AR-NAFAKA_end-of-phase&review_meeting_July2017

**Dar es Salaam, Tanzania**
media type="custom" key="29278063"
 * Objectives**
 * 1) Share updates on project activities implemented and results for year 3
 * 2) Discuss lessons learnt and reflect on these


 * Participants**
 * 1) Gaspar Audifas - IITA
 * 2) MacDonald Bright Jumbo - CIMMYT
 * 3) Anthony Kimaro - ICRAF
 * 4) Elirehema Swai - ARI Hombolo
 * 5) Freddy Baijukya - IITA
 * 6) Fred Kizito - CIAT
 * 7) Job Kihara - CIAT
 * 8) Zubeda Mduruma - Aminata Seeds
 * 9) George Mahuku - IITA
 * 10) Christopher Mutungi - IITA
 * 11) Goryo Chacha Watanga - Meru Agro-Tours
 * 12) Hassan Mndiga - WorldVeg
 * 13) Philipo Joseph - WorldVeg
 * 14) Thomas Dubois - WorldVeg
 * 15) Tilya Mansuet - HORTI-Tengeru
 * 16) Alaik Laizer AVRDC
 * 17) Tom Carr - NAFAKA
 * 18) Flavian Fortunatus - NAFAKA
 * 19) Emmanuel Mandike - NAFAKA
 * 20) Silvanus Mruma - NAFAKA
 * 21) Deogratius Cosmas - NAFAKA
 * 22) Jim Flock - NAFAKA
 * 23) Julius Mtemahanji - NAFAKA
 * 24) Nassoro Ally - NAFAKA
 * 25) Charles Chuwa
 * 26) Mohamed Mmanga - KATRIN
 * 27) Sophia Kashenge-Killenga - ARI - Chollima - Dakawa
 * 28) Kangile Rajabu - Dakawa social economic
 * 29) Jamson Mwailana
 * 30) Jonathan Odhong - IITA
 * 31) Gloriana Ndibalema - IITA
 * 32) Catherine Njuguna - IITA
 * 33) Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon - IITA
 * 34) Mateete Bekunda - IITA
 * 35) Haroon Sseguya - IITA
 * 36) Francis Muthoni - IITA
 * 37) Victor Manyong - IITA
 * 38) Elizabeth Maeda - USAID


 * Agenda**

8:00 Participant’s registration - Devotha Mawole 8:30 Introduction & overview of agenda for the day 9:00 Welcome & Opening remarks
 * __Day 1__ (3 July) **
 * Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon – Manager, Africa RISING
 * Thomas Carr - Chief of Party, NAFAKA
 * Victor Manyong – Director, IITA Eastern Africa Hub
 * Betty Maeda - Agricultural Research Specialist, USAID Tanzania Mission

9:30 - Haroon Sseguya 10.30 - Presentations by teams on achievements (//20 minutes presentation for all teams except maize + 20 minutes discussion for each team)//
 * 10:00 Group photo and networking break around coffee/tea **
 * maize (30 mins presentation) – Bright Jumbo, CIMMYT
 * vegetables – Andreas Gramzow, WorldVeg
 * post-harvest - Gaspar Audifas, IITA
 * rice - Sophia Kashenge, ARI-Dakawa
 * Aflasafe – George Mahuku, IITA

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2.30 – Silvanus Mruma <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">3.00 Key products (manuals, protocols, maps, etc.) from project – team leaders <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">4:30 Continuation of presentation on key products
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">1.30 – 2.30 Lunch Break **
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Post-harvest
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Vegetables
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aflasafe
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Rice
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Maize
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">GIS
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">4:00 **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **Tea Break**

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">6:30 Reception/cocktail

8:00 Overview of agenda for the day 8:05 Recap of day 1 proceedings 8:10 //**PMT committee meeting in parallel**// //9:00 Synthesis of key lessons learned// **PMT committee meeting in parallel** 10:30 Briefing back on lesson learnt synthesis (with PMT members present) 11:00 Outlook \– Mateete/Irmgard 12:00 Feedback from PMT meeting & way forward - Haroon/Mateete 12:45 Reflections/ meeting evaluation 13:00 Lunch/Closing
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">__Day 2__ (4 July) **
 * 10:00 Tea Break**

**Notes**
__**Day 1**__ (3 July)
 * Welcome and opening remarks**
 * **Irmgard Hoeschle- Zeledon** - Manager Africa ESA & WA Projects
 * It is a pleasure to meet colleagues again welcome to new members.
 * Thank you to Tom, betty and Victor for attending this meeting despite your obviously very busy schedule.
 * Those of you have been with us since 2014 when this partnership started recall that we started this project through a partnership of 3 projects, but somewhere later TUBOCHA collaboration in this project could not continue.
 * The extension to 3 more regions after the first year – Songwa, Mbeya and Iringa and from 5 to 11 districts, was a big move and a challenge that you all have done a good job with.
 * The project currently works in 195 villages and close to 1,000 demos have been set-up by the project team this year. This is a great job.
 * Earlier this year I visited some of the project implementation sites across the region and what I saw was very impressive. This was not only in relation to what was in the field, but also in terms of engagement between and among the partners involved in this project. The interest from the farmers was also great and the enthusiasm was clear. So, I take this opportunity to congratulate all who facilitated my field trip.
 * I don’t have the latest figures with regards to where we stand with achieving the numbers for our target indicators, we have two key indicators – 58,000 hectares are under improved technologies and 47,000 farmers apply the new technologies. When I looked at the report in March, we were still way below achieving these figures, so I got concerned, but Haroon assured me that by end of June (last month) all the surveys will be done and we will have overshot all the targets. So, I am looking forward to all your presentations to see how you have performed.
 * In Germany we have a saying, where there is a lot of sunlight, there is shade too. That means that not all things went well and tomorrow we have a session on lesson learnt, so we should really engage in this.
 * The partnership between AR and NAFAKA is really unique and represents what two programs working together with different strengths can achieve. Since 2012 we had and MoU with NAFAKA on areas of potential collaboration, but this never took off until USAID provided us with additional funds to make things happen. Technology dissemination is costly and needs additional technical expertise. These resources allowed IITA to get this extra-expertise to support the excellent work that NAFAKA has been doing so far. So Africa RISING is grateful to USAID for providing us with resource to develop products/technologies and then also ensure they get scaled and farmers can access them.
 * I sense a very good team spirit in this project, I don’t sense any divisions, competition for prestige or visibility and everybody seems to be working for another goal.
 * The NAFAKA project has been extended for another 4 years and so has Africa RISING for another 5 years. So hopefully this is basis/foundation for continued strengthened partnership between these two projects. We will have a session tomorrow to discuss how this future will look like.
 * I am looking forward to all your presentations.
 * Asante sana!


 * **Tom Carr** - NAFAKA Program Chief of Party
 * Collaborations between two project is never easy. I think in our particular case we have two strong programs that are working together.
 * To me, this is our best year so far working together as Africa RISING – NAFAKA project – which is a logical progression as you work together in partnerships it should only be getting better and better.
 * USAID uses our collaborative project as an example of inter project collaboration. Two years ago, they asked us to make a presentation on this! This shows appreciation for this type of program, but there are actually a few of these kinds.
 * As you can see from the introductory session it was hard to tell who works for which organization, what was clear was just the team spirit of people collaborating and being partners. This is a nice thing.
 * In hind sight, I should have come here with some of the numbers from NAFAKA I to share with you our results. They were quite impressive! And particularly for the last two years which coincide with when we got into this collaboration - so we can jointly take credit for these great achievements on commodities sold and hectares under improved technologies.
 * Next week is the end of our first year of NAFAKA II so on 13th July is our one year anniversary date. NAFAKA I was 35 million USD over 5 years in 4 districts and NAFAKA II is half of that (17 million USD over 4 years in 10 districts). It is quite clear then that we are spread quite thin, hence it makes it even more important that we collaborate with another project who also have an equally stretched budget – it makes therefore more sense that we work together and share our limited resources.
 * NAFAKA II is slightly different (from NAFAKA I) with 3 main components – improvement of input systems, improved capacity of farmer organizations and the trade and marketing of improved commodity systems.
 * The approaches we are using in NAFAKA II are also different. See Silvanus’ presentation for the details on this.
 * Improvement of input systems – we are working on this through FIPS (emphasis on selling the extra mile), consignment systems with inputs dealers, providing inputs to VBAAs on consignments, VBAAs helping to establish shops in their compounds that will assist VBAAs to become dealers, working with agro-dealers on improved knowledge and getting them more involved with our farmers, and also the AR-NAFAKA collaboration with emphasis on improved market access ( we are being measure on increased sales of inputs).
 * Improved capacity of farmer organizations -
 * Trade and marketing of improved commodity systems


 * **Victor Manyong** - IITA Eastern Africa Hub Director
 * We at IITA see this project as an important thing to us. We are happy to see what the project has been achieving.
 * We are a research organization, but we are increasingly expected not only to deliver research but also go further in development by delivering technologies to farmers. In our strategic plan we aim to lift 11 million people out of poverty, bring to sustainable agriculture 7.5 million hectares, improve crop productivity by 50% in farmers fields. The path between research and these development goals is very long and hence that is where a project such as this adds value to achieving these goals.
 * Some of you may be aware that IITA is reaching 50 years anniversary this year. So we are looking back to see how much work we have achieved. In July this year we have lots of activities that will help us at IITA to look back at these years of IITA.
 * We are very much interested in the lesson of this project as IITA because it represents the future of where IITA wants to go strategically in future. We are currently in serious discussions with AfDB, World Bank and Gates Foundation for a major technology transfer project that will reach 800 million USD over 5 years on technology delivery and transfer. So, if/when this project comes through Africa RISING – NAFAKA project will play a critical role in implementation of this new initiative. This is just a show of how important this collaborative project is considered by IITA.
 * So, we are looking to learn as much as possible from your experiences.
 * On behalf of IITA let me join Irmgard and Tom to welcome you to this meeting.
 * Thank you very much!


 * **Elizabeth Maeda** - USAID
 * I am happy to be here with you and looking forward to your presentations.
 * Thank you for the work you have been doing since this project started. I recall it was here that we started Africa RISING.
 * Although we have had some ups and downs during implementation, but still there was a lot of perseverance amongst partners in the project. You really gave me the materials and support of information needed to defend and explain this partnership project particularly in the office where not everybody has an agricultural background and sometime don’t really appreciate the value of the work you have done. Overtime this has changed and the project is lauded as great example within USAID of how a collaborative project works between an international research institute and a local partner project (NAFAKA) collaboration.
 * There ARE currently ongoing changes in USAID with regards to our funding portfolio, but I know and believe that you will continue to push forward the work we have done despite the current circumstances.
 * This is a great opportunity for us to sit together and see how best to achieve great results, even with limited resources.


 * Overview of project activities & achievements - Haroon Sseguya**
 * Q: Are there any representative from the ministry?
 * A: The representatives were invited but they gave apologies for not attending. In future, we will give invitations which can also be represented when the invitees are not attending.
 * Q: How engaged are you with the local partners (DAICOs), do they give info on adoption of the technologies?
 * A: We have been working with the DAICOs who help in giving some info from the field concerning the field activities. The ones at district levels also implement activities and submit the reports, provided with allowances. All they need is to enhance their capacity, I request we all work together in achieving this.
 * Q: How are doing the verification data collected?
 * A: We have a database and we have data collection protocols that have been verified by USAID and we have a system whereby it is easy to track each data/technologies/intervention are being implemented by the farmers. Whatever is collected as the sample, we have the sampling frame (individuals recorded in our database). USAID makes periodical visits to partner organizations to do “data quality assessments”. There are various measures in place.
 * Comment: Moving forward one of the questions to address is – it will be great to see the collaborative learning and adaption leading to publications. That’s actually going to be on our agenda for the NAFAKA planning meeting next week. Also we keep talking about improved technologies, what are some of the technologies that the IPs should be bringing to the demo plots. We are doing grants for the tillers and threshers, but what have you guys seen as Africa RISING that we should be taking forward?
 * Comment: In response to the question about traceability - we have Francis here who does the GIS work so if you want this kind of information you can get to him for the maps. The thing is that NAFAKA has migrated to southern Tanzania presents an opportunity to study the areas they have vacated and assess to see how many farmers have adopted the technologies. All these data is geo-referenced.
 * Comment: The project has worked hard to reduce the gap between extension and research and the local government authorities in Mvomero.
 * Comment: We also generally have minimum involvement of the policy makers, we were visited Minister of Agriculture and the Regional Commissioner who were very excited to learn about our scaling model. With GIS related evidence we want to engage the policy makers more to show them what happens to their agricultural development even if it is once a year.


 * Maize team presentation - Bright Jumbo**
 * Q: What the exit strategy for the maize team?
 * A: We have exit strategy with seed companies and local extension agents who will help in scaling and teaching on the technologies. In addition, the performance of legume is excellent and we have exit strategy which is through the QDS production by farmers which is highly supported by the ministry of the agriculture
 * Q: Is MLND still a threat? New threats have also emerged like the fall army worms?
 * A: MLND is getting worse in Babati, but there is one demo plot that is performing well and we are hoping that the partners will see and support to foster the registration of the maize variety on this demo plot.


 * Vegetable team presentation – Alaik Laizer**
 * Q: It is interesting to observe that all the trainees you had adopted / are using the technologies. Can share how the team managed this 100% achievement?
 * A: Our model of distributing the seed kits to farmers after we train them. So ALL FARMERS WE TRAIN ARE provided with seed kit. Because they participate in season long trainings on how to grow vegetables, they go ahead to plant the vegetables in their farm. Because the seed kits have variety, they select their preferred varieties and leave the other for the next season. That is why we have hit all the targets. The seed kit is given only to farmers who are trained and it is not for sale hence the matching numbers of trained farmers vs. those adopting/using technologies.
 * Q: Why is it that few men took up the vegetable technologies – is it an issue to do with attitude, culture, awareness, profitability. This is because men are generally known to take up any technology that is profitable.
 * A: The problem is more about attitudes that vegetable production is not for men.
 * Q: It is great to hear that you are doing a lot in linking up with other development project especially on vegetables. However, I have not heard (in your presentation) of any partnership with the mboga na matunda project which is also funded by USAID. Could the team aim to also establish collaboration with this initiative?
 * A: We haven’t started yet, the mboga na matunda project within AR-NAFAKA project, but this can be done when we move to the next phase of the project.
 * Q: Is the most expensive input in the production of vegetables? If this is the case, then how are you addressing this challenge to vegetable production?
 * A: In vegetable production labor is the most expensive input by far – it accounts for 80% of the production costs. The problem with seeds is not the price, it is rather availability, fake seeds and germination. Our seeds are the least expensive because they are open pollinated varieties and thus they are affordable to farmers.
 * Q: The comparison of yield data jumps from 2014 to 2016. Is there any good reason for this?
 * A: Yes, in our survey we only assess the situation of yield by farmers at the beginning (2014) and at the end (2016) only i.e. styart and end of project.
 * Q: yours is one of the projects that works in an area and exits. Please tell us how you typically do your exit?
 * A: We have trained ToTs and are working with different NGOs on the ground. We also sometimes invite farmers from neighbouring villages where the project is operating. This ensures that there is some continuity to what we are doing despite the fatc that we move to the next villages.
 * Q: Payment of trainees was listed as a challenge. Some members of these teams were also doing it and it makes work difficult and in some cases with NAFAKA we had to drop some of the villages. Maybe we n need to be reminded of what is the correct practice here?
 * A: in Africa RISING we have ethical standard written down and they include standards about engagement with farmers from beginning to the end. When it comes to training there is no payment. What the project t pays for is only the transport in instances where the farmers have to come from far. All partners that have a contract with Africa RISING- IITA should comply with this.
 * Q: Do you have a specific reason why you aren’t collaborating with seed companies despite vegetable seed being a lucrative business for them?
 * A: We are also looking forward of engaging with the private sector players. In some cases we initiated some contacts with some of the seed companies – for example the Alpha seeds in Arusha. We have created a lot of demand on the ground now, hence the need for more involvement by partners. AMINATA seed company is therefore very welcome to engage in this.
 * Q: Did you encounter any instances of discontinuation of practicing what you trained them on by farmers?
 * A: Yes, we did, but gain our approach of having training of trainers who also trained others so this made up for the drop outs.
 * Q: Vegetables need water, when we are reaching veggie farmers how does water limit the type of scaling?
 * A: The criteria for selecting our sites is to check for possibility of irrigation. So yes, we check for where there is a source of water. In some areas where there are rivers, then they are able to produce throughout the year, but typically vegetable is a seasonal crop. So yes, water is a key factor affecting our scaling efforts.
 * Q: Haroon, how do you add the vegetable numbers to the target figures (47,000) because this figure relates to only maize value chain?
 * A: The numbers I presented are for the entire project.
 * Q: Adoption has been mentioned by the vegetable team yet you have implemented the activities for two/three years. You probably need to be cautious in using adoption considering the length of time the activity has been implemented.
 * Comment: (Betty Maeda) USAID policy is strictly only pay for transportation – no payment for the farmers to come to be trained. No per diem too. If they are coming from far, then we pay for accommodation and transport, but not paying them to attend. No using money to entice any one!
 * Q: market is usually a problem – sometimes flooded, sometimes no supply. In the areas where you are implementing activities does this problem exist and if yes, what efforts do you have in place to address this challenge?
 * A: vegetables are perishable crops and farmers sometimes need to be better educated on how to navigate market forces to their advantage when producing vegetables. This is still a challenge in general.


 * Rice team presentation – Rajabu Kangile**


 * Q: What have you been doing to ensure that the technologies – particularly those that farmers like seeders etc.- are scaled?
 * A: We have linked farmers with the manufactures and have also communicated this to Haroon to follow up and ensure that farmers get them.
 * Q: How are you going to scale out service like soil testing?
 * A: Soil analysis uses chemical and also involves procedures. The first thing is to create awareness so that farmers can appreciate and then pay for these services. This will help them see the value and ensure that they don’t waste fertilizer. Blanket recommendations for most of them is not going to work. When we did this soil analysis with the farmers initially they were skeptical, but after they saw the results then they are starting to believe. We have simple soil testing kit, one goes for 70,000 TShs and some farmers have already asked for the service and are willing to pay.
 * Q: You mentioned plans of rotating rice and legumes. Which legumes do you plan to rotate with rice? which systems do you want to do? and how will this happen?
 * Comment: Africa RICE piloted some rotation and this was really challenging due to land preparation, managing weeds and planting. The best legume alternative for this kind of system was cowpea, so you can consider this.
 * Q: Rice seeders and soil service – through which model do you want to use to scale this?
 * A: We need to be careful with how we introduce these labor-saving technologies like seeders, soil testing etc. There are many initiatives that are ongoing and it would be good to learn from them. Possibly the team can also explore the service provider model. We can discuss this and see how to link up with other initiatives.
 * Q: How do we ensure that the quality and correct ness of messages remains good as it cascades down following the overall scaling model proscribed by the project?
 * A: We (Meru Agro) train the farmers on contents, then on communication and then on presentation. After that we provide them with manuals to go and use. However, this is not a one day affair and it takes time!


 * That was the essence of involving government extension staff – they should ideally be supporting the lead farmers.
 * It would probably be best to study this scaling method – whether it is effective or not effective.
 * Comment: In relation to the soil testing - There is another initiative funded by USAID called SoilDoc that it would probably be great for us to link up with and learn from.
 * Q: According to your presentation you indicated having increased the number of farmers who are producing QDS, but you are facing the challenge of unavailability of improved varieties. Have you talked to the seed companies like Meru and AMINATA to ask them how best they can be involved in production of rice seed? This may be more effective than waiting for farmers to be seed producers.
 * A: Currently our capacity of producing rice seed is 8,000 tones and our requirement is 12, 000 tones. Most of the private seed companies are not yet ready to venture on this rice seed business.The QDS approach is aimed at ensuring faster distribution of seed to farmers.
 * AMINATA Seed has been producing seed, but during one of the years we could sell much and therefore ended up consuming it as rice (food). This led to the decision for us to reduce our production.
 * Seeds are not expensive and as researcher we should repeat this even if farmers say so. Farmers are buying seed and we only need to demonstrate performance. So it is not correct to say that let’s go for QDS because farmers can’t afford.
 * Comment: The issue with paddy seed is on the last mile alliance supply systems. the seed is not available at the village level. Currently the private sector is not willing to invest in this area due to low demand.
 * Comment: the principal of QDS was not meant as a substitute for certified seed. it was initiated to complement Certified seed for which the seller / agro-dealers were few.


 * Post-harvest team presentation - Gaspar Audifas**
 * Q: Most of the post-harvest activities focus on safety. In some of the areas where the project is working there have been cases of low quality being brought to the market by farmers. Why are we not looking at assessing what farmers are also bringing to the market?
 * A: Thanks for that observation, we as the post-harvest team have also noticed it. Harmful grain (with high moisture content) are brought to the market by farmers as means to cut corners by ensuring their maize weighs more than it actually does. We have tried to address this issue by creating more awareness, but only in a few limited areas/locations. We hope to continue addressing the issue.
 * Q: you have mentioned that hermetic bags store for 6 months. most farmers store seeds in hermetic bags. How long can they store the seed and still keep it viable?
 * A: As a post-harvest team, we have not attempted to promote use of hermetic bags for storage of seed. Rather we advocate for it to store the grain for food. We still don’t have the data to confirm that the percentage of viability remains the same when you use hermetic bags.


 * I did research on this issue of viability of hermetic storage for storage of seed and found that the seeds keep their viability up to between 90 - 95% compared to other technologies like jute bags. Farmers can keep the seeds for up to 6 months to a year, but generally the longer it stays the viability drops.
 * Q: How many artisans did you train and where?
 * A: We sourced the artisans who were already involved in maintenance of other machines etc. They were nominated by the groups that we trained. We then invited engineers from the company that is supplying machines and they trained them on how to handle the machine, performance regular maintenance etc. So, the artisans are already known by the farmers and the groups. We trained 45 of them from all these locations.
 * Q: I didn’t see the results of situation analysis and how did they help you to target the interventions by post-harvest activities?
 * A: We knew some gaps that existed and therefore just directed our efforts to addressing them.
 * Q: Do you have in Tanzania negotiations with manufacturers of the hermetic bags to ensure that they offer farmers the bags at affordable prices? This is because in other countries we understand that cost of acquiring the hermetic bags has been a constraint to adoption/use.
 * A: We have not yet initiated negotiations with the companies concerning the PICS bags. However, what we have done is to organize the farmers into groups and linked them to the companies so that they can aggregate.
 * Comment: We work with the suppliers and the distributers of the technologies so that they can continue to provide the technologies we’ve been working on even when we are not there. We also work with the government and extension services as an aspect of our exit.


 * Aflasafe team presentation – George Mahuku**
 * Q: When you interfere with the natural balance of micro-organisms, what do you think will happen as a result of the imbalance that you’ve created?
 * A: The population of A. flavus does not change, so there is no interference with the natural balance of micro-organisms.
 * Q: Most farmers feed their animals with aflatoxin affected grains. what is the effect of this?
 * A: Aflasafe can adversely affect animals and in some cases like for cows the milk that then comes out of them then contains aflatoxin.
 * Q: What is Tanzania’s maximum residual level for aflatoxin? How much time will it cost farmers to apply Aflasafe to their fields – this is an added activity? How effective is Aflasafe when you apply it once?
 * A: The EAC has developed guidelines/policy briefs and Tanzania is part of that – the maximum level allowable for aflatoxin B1 is 5ppb (parts per billion) and total aflatoxin is 10ppb. Most of the EAC countries follow these guidelines. Right now, the recommendation is to apply every year although at the moment we are studying the residual effect of Aflasafe. Aflasafe application is mainly by broadcasting and therefore doesn’t mean a lot in terms of adding to farmers’ time.
 * Comment: I think your response (George) to the question on microbial analysis or diversity probably needs to be broadened a bit. You are referring to the specific strains of the particular fungus you are focusing on but microbial diversity is way broader than the fungus and there are several complex interactions. Assessment of how this influences the diversity should therefore go beyond the fungus to also the other organisms in the soils especially the bacteria especially. The question is therefore how do the different management affect the micro-organisms that you are looking – has somebody for example studied how intercropping affects this? Does it suppress? Application of ISFM technologies etc.
 * Q: How far (in terms of time) are we from the registration of Aflasafe?
 * A: The National Biological Control Committee is planning to meet next week and will make a recommendation to the NTTAC for approval. In the coming two weeks we will know what next.


 * NAFAKA II overview presentation- Silvanus Mruma**
 * Q: I hope you are aware about the concerns of farmers about fake inputs. How are you planning to handle that?
 * A: This is a real challenge for us, but we are thinking of establishing good relations with the agro dealers, VBAAs and producer associations to ensure they report, we will also educate farmers not to buy fake seeds and educate them on how to identify the key elements that point to fake input or not. But also the current government has also done well in trying to regulate this issue and there are effective implementation of laws to arrest people selling fake inputs.
 * Q: How is NAFAKA II going to address the issue of effective information on inputs demand on the users’ side?
 * A: We are responding to this by establish tripartite arrangements like we have in Mbozi where we have for example a miller who has a contract with WFP and is purchasing seeds from the farmers via a contractual arrangement so that they know the effective demand. We are also working closely with government extension officers to ensure government extension staff and village leadership will establish the demand and provide the feedback to the input suppliers. We have tried that model in Kilolo.
 * Comment: A decision support tool has been developed by us (the GIS team) whereby agro-dealers can be able to identify how much seed they need to supply where for the next season. The tool also tells the agro-ecologies that they can target.


 * Bus stops - Key products (manuals, protocols, maps, etc.) from project teams**


 * __GIS bus stop__
 * Comment: This information is very useful particularly for development partners like NAFAKA when they are doing their site selection, but it is a little bit on the complex side for the local farmers, extension officers and even policy makers. It should be interpreted into simple information that is easily understandable by these non-technical groups of people who are actually the targeted eventual users of the information. It may also be a good idea to integrate this GIS information into the protocols prepared by the different teams working in this project to ensure the agronomists working for example in the NAFAKA project to be able to use this information.
 * Comment: We are coming up with a technology handbook and the information from this GIS work has to feature in that handbook too. GIS information can be used to show the integration between the development and scientific partners.
 * Q: I am curious to know what we have in the pipeline for other project components like vegetables, post-harvest, rice etc. As far as I can tell this was largely done for the maize team?
 * A: There are a few other materials of this kind in the pipeline. With NAFAKA for example I am working to analyze the long term patterns of rains so that we can be able to recommend varieties based on the trends etc. We are currently working to validate our data with information from the rain gauge that were installed by the project, but I am also working to cross check this weather information with a tool called geoneticus. This will allow us to pull out data using satellite information.
 * Comment: (Jumbo) I would like to have a discussion with Francis about how the complementarity of this information with what


 * __Vegetable bus stop__
 * Q: When you do cooking activities do you involve both men and women?
 * A: Yes, the activities we conduct involve both men and women. Vegetables by nature are not palatable, so in our cooking recipes we try to focus on techniques that make them more palatable for children, men and the women.


 * __Rice team bus stop__
 * Q: Are all the success stories you have written shared with the donor?
 * A: Yes, but not all.
 * Q: I am being skeptical, maybe our role in research and agriculture is probably to advise farmers that not every land is suitable for agriculture. When you think about the associated costs of reclamation, for example, these salt affected soils – shouldn’t we just tell farmers that the land is not suitable/productive enough and they should probably look for some other place that is more suitable?
 * A: Yes, I get your point but would like to disagree because when you analyze the opportunity cost of either abandoning this field and looking for another field then you will find that it is really high. All they need to do is to treat this soil with gypsum and that is what we advise.
 * Q: Do you have the cost benefit analysis for this technology?
 * A: The CBA is done, but sometimes it doesn’t give you much information because you end up assessing whether something profitable or not profitable. However, in this case where we are doing land reclamation it is not about profitability because here you are focusing on whether you have the land or not having it.
 * Q: Seed purity for the local varieties has been raised as an issue. Is there any work being done by the team?
 * A: The seeds we distribute like KOMBOKA, SARO, SATO etc. are generally available. Maybe when you talk to farmers they will complain about their indigenous seeds like Kalamata etc. that aren’t available through the normal seed system.
 * Comment: (Sophia Kashenge) What we are doing in ARI Dakawa we are trying our level best to purify the seed – and so far we have ensure our seed is clean. But what happens for example when you go to Mbarali the only seed which is productive is SARO 5, so we collected 250 varieties of SARO 5 varieties of which at DAKAWA we only have one variety. So we have planted them at the station and we are trying to assess what/why farmers really like these varieties.


 * __Aflasafe bus stop__
 * Q: I was curious – what is the cost of producing the Aflasafe product?
 * A: The cost is about 12$ to produce 10kg.
 * Q: Why use sorghum for the Aflasafe?
 * A: We have tried various other materials as a substrate like cassava pellets, broken rice, wheat etc. but sorghum beats all of them because it is very easy for us to source and it is
 * Q: What is the difference between Tanzania Aflasafe and the one in the other Aflasafe in the other countries?
 * A: The reason why we develop one for each country is due to the difference in the strains and divergent phytosanitary regulations. Some strains are also specific to a country, while others are regional. For the Tanzania case for example we have some strains that are specific to the country and the regional ones.


 * __Post-harvest bus stop__
 * Q: When are we receiving the printed copies of these manuals that you have just showcased?
 * A: We are planning to print the two manuals soon, by October 2017.
 * Q: Where did you generate the data for some of these manuals that you have generated?
 * A: The manuals were developed by a partner who developed them based on the gaps she identified in the field.
 * Comment: Is there a chance to accelerate a bit the finalization of these manuals? Saying that completion maybe in October 2017 could also mean too late into the next year and therefore it doesn’t benefit the team going into the next season.


 * __Mwanga ICT platform bus stop__
 * Comment: Quality control of the messages passed through this platform is absolutely important. I would therefore suggest that there should be a committee that will control / validate the content.
 * Comment: It has taken too long for the maize team to come up with the compendium of maize production and the technology brief. These documents are very important for use in for example this Mwanga platform to ensure that we are all certain about the quality. I would therefore also suggest that the maize team prepare the compendiums based on the relevant areas they work, for example Job & Fred – work on compendium for Babati; Swai and the ARI Hombolo team – work on compendiums for Kongw and Kiteto (semi–arid areas); Fred Baijukya and Kimaro – work on compendiums for Morgoro.
 * Comment: (Job Kihara) Thanks Chaacha we have been talking with the team at A-Ware about this. They are basically a commercial team. They have a project funded by BMGF and they have accepted to allow us (for the time being) to access their information for free for a period of 2 months only and after that, if we as a project find that there is utility in the info. Then people should pay for it.


 * Closing thoughts for the day - Elizabeth Maeda**
 * The future funding from the mission has been cut to half and Tanzania is no longer that privileged again especially when it comes to funding for agriculture. Come 2018 the mission will therefore really stretched when it comes to funding.
 * So, the future for Africa RISING – NAFAKA project is that the funds will be halved of what was awarded previously. However, this doesn’t mean that there is no confidence in the work you do, but rather it is simply that there is a reduction of funding to the mission and so this cut has to happen.
 * I must also say that I have a lot of confidence in you all that during your work planning session, despite this not so great news you will still put in place activities that will ensure we achieve high impact even with this highly reduced level of funding.
 * This may also entail looking for other partners to collaborate with and bring in more funds to cover for some of the areas that our new funding arrangements falls short on.
 * So, for the next 3 years, Africa RISING –NAFAKA collaboration will be getting just 3 million USD and that is just half of what you used to get, so although at the mission we have petitioned the senate to request that they increase our level of funding, we are hoping they will review the decision, but let’s work with what is there.

__**Day 2**__ (4 July)


 * Communication training – taking quality photos while in the field**
 * This session was largely practical – no notes.


 * Synthesis of key lessons learned – building on the lessons learnt generated during the review and planning meeting held in 2016.**
 * __Partnerships__
 * **Rice team** || **Aflasafe, Post-harvest and GIS teams** || **Maize team** || **Vegetables team** ||
 * * The integration of stakeholders by the team was improved – we involved the extension officers, local partners, farmers and other project partners. We created linkages with input suppliers for example with gypsum and we directed farmers and extension officers to these people etc.
 * The team had more collaboration with research institutes like ARI Kilombero
 * Increased networking with other stakeholders outside the project.
 * We made partnerships with extension officers more visible and so going there making use of them helped a lot. || * Integration still required across the value chain – this area is still weak.
 * New and existing partnerships were strengthened – for example post-harvest team established partnerships with A-Z company for supply of PICS bags; Aflasafe also established new partnerships with FAO
 * Effective and strategic collaboration partnerships very necessary
 * Documentation of experiences on partnerships is required. There needs to be more done to strengthened further.
 * New extension workers were brought on board
 * Aflasafe involved civil society in their activities – names of the specific organizations to be provided by the team.
 * Involvement of local government institutions was enhanced with DAICOs – For example in Aflasafe team did this in the 11 districts they work in they have established personal communication channels with the extension officers.
 * The project needs to measure the impact/value of the partnerships established. Just having a long list of partners is not enough! || * The value chain integration had good collaboration this time through NAFAKA who are handling the off-takers and linking them to financial institutions etc.
 * The partnership with private sector this time had more collaboration with seed companies and fertilizer suppliers etc.
 * Sharing of outreach materials from known source worked very well for the team.
 * The team involved more stakeholders like ARI Ulonga, ARI Uyole and MVIWATA. The private sector collaborated with more actors too.
 * The team also involved the local institutions like the DAICOs, village heads etc.
 * The partnership commitment was great in the past year – we had 3 meetings and all partners attended and participated quite effectively.
 * However, the team also noted that clear roles for each partner is need. Clarity on what is expected from each. || * We didn’t achieve good partnerships at the inputs level – no positive results to share yet. We had some challenges with drought when we tried to implement activities that relate to market in Babati.
 * Cooking shows and preparation of different recipes was something that worked out very well and with collaboratin with HORTI Tengeru.
 * We also had great collaborations with the private sector players like Meru Agro
 * We have positive expericnes in our collaboration with CRS – CARITAS. This helped because they already have linkage with existing groups. We are also working with AfriCare in Iringa. We also worked very closely with HORTI Tengeru.
 * In Mbeya we had an easy time working with CRS which enabled us to reach our targets quite fast.
 * We still need more seed companies involved, also still need more research institutions involved.
 * We are lacking the component of marketing and are currently exploring partnerships with TAHA. ||


 * __Exit strategy__
 * **Rice team** || **Aflasafe, Post-harvest and GIS teams** || **Maize team** || **Vegetables team** ||
 * * The project linked with agro-dealers, farmers to make sure that the seeds and other inputs are available to farmers in future.
 * We established strong linkages with the local government and the extension services to ensure that what we initiate there continues.
 * We created synergies with other existing projects like ERPP, IPM (ICIPE)
 * Enhanced the capacity of service providers (trained them).
 * Why can’t rice team as an institutions also consider using the outcome of this project to lobby for more funds from the government. || * We continue using the VBAA model and champion farmers to ensure continuity
 * There is need to facilitate involvement of women and youth to ensure sustainability of project activities after.
 * The post-harvest team used the champion farmer to scale out the technologies – hopefully they (champion farmers) will ensure continued dissemination.
 * Participatory approaches were used in demo plots and evaluation of technologies like Aflasafe.
 * The team also needs to work more on ensuring that feedback on the conducted work needs to be improved for farmers.
 * The practices we are disseminating is a behavior change process that needs time.
 * The project needs to clarify the meaning of terms like adoption etc.
 * There is also value in communicating the exit strategy to farmers. || * Prepared lots of training materials for the extension officers and VBAAs
 * The team implemented exchange visits to help enhance learning for farmers || * Trained farmers on producing their own seed, but also still intend to attract the seed companies to ensure more impact and sustainability.
 * Engaging the local village extension officers and established demos at strategic places like the partners like Africare and CRS etc.
 * Having participatory meetings ad focus group discussions which are participatory in nature
 * Local government still needs to be brought on board to dedicate some resources and time to vegetable production. ||


 * __Communication and documentation__
 * **Rice team** || **Aflasafe, Post-harvest and GIS teams** || **Maize team** || **Vegetables team** ||
 * * The Team prepared lots of training materials that were translated into Kiswahili for the farmers. In some cases, they also used local languages to explain some of the diseases to farmers.
 * For every site where they implemented activities they team did a lot of sensitization of materials.
 * The team involved focal persons from DAICOs to collect information
 * Involved the mass media for awareness creation – TV and radio
 * Created WhatsApp groups among farmers to ensure more closer communication with the technical team.
 * Facilitated the extension officers with allowances for phone airtime. || * More skills on GAP needed
 * Produced and distributed awareness creation materials on post-harvest and Aflasafe
 * Training needs to continue as well as information dissemination.
 * Trainings need to be community based, less like classroom and very highly simplified.
 * Need to give farmers feedback and explain better to farmers why some things are done in the field – use of participatory videos.
 * Aflatoxin awareness is still very low. || * Did a needs assessment at a sensitization meeting.
 * Prepared and distributed leaflets to educated farmers particularly in Kongwa and Kiteto.
 * Mwanga ICT platform was newly initiated by the team and all team are invited to take part. || * Participatory learning for the training of farmers was an important approach.
 * The team prepared materials and training modules that are shared with farmers
 * Use of the modular approach with the farmers helps to ensure planned training of farmers.
 * Listening to farmers is a key component for ensure successful communication with the farmers. ||


 * __Coordination and inputs access__
 * **Rice team** || **Aflasafe, Post-harvest and GIS teams** || **Maize team** || **Vegetables team** ||
 * * The team felt that coordination amongst members had improved greatly.
 * There is a need to increase involvement of policy makers in project activities. || * Approval of QDS takes a long time.
 * There is shortage of inoculants for producing Aflasafe
 * Access to inputs has improved (volumes of seed sold has increased, but more needs to be done to change farmer attitude. || * Last year there was shortage of legume seeds, but this season
 * Private sector were mobilized to bring seed on time and this season we are more efficient.
 * The maize team held planning meeting to respond to the concern about better coordination raised during the last season.
 * Cost Benefit was done for BabATI AND Kongwa but this needs to be done in other areas as well
 * We need to involve other inputs suppliers to provide farmers with variety. And also involve agro-chemical companies too. || * We done trainings, but still need to improve our efforts. However, we linked farmers to seed companies, but it is something that we still need to do better job at.
 * We have an events calendar that ensures that we are always organized.
 * We are conducting cost-benefit analysis for the net house and this is ongoing and results will be published soon. ||


 * Outlook for the next phase of the project – Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon**
 * For quite some time it looked like we could do more or continue at the level we have been operating for the past 3 years.
 * USAID asked us to prepare a concept note for the next phase of the project – for 4 years. We did this in April 2017 and added new activities like poultry etc. When we followed p with the mission they advised us that the situation has changed.
 * The money /funds available is less – 1 million USD per year for the next 3 years. Basically, this is a reduction of 50% of the funds we used to get.
 * USAID have also advised that we reduce the region, also focus only certain thematic areas.
 * Based on the USAID advised we submitted a revised concept note. This is where we are now.
 * Justification for these changes: Aflasafe has other sources for funding, vegetables has another big project funded by USAID in Tanzania.
 * The drastic changes in funding structure don’t mean that our work is substandard, but rather the resources are not there and USAID priorities have shifted.
 * Our work therefore already thinking about an exit strategy is good fore-thinking by the team etc.
 * I request for your understanding of this situation. It is not a decision that was made by the project management team. The fact that USAID still gave something in a way also means that they appreciate our work because there are several projects that in this current circumstance have been completely cut and discontinued.
 * I thank you all for all the great work that you have done so far.


 * Feedback from the PMT meeting – Haroon Sseguya**
 * PMT noted the good interaction and relationship between partners in implementing activities. This weighed heavily on USAID consideration to fund a continuation of the project.
 * USAID advised for development of a separate database to overcome the issue of double reporting. This advise was implemented, but now we need to submitted the data. So the PMT would like to request that we submit data to this database that is currently being managed by Francis Muthoni.
 * Last year it was recommended that we work with the local government authorities and this impacted positively on our numbers this year. So this should continue
 * Staff update: There is a new staff – Dr. Christopher Mutungi; Gloriana has got a scholarship to Waggeningen University and will be leaving August.
 * There are still gaps in documentation. for the second phase, we need to have a strategy to ensure better communication.
 * PMT noted with disappointment the maize team has still not improved in its coordination. The team hasn’t been submitting reports in good time and aren’t answering to responses compared to other teams.
 * As we plan for exit there are still pending issues like submission of data for crop yields etc. This applies to all the team. Annual reports will also be required. Training materials also need to be finalized.
 * PMT encourages continued participation in Nane Nane activities.


 * Closing remarks – Mateete Bekunda**
 * The PMT discussed about the custom indicators which can be used to publication.
 * This was not a planning meeting; therefore, a planning meeting will be organized sooner to keep up with the cropping seasons.
 * We will still keep our fingers crossed that the funding situation will change so that we can all continue with the work, but for now we will work with the directive we have for USAID.
 * Thank you all for good participation in this meeting.


 * organizers pag**