WA_planning_review_2012_day1

= West Africa planning and review meeting = toc Back to the event agenda
 * 23-25 October 2012 **
 * Modern City Hotel, Tamale, Ghana **

**S. Nutsugah (SARI)**
CSIR has been a major player in the NARS in Ghana. We are playing a significant role in the Africa RISING programme. The farming system concept enhances socio-economic environment in which farmer decisions are made - around collaboration between farmers and other stakeholders. Since the inception workshop in Tamale in Jan. 2012, SARI has been collaborating on a draft work plan which ended in September, involving several stakeholder meetings. We have not been able to work in each community. This workshop will allow SARI to focus on key areas around markets and farming system. Partnership building is a key element. We are grateful for USAid support via IITA to establish such partnerships. SARI is thankful for the implementation of work plan for year 1.

I wish you a successful review and planning workshop for year 2, bearing in mind the Feed the Future agenda for food security issues in Northern Ghana.

**I.Hoeschle-Zeledon (IITA)**
Many attended the inception workshop in Jan. We were very busy over the last few months; we have been establishing strategic partnerships. We have been asked by the donor to build on ongoing activities. This year marks the real start of the program. We have to look afresh and be prepared if necessary to give up on some activities and locations. Our project is on SI by integrating different crops with livestock, trees, water & soil management etc. We have to take a true systems approach, which requires working together on the action sites. Partnerships are crucial and we have to act as a multidisciplinary team and not as institutes with particular interests. We are part of a think tank that will shape an ambitious and successful project. It is my wish that, at the end of this workshop, we get to a number of decisions and agreements. A clear picture of the research agenda for the next 4 years and a work plan for year 2 are the major objectives. You all have shown great engagement and enthusiasm despite confusion, uncertainty and pressure. I would like to thank USAid for their patience to allow us to think about what to do where and how. It hasn’t been easy for E. Witte and J. Glover to justify the jumpstart projects but they have been real advocates of our approach. Jerry and Eric sent their apologies for being unable to attend this workshop due to the end of the fiscal year in the US. They are anxious and waiting to be informed about the outcomes of this workshop. Apologies of the IITA rep for W-A. He has been unable to come due to visa issues. But he conveys his welcome address.


 * Q&A and comments**
 * Q: Mali is poorly represented in the steering committee: 30% of the project.
 * A: There is a rotation. E.g. ICRISAT this year, ICRAF next year
 * à We could have another rotating CG post to ensure cross-country representation
 * Comment: Partner representation: I would suggest that we include other partners as permanent members.
 * Q: How to handle conflicts of interest in this sense re: budget etc.?
 * A: We have to take decisions by consensus.

Maize systems presentation
We carried out community analysis to determine constraints about crop and livestock. Community action plans have been developed based on the constraints. Outputs for work plans: improved crop-livestock production, improved nutrient cycling, improved nutrition of women and children, improved water management, partnership and capacity-building.


 * **Q**: Constraints to maize production similar to rice e.g. preparation, processing, marketing etc. but you are looking at soil fertility using legumes. No mechanization for market access. Didn’t see linkages with impact assessment. Variety trial related to market demands.
 * **A**: We look at commodities and varieties that have been identified as drought-tolerant and complement them with work done by others. From tomorrow we have to look at it in integrated ways.
 * **Comments**: Market access is an important part of production but it’s missing and the key outcome areas are a concern for me – linking smallholder farmers to markets. How can we advocate expanding outcome areas? à We have an 80-page document for each community … Check that document for more information. At program level we were discussing which type of sites to select and concluded that where there is no market access we should not work because SI is driven by market access. The 60 communities were based on what our colleagues proposed. Market access was the first criteria.
 * We need to let this market access guide us for our discussions for the next few days so it comes out clearly, so we can reach bigger markets.
 * **Q**: Research framework: did you plan to involve farmers in tech generation?
 * **A**: Farmers are involved already.

Rice presentation
Five meetings held, around the development hub concept (starting from the market) to achieve developmentt impact. Rice value chain with integration of research components, development partners, demand etc. Implementation follows an iterative 3-stage approach: Multi-stakeholder platforms of rice sector development hub: acting as platform for introducing, testing technologies etc. i.e. exploration, planning, implementation, internalization etc. Achievements and projects: baseline surveys with 2 hubs established. 1st round of data collection ends Oct 2012 and 3 more rounds in Nov/Dec for on/off-farm data etc.
 * 1st generation villages/rice communities to participate in baseline, diagnostic and yield gap surveys;
 * 2nd generation rice communities will benefit from the outcome.
 * Hopefully scaling will reach 3rd generation.


 * Q**: On MSPs, what will be the role/mandate of MSPs?
 * A**: We use them to operationalize rice sector development hubs, to introduce innovation, test them out, possibly reject and give feedback about it. Once an innovation is adopted, other development agencies help to scale. Members span the whole value chain. Their needs are sorted out among themselves e.g. market access.
 * Q**: Thanks, very comprehensive. What’s happening in ESA, it seems quite different to what you're doing in West Africa? Are you thinking about cross-fertilization with Africa Rice there?
 * A**: They are focusing more on vegetables in that region. AR has focused mostly on management but from next year they will move to the same approach in ESA.
 * Q**: How do you define hubs/platforms? Your hub is your action area. I think of hubs as places to reduce transaction costs to bring people coming together with value proposition. If you look at your MSP as the beginning of your hub.
 * A**: The hub is a physical area.
 * Q**: What are opportunities for other commodities or VCs to be integrated in your system?
 * A**: My presentation is on rice-based systems, not just on rice. We strrt looking at integration between rice, livestock etc. Vegs are part of it. We are bringigng lots of other crops

Sorghum presentation
Choice of priority activities based on stakeholder workshops in the 2 target districts and quick win options and implementation capacity available in Mali. Mali partners will be invited to another workshop after planting. Diagnostic survey on farm productivity, testing fodder crops etc. Key issues from the surveys: market access, access to inputs and credit, risk mitigation to deal with climate variability, quality control of drugs/pesticides, value addition (cereals, livestock), adequate feed for traction animals. Testing fodder crops and trees in cereal-based systems. Options for modeling e.g. the NUANCES crop model ‘FIELD’ is being calibrated. Food crop diversity: Training facilitators, diversify seed enterprise and tree nursery options, information campaign on soil fertility management. Information campaign on integrated striga and soil fertility management using videos Improved natural resource management and reduced vulnerability: overview over land-use and NRM issues in Sikasso, validation of local land use plans (transhumance, crops and forest use, conservation of forets and water resources, resilience, maintenance of roads and passageways), establishing IPs. Nutrition activities based on the first 1000 days of life concept, 4 training modules; intervention area = 6 communes in Koutiala, 6 villages per commune.


 * Q**: Around seed packs – there is a vibrant private sector – is it involved?
 * A**: We are working with producer associations.
 * Q**: Cotton?
 * A**: Cotton is being processed (e.g. local family weaving)
 * Q**: About nutrition – dietary diversification is crop-related, what happens with livestock?
 * A**: They are part of it but there’s often a problem of access. Focus on nutrition is largely on knowledge about nutrition, not just crops. In terms of processing, the main issue is that women are not always aware of whole grains which have micro-nutrients.
 * Q**: AR talks about nutrition. I have listened to the various systems. If we don’t have baseline studies about the situation in those areas, how will we be able to assess this and mention we can attribute it to AR?
 * A**: MSF are working on this and maintaining M&E of nutrition. There is a baseline survey to look at nutrition centres.
 * Q**: You mentioned crop destruction by livestock – it’s a major concern. In this country there have been instances where people lost their livelihood because of that. To what extent are you treating this problem?
 * A**: That’s the result of our 2-fold approach: studying effectiveness of local interventions (we have to understand what has worked or not) and then implementation of IPs to take this learning to local level and to a broader base so that local decision-makers are involved to take this forward.

Vegetables presentation
AVRDC working with IITA, ICRISAT, CSIR/SARI etc. Participatory appraisals, developing survey protocols, data analysis underway. Maize and rice are biggest components in N. Ghana. Links with other R&D projects: USAid Mali, CORAF (MDTF ). Cascade approach is complex (contracting/reporting) Centralized project implementation unit for logistics is excellent but causes delays. Complementarity, integration yes, interdependence yes but not dependence.
 * Q**: Nothing on livestock.
 * A**: (//missed the answer//)
 * Q**: Fruits are key too.
 * A**: Fruits are very important but our centre only works on vegetables.

Animal research institute overview of quick-win activities
Important aspects to consider
 * Harmonization gaps of protocols due to limited info on socio cultural settings
 * Time/area to cover
 * Managing in the absence of project vehicle
 * Support needed by farmers for tech/innovation uptake
 * How to sustain the process
 * Team work contributed greatly to achievements
 * Regional teams required monitoring due to peculiarity of data collection
 * Long term relationship
 * Wet season intervention
 * Land is an issue for intensification
 * Opportunities:
 * Community members more receptive
 * Developing feed market
 * New partnerships
 * Precense of milk groups is an opportunity for dairy development
 * Synthesised knowledge for uptake/proceedings

**Challenges & opportunities**

 * Eva (ICRISAT):
 * M&E roles and responsibilities – when will IFPRI come in etc. was not very clear.
 * All of us were excited about opportunities e.g. linking landscape issues with production farm issues in conjunction with innovation platforms – a new way of working for many of us, in relation with gender.
 * Working on nutrition with health centres is also a great opportunity to work with gender type of issues.
 * Binam (SARI):
 * Time constraint – difficult to get some results in a short time frame.
 * Situation in Mali: challenging to work with interpreters to explain what you want to do. When working on a meeting you can be shadowed. People are more likely to speak in Bambara and you’re not sure about their messages.
 * They are also very receptive for change
 * Main opportunity: Working with IPs was very good.
 * Within AR, it will be easier to make farmers aware of importance of crop-livestock-tree within farming system. This was raised as a concern in the community analysis.
 * Abdou Fall (ILRI):
 * One of the key challenges has been time – thinking about quick wins to implement and report about.
 * Contracting / sub-contracting, sub-sub-contracting created a lot of frustration. Flow of money was delayed and created a lot of frustration for the implementation.
 * Political situation in Mali was challenging for ILRI because all quick wins were based on PROGEBE in Southern Mali but we could no longer work in that project. We had to identify new partners, negotiate activities.
 * Opportunities: we worked well with ICRISAT, with ICRAF (based in the same office) and with other partners in Ghana.
 * Fred Kizito (IWMI):
 * Great pleasure to be part of this process. IWMI was given the mandate to represent AR in water resource management with KNUST, CSIR, WRI, ARI. The context in which we worked (CPWF) was about crop-livestock interactions in Northern and upper West Ghana.
 * Main challenge: get partners to work together in a short timeframe. We did achieve it.
 * Ensuring that project materials were in place on time etc. and secured for soil moisture regime. Sufficient time has to be given for purchasing, installation etc. This should work for moisture management but also other issues. We need ample time to secure them in order not to be behind.
 * Timing of activities (funding in June/July) but farmers had started with their planting/sowing. Training on soil conservation was difficult when agricultural practices were done. We did organize this training. Farmers need to be given enough training and we need to backstop them correctly.
 * Opportunity: When we have farmers learning a lot from what’s taking place, how do we integrate all of this to make sure we are working on SI? Is it possible to have integrated approaches? How to marry our ideas?
 * Abdou Tenkouano (AVRDC):
 * One challenge is to make sure that everyone is at the same comms level – when we share files, the files we attach are not the same (not everybody is using the same version)
 * At country level, we need a country implementation team so that what Fred said happens. We need to work together to keep everybody informed.
 * Opportunity from us as an organization to work with the concept of health promotion with vegetables. We are not making medical claims. This project allows us to link up with people that have medical expertise.
 * Wilson Dogbe (Africa Rice):
 * Approaches we’re using are good opportunities to achieve the opportunities of the project e.g. hub/MSP. It’s been embraced at federal level.
 * The partnership model we have in Africa Rice brings more institutional capacity building. Ownership is built by partners who own the process, this is a big +.
 * What is also important is the integration.
 * Challenges:
 * Delays e.g. some equipment was delayed.
 * At MSP level, getting on board the big boys has been difficult (e.g. also big NGOs). We haven’t been able to reach them yet.
 * Comms among us – we can improve this among partners.

Presentation of IPA
IPA does work on randomized control trials to evaluate development and poverty alleviation programmes.

Presentation of AFSIS

 * **Q**: You didn’t mention national partners?
 * **A**: We are working with KNUST, ARIA etc. in Nigeria
 * è What about the soil research institute in Ghana and their soil mapping work throughout the country à Yes, AFSIS2 will target Nigeria and Ghana. Just wait for the 2nd phase.
 * Comment: I’m impressed by the amount of work.
 * **Q**: At IWMI we’re looking at suitability domains and where we can find areas were irrigation is successful and see if those could be adopted elsewhere. This is a good entry point. How good is the soil data? If someone wants to access that data, would you get physical characteristics? à in AFSIS we want to make that data available.
 * **Q**: How comfortable about the representativeness of your data for scaling up?
 * **A**: We started with 60 sentinel sites. Is it enough to scale out.

Presentation on site selection

 * Ghana**:
 * Tolong, Savelugu and Mion in the Northern region.
 * Kassena Nankana, Bongo, Bawku West for Upper East
 * Wa West, Nadowli and for Upper West.

Project sites and partners in Mali: CG centres e.g. ICRISAT, ICRAF, AVRDC, ILRI in Bougouni. 3 NGOs: AMEDD, MOBIOM, AMASSA, CBOs, health centers. FtF targeted the Sikasso zone in Mali already. There is a contrasting land use issue/opportunity around soil fertility/forest cover/transhumance, based on nodes of existing research and development partnerships and choice made for functioning cooperatives, associations with crop/livestock etc. Challenges: Partnerships with state institutions not fundable; subsidized fertiliser arrives late and in low quantity, scientists' presence is volatile.
 * Mali**: We had to make decisions about the sites without Chris Legg, but we had stakeholder workshops in Bougouni and Koutiala and based on partner investments in research in tech dissemination, we chose sites in these 2 districts in the Sikasso region. A district here is much bigger than in the Ghana context (e.g. 500.000 people for Koutiala).

Communication

 * **Q**: Comms – info so far shared with Irmgard and Asamoah. How do we proceed now?
 * **A**: All info you want to share on the wiki etc. should be forwarded to K. Lopez who is our contact point with Irmgard copied in.
 * **Q**: Comms with farmers.
 * **A**: Will come back later.

Research framework

 * **Comment**: Define terms in a glossary in the program document.
 * **Q**: Looking at hypotheses we see e.g. integration (of technologies) would be better than single approaches. If a system is already sustainable, are you destabilizing the system by trying to work on SI?
 * **A**: Naomie’s approach relates to introducing new technology to villages where they’ve already been used. Definition of SI looks at systems.
 * **Q**: Lack of activities linking farmers to markets.
 * **A**: That should be reflected in the program document. It’s not very clear to date on how we link with FtF indicators. We support agricultural systems and need to reflect that in the program document. How do we divide accountability etc. and if the program works, who takes credit for it?
 * **Q**: Counter factual approach is ephemeral e.g. comparing humans with crops. RCT will not work unless in a parallel universe.
 * **A**: A human being can tell you whether they want more fertilizer etc. Based on economic principles, we can assume that people choose things that maximize their options. What we’re suggesting is backed by literature and several cases. We are still learning about that kind of approach.

Monitoring and evaluation

 * **Comment**: No definition of the processes leading to SI – looking at just the products. To exemplify RCT, Mali and Ghana are following.
 * **Q**: So many graphs. When I look at communities we work with, AR is only one program. If I see a reduction in malnutrition – which design will allow to assess attribution to AR?
 * **A**: IFPRI has been asked by USAid to reduce conflicts of interest. IFPRI will look at the research process and will find ways to reduce this risk. When we come to work plans we need to think about how it will look and what IFPRI can help design.
 * **Q**: Hypotheses: One of the key conditions for SI is profitability. There are complications for the design of activities/outputs.
 * **A**: How do you measure benefits? Nutritional or profits? Perhaps we need to improve on language.
 * **Q**: Ethical integrity: USAid offered assistance to jumpstart some projects and we discussed this in CPWF. Who takes credit for the outputs? USAid under FtF indicators?
 * **A**: There is sthg on methods to attribute impact to different components, under RO4.
 * Some people have already reported this, should they mention it?
 * We need those figures. We had these discussions about double reporting but I don’t know how USAid will sort that out. We compiled estimates about what we are going to achieve. For end of September we have to enter the actual numbers that we achieved and provide explanations about ups/downs. How will USAid will address this is unclear.
 * **Comment**: If IFPRI is going to work on this, we hope they will be in very soon. You need to have them in from the beginning.
 * This assumes that we know everything about the interventions. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue.
 * Can you evaluate as a package or separately?
 * The hypothesis on integration assumes that we can assess the full package. In WA we are on track because the planting season is next year. Our focus right now is ESA. We are working hard to get the M&E officer in place.
 * **Q**: Responsibility of M&E – who does what? ICRISAT? IFPRI?
 * **A**: What has been done was for the quick wins and now we’re moving on to the longer term project. For quick win projects, IFPRI helped select some sites (it probably wasn’t the case in Mali). We are talking about the longer term project.

Site selection

 * **Q**: Extrapolation – how will that work, knowing context specificities? Scaling up and out should rely on our site selection (the way we want to ) – later on it will be difficult to extrapolate.
 * **A**: If you recall the zones I presented, the way to do this is to do it for each of the areas e.g. in certain areas in Ghana and Mali. The Hi-hi / lo-hi etc. regions classify areas in a systematic approach based on an analysis of secondary data. We look at areas with high potential and in each of these areas we select action research sites and in each community we will do a household (hh) typology. We don’t expect the same hh types in similar strata but it can happen. Using simulation models we should be able to extrapolate to similar hh types, strata etc.
 * I’m not familiar with this. Do we have any evidence about this approach with tech working somewhere and being taken somewhere else.
 * I mentioned ex-ante analysis in evaluations. Micro-dosing fertilizers was developed and spread. The question is: what are we extrapolating? A concept. We see how we can work on village system. The process can be scaled up.
 * **Q**: About the 2 hubs and communities etc. How did the sites selected relate to what we already did?
 * **A**: We need to harmonize what we are doing. The sites selected, if they don’t match the ones we selected (Chris/Asamoah) we need to stratify them. Otherwise it will be difficult to report on rice/maize-based system sites. Let’s remain flexible.
 * USAid has tasked IFPRI to select sites so that it’s ensured that thorough impact assessment can be done. What happens is that we went much faster than IFPRI could in assisting us. That’s why in Mali, Ghana etc. we selected sites for year 1 activities. In the course of implementation, IFPRI came in with Chris Legg to stratify etc. and the result is what Asamoah presented. The sites you’ve been working with need to fit in that system.
 * **Q**: We are dealing with R4D but we are scientists and we have to publish our data. We should not select our sites without having a look at a rigorous approach – we need to analyse our data rigorously.
 * **A**: There is an open access platform. Rainfall data is open access.
 * **C**: If we selected some sites, we’d need to consider ground-truthing sites.
 * We went with local knowledge, not IFPRI data. We were not there with IFPRI alone, we went with local sources.
 * Ground-truthing has to be finalized.
 * There is some confusion about action sites at district level (largely determined by IFPRI) and the intervention and control sites (data that is in the public domain can tell you what to do systematically but cannot replace the data people have). In Mali we don’t have control sites but we can also do it ex-post. The data sets from IFPRI are not granular enough, you need additional data from local sources. It’s no big deal. We have an opportunity to work it out over the next 2 days.
 * **Q**: Were control sites selected together with treatment sites or after?
 * **A**: (//Missed the answer//)
 * **C**: The same comments are available for Ghana – sites are not set in stone because they could be modified.
 * For 2 of the 3 regions they’re set, not for Upper West. We had interviews and were complemented by visit by the Ministry.
 * We cannot select purely random samples. Stratification should be based on empirical knowledge, satellite data etc. Recommendation domains from the Africa map are theoretical recommendations. No blanket approach will work.
 * **Q**: Have the sites in Mali been selected or is that just a proposal?
 * **A**: I understand this pragmatic concern but those sites have to undergo the process of site characterizsation. We can work on other sites.
 * **C**: Sounds good to have the characterization in Mali.
 * **C**: Hypotheses cover a lot of issues but this means we need to work on different scales e.g. villages that we will survey. We might need some more criteria.
 * **Q**: How to avoid double reporting?
 * **A**: There is a benefit in linking Africa RISING with other projects. Double reporting is not a problem. AR can benefit in working with other projects.
 * **Q**: How were sites selected? If you use another approach, how do we report that?
 * **A**: IFPRI needs to double check.
 * **C**: Let’s see how the communities match with the ones (Africa Rice) we’ve been working with.
 * **C**: We can’t end up with different baseline surveys etc. IFPRI is working in the system.
 * **C**: When IFPRI gather data, is it backed by GPS on the ground? What we can do: can the IFPRI data be made available in the local sites to be validated? There’s secondary data that comes into play.
 * It’s easier for IFPRI to find sites and for you to give us the data. Why don’t we try to accommodate both. You select sites. If you go by the program document there is a systematic approach.
 * IFPRI has been characterizing sites. We provided them with information.
 * **C**: Assuming that we have control and action sites, if our site was treatment and now becomes control, what happens?
 * **A**: AR starts in West Africa this week. We were asked to produce quick results but now we have to follow our common approach. We had/have to abandon some activities from year 1.
 * **C**: There’s a top down approach by IFPRI.
 * The districts and sites were selected by e.g. Africa Rice, scientists in Ghana that selected the 60 communities.
 * **C**: This is learning for all of us. In East & Southern Africa they also went through the same experience. We have to follow criteria that people can follow.
 * **C**: Looking at sites, in doing that site selection, what will community people say? Will they have a say? Do we have some flexibility?
 * The sites selected are potential sites. If you go to the communities… We are flexible.

Multi-Donor Trust Funded project