would also be a chance to identify low-hanging fruits for transitioning to the new initiatives. The last point I would like to mention is that maybe JO could also use this as a platform where we harness some ideas around the material you would like to have in the end-of-program report "strides in SAI."
  • BV: I just saw a comment in the chat that virtual is not essential. Can we have an in-person event? Because the quality of virtual events is not usually so good. The linkage with Agrilinks can be done separately. The other question would be, what would be the agenda for the meeting? Usually, PT, FK, and CA put together some ideas that we can then look at during the next PCT meeting. We also need to think about the timing because the longer we wait, the less relevant it becomes as the Initiatives take off with their plans.
  • ZS: We are opening up for travels, and my preference would be that we try to make the event in-person as much as possible. There is still going to be likely some need for a hybrid arrangement.
  • FK: I think September would be ideal considering that most people will be on holiday in June/July/August.
  • PT: If the SI-MFS inception would hold somewhere around May/June (per the earlier proposals), we could also build in some kind of follow-up from that meeting into the AR close-out event in September.
  • CA: I think FK has made good points about the dates. Most of the lessons emerging from the studies we are conducting will be somewhere around May/June, so we could also possibly already feed these into the SI-MFS inception.


Action: JO, FK, CA, and PT to develop a draft plan /agenda for the close-out event sometime in September. PCT to review the draft and help concretize plans for the event at the PCT meeting.

Joint harmonization knowledge legacy products at the Program level

  • FK: This agenda item was about bringing these knowledge products that would give thought leadership in SI, mechanization, and livestock. Management. Three of those paper drafts are ready for submission to journal papers. The material draws from all three Africa RISING regional projects. So, this is just an update, and no action is required from the PCT. We have had some challenges with livestock management, and this is not likely to progress further.
Retrieved from "https://africa-rising-wiki.net/index.php?title=Pct47&oldid=487741"