tamale_concept_feedback

=Sustainable Intensification of Cereal-based Farming Systems in the Sudano-Sahelian Zone of West Africa= =Project Design Workshop= =9-12 January 2012, Modern City Lodge, Tamale, Ghana=

CONCEPT NOTE FEEDBACK

On Monday afternoon, initial concepts for the components of the project were presented and discussed. Participants provided feedback on what they ‘liked’ or ‘disliked’ about what they heard; what could be improved:


 * Feedback from individuals **

1. Adrian Ares (SANREM)

Likes: nice project, has the basics of sound NRM covered, deals with improvement of soil quality, has agroforestry included through nitrogen fixing species, geographical focus is sound

Less positive: too much focus on biophysical aspects, few social aspects/info on social networks, not clear how the knowledge generated will be used

Improvements: prioritisation to reduce overwhelming list of topics, adding social science, clarify how to make it farmer driven, formulate realistic objectives for certain aspects, involve SANREM CRSP, incorporate a research education component (SANREM does this)

2. Salifu (CSIR)

Likes: Ghana is included, focus on Northern Ghana, choice of SARI as key partner, systems approach, multi-disciplinary approach

Less positive: too many CGIAR centers is a management challenge; project management not spelled out clearly, what is the role of national programs in project management, who does the scientific backstopping; scientific capacity development missing

SARI wants to contribute to the impact

3. Diarisso Niamoye Yaro (IER)

Likes: recognition that sorghum moves from staple to higher value crop

Less positive: post-harvest aspects are missing, no definitions for certain term used, crop quality aspects not considered, livestock poorly included, communication should be more prominent

4. Adul Rahman Mahamah (YARA)

Likes: fertilization of cereals included

Less positive: capacity building to change farmers’ attitude towards fertilizer application vs organic agriculture not addressed


 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">Feedback from small groups **


 * Sprit behind project is good
 * The how is not well defined
 * Happy with geographic area –well set
 * Multi-dimensional approach is good but a lot of partners will be difficult to manage
 * Broad partnerships is good
 * Overall objective is not good—five years will not achieve objective
 * Like farming system approach—each system has its own unique needs
 * Project is relevant but needs allusion to big picture such as CAADP and WECARD
 * No mention of Pillar IV from CAADP in document
 * Spillover effects
 * Lack of relevant partners
 * Too many entry points—need to get rid of some
 * Needs to link to impact
 * Where does capacity building/extension come in? Has not been addressed in concept note. How do we do that with funding level? How do we leverage other funding?
 * System approach is good.
 * Type of research is specified but not the how.
 * Nurtition needs to be added.
 * Accountability of the partners is not specified.
 * Other than striga, no other pest has been identified.
 * Post-harvest technology has not been addressed.
 * What is the role of partners?
 * What is the role of the NARS (SARI)?
 * What is the process of diffusion to farmers?
 * What are we doing differently in this project to show impact?
 * Project is relevant and well targeted, however, SARI has been in the region for 20 years and these technologies have been promoted but not taken up. What is different about this one?
 * Labor constraints/mechanization has not been addressed?
 * Water management was mentioned but not how it would be addressed.
 * Quality of rice has not been addressed.
 * Northern region of Ghana is turning into savannah and should be considered for inclusion in project.
 * Irrigated rice farming should be considered for the project.
 * Talking about SI without irrigation will be difficult.
 * Need more specification of which legumes.
 * What are the impact pathways?
 * The project is to target the poor people but the poor people do not have money to buy fertilizer. Will the project provide money to buy fertilizer? Starter pack?
 * The project is relevant and the productivity targets can be met.
 * Would like to see a greater role played by the NARS. If the NARS were greater involved they could say what has already been done and not reinvent the wheel.
 * Needs more attention to the markets.
 * Multi-disciplinary approach is good but needs to be aligned with national priorities.
 * What can we learn from what is already done?
 * Livestock role has not been brought out.
 * Will the project build on current learning platforms or will they be re-built?
 * Is M&E process-based or social based?
 * The themes of the CRPs do not come out in the concept notes.
 * Tree-based systems should come out across all the crops.
 * Like broad consultation across institutions.
 * See the usual scramble between CGIAR and NARS. Need to address appropriate role for each.
 * Narrow definition of productivity—yield. Need to talk about total factor productivity which includes other aspects.
 * Markets have not been properly addressed.
 * [|Pest control services].
 * Stanley’s presentation addressed the systems as they are now but not look at what they could be.
 * Liked that it is multi-lateral and multi-disciplinary.
 * Too much emphasis on productivity and not enough on sustainability.