AR_ESA_phase2_inception-review&planning_Oct2016

Lilongwe, Malawi

 * **More photos from the event** (click to view)

This meeting was preceded by a 2-day training from 3 - 4 October, 2016 on **participatory research design approaches**


 * Participants** (click to download final participants list)

=**Objectives**=
 * Develop a five-year ESA project logframe and 2016/17 work plan
 * Create a shared understanding of Africa RISING phase 2
 * Initiate Communities of Practices within ESA and across regions for better harmonization and increased learning

=**Resources**=
 * ** Travel guide for participants ** (click to download)
 * ** AR ESA 2016/2017 work plan template ** (click to download)
 * ** Power point presentations template ** (click to download)

=Agenda=

__**3 - 4 October, 2016**__
 * ** Agenda:2-day training on participatory research approaches **

8:00 Registration 8:30 Welcome & Opening remarks 8:50 Agenda overview 9:00 Phase 2 umbrella proposal - B. Vanlauwe (20 mins presentation + 25 mins Q&A/clarifications) 10:15 ESA phase 2 proposal (what's different/transitions from phase 1, new areas of work, loose ends from phase 1, R4D platforms & typologies) - M. Bekunda (20 mins presentation + 25 mins Q&A/clarifications) 11:00 Sustainable intensification indicator framework session- P. Grabowski/M. Musumba
 * __Day 1 __** (Wednesday 5 October, 2016)
 * Welcome and workshop objectives – M. Bekunda
 * Opening Remarks – I. Hoeschle – Zeledon
 * **Presentation by B. Vanlauwe (click to download)**
 * //9:45 Break & group photo //**
 * **Presentation by M. Bekunda (click to download)**
 * **Introductory presentation by P.Grabowski (click to download)**
 * **Sustainable Intensification Tradeoffs and Synergies by Mark Musumba (click to download)**

2:00 M&E Framework for phase 2 - C. Azzarri / A. Shee (20 mins presentation + 25 mins Q&A/clarifications) 2:45 Gender in Africa RISING ESA phase 2 - G. Fischer (20 mins presentation + 25 mins Q&A/clarifications)
 * //1:00 Lunch //**
 * **Introductory presentation** by C.Azzari (click to download)
 * **Summary of M&E data requirements table (click to download)**
 * **Introductory Presentation** by G. Fischer (click to download)

3:30 Integrated analysis and redesign of farms and livelihoods - J. Groot (20 mins presentation + 25 mins Q&A/clarifications) <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">4:30 Achieving the vision of success – introductory presentation by I. Hoeschle – Zeledon (10 mins presentation + 20 mins Q&A/clarifications) <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">5:00 Wrap up of day 1
 * **Introductory presentation** by J. Groot (click to download)
 * //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">4:15 Break //**
 * **Introductory presentation** by I.H-Zeledon (click to download)

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">8:00 Agenda overview <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">8:10 Purpose and implementation of communities of practice (10 minutes presentation + 30 minutes discussion)
 * __<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Day 2 __**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> (Thursday 6 October, 2016)
 * **Introductory presentation** by I. Hoeschle – Zeledon (click to download)

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">9:00 Preparation of project 5 year logframe (10 min presentation + Participants to be divided in 5 groups, one for each outcome)
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">**Sample logframe presentation by M. Bekunda** (click to download)
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">**Revised and combined logframe** (click to download; this file is still not the final version)
 * **Africa RISING outcome relationships with sustainable intensification domains (click to download)**

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">10:30 Group work - preparation of project log frame cont’d <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2:00 Group work - preparation of project log frame cont’d <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">4:45 Presentation by each outcome group on the draft logframe (10 mins presentation + 10 mins plenary feedback for each presentation) <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">6:45 Wrap up day 2
 * //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">10:00 Break //**
 * //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">1:00 Lunch //**
 * //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">4:30 Break //**

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">8:00 Agenda overview <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">8:10 Discussion on budgets (10 min presentation + 10 min plenary discussion)
 * __<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Day 3 __**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> (Friday 7 October, 2016)
 * **Introductory presentation by I. Hoeschle – Zeledon** (click to download)

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">8:30 Work plan preparation by participants/project monitoring plan <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">(10 min presentation + Participants to be divided in 3 groups per site - Kongwa Kiteto, Babati, Malawi) <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">11:00 Preparation of work plan cont’d <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2:00 Communication session
 * **Introductory presentation** (Sample workplan template prepared by M.Bekunda to guide participants)
 * //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">10:30 Break //**
 * //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">1:00 Lunch //**
 * Introductory presentation by J.Odhong

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">3:00 Updates on logframe by M. Bekunda
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">**Revised and combined logframe** (click to download; this file is still not the final version)
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">**Sustainable Intensification domains relationships with project outcomes** (Click to download)

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">3:20 Revisit discussion on Communities of Practice (see notes below) <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">4:45 Preparation of work plan cont’d <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">5:30 Wrap up of day 3
 * //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">4:30 Break //**

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">7:00 Cocktail / Networking event

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">8:00 Agenda overview <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">8:10 Presentation of draft work plans by each group (10 mins presentation + 10 mins plenary feedback for each presentation) //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Draft workplans (developed up to end of meeting; groups still refining): // <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">10:00 Break <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">10:30 Revision of work plans <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">11:30 Next steps and final reflections <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">12:00 Wrap up and closing meeting/ departure for those leaving on 8 October night flights <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">12:00 Lunch
 * __<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Day 4 __**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> (Saturday 8 October, 2016)
 * **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Kongwa Kiteto (click to download) **
 * **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Babati (click to download) **
 * **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Malawi (click to download) **


 * NOTES**


 * __<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Day 1 __**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> (Wednesday 5 October, 2016)


 * Welcome and workshop objectives – M. Bekunda**

We are 5 days old in phase 2 of Africa RISING! This shows we did some good things in phase 1 that the donor appreciates, but we also need to do certain things better. Phase 2 of Africa RISING is slightly different because unlike phase 1; we have a proposal to guide our actions (developed by ourselves). This means for monitoring purposes we have to hold ourselves to that. Now that means we are going to develop a logframe (for 5 years) and a work plan that we will develop. So for this our initial meeting is to develop a 5 year logframe and a work plan for the next year (2015/2016). A key element of this meeting is also for us to initiate how we will work together across the regions – sharing experiences and benchmarking across the 3 Africa RISING projects.

We have invited several participants from AR West Africa. Congratulations to you all for a good job done in phase 1 and this has convinced the donor (USAID) to renew the second phase. We are grateful to USAID and specifically Jerry Glover who has been a great ambassador for Africa RISING. USAID is one of those donors convinced that investing in systems research is a good investment and they have trusted the CG centers with the responsibility. In recent time the country missions in Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia have also started contributing to Africa RISING. So we are grateful to them (missions) for buying into Africa RISING! With this increased support implies also an increased amount of expectations both from the donor community and the farmer communities therefore e have to deliver to these two important group. Not only just deliver but deliver high quality! While we continue to be a research project, in phase 2 we are expected to ensure our research outputs get to more and more farmers. This is a big mandate (expanded) in a way from phase 2.we therefore this week will be making commitments to deliver to these high expectations in phase 2. So we expect high impact delivery and excellent reports! We have to contribute to a good name and good reputation for Africa RISING showing our commitment even through participation in events like the upcoming humidtropics market place event later in November this year.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Opening Remarks – I. Hoeschle – Zeledon **

Comment: One thing you mentioned that we would do better at in phase 2 is the collaboration with other research projects. What approaches can be used? Or what mechanisms can we put in place to ensure this happens.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Phase 2 umbrella proposal - B. Vanlauwe **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;"> (download presentation from agenda section above)
 * Response: Yes that’s correct, but it takes both sides to collaborate. So we need to get better negotiations to get these partnerships to work. So we probably need the skills set as well (people) to specifically focus on this aspects.

Question: Please clarify on how we reach the beneficiary numbers proposed? How will we attribute the numbers when we will have started working with the development partners…wouldn’t there be some double counting?
 * Response: This issue may have to be clarified further, but at the moment all I can say is that this is an area that we have to deliberately work at to get the donor to feel that the project is getting value for money i.e. the amount of spend by the project (budget) per household makes sense. A ratio of USD 5,000 per household as we had in phase 1 isn’t going to be acceptable to the donor (for an investment worth USD 50 million, we had 10,000 beneficiary households).


 * Response: The total figure of the target numbers for the program is aggregated per project country (refer to the umbrella proposal). But the numbers shouldn’t overwhelm us, rather we should first try to get the means of making these partnerships with development partners to work because a big proportion of the numbers that we have proposed will be achieved through these partnerships.

Question: All the research questions were generated by researchers but what is the plan to include farmers input, partnership with farmers and include other partners. These should be included in the planning, we should include scaling up as well. I know this things are included in the proposal but we make sure it is in the work plan.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">ESA phase 2 proposal - M. Bekunda **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">(download presentation from agenda section above)

Responses:
 * In the process of proposal development, we have had these issues discussed with farmers and collected input from them, we mapped those inputs, we did prioritization as per the target size and ranking.
 * Issues of including climate smart are coming from donors side and we will put this in the work plan
 * Engaging and partnering with private sector should be a priority
 * In the work plant, try to put the efforts of financial aspect to collect some of the indicators. We will have an M&E session and date in general this afternoon, after presenting and getting your feedback hopefully we might change the data, we will provide a comprehensive guide to assist you.
 * We had meetings 2 weeks ago across the two sites we are working in Tanzania, we discussed on partnership and scale up, how we could work with them, with how many of them will deepened on the level of investment we put in.
 * The investment projects like NAFACA and other NGOs are asking us to give them some money, for this season we are out of time bound, we can’t do it but probably for next year we can do that.
 * If we include the platforms on the work plan we can easily leverage the information.
 * The investment partners are there, we have time bound for this year but next year we will talk to them.

Question:As part of research activities, market evaluations are there, is this part of partnership building, what is the plan to engage with banks and NGOs?
 * Response: We have people talking to market institutions, we are planning to engage a lot with our partners in phase 2

Question: Nothing mentioned about policy input, projects come and go. The impact we will have on countries are very important. Let’s not forget the government and public sector.
 * Response: The Kongwa and kiteto team went to district to talk to these people, we are not going behind them, we have to link up with them with our products.

Question: We have a project document approved and those proposal developed are in considering the recommendation from the external evaluation team, why are we rushing to the work plan and when don’t have the log frame in place?
 * Response: When we are developing the proposal, we had these issues, we included the external evaluations recommendation in the proposal, we didn’t take all of them, some of their recommendations were beyond our resources support. In ESA our activities are staring as the rain will start soon that is why we should start the planning.


 * Sustainable intensification indicator framework - P. Grabowski/M. Musumba** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">(download presentation from agenda section above)
 * **Comment (Sieg):** The SI indicator framework is not for attribution or evaluation of the project, but it is rather a means for to see how each of the technologies are performing.

//Participants had a 15 minute table buzz about the presentation by C. Azzari and the following feedback were gathered from the 5 tables.//
 * M&E Framework for Africa RISING phase 2 - C. Azzarri** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">(download presentation from agenda section above)

__Table 1:__
 * We need user friendly forms that are not pre-populated. Consider shifting to ODK (Open Data Kit)
 * The current M&E tools should adopt a systems approach address all the other SI components (nutrition, crop-livestock etc not yield only

__Table 2:__
 * The responsibility for monitoring was not known from phase 1, but was decided at the end of phase 1
 * The exact evaluation of beneficiaries was sometimes difficult – direct vs indirect beneficiaries both
 * **Comment (Azzari):** The beneficiary selection was done (project sites) were selected by USAID and when IFPRI had very little choice on that. So at the moment there is no clear-cut answer for defining indirect beneficiaries so this is still an ongoing discussion in the project.
 * **Comment (Sobgui):** USAID has provided some clarifications on how projects can identify indirect beneficiaries; please check this on the Feed the Future document/ website?

__Table 3:__
 * There were incomplete data sets collected that would make it difficult for a proper M&E
 * We are all not on the same page on the purpose and the use of the SI indicators

__Table 4:__
 * The training and information for PMMT and CKAN was complicated. Can the IFPRI team provide a brief, clear information on these?
 * Management suggestion to cut funding if no data is uploaded is okay.
 * **Comment (Azzari):** There is a brief being developed and should be final and shared with all project partners soon. Already some partners have provided input to this brief

__Table 5:__
 * Filling of the BTTT forms – Are researchers expected to fill the BTTT form themselves
 * Baseline information was not availed in time in phase 1 hence this may have affected the targeting of project interventions in phase 1. For the new communities in phase 2, this information also needs to be obtained in advance.
 * **Comment (Azzari):** BTTT - This is a new tool, but it’s going to make the life of project partners easier. The information to be collected is not new. The local data managers will be trained on the tool and then after that they will be responsible for entering data. For all partners expanding to the new intervention sites, they should get in touch with IFPRI team and ask for support in generating baseline data.


 * Gender in Africa RISING ESA phase 2 - G. Fischer** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">(download presentation from agenda section above)

Question : Are you fulfilling more like a service function within Africa RISING or you play a strategic role (overall gender research frameworks)
 * Response: We are currently developing a framework for gender research in Africa RISING. At the moment there is no specific strategy and this was discussed with the management and initial agreement was that we align to the humidtropics gender strategy which is quite encompassing. One of the challenges that we have is that there are several strategies within IITA and humidtropics, but without a clear action plan. Gender Is already interwoven in some of the research questions of Africa RISING so some of these will provide answers to wider gender issues within the project therefore providing good opportunities.

Question: Do you have specific resources for gender responsive planning?
 * Response (Gundula): That is something important for us to think about.

Question: At which stage in the process will you be able to apply some of the tools you presented on – initial stages, mid-point or at the end?
 * Integrated analysis and redesign of farms and livelihoods - J. Groot** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">(download presentation from agenda section above)
 * Response: A lot of good analysis is going on to tell how the different technologies are fitting into the system. The tools are very much iterative process. We have a collective household data with IFPRI and these will be applied in future to farm level to see how different technologies fit into the larger systems.

Question: How do you ensure that a system is functioning or not? How can we ensure integration among the different scales of the systems?
 * Response:


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Achieving the vision of success – Hoeschle – Zeledon **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">(download presentation from agenda section above)
 * Creating partnership is not Irmgard and Mateet’s responsibility it should be all the teams’ responsibility. We should commission the team as well.
 * I am wondering if we could link with the USAID mission facilitated research for development projects, I see that as the key link.
 * The mission has monthly partners meeting that we can use as an opportunity on creating the link.
 * Finding partners are very easy but most partners require a cash benefit, the partnership we have with NAFAKA, they have their own resources and we have ours that makes our partnership smooth. If we have to engage with other partners in needs cost.
 * If we want to engage private partners, we need to show them what is in if for them.
 * The partners the team identify, they don’t have resources but they have beneficiaries
 * The partnership with N2Africa are with no money but they have many beneficiaries
 * In Tanzania we work with some districts, they gave us material to use for the demonstration, we have to look for such institutions to create partnership.
 * In Zambia, the cotton companies are very interesting, they invite agronomist to be trained , they are the key for conservation agriculture, this type of companies they don’t do it for donors they are doing it for increasing the cotton product.
 * We need to face the reality, there is no collaboration which doesn’t cost money. Any collaboration with partners needs some amount of money to use it and benefit from it.
 * We need to think in a broader aspect than the target size you have presented, private sector is probably another potential area we need to build up.
 * We need to partners with other research institutions
 * I want to know how flexible partners are in order to scale up Africa RISING technologies beyond the target size
 * We have to document the technology, the documentation include where the technologies fit in the geographical area. We have the GIS people to extrapolate which technology works where.
 * Identify which technology is feasible to farmers, it is not confined, we are not limited, if we work with USAID projects, we are confined but in our case we are not limited, they will be happy if we include other places too
 * Linking the research project, in Tanzania SARI they have Agra projects and they are including agronomies
 * We can also check across institution in working together and adopt good practices.
 * The decision makers in most of the countries we are working are not scientist, we should be strategic on the tools we are selecting to communicate with them, and on packaging our messages.
 * They are willing to listen and we need to use that as an opportunity to address the whole issue in a way which reflects system thinking.
 * The current focus in Tanzania is to increase the signature of Tanzanians who works in development in every work we do and we are working on that.


 * __<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Day 2 __**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> (Thursday 6 October, 2016)


 * Purpose and implementation of communities of practice – introductory presentation by I. Hoeschle – Zeledon** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">(download presentation from agenda section above)

Below are summarized notes from the discussions on CoPs on days 2 & 3.

__//Summary of discussions on Communities of Practice (CoP)://__ Participants revisited the discussion on the need for formation of communities of practice (picking up the discussion from day 2 of the meeting). Consensus was achieved on the need for these communities of practice and the important role they would play to address cross-cutting topics/issues running across the 3 regional projects (ESA, WA and Ethiopia). Also of significance was the fact that participants were now also in favor of having the CoPs as a formalized structure within the program and not a voluntary outfit if any significant results were to be achieved from this new concept at the heart of Africa RISING phase 2. However, there was no consensus with regards to what issues/ topics the communities of practice would be formed around. Instead participants provided the following ideas of issues to be taken note of when (rather than if) the CoPs are to be formed.
 * Lumping approach as opposed to splitting approach: As much as possible the CoPs should be formed around only a few issues (not more than five) that run across the 3 projects. Lessons will then be learnt from these initial CoPs which would then dictate whether to form smaller and ‘specialized’ ones or not as phase 2 of the program continues.
 * The CoPs should be organized around confounding topical issues that would interest partners working across the 3 project regions for example participatory research design as opposed to very thematic focus like legume value chains (Note: some participants preferred formation of the CoPs through the value chains approach) . Another possible broad area for consideration could be human nutrition.
 * Accompanying formation of communities of practice formation with trainings as a means of facilitating them would also be useful. For example the just concluded two-day training on participatory research design has ignited significant interest among scientists in ESA to engage more on this topic.
 * Program communications team could play a role by becoming the virtual conveners of these communities of practice once they are formed. But that is just one option; use of technologies like whatsapp or online message boards also offer other options that could be exploited to ensure the CoPs are vibrant and functional.
 * While the idea of forming broad CoPs and not numerous small ones makes sense; the bigger question remains how to ensure that the objectives of these kinds of CoPs are broad enough to address the interests of the likely multi-disciplinary membership which they are likely to attract?
 * The CoPs formed will have to be demand driven with initial efforts by management team to initiate them.
 * Management will need to consider having to invest some financial resources to initiate/support the CoPs once they are formed.
 * Could publication of cross-regional papers be considered as a community of practice?....or can it be used as a ‘foundation seed’ to stimulate establishment of a CoP?
 * There are also cross-cutting issues like gender and economics that apply across all the 3 regional projects that we could make for a community of practice.
 * An alternative approach to arriving at the topics of the CoPs to be formed is to carefully analyze ‘what are the key problematic issues that are common in all the 3 regional projects’. Once these are identified then the CoPs could be created as the means towards solving them by bring the specific individuals who are directly involved to form a CoP. This approach directly responds to the view of the CoPs as a learning platform across the program.
 * CoPs need to be formal if they are to make any meaningful contribution to the program. 3 factors drive these kinds of things – money, command and pleasure. So in our case command is one incentive if USAID require us to do it; money is when the CoPs are funded and this is the incentive; pleasure is if we purely just like the idea of CoPs and are willing to run with it anyways without any external influence.
 * CoPs aim is not to achieve standardization, but rather to harmonize activities of the program (3 projects).
 * Organize the CoPs around the sustainable indicator domains? M & E? Gender? Extension? Scaling?
 * CoPs will play a significant role in establishing the legacy of the Africa RISING program.

Participants also discussed the issue of CoPs further in groups and came up with the following points:
 * **Group** || **How to form them...and keep them sustainable** || **Possible ways of operationalizing them** || **Possible incentives for their formation** || **Topics to be considered for the CoPs** || **Possible challenges or hurdles to CoPs** ||
 * Group 1 || * They should be demand driven (out of common interest)
 * There could be initial efforts to form them, but after left to self-regulate || * Email communication, maybe initial call
 * Online discussion board
 * Private LinkedIn groups; Google/Yahoo Groups<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> or even WordPress || * Information sharing
 * Tools
 * Feedback by scientists to each other || * Seed systems
 * Post-harvest losses/storage
 * Monitoring and Evaluation
 * Survey methods and other specific methods || * They may demand additional time input
 * There may emerge differences of opinion in the CoPs – collegial
 * Process for starting after
 * Not all CoPs have to thrive to the end ||
 * Group 2 || * Need to be formed around topical issues around research and development
 * Carefully consider issue of membership – Africa RISING scientists and invited people? What about maximum number of people who can be members? || * Trainings needed for each CoP
 * Need for a designated convener – is key and needs careful consideration
 * Consider using low cost common platforms for communication
 * Will require good documentation
 * Project<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> communication team to be virtual conveners || * Participatory approaches and analysis
 * Nutrition
 * Knowledge and technology delivery
 * Gender and youth
 * Stakeholder engagement for research and delivery
 * Soils, environment and climate change ||  || * Formation of CoPs will take time – AR project needs to set time to share experiences and explore CoPs in detail ||
 * Group 3 || * Consider forming them by themes across regions || * During planning and review meetings || * Harmonized methodologies
 * Easy data collection and analysis
 * Manuscript writing
 * Stronger cross regional collaboration in research methodology + data collection
 * Publication
 * Establishing efficacy of ta set of technologies when implemented across regions/environments || * Sustainable land and water management
 * Post-harvest (Food waste prevention + nutrition enhancement)
 * Soil health + cropping systems
 * Livestock + Feeding (nutrition + trees)
 * Cereal + Legume seed systems ||  ||
 * Group 4 || * Require common objectives
 * Can be multidisciplinary
 * Require common social platforms || * Regular online meetings
 * Require a budget || * Exchange information beyond just experiences || * Livestock – crop – integration
 * Nutrition – livestock – crops – gender
 * Gender – livestock
 * Climate smart agriculture || * Require a budget ||
 * Group 5 || * Should be based on thematic areas
 * Group formation should be based on the 5 research questions || * Develop an online platform
 * Taking advantages of other Africa RISING meetings to discuss issues in each CoP
 * Start the process of forming them now; advance it in Nov 2016; formalize in January 2017
 * Representation should be ensured across the region || * Sharing protocols and discussion ||  ||   ||

Question: I am excited about the CoPs the issue is I am struggling to understand how can this can be implemented, how we are going to choose research topics and method.
 * Response: Nothing has been discussed we just put it in the proposal. The concept behind CoPs is to increase the harmonization and interaction across the regions. It hasn’t been further discussed. As I mentioned to you in the official launch of phase 2 that will be in January, we will have an opportunity to discuss it further.

Question: I am seeing different things on your presentation, for example; communication could be community of practice, the way I see it is a platform which brings people together to do their job better. We could put research questions and other issues to discuss.Should it be organized by discipline or technology driven and how
 * Response: I don’t know the answer, this is a brainstorming session to all of us to discuss and work around it.


 * Comment: I see CoP as something related to collective action, to work on the common cause, if we think about Africa RISING, we have three different ways that could be done, we need some kind of harmonization where can we learn good things, to do what we are doing better. I like the cross regional approaches to harmonize learning and support across regions, I see this a good opportunity for us to do the phase 2.

We need to finalize work plans and logframe so that we can begin implementing our activities. //Deadlines:// The following deadlines that we have by consensus committed ourselves to will apply: //AR ESA phase 1 legacy:// The team had committed o publish their papers in a single special issue of a journal. However for various reasons this idea didn’t work largely due to poor follow up by project partners. The Chief scientists will still follow up with every scientist who promised (to publish) papers. However there will now be no special issue journal to publish in, rather each scientist is encouraged to target their preferred journal for their articles.
 * Way forward - M. Bekunda**
 * Work plans to be submitted by 14 October, 2016
 * Upload of pending data sets from phase 1 research work will be a mandatory pre-requisite for financing/ contracting. Individuals who haven’t uploaded the data will not get funded.

//End of Phase 1 report:// The Chief Scientists has sent an email to all partners to contribute different sections about their work for the end of phase 1 report that the project will be sending to USAID. The outline of this report will be different from the usual technical report sent to the donors. Partners are required to write a one pager description of the flag bearer technologies developed in phase 1. The aim is to provide to USAID a good overview of our key outputs in the project.

We are all quite exhausted. This has been a very intensive week starting with training and concluding with logframes and workplans. I thank you very much for being part of this and your dedication and engagement. These meetings are usually not so good to be done for so many days, but I think you also appreciate the reasons why they had to be done this way.As always the content in this meetings have enriched our project orientation/thinking and now let’s all go and implement. The better we perform and the better we communicate what we are doing the more we get recognition and requests for partnership as we have seen before in Tanzania, Zambia and Malawi. We will have an official launch of the Africa RISING phase 2 program from 17-19 January 2017 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. However not everybody will be able to attend due to budgetary limitations. **I would like to emphasize the issue of data upload to CKAN and the implication that failure to upload any data that is pending from phase 1 will attract a penalty (no funding)** for phase 2. So I therefore encourage all of you to upload all the data as urgently as possible. We are grateful to our facilitators for guiding us through the processes of the meeting.
 * Closing remarks - I.H-Zeledon**

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Organizers <span style="display: block; height: 1px; left: 0px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: 3384.5px; width: 1px;"> · There could be initial efforts to form them, but after left to self-regulate || · Email communication, maybe initial call · Online discussion board · Private LinkedIn groups; Google/Yahoo Groups or even WordPress || · Information sharing · Tools · Feedback by scientists to each other || · Seed systems · Post-harvest losses/storage · Monitoring and Evaluation · Survey methods and other specific methods || · They may demand additional time input · There may emerge differences of opinion in the CoPs – collegial · Process for starting after · Not all CoPs have to thrive to the end || · Carefully consider issue of membership – Africa RISING scientists and invited people? What about maximum number of people who can be members? || · Trainings needed for each CoP · Need for a designated convener – is key and needs careful consideration · Consider using low cost common platforms for communication · Will require good documentation · Project communication team to be virtual conveners ||  || · Participatory approaches and analysis · Nutrition · Knowledge and technology delivery · Gender and youth · Stakeholder engagement for research and delivery · Soils, environment and climate change || · Formation of CoPs will take time – AR project needs to set time to share experiences and explore CoPs in detail || · Easy data collection and analysis · Manuscript writing · Stronger cross regional collaboration in research methodology + data collection · Publication · Establishing efficacy of ta set of technologies when implemented across regions/environments || · Sustainable land and water management · Post-harvest (Food waste prevention + nutrition enhancement) · Soil health + cropping systems · Livestock + Feeding (nutrition + trees) · Cereal + Legume seed systems ||  || · Can be multidisciplinary · Require common social platforms || · Regular online meetings · Require a budget || · Exchange information beyond just experiences || · Livestock – crop – integration · Nutrition – livestock – crops – gender · Gender – livestock · Climate smart agriculture || · Require a budget || · Group formation should be based on the 5 research questions || · Develop an online platform · Taking advantages of other Africa RISING meetings to discuss issues in each CoP · Start the process of forming them now; advance it in Nov 2016; formalize in January 2017 · Representation should be ensured across the region || · Sharing protocols and discussion ||  ||   ||
 * Group || How to form them...and keep them sustainable || Possible ways of operationalizing them || Possible incentives for their formation || Topics to be considered for the CoPs || Possible challenges or hurdles to CoPs ||
 * Group 1 || · They should be demand driven (out of common interest)
 * Group 2 || · Need to be formed around topical issues around research and development
 * Group 3 || · Consider forming them by themes across regions || · During planning and review meetings || · Harmonized methodologies
 * Group 4 || · Require common objectives
 * Group 5 || · Should be based on thematic areas