Difference between revisions of "Retreat2015"
(Imported from Wikispaces) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | =='''Africa RISING program coordination team retreat <br />2-5 June 2015<br /> IFPRI, Washington DC'''== | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
---- | ---- | ||
− | =Participants= | + | ===Participants=== |
− | Jerry Glover | + | Jerry Glover<br/> |
− | Irmgard | + | Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon<br/> |
− | Peter Thorne | + | Peter Thorne<br/> |
− | Carlo Azzarri | + | Carlo Azzarri<br/> |
− | Bernard Vanlauwe | + | Bernard Vanlauwe<br/> |
− | Siboniso Moyo | + | Siboniso Moyo<br/> |
− | Asamoah Larbi | + | Asamoah Larbi<br/> |
− | Kindu Mekonnen | + | Kindu Mekonnen<br/> |
− | Salvador Fernandez | + | Salvador Fernandez<br/> |
− | Peter Ballantyne | + | Peter Ballantyne<br/> |
− | Sara Signorelli | + | Sara Signorelli<br/> |
− | Beliyou Haile | + | Beliyou Haile<br/> |
− | Cleo Roberts | + | Cleo Roberts<br/> |
− | =Notes from the meeting= | + | ===Notes from the meeting=== |
[[:File:AR_retreat2015_notes.docx]] | [[:File:AR_retreat2015_notes.docx]] | ||
− | =Objectives= | + | ===Objectives=== |
− | + | # Draft an AR phase II program concept and outline note with purpose, outcomes, activities, hypotheses geo focus; plus initial 'delivery' framework<br/> | |
− | + | # Take stock of current project and program strengths, weaknesses and external review comments to feed into objective 1<br/> | |
− | + | # Interact with and Influence USAID and other influentials in Washington about 1) AR results and promise and 2) importance of SI<br/> | |
− | + | # Briefly, discuss issues and plans on the immediate/18 month phase I agenda<br/> | |
− | + | # Agree scope organizational lead for the science symposium in October<br/> | |
− | =Agenda= | + | ===Agenda=== |
{| | {| | ||
Line 163: | Line 160: | ||
==Arising from the SWOT: Priority actions for the coming 14 months (rest of phase 1)== | ==Arising from the SWOT: Priority actions for the coming 14 months (rest of phase 1)== | ||
− | + | * Explain and document and capitalize on our system-level perspectives<br/> | |
− | + | * Define AR identity and unique selling points - roles, beneficiaries, value added ...<br/> | |
− | + | * Document and contextualize impact/adoption through data<br/> | |
− | + | * Recruit AR coordinator/administrator at program level<br/> | |
− | + | * Explain/document R&D impact and institutional impact<br/> | |
− | + | * Strengthen national partners<br/> | |
− | + | * M&E data staffing/people into each regional project<br/> | |
− | + | * Boosting cross-project science learning<br/> | |
− | + | * Data management: farm/farmer data; queryable database of AR farmers<br/> | |
− | + | * Documenting early change<br/> | |
− | + | * Identify and document technology packages (link to farmer typologies)<br/> | |
− | + | * Carry out socioeconomic analysis ad risks<br/> | |
− | + | * Revise program framework - hypotheses<br/> | |
− | + | * Develop and use system-wide SI indicators<br/> | |
− | + | * Clarify IPs roles, objectives and approach<br/> | |
− | + | * Agree, test, validate approach to typologies; start to operationalize this<br/> | |
Line 203: | Line 200: | ||
Do more ... | Do more ... | ||
− | + | * more evidence to inform actions for target typologies of farmers [extend what we do now]<br/> | |
− | + | * more publications and articles<br/> | |
− | + | * stocktake all the data and feed into decisionmaking / farmer communities<br/> | |
− | + | * Pay more attention to the enabling environment and how this affects/influences/determines SI; Decide what actions AR can do in this area<br/> | |
− | + | * Link work on plots / households with work on landscapes<br/> | |
− | + | * Refine the SI indicators we use<br/> | |
− | + | * do more research on scaling up<br/> | |
− | + | * Have more coordinated planning<br/> | |
− | + | * Do more monitoring of adoption changes<br/> | |
− | + | * specify clearer roles and responsibilities of AR actors<br/> | |
− | + | * more data sharing across levels<br/> | |
− | + | * More differentiated approach to data - for different levels and scales<br/> | |
− | + | * capacity development on data for national partners<br/> | |
− | + | * do research on delivery systems [linked to more scaling up research]<br/> | |
Do less ... | Do less ... | ||
− | + | #. collect less data, less often; but better (thru better and more coordinated planning)<br/> | |
− | + | #. caution to avoid institutionalization of IPs<br/> | |
What's different in this? | What's different in this? | ||
− | + | #. Move 'beyond agronomy' towards combinations of options and interventions in 'packages'?<br/> | |
− | + | #. More research on interactions among interventions<br/> | |
− | + | #. Have innovations 'ready to adapt' by farmers, under ranges of conditions<br/> | |
− | + | #. Partner with extension so our technologies in their packages<br/> | |
− | + | #. More 'marketing' of interventions focus<br/> | |
Revision as of 11:27, 19 November 2018
Contents
- 1 Africa RISING program coordination team retreat 2-5 June 2015 IFPRI, Washington DC
- 2 SWOT exercise results
- 3 Arising from the SWOT: Priority actions for the coming 14 months (rest of phase 1)
- 4 Arising from the SWOT: points captured by PeterB
- 5 Phase 2: what to do more of; less of
- 6 Emerging vision of success
- 7 Emerging structure for phase 2
- 8 Phase 1 planning
Africa RISING program coordination team retreat
2-5 June 2015
IFPRI, Washington DC
Participants
Jerry Glover
Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon
Peter Thorne
Carlo Azzarri
Bernard Vanlauwe
Siboniso Moyo
Asamoah Larbi
Kindu Mekonnen
Salvador Fernandez
Peter Ballantyne
Sara Signorelli
Beliyou Haile
Cleo Roberts
Notes from the meeting
File:AR_retreat2015_notes.docx
Objectives
- Draft an AR phase II program concept and outline note with purpose, outcomes, activities, hypotheses geo focus; plus initial 'delivery' framework
- Take stock of current project and program strengths, weaknesses and external review comments to feed into objective 1
- Interact with and Influence USAID and other influentials in Washington about 1) AR results and promise and 2) importance of SI
- Briefly, discuss issues and plans on the immediate/18 month phase I agenda
- Agree scope organizational lead for the science symposium in October
Agenda
Tuesday | ||
0800 | Breakfast at IFPRI | |
0830 | Session 1: Objectives and outputs and outcomes of the week | What does success look like for this week? |
0900 | Session 2: Stocktaking - Insights from external reviews - SWOT exercise File:reviews_iita_insights.docxbrbrbrFile:AR_Ethiopia_review_note_May2015.docxbrbrFile:retreat_pre_swot.docx |
Brief ‘presentations’ of key conclusions and recommendations of the reviews Quick SWOT among us |
1030 | Break | |
1100 | Session 3: AR program rapid re-think | Re-visit the principal elements of the program architecture What to keep What to tweak What to change |
1230 | Lunch | |
1400 | Session 4: Stocktaking review implications - Program framework: * Hypotheses still to do: * Data management * M&E * Organization and management * Harmonization across regions |
Critical implications of session 2 and 3 Listing, ranking, prioritization |
1530 | Break | |
1600 | Session 5: AR theories of change and impact pathways | Exercise to document current -> projected impact pathways Vision of Success / purpose Outcomes Outputs Activities Looking to Phase II |
1700 | END Day 1 | |
1800-1930 | Side discussion on the science symposium |
Wednesday | ||
0800 | Breakfast at IFPRI | |
0830 | Session 6: Sustainable Intensification | Still valid? Indicators? Revisions? |
1000 | Break | |
1030 | Session 7: Phase II design first cut | Building from Session 5 Focus on ‘Science’/R4D Key elements |
1230 | Lunch | |
1400 | Session 8: Phase II design outline | Phase II rough ‘design note’ WHAT will we do ‘Science’/R4D |
1530 | Break | |
1600 | Session 9: Prep for USAID visits | Day 3 program Preparations Process |
1730 | END Day 2 | |
1800-1930 | Finalise USAID session process/products | |
Thursday | ||
0800 | Breakfast at IFPRI | |
0830 | Session 9: Prep for USAID visits | |
1000 | USAID program | PRESENTATION AT USAID] |
1630 | Session 10: Feedback USAID program | What did we learn Key insights Key implications for our planning and strategizing |
1730 | END Day 3 | |
1800-1930 | some activity | |
Friday | ||
0800 | Breakfast at IFPRI | |
0830 | Process and products for the day | |
0900 | Session 11: Working on Phase II | Start from Session 8 HOW will we deliver Roles, pathways, |
1230 | Lunch | |
1400 | Session 12. Synthesis, next steps, responsibilities | |
1500 | Session 12. PCT Meeting | |
1730 | END of day 4 |
SWOT exercise results
Strengths systems perspective - multiple components, trade-offs, partnerships Flexibility - to address important demand-led R4D issues [no pre-set R4D agenda]. 'Flexibility within borders' Partnerships - extent, breadth, depth System research rater than single commodity Multi-disciplinary approaches looking at realities on the ground multi-stakeholder - different CG centres working together to facilitate change and impact partnership centred on farmers
Weaknesses Insufficient / patchy attention to higher-level FtF outcomes and indicators [gender, nutrition, etc] Insufficient interactions on science issues integration challenges scaling issues clarity of research methodology, hypotheses, analysis No close consistency and defined boundaries Lack of practical document to complement the general research framework Old wine in new bottles? we need to avoid CG centres going own way, focusing on too many research activities difficulties in integrating AR projects
Opportunities Emerging partnerships in development - more attention to AR from missions, donors, national development partners More conducive policy environment for SI and similar Increased attention of R&D partners to engage with AR Increased interest from R partners and donors for systems expertise Working across different agro-ecologies using integrated systems as a basis for development planning
Threats management complexity overwhelms us [lack of defined borders, complex partnerships, lack of harmonisation] insecure long-term funding [need to articulate and illustrate results and impacts] losing systems experience in the teams [need to mentor and grow perspectives] inability to demonstrate tangible change at livelihood level through systems R4D not partnering with competing SI projects leads to missed opportunities challenges dealing with national partners lead to under-performance risk of CG centres falling back into old ways leading to under-performance tension between specific interventions and generalizable results
Arising from the SWOT: Priority actions for the coming 14 months (rest of phase 1)
- Explain and document and capitalize on our system-level perspectives
- Define AR identity and unique selling points - roles, beneficiaries, value added ...
- Document and contextualize impact/adoption through data
- Recruit AR coordinator/administrator at program level
- Explain/document R&D impact and institutional impact
- Strengthen national partners
- M&E data staffing/people into each regional project
- Boosting cross-project science learning
- Data management: farm/farmer data; queryable database of AR farmers
- Documenting early change
- Identify and document technology packages (link to farmer typologies)
- Carry out socioeconomic analysis ad risks
- Revise program framework - hypotheses
- Develop and use system-wide SI indicators
- Clarify IPs roles, objectives and approach
- Agree, test, validate approach to typologies; start to operationalize this
Arising from the SWOT: points captured by PeterB
The system perspective and associated integration is central We need a system to store and analyze data on individual farmers (barcodes) We miss some standard design/implementation device and indicators that bridges the program framework and associated hypotheses with project implementation We need to capture tangible evidence on outcomes, many small changes Demand orientation (within some borders) is a strong point of the program We need to document and explain and clarify 'the' systems approach we use Researching scaling is important alongside actual scaling Grasping opportunities needs us to proactively approach partners Greater scientific interactions are needed The demand orientation is interlinked with program flexibility Complexity management is required We need the 'systems perspective' to be taken up and adopted within the science team It's important to generate evidence around the FtF indicators Cross-cgiar collaboration and engagement is a strength Collaboration with partners close to the ground is a strength Cross-project collaboration can provide agro-ecological insights
Phase 2: what to do more of; less of
Do more ...
- more evidence to inform actions for target typologies of farmers [extend what we do now]
- more publications and articles
- stocktake all the data and feed into decisionmaking / farmer communities
- Pay more attention to the enabling environment and how this affects/influences/determines SI; Decide what actions AR can do in this area
- Link work on plots / households with work on landscapes
- Refine the SI indicators we use
- do more research on scaling up
- Have more coordinated planning
- Do more monitoring of adoption changes
- specify clearer roles and responsibilities of AR actors
- more data sharing across levels
- More differentiated approach to data - for different levels and scales
- capacity development on data for national partners
- do research on delivery systems [linked to more scaling up research]
Do less ...
- . collect less data, less often; but better (thru better and more coordinated planning)
- . caution to avoid institutionalization of IPs
What's different in this?
- . Move 'beyond agronomy' towards combinations of options and interventions in 'packages'?
- . More research on interactions among interventions
- . Have innovations 'ready to adapt' by farmers, under ranges of conditions
- . Partner with extension so our technologies in their packages
- . More 'marketing' of interventions focus
Emerging vision of success
This very preliminary material was produced by the groups as a starting point for visioning and strategizing.
Emerging structure for phase 2
Phase 1 planning
This Gantt chart gives information on what was agreed as priority tasks for the coming period
See also plans for the Africa RISING Program Strategy Workshop in October 2015
Also notes from PCT8 meeting on 5 June 2015
Monday | ||
Arrivals | Accommodation? | |
Evening | Meet for dinner? | |
Tuesday | ||
0830 | Session 1: Objectives and outputs and outcomes of the week | What does success look like for this week? |
0900 | Session 2: Stocktaking - Insights from external reviews - SWOT exercise |
Brief ‘presentations’ of key conclusions and recommendations of the reviews Quick SWOT among us |
1030 | Break | |
1100 | Session 3: Stocktaking review implications - Program framework - Hypotheses - Harmonization - Data management - M&E - Organization and management |
Critical implications of session 2 Listing, ranking, prioritization |
1230 | Lunch | |
1400 | Session 4: AR program rapid re-think | Re-visit the principal elements of the program architecture What to keep What to tweak What to change |
1530 | Break | |
1600 | Session 5: AR theories of change and impact pathways | Exercise to document current -> projected impact pathways Vision of Success Outcomes Outputs Activities Looking to Phase II |
1730 | END Day 1 | |
Wednesday | ||
0830 | Session 6: Sustainable Intensification | Still valid? Indicators? Revisions? |
1000 | Break | |
1030 | Session 7: Phase II design first cut | Building from Session 5 Focus on ‘Science’/R4D Key elements |
1230 | Lunch | |
1400 | Session 8: Phase II design outline | Phase II rough ‘design note’ WHAT will we do ‘Science’/R4D |
1530 | Break | |
1600 | Session 9: Prep for USAID visits | Day 3 program Preparations Process |
1730 | END Day 2 | |
Thursday | ||
0830 | Session 9: Prep for USAID visits | |
1000 | USAID program | Assume Jerry puts this together Mini-seminar/presentation about AR, with USAID influentials? Show and tell Individual visits/discussions Maybe agrilinks webinar/lunchtime thing with wider than USAID? (online etc) on SI |
1630 | Session 10: Feedback USAID program | What did we learn Key insights Key implications for our planning and strategizing |
1730 | END Day 3 | |
Friday | ||
0830 | Process and products for the day | |
0900 | Session 11: Working on Phase II | Start from Session 8 HOW will we deliver Roles, pathways, |
1230 | Lunch | |
1400 | AR phase 1 ‘housekeeping’ and planning - Big milestones - Big issues / Opportunities - Budgets - Preparing for the External Evaluation - Data sharing - Program-level activities, 18 month calendar - AOB |
|
1530 | Break | |
1600 | Synthesis, next steps, responsibilities | |
1700 | END of day 4 |