SSA Challenge Program - Program Formulation Workshop · The sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme...

The Forum for Agriculture Research in Africa (FARA)

SUB SAHARAN AFRICAN CHALLENGE PROGRAM

Program Formulation Workshop Held at Novotel in Accra, Ghana March 10-13 2003

Workshop Documentation

Documentation compiled by: Dr. Jürgen Hagmann, Hlami Ngwenya & Abigail Fallot Workshop Facilitation and Process Design: Dr. Jürgen Hagmann

March 2003

This report documents the workshop that took place in March 10-13 2003. This report is not a final synthesized report, but tries to capture the output of the workshop in a direct, non-interpreted way as a base for shaping the final report. THIS DOCUMENTATION IS MEANT TO BE A REFERENCE DOCUMENT for all participants and intends to provide the desired transparency. Almost all results of the working groups and plenary sessions are documented here. In addition, it includes the summary reports of the synthesisers.

‘SSA-CP Programme Formulation Workshop March 10-13, Accra page ii

Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................IV

FOREWORD BY THE ORGANISERS .......................................................................................................................................... V

FOREWORD BY THE FACILITATOR........................................................................................................................................ V

EXECUTIVE S UMMARY ...............................................................................................................................................................VII

1 WORKSHOP OPENING AND INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 1.1 OPENING BY PROF. E. OWUSU-BENNOAH, DG CSIR, GHANA ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER........................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 EXPECTATIONS AND FEARS.................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP ........................................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 ANTICIPATED WORKSHOP PROGRAMME.............................................................................................................................. 5 1.6 WORKSHOP ORGANISATION................................................................................................................................................... 6

2 RE-CAPPING OF THE HISTORY OF THE SSA-CP (LONG WALK TO ACCRA)..............................................7 2.1 THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF CGIAR CHALLENGE PROGRAMS BY KANAYO NWANZE............................................... 7 2.2 PRESENTATION ON THE ‘MEETING OF MINDS (MOM) 1 & 2’ AND ON INTEGRATION OF CGIAR ACTIVITIES BY

ANNE-MARIE IZAC.............................................................................................................................................................. 11 2.3 THE SSA-CP PROPOSAL: IMPROVING LIVELIHOODS AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN

AFRICA: SECURING THE FUTURE FOR AFRICA’S CHILDREN’ BY MONTY JONES........................................................ 14 2.4 THE VISION FOR SSA-CP...................................................................................................................................................... 19 2.5 ISSUES EMERGING FROM ALL THE RE-CAP PRESENTATIONS............................................................................................ 21

3 SHARING OF EXPERIENCE - KEYNOTE PAPER PRESENTATIONS ................................................................22 3.1 INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (INRM) - TOWARDS A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT FOR SCIENCE,

BY BRUCE CAMPBELL ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 3.2 COMBATING SOIL FERTILITY DEGRADATION IN AFRICA: PROBLEMS, PROGRESS AND PARTNERSHIPS BY NTERANA

SANGINGA................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 3.3 THE CROP TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGE FOR AFRICAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT : WHAT WILL WE DO TODAY: THAT

WILL MATTER TOMORROW? BY RODOMIRO ORTIZ ................................................................................................... 26 3.4 AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY: AFRICA’S NATURAL RESOURCE UNDERPINNING FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL

PRODUCTION BY EDWARD REGE ........................................................................................................................................... 30 3.5 SUSTAINABLE MARKETING SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT BY KOFI

DEBRAH .................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 3.6 POLICIES FOR SMALLHOLDER DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA BY PETER HAZELL (IFPRI) ............................................... 41 3.7 STRENGTHENING AGRICULT URAL RESEARCH CAPACITY IN AFRICA BY AUGUST TEMU........................................... 45 3.8 INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE AND NEW INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS - CONDITIONING FACTORS ON

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA BY JOHN LYNAM ................................................................................................. 48 4 CHALLENGES EMERGING FROM THE 8 PRESENTATIONS ..............................................................................51

5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND CORNERSTONE FOR INRM BY MIKE SWIFT .................................55

6 THE VALUE ADDED BY THE CP .......................................................................................................................................56

7 A FIRST SYNTHESIS TOWARDS FORMULATION OF SSA-CP............................................................................57

8 SUB REGIONAL LEVEL GROUP DISCUSSIONS.........................................................................................................61 8.1 PRESENTATION OF THE ASARECA GROUP....................................................................................................................... 61 8.2 PRESENTATION OF THE SADC GROUP................................................................................................................................ 63 8.3 PRESENTATION OF THE CORAF GROUP............................................................................................................................. 67

9 SYNTHESIS OF SUB -REGIONAL GROUP PRESENTATIONS ...............................................................................72 9.1 COMMON THREADS/ CONVERGENCE................................................................................................................................... 72 9.2 DIVERGENT ISSUES................................................................................................................................................................ 73 9.3 WHAT IS NEW/ DIFFERENT?.................................................................................................................................................. 74

10 SSA-CP PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT: OUTLINE, GAPS, PROCESS..............................................................75

11 PRESENTATION OF THE GOVERNANCE GROUP ...............................................................................................78

‘SSA-CP Programme Formulation Workshop March 10-13, Accra page iii

12 OTHER ISSUES ......................................................................................................................................................................84 12.1 LINKAGES WITH OTHER CP’S............................................................................................................................................... 85 12.2 WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IN THE FIRST YEAR?................................................................................................................... 85 12.3 DEFINITION OF CP PROBLEMS.............................................................................................................................................. 86 12.4 GOVERNANCE......................................................................................................................................................................... 86

13 WORKSHOP EVALUATION AND CLOSING............................................................................................................87

14 ANNEX.......................................................................................................................................................................................88 14.1 ANNEX 1: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS......................................................................................................................................... 88

‘SSA-CP Programme Formulation Workshop March 10-13, Accra page iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ARI Advanced Research Institute ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central

Africa CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CBO Community-based organisation CG or CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CORAF/WECARD

Conseil Ouest Africain Pour la Recherche et le Developpement Agricole/West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development

ECART European Consortium for Agricultural Research and Training FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa IARC International Agricultural Research Center ILRI International Livestock Research Institute INM Integrated nutrient management INRM Integrated Natural Resource Management IPM Integrated pest management ISFM Integrated soil fertility management MOM Meeting of Minds NARES National agricultural research and extensions systems NARI National Agricultural Research Institute NARS National Agricultural Research System NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NGO Non-Governmental Organization NR Natural resources NRM Natural Resource Management PAR Participatory Action Research R & D Research and Development PAC Programme Advisory Committee PSC Programme Steering Committee SADC/FANR Southern African Development Community (SADC),

Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Department (FANR) SRO Sub-Regional Organisation S&W Soil and water WEHAB Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity and ecosystem management WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

‘SSA-CP Programme Formulation Workshop March 10-13, Accra page v

Foreword by the Organisers

The Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme Workshop was indeed a ‘workshop’. It was characterised by intense roundtable debates and energetic breakout group discussions that were well informed by briefings on the new paradigm for integrated natural resource management and its key programmatic and institutional components.

The discussions were frank and did not avoid controversies. This demonstrated very clearly that the SSA CP is proposing a new and different way of conducting agricultural research for Africa’s development and that there is a deep commitment to improving livelihoods through the application of INRM amongst all the institutions represented at the Workshop.

FARA is grateful to the participants for the many suggestions and valuable information that was provided for further development of the SSA CP proposal and will continue to seek their input in developing and ultimately implementing it.

Monty Jones

FARA, Executive Secretary

Foreword by the Facilitator

When I was offered the assignment to facilitate this workshop, it was described as ‘difficult’ workshop with 40 participants. Finally we were about 100 people and with the number, the agendas and complexity increased as well. However, despite the difficulty, we were successful in converging ideas and developing the ingredients for the SSA-CP. The good spirit in the group and its will put the convergence over the individual agendas. This is a good indicator for the energy behind the SSA-CP and its potential for success, provided this can be sustained. It was also amazing to see the desire of participants to create change in the way of doing business in R&D in Africa which again is a good omen for the challenge programme

I would like to thank all the participants for their active participation and dedication during the workshop. The process steering group spent a lot of extra time to jointly plan the workshop. Without their ‘steering’ and ideas, it would have been much more difficult make the ‘loose ends meet’. The effective work of Myra Wopereis and her team in the background in organising logistics was really appreciated by all – many thanks! Without Hlami’s input to keep us energised and her assistance in managing the facilitation process I would not have been able to handle that large group. In addition without Hlami’s and Abigail’s contribution to the workshop documentation, we would not have such a document capturing all the discussions. Many thanks!

Last, but not least, I would like to congratulate and thank Monty Jones and Ralph von Kauffmann for their great effort to make this workshop a success and for inviting me to facilitate it. It was a pleasure to work with you and with the whole group

Wish you all the best and lots of success for the SSA-CP!

Jürgen Hagmann

‘SSA-CP Programme Formulation Workshop March 10-13, Accra page vi

Independent Process Consultant / Facilitator

‘SSA-CP Programme Formulation Workshop March 10-13, Accra page vii

Executive Summary By Ralph von Kauffmann

With incomes and food security in sub-Saharan Africa worsening and natural resources deteriorating at alarming rates there is urgent need for a new approach to improving livelihoods based on sustainable use of natural resources. There are five fundamental preconditions for the new approach to be successful. It must have grassroots buy-in. It must have high-level endorsement and support. There has to be the capacity to do the job. And there has to be congruence with African regional and sub-regional priorities.

The sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme has these characteristics but they must be continuously reinforced by the way that the Programme is developed and implemented. As an important step in ensuring this, FARA hosted a Programme Formulation Workshop in Accra, 10 – 13 March 2003, that was attended by over 100 representatives from African national agricultural research systems including African universities, the sub-regional agricultural research organisations, the CGIAR centres and other international centres active in Africa, advanced research centres from out of Africa, UN agencies, NGOs, African farmers organisations, the private sector, and investors in African agricultural research for development from national and intergovernmental agencies and foundations.

The workshop was opened by Dr. Emmaunuel Owusu-Bennoah, Director General, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research of Ghana. who affirmed the Government of Ghana’s commitment to agricultural research for development and its support for involving all stakeholders in coordinated international efforts.

The workshop was designed and facilitated by a professional facilitator, Dr. Jürgen Hagmann in a flexible and highly interactive process of round-table and plenary discussions to address the issues that could affect, not just the content of the proposed programme, but also the concerns and expectations of the participants. The hidden agendas and the constituencies were drawn out along with expectations and fears of what should and should not happen at the workshop. This created a conducive ambiance for free and open discussion, which proved invaluable throughout the Workshop.

The first session of the Workshop addressed its overall goal, which was defined as designing a programme that will be owned by stakeholders and will build and add value to previous efforts. After adding to and refining it the participants confirmed that the goal matched their expectations. After a review of how the pre-proposal had been developed, the Workshop agreed the proposed programme and the role of a Workshop Process Group in collecting feedback from participants and each evening planning the next day’s activities. A Documentation Committee was formed to capture the outputs of the discussions for the workshop proceedings.

The second session provided participants with essential background information on the steps that had led to them coming together to develop the SSA CP. And how this will contribute to an African-led programme that will draw the diversity of players in agricultural research for Africa’s development into an integrated and harmonised programme as a means for maximising research efficiency and impact. This included briefings on the Challenge Programmes as vehicles for restructuring the CGIAR and the ‘Meeting of Minds’ series of consultations between the CGIAR centres and African NARS.

The context for further development of the SSA CP was provided by a briefing on the preproposal that had been approved for further development by the interim Science Council of the CGIAR. This led to a fresh look at the vision statement, which confirmed the vision set out in the SSA CP title, i.e.,

Improving Livelihoods and Natural Resource Management in sub-Saharan Africa: Securing the future for Africa’s children.

‘SSA-CP Programme Formulation Workshop March 10-13, Accra page viii

But added that the SSA CP:

• is part of the resource mobilisation process for the hunger and poverty targets of the Millenium Development Goals and NEPAD;

• it will provide added value to the on-going agenda for agricultural research for development in Africa by providing a framework for resource allocation and prioritisation with the objective of achieving greater coherence, efficiency and impact through the application of the principles of Integrated Natural Resource Management;

• it will build capacity for integrated approaches in both programmatic and institutional dimensions;

• at the programmatic level, the CP will promote work on the interactions between the components of the resources to policy chain; and,

• at the institutional level, multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional teams, drawn from the full spectrum of partners, will learn to work together towards joint INRM goals.

The third session focussed attention and discussion on status of the preproposal and produced a number of important suggestions as to how the SSA CP could be strengthened. Many of which concerned the development of better linkages with stakeholders and other on-going research programmes.

The fourth session was designed to give the participants more detailed understanding of the underlying problems and opportunities to be address in research organisation and programming. These covered the main components of the new paradigm for integrated natural resource management. Opening with a comprehensive overview of INRM, it continued with presentations on the components of integrated soil fertility management and the role of advances in crop production in soil and water management. In keeping with the widened paradigm for INRM, the participants were also briefed on the utilisation of biodiversity, and the roles of markets, policies and capacity building. The session was concluded with an over view of the institutional issues related to implementing INRM.

The fifth session was devoted to addressing the challenges that had emerged from the eight presentations. This became a very substantial discussion providing information and suggestions that will strengthen the SSA CP proposal, especially in how the different components should be integrated. The intensity of the discussions and the controversies that arose demonstrated two important points about the SSA CP. Firstly it demonstrated very clearly that the SSA CP is proposing a new and different way of conducting agricultural research for Africa’s development and secondly that there is a deep commitment to INRM amongst all the institutions represented at the Workshop.

In the sixth session, the participants took another look at the conceptual framework of INRM. This provided useful references to bodies, such as the CGIAR, that have been addressing INRM to determine what it is and how it is done.

The seventh session addressed the critical issue of how the SSA CP, as a continental programme, will add value to what is already being done, or could be done, at the sub-regional level. The outcome of these discussions provided valuable keys for mobilising resources for the Programme through identifying convergence with the goals and objectives of development agencies.

Provision was made in the eighth session for the participants to hear a synthesis of the issues that had been dealt up to that point. This ensured that no major issues had been overlooked and exposed some of the crosscutting issues. Of particular importance were the processes for identifying entry points for INRM and the criteria for selecting components. It completed the preparation for the Workshop to break into sub-regional working groups to discuss the congruence of the SSA CP with sub-regional priorities.

‘SSA-CP Programme Formulation Workshop March 10-13, Accra page ix

The sub-regional breakout groups reported back in the ninth session. Their presentations conveyed some differences in approach and ordering of priorities but they were entirely consistent in the adopting the new paradigm for INRM and they confirmed high levels of commitment to implementing the SSA CP in the sub-regions.

The tenth session brought out the common threads and convergences between the conclusions of the sub-regional breakout groups. In a break with past concepts of NRM, Market and policy issues as well as human and institutional capacity building were seen as integral components of INRM. There were also important suggestions concerning the scaling up of programme outputs and linkages with the ‘big picture’ through NEPAD And the importance of engaging the private sector.

Sessions 11 considered the shape of the proposal and how it would be written. A Drafting Committee was formed which will provide further input to the development of the SSA CP funding proposal. As the draft takes shape it will be circulated to the SSA CP Task Force and to all the Workshop Participants for further feedback. And, it will be presented for further review by stakeholders at the FARA Plenary in Dakar, Senegal 17 – 19 May 2003.

The 12th session was devoted to a presentation and discussions on programme governance. This provided much food for thought in the process of devising a structure that will be lean, effective and efficient in governing a widespread and complex programme without becoming too burdensome an overhead. It was noted that considerably more work was needed on this aspect of the proposal.

The 13th session which was devoted to discussing ‘other’ issues brought out matters related to collaboration with other programmes, particularly other challenge programmes, in order to maximise opportunities for adding value and avoiding duplications. The Vision, Mission, Goals and objectives were revisited. And the matters that would have to be addressed in the first year which included establishing the governance structure, the competitive grants process and establishing baselines and procedures for effective monitoring and evaluation.

The 14th and final session was devoted to evaluating the workshop. The consensus was that the Workshop had achieved its goal in as much as it had made a substantial contribution to designing an SSA CP that will be owned by stakeholders and will build on and add value to previous efforts. The participators were especially appreciative of the facilitation that had enabled them to contribute frankly and effectively.

‘SSA-CP Programme Formulation Workshop March 10-13, Accra page 1

1 Workshop Opening and Introduction

1.1 Opening by Prof. E. Owusu-Bennoah, DG CSIR, Ghana

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure and honour that I welcome all of you to this historic workshop in Accra.

I am delighted to see Director Generals of some CG Centers, Directors of various NARS from CORAF/WECARD, ASARECA, SACCAR, ARIs IARCs and representatives of some NGOs present at this meeting. Prof. Mukibi, the Chairman of FARA should have been here to deliver this welcome statement, but owing to circumstances beyond his control, he is unable to be with us today. He extends his warmest felicitations to all participants.

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, about a year ago we all met in Maputo, Mozambique and launched a continental organization the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). FARA was given a mandate i.e. to play advocacy role for agricultural research and development by forging strategic alliances in Africa between the NARS, SROs, ARIs, IARCs, the civil societies, political bodies and African investors. FARA was charged to enhance and add value to the effectiveness and efficiency of agricultural research systems in Africa in order to contribute to agricultural development and economic growth and sustainable use of natural resources. It is to the credit of FARA that during its short existence as a continental organization, it has been able to submit a pre-proposal for the Sub-Saharan African Challenge Programme (SSA-CP) to the Consultative Group on Agricultural Research Interim Science Council (CGIAR iSc) which has been accepted. The Challenge Programme pre-proposal is on Improving Livelihoods and Natural Resources Management in Sub-Saharan Africa. It aims at a very ambitious but very fundamental objective, i.e. breaking the unsustainability spiral that dominates agricultural development in the SSA at the individual farmer’s level, local level and regional level. The ultimate goal of this initiative is to contribute to the eradication of food insecurity and poverty through research, policy support and capacity building.

According to World Bank report 2002, more than 90 million people living in extreme poverty are found in the rural areas of West and Central Africa. This number is expected to exceed 140 million by 2020 according to ECA (Amoako, 1999). 80% of all Africans live on a daily income of less than 2 US Dollars and nearly half struggle to survive on 1 US Dollar a day or less. Rural people continually struggle to feed themselves, while the urban population spend more than 70% of its earnings on food, leaving only 30% for other minimum basic needs such as housing, education, health care, water and other needs. Hunger, poverty and malnutrition are the main factors interacting to create an enormous setback to socio-economic development in the rural areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. Our collective responsibility will include finding acceptable means of rescuing this class of our people.

It is in the light of this that I find the objective of this Challenge Programme Formulation Workshop with inputs from SROs, NARS, CG Centers, ARIs and NGOs to be extremely important. I consider it a wonderful opportunity we have to develop a proposal which seeks to address crucial problems facing SSA in an integrated manner. This partnership approach will help FARA to build a first class programme for the Sub-Saharan Africa.

The road to improve partnership between CG Centres and NARS has been long and tortuous one in the past, but now under FARA we have began to see real co-operation which may augur well for African research and development.

We do have five days of hard work ahead of us and it is my hope and prayer that by the end of this week, a full proposal for the SSA-CP would have been developed.

To the various donors who supported FARA financially and without whom this workshop could not have taken place, I wish to say how much we are grateful and appreciative of your support. And here let me pledge the support of the government and the people of Ghana to FARA to make it achieve its mission.

I wish for all of the participants a resounding success to the Workshop and a pleasant stay in Ghana. Thank you.


After the opening speech Dr. Monty Jones (FARA Executive Secretary) handed over to Dr. Jürgen Hagmann who had the task to manage the workshop as professional facilitator. Jürgen

introduced Hlami Ngwenya who assisted the facilitation process. He explained the basic

values, principles and methods which will be used in the facilitation of the workshop and concluded with a ‘contract’ between him and the group on the way to go about.

He also introduced the process steering group

(12 participants representing a cross-section of all stakeholders) which was to play a very

important role. Together with the facilitator

they were to collect feedback from participants. In the evening, they were to

review what went well and did not go well each

day and to suggest modifications, and based on that assessment, elaborate on the detailed

agenda for the following day. This was to ensure

that the process fully considers the needs and concerns of all participants.

1.2 Getting to know each other The facilitator introduced a task for participants to introduce each other:

The discussions around

the tables were lively and provided an

interactive atmosphere

from the start.

As a way of setting the scene and making the participants relax, the facilitator requested the

participants to have a round the table discussion about what they think could be the hidden

agendas in the workshop. The following were the outcome of those discussions:

Introduce yourselves around your table along the following questions:

1. Who are you and where are your roots? 2. What is your job title (official and what you

really do) 3. What are you proud of in your life?

Then speculate together what the 3 main hidden agendas in the room are and put them on cards!

Workshop Process Group 1 Task • To get feedback from participants on the

workshop process • To plan together with the facilitator in the

evenings, the next day, based on the desired outputs and participants feedback.

2 Members Doug Merrey John Lynam Tim Chancellor Jean Ndikumana Abigail Fallot Pete Ewell Mike Swift Monty Jones Moctor Toure Kofi Bebra Ralph von Kaufmann Eyasu Elias Onesmo ole-Moifoi Jürgen Hagmann Keoagile Molapong Hlami Ngwenya


The hidden agendas in the room • Donor reducing support interest?

• Reforming and hijacking institutions • Seeking job opportunities

• Strategizing money • Ownership, funding visibility of FARA

• Risk that Hodge rose of specific interest will kill funds for CP as a whole

• Justify FARA & CG’s at the expense of Bi-lateral and national research

• Scramble for money, Grab the money, I want the money

• Roles of participants in CP

• Fear that money will be taken from existing program

• How about my field of interest? (Fish on the plate)

• What is in it for my institution or country?

• CGIAR system wants to re-take the lead of ARD in Africa

• FARA tries to justify its existence through leading the CP

• Institutional mandate (Visibility)

• Control/ access to funds

• Donor swing • Relationship between FARA and SRO’s

• Manipulation of NARS & SRO to benefit it to institutional system

• Leadership of SSA-CP • Goals of CP should not be diverted by special

interest

• To ignore farmers • Gig, broad proposal without clear purpose

• Financial benefit for organisation • In the end all participants want their own

piece of pie-Dividing the pie

• How will NARS be involved • How to move resources down to farm level

form Institutional & regional organisation • My ideas should be the ones which could be

the pillars of the CP • Positioning (by individuals)

• What role for SRO’s

Through this exercise the ‘hidden agendas’ were now on the table – which created a rather

relaxed atmosphere and openness. Differentiation and standpoint Then the group was asked to position themselves physically in groups of similar stakeholders

and the differences were discussed. For example, there was only 1 representative from the

private sector…. NGO’s: 3

DONORS: 9

Farmers: 2

SRO: 7

FARA: 5

CGIAR: ±20

ARI: 8

NARS: ±16

Development agents ??

Private sectors - 1

The group was also asked to position itself vis a vis 3 provocative statements which the

facilitator made. They had the choice to ‘fully agree’ or ‘agree a bit’ or to disagree a bit or fully. The discussion was very lively and interesting and revealed the history and previous

experiences of participants. The statements were:

• SSA-CP is just redistribution of money: only 3 strongly disagree. Comment1: USAID money to national research centres won't decrease, USAID will put new money.

Comment2: from the "Water and food" CP experience, we can hope to raise new money.


Ccomment3: it's shame to think SSA-CP is only redistribution of money, it all depends on you, as participants to its formulation to make it attractive. Other comments: let's

see what we can do with the SSA-CP for it to bring new money

• SSA-CP comes from Washington – it is not a true partnership! most comments: it's

about Africa, its elaboration is based in Africa (FARA), it can be appropriated, let's see

how SSA-CP can be truly pan-African

• This workshop brings together a great diversity of people coming here to get a

piece of the cake (money for their own programmes)


1.3 Expectations and fears In order to identify the major expectations and fears of participants, a brainstorming exercise was carried out on the following question:

What should happen in this workshop is:

Concept and proposal elaboration

• Consensus of content, structure and values • Clarification of the program content

• Concrete, realistic, innovative, value adding proposal

• A clear framework for the proposal

• Clear priorities, plans, output for CP • Practical and achievable goals

• Focus on the issues (research for development agenda)

• Development focus

• Consensus building • Clear framework for exciting R & D

Ownership/ partnership f SSA stakeholders

• Constantly reminded of African driven-African led

• Partnership that are equal and transparent

• Commitment to Africa • Equal partnership

• Clarification of African contribution • Proposal fully owned by SSA stakeholders

• Sense of joint mission

• New model of strategic alliance and collaborative platforms

• Willingness for institutional learning and change to serve the goals of the CP

Don’t forget farmers • Stay focused on farmers realities • Outcome of the workshop should take into

account interest of farmers and women

Open and free discussions • All view expressed • Frank and open discussions on issues

• Time consciousness • Resources for implementations • Optimism • Flush out hidden agendas • Workshop should not fail to produce output and

way forward •

and the fears:

What should not happen in this workshop is:

• Workshop dominated by the thinking of small ‘clients’ or interest groups

• Mixed pots of individual agendas

• Continued mistrust

• No donor disappointment with the workshop

• Guide against polarization (Institution, region)

• Hijacked by special interests • Hijacking of CP by special interest

• Vague document and plans • Incomplete proposal • Intolerance and cynism • Business as usual • Resistance to new approaches research,

management, priority setting etc • Forget rural population

Expectations and fears revealed some of the key concerns of the participants and issues to be

discussed. Some of the warnings that came out of the expectations and fears served as


reminders for the group. The expectations were compared with the workshop objectives proposed by the organising committee and agreed upon by all the participants.

1.4 Objectives of the Workshop Then the facilitator presented the workshop objectives as agreed by the workshop process

steering group:

Participants agreed that the broader objectives match with their expectations. Some additions were made to the proposed objectives. Then the basic steps of the workshop were

explained in the form of a road map and an overview programme was presented and discussed.

The road map of the workshop showed the logical flow of the workshop:

Goals and Objectives The workshop aims at designing an SSA-CP, which is owned by stakeholders

and build and adds value to previous effort. Specific objectives are: • To clarify the vision of the outcome and the objectives of the SSA-CP

• To analyse the constraints presently the ‘INRM system’ in agric. R &D to be more effective and efficient, and the opportunities emerging

• To identify the ‘niche’ of the SSA-CP, which adds value to SRO’s, NARS and partners

• To elaborate on the research program and structure and priorities and the links between program structure and implementation-building on existing experience

• To clarify the nature of the institutional arrangements required to operationalise the SSA-CP

• An overarching objective is to share ideas ‘new science’, new approaches, and to enhance partnership

The initial roadmap – which changed quite a lot during the journey.....


1.5 Anticipated Workshop Programme The facilitator presented an overview programme based on the objectives. However, it was stressed that the workshop process might require adaptations that will be done flexibly from

day to day. Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Session 1

Opening and setting the scene

Sharing of new experience (cont’d)

SRO working groups on operationalisation

Organisational issues

Session 2

Recap of the process

Defining the key challenges and prioritization

SRO working groups (cont’d)


Session 3

Vision of the outcome of SSA-CP

Identification of the scope of possible operation

SRO working groups (cont’d)


Session 4

Sharing of new experience (paper presentations and discussions)

Scope of operation (cont’d)

SRO working groups and presentations

Next steps, workshop synthesis and evaluation

Evening session

Preparation by the process steering group

Cocktail reception Open space discussion Open space discussion

Open space discussion

Participants agreed on this broad outline and on the fact that the programme will be handled

flexibly and be adapted according to the flow of the discussions.

• Recap: How did we get to Accra/ SSA-CP?

• Where do we want to go, what do we want to achieve with the SSA-CP?

• What new things/ experiences/ opportunities should

we integrate into SSA-CP in order to move towards a new way of doing business?

• What are the emerging priority challenges with regard to value added and synergies

• What kinds of sub-programs and strategies are then required to address these challenges?

• What does all this implies for sub-regions?

• How should we then organise ourselves?

• What should be done in the first year?


1.6 Workshop organisation Some issues on the workshop organisation were clarified.

After the drafting committee was

introduced, a concern arouse from the

participants that there was no representative from Southern Africa in the

committee. It was then decided that more

members be included in the committee to ensure full representation of all

stakeholders.

Documentation Committee • All crude outputs will be documented (text and

pictures) in workshop documentation. (Abigail Fallot, Jurgen Hagmann and Hlami Ngwenya)

• Rapporteurs will summarize group work sessions • Synthesizers will make a synthesis of major

blocks/themes: • Drafting committee will use the output of the

workshop to draft the full proposal (Ralph von Kaufmann, Anne-marie Izac, Mike Swift, Dannie Romney, August Temu, Pascal Sanginga, Anne Denniston, Bruce Campbell, Nterana Sanginga, Rodomiro Ortiz, Edward Rege, Peter Hazell, John Lynam and Bob Booth


2 Re-capping of the history of the SSA-CP (Long walk to Accra)

Even before the initiative for the CP has been started, a series of meetings and processes

took place. On that basis, a pre-proposal for the Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme (SSA-CP) was drafted and submitted to the Consultative Group on Agricultural research

Interim Science Council (CGIAR ISC). The pre-proposal was reviewed by the ISC, presented

at the October 2002 CGIAR Annual General meeting in Manila and subsequently discussed by the CGIAR Executive Council. And FARA has been authorized to produce a full funding

proposal for submission to the CGIAR

It was therefore, necessary during this workshop to bring the participants on board on how

they got to Accra. A number of presentations were made in order to highlight the road

travelled, which led to this workshop. After each presentation, participants were given a platform to ask questions of clarity and to give their inputs.

2.1 The Purpose and Scope of CGIAR Challenge Programs by Kanayo

Nwanze The first presentation was about the restructuring of CG, which was made by Kanayo F. Nwanze, DG WARDA-The Africa Rice centre.

What's new about the CP concept?

• Partnership: Multi-institutional, across-the-board partnerships • Base: Excellent science, multidisciplinary • Framework: Programs relevant to CGIAR missions • Funding: Attractive to donors for huge up-front funding • Governance: Independently managed, with oversight from CG Executive Council

Underlying mechanisms of CP • Time-bound programs of high impact research • Complement the existing programmatic approaches • Use the expertise of CGIAR Center programs and expanded partnerships • Build on the regional approach to planning and implementation

Why was it necessary to create the CP concept?

• Result of reforms within CGIAR • Response to emerging global challenges • Decreasing trend of donor funding • Decreasing relevance of CGIAR • Little impact on the ground • It was critical for CGIAR to be:

- Relevant in the new global paradigmEfficient in mobilizing stable long-term financingCapable of addressing complex global issues

- Open to new modes of partnership through networking How are CP’s developed? • Clear guidelines from CGIAR


• Five-phase development-implementation-evaluation process • Criteria linked to each phase • Consultations with stakeholders • CP’s will emerge through:

- Regional priority setting (bottom-up processes); and/or - Gap analysis in research for the poor; and/or - Links to international conventions; and/or - Build on CGIAR system wide and eco-regional programs - Proposals evaluated by Science Council - Proposals selected through a competitive process

Five-phase CP process Phase 1: Idea generation / Concept note Phase 2: Development of pre-proposals Phase 3: Development of full proposals Phase 4: Program implementation Phase 5: Program evaluation Types of CP’s

• Pilot CP’s - Water and food - Bio-fortified crops for improved human nutrition - Unlocking genetic diversity in crops for the resource-poor

• Regular CP’s Process followed for regular CP

• Call for ideas or concept notes (November 2001) • 41 concept notes received and evaluated by iSC • 13 recommended for pre-proposal development • Call for pre-proposals (April 2002) • 15 pre-proposals received • 1 recommended for full proposal development (October 2002): SSA-CP

Phase 1 - CP concept note • Open process • Short description of the concept (2-4 pages)

Criteria for CP concept note First criterion:

• Addresses an issue of high significance • Problem-focused and key issues identified • Research objectives reasonably defined • Comparative advantage of CGIAR Centers and partners highlightedSecond criterion: • Fits within the CGIAR goals • Strong links to poverty alleviation, food security, environmental sustainability • Generates international public goods

Third criterion: • Is likely to generate significant outputs and impact • Range of partnerships described • Appropriate to improve the probability of successful outcomes

Phase 2 - Development of CP pre-proposal • De-linked from idea generation • Open to anyone • Length (10-15 pages)

Criteria for pre-proposal

• Clear in terms of outputs and impacts • Clear mechanisms for the delivery of outputs


• Based on excellent science • Enhances efficiency of CGIAR • Involves CGIAR Centers and partners • Cooperative, no dominance by any institution • Evidence of stakeholder involvement • Link to priority setting mechanisms • Requires significant levels of up-front funding • Donors’ willingness to commit up-front funding • Active participation of NARS • Capacity building of NARS

Phase 3-Development of full proposal • Possible support for developing the full proposal • Full proposal (30-50 pages)

Some of the criteria for full proposal • Outputs useful; achievable within the proposed time frame • Research likely to lead to important advances in condition of the beneficiaries; also in science • CP involves at least 2 CG Centers and at least 2 NARS from the South • Clear lines of accountability and institutional arrangements • Clear governance and management arrangements • Appropriate treatment of intellectual property rights • Adequate internal performance evaluation mechanisms • Clear resource mobilization strategy outlined in the business plan • Sufficient donors willing to commit funding for the first 3-5 years

Phase 4-Program Implementation • Responsibility of the consortium (joint venture) • No fixed model

Phase 5-Program Evaluation • Monitoring and evaluation procedures • Rigorous peer review by Science Council • Impact assessment • Monitoring and evaluation procedures • Rigorous peer review by Science Council • Impact assessment

SSA-CP • Regional planning priority setting and programmatic integration • Consultative meetings (regional and sub regional levels) • Meeting of Minds I, II, III • SSA-CP – the product of those efforts • Change only in name • Traditionally, CP’s led by CGIAR Centers • SSA-CP is unique – A big challenge for us • Agriculture back on international agenda • Africa in the limelight • FARA – an African institution will coordinate this focus

FARA integrates many actors in Africa's agricultural R&D • NARS • SRO’s • IARC’s • NGOs • PS • Civil society • Farmers


• Donors CONCLUSION

• CG Centers committed to work with FARA • Pressures from interest groups • Centers to provide support to SSA-CP process • Our presence attests to that commitment • Timing is of essence • Product of our efforts – shining example • Fulfillment of the creation

Discussion points emerging from Kanayo Kwanze’s presentation Clarification 1: civil society is not equivalent of private sector, private sector needs to be

distinguished, its very important namely in terms of impacts of research. The claim for access

to markets regards local markets for small and medium enterprises.

Answer: there was a misunderstanding; private sector stands separately on the list of

stakeholders (as "PS").

Clarification 2: is the elaboration of CP exclusively done by CG ?

Answer: up to now, it has been CG who elaborated CP, now SSA-CP elaboration is by FARA,

and is an open process. FARA is not FARA Secretariat, FARA is us all here, the CG centres

are only part of the group.

Clarification 3: ARIs are missing in the power point presentation.

Answer: ARIs are very present in the elaboration of the CP, it is by error that they have been

forgotten.

Clarification 4: SSA-CP is currently in the process of reaching the level of proposal. Is there

many proposal for one CP or only one proposal? Are they other proposals than the one

discussed here?

Answer: the generation of ideas on one CP is open, ideas can come from anywhere, any group

can write a pre-proposal. Actually, two pre-proposals would have been submitted for SSA-CP,

one from FARA, one from the CGIAR, before the 2001 agreement that CG centres won't

submit their. After the pre-proposal is approved, it is the only one developed to full proposal.

Clarification 5: Does FARA have vital power on the SSA-CP?

Answer: again, the small FARA secretariat is not FARA but only a group of FARA which is very

big and involves all of us here, without vital power by any particular group.

Clarification 6: How will representation of all organisms take place, what role has each?

Answer: the purpose of the workshop is precisely that the desires of all partners are accounted

for.

Clarification 7: SSA-CP being Africa led, FARA has de facto vital power on it.

Answer: FARA will review the document, if not happy, it'll be sent back for revision to the drafting

committee, before it is presented to the FARA plenary.


2.2 Presentation on the ‘Meeting of Minds (MoM) 1 & 2’ and on Integration of CGIAR Activities by Anne-Marie Izac

Anne-Marie Izac who was the facilitator of the Eastern and Southern Africa integration initiative made a presentation of the long road behind us by.

Regional priority setting and integration of activities in Africa The long road behind us…1998: review of CGIAR

• 1999: common strategy for SSA & Vision for African Agricultural Research, MOM I and II • 1999-now: INRM task force • 2000-now: fostering regional integration in all regions • 2001: MOM III • 2001-now: challenge programs (CP)

Regional integration • CDC initiated, Dec. 2000, for all regions: ESA, WCA, CWANA • Part of global consultations and SSA consultations • To provide strategic programmatic inputs into consultations • Harness synergies • More inclusive agenda setting • Better focus on problems • Allocate responsibilities among different R&D actors and stakeholders more effectively

ESA process • Consultative, inclusive, ‘bottom up’. Involved all NARS, 16 CG centres, 2 sub-regional

organisations, NGOs, farmer organisations - interim steering group • Approved by 16 centres, by a FARA/CGIAR consultative meeting, MTM 2001

WCA and CWANA processes • WCA process: involved CORAF, IITA, WARDA, ICRISAT • CWANA process: involved two sub-regional organisations and ICARDA

Main steps in these processes • Inventory of activities of all centres active in each region • Meetings and consultations, based on brainstorming, to arrive at consensus

CWANA Regional Priorities

• Germplasm Management (crops, animals, fisheries) • Natural Resource Management • Socio-Economics & Policy • Cross-Cutting Issues • Methodologies & Approaches • Regional Specific Challenges

WCA regional priorities


8 regional programs for integration of activities

• Key trends & challenges for ESA agriculture over next 20 years and associated research questions

Regional challenges and opportunities • Population growth, urbanisation, intensification, globalisation, extension into marginal lands,

resource degradation, climate change, human health, liberalisation, market development, decentralisation, role of agricultural research sector, role of universities, changes in IT, communication systems

Equal-to-equal partnerships

• Inter-institutional teams • Collaborative advantage, shared credit

INRM

Participatory approaches

Agro-pastoral Irrigated

Rainfed Peri-urban

Post-harvest Policy Genetic resources

Capacity institution building, empowerment

Systems

Management ofagrobiodiversity

Agriculture, health& nutrition

support to policy reform

adaptationto climate

change

improving learning mechanisms,

capacities& spread of knowledge

market chainsAnalysis of

problems, priorities, impacts

Poverty alleviation,promotion ofsustainable practices& conservation of natural resources

INRM


• Transparent mechanisms, accountability • Multiple pathways to excellence • Genuine involvement of farmers and stakeholders –participatory methods

Benefits & costs of collaborative initiatives • Improved ability to address complex, multi-scalar problems • Momentum created with shared objectives, vision, synergies • High transaction costs

In conclusion • Significant number of consultations, meetings, brainstorming • Minimising transaction costs by building on achievements of past activities

Discussion points emerging from Anne-Marie’s presentation

Clarification 1: North Africa is not part of SSA, in what context are we discussing CWANA

experience?

Answer by an ICARDA member: ICARDA based in CWANA has part of the SSA countries

included in its mandate (Ethiopia, Erithrea, Sudan, Mauritania).

Clarification 2: Are aspects of activity integration linked to some political and economical

activities, within NEPAD ?

Answer: we did not go out of our way to meet politicians but it happens we are benefiting from

the support of NEPAD regarding some priorities, namely of equal partnership in the integration

process.

Clarification 3: would the SSA-CP not benchmarking the end of CG in their first phase? CG

centres are not supposed to implement programmes as national centres are, there is no

reciprocity, therefore need for mechanisms to make the link between CG and NARS

functional.

Clarification 4: for integrating activities, there must be some formal restructuring.

Answer: the rationale is not to discuss restructuring because of heavy political load. We'd rather

focus on the agenda. Nevertheless a few things have happened in terms of restructuring,

as side events.

Clarification 5: the priority setting keeps changing, sometimes the environment is propitious to

research agenda, sometimes not.

Answer: need to understand the principles behind the changes.

Clarification 6: research priorities seem quite general, couldn't be more specific? This is a

question to SRO’s.

Answer 1 by a CORAF member: yes, SRO’s have their own strategic plan and priorities, what

Anne-Marie Izac presented, is a synthesis of SRO’s priorities.

Answer 2 by a ASARECA member: ASARECA has started listing its priorities.


Clarification 7: capacity-building management is said to be a priority but it did not appeared in

the presentation.

Answer: yes, it did.

2.3 The SSA-CP Proposal: Improving Livelihoods and natural resource

management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Securing the future for Africa’s children’ by Monty Jones

Africa’s challenges (opportunities) • Growing young population • Natural resources - basis for economic growth • Ameliorate natural resources’ degradation and

biodiversity erosion


Vision for Africa’s agricultural research: 6% annual agricultural growth rate by 2020

• Dynamic agricultural markets • Net exporter of agricultural products • Food availability and affordability • Strategic player in agricultural science

and technology • Culture on sustainable use of natural

resources

National Agricultural Research Systems

• NARI • Extension • Universities • Private sector • NGOs • Farmers’ organizations

SSA CP: Goal • Food security and poverty

eradication based on environmentally sound management of natural resources through research, policy support and capacity building.

Purpose • Overcome constraints to

sustainable use of natural resources to improve livelihoods and secure the future of Africa’s children.

Objectives • Designing technologies, policies & institutional options • Improvement of input and output markets for smallholders and livestock farmers • Generate policy options • Build capacity for research and development

The new approach

• Follow an African agenda • Use of competitive grants • Linking NRM with production, marketing and

policies

The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa

CORAFCORAF

SACCARSACCAR

ASARECAASARECA

ASARECAASARECA

SACCARSACCARCORAFCORAF

FARAFARA

The The SROsSROs & FARA& FARA


FARA’sFARA’s flow of actionflow of action

Sharing and exchange of

knowledge& training

Elevating research in

INRM,GRM & biotech

Advancingpro-poor

agricultural policies and

markets

Advocacy

role

Promote functional partnerships / alliances

SROs, policy makers, NARES, IARCs, ARIs, civil

societies

NARES, IARC, ARIs, civil societies


SSA CP will promoteSSA CP will promote

• FARA’s Vision for the key areas of frontier technologies

• Framework for a new paradigm on INRM linking agricultural production, agricultural markets and policies.

Policy

Agrimarkets

Agriprod’n

Children:future farmers


• Stronger partnerships and use of participatory research • Linkages with other challenge programs

The potential key components Cross cutting themes

• INRM – new ways of doing science • Building sustainable livelihood • Building scientific capacity

Core themes

• Sustaining soils • Development of sustainable market

chains • Policies for sustainable agriculture

Considerations in developing the analytical framework

• Building sustainable livelihood • Building scientific capacity • Sustainable soils • Development of sustainable market

chain • Policies for sustainable agriculture • Opportunities for leveraging new and

additional resources

PROGRAM COMPONENTS Integrated natural resource management

• Technical innovations • Development of sustainable market

chains • Policies for sustainable agriculture • Scientific capacity building


Integrated natural resource mgtIntegrated natural resource mgtKey elements - soil fertility, water &

adaptive germplasm mgt

Participatory problem analysis

OutcomesDissemination

Policy implementationAdoption

Alternative solutions1.Production

functions2.Human well being

3.Ecosystems


INRM INRM -- Outputs & ImpactsOutputs & Impacts•Profits

•Labor use•Efficient use of

organic and inorganic inputs

•Sustainable use of resources

•Investment in fertility mgt

•health

•User-friendly models

•Improved dissemination

mat’ls•Methodologies for individual farmers,

farmer field schools, research

groups

•Improved soil quality and health•soil, water and biodiversity management and conservation•Reversed trends in deforestation, nutrient depletion, soil

erosion, genetic erosion, water pollution•Better system resilience to severe shocks i.e drought, floods etc.

INRM

Farmer’sbenefits

System’s benefits

Environmental benefits


Development of sustainable Development of sustainable market chainsmarket chains

Organize input and output

markets

Empowered farmers

organization

Private sector investment

Infrastructure and

institutional support

Profitable crop production


Policies for sustainable agriculture - Outputs & Impacts

• Enhanced rural livelihoods • More sustainable and profitable agricultural sector • Enhanced natural resource base for long-term production, particularly biodiversity, land and

soils • Enhanced capacity of policy-makers to develop enabling policies

Capacity building for agricultural research and development • New approaches in integrated natural resource management. • Multi-disciplinary approaches incorporating social research with different biophysical

disciplines. • Elevating African agricultural research and development • Enhance capabilities in INRM • Systems developed for: • Increased public awareness and resource mobilization • Efficient use of human resources, available physical facilities and priority setting; • Skills developed in managing organizational change and partnerships.


Dev’tDev’t of sustainable market chains: of sustainable market chains: Outputs & ImpactOutputs & Impact

Improved farm gate prices

More market opportunities for small holders

Adoption of improved natural resource mgt practices

Greater volumes of farm produce


Policies for sustainable Policies for sustainable agricultureagriculture

Land tenure for farmers

Basket of policy instruments

Frameworks for genetic resource

use & conservation

Valuation of Ecosystem

services

Sustainable agriculture

Public investment’s social returns


ScalingScaling--up INRMup INRM


• PSC – Headed by FARA– Members SRO, IARCs, ARIs,

NARS, NGO, private sector and other institutions

• TAC– To be formed, gives scientific

advice

• Sub regional mgmt committee– SRO secretariat

Program Steering committee (PSC)

Technical Advisory committee (TAC)

Sub regional mgmt com

GovernanceGovernance


Coordination and Governance • Program steering committee (PSC)

- FARA - SRO’s - IARC’s - ARIs - NARS - NGOs - Private sector - Other institutions/investors from Asia,

Europe, South and North America

Funding strategy • Funding resource requirements

- US$25 million per year for 5 years - Securing traditional sources - Identifying new sources

• •Budget allocation based on contributions through comparative advantage

The next steps… PPrrooggrraamm iinnii ttiiaa ttiioonnRegional and sub-regional

stakeholder workshops - Clarify objectives - Priority setting - Working relationships - Analyze Impact

• Position papers • Virtual meeting • Submission to FARA plenary and CGIAR

Elements of Success • Grassroots buy-in and direction • High level endorsement and support • The capacity to do the job • High level of congruence with regional and sub-regional research priorities

Issues raised by the CG iSC • Linkages with other existing challenge programmes, and networks • Partnerships and strategic alliances with major stakeholders • Management functions between FARA and the SRO’s • Added value • New Science

Expected outcome • Achieve ownership • Identify the new science and new approaches • Identify and articulate the added value • Set framework for funding proposal • Identify 2-3 ‘golden egg’

Issues emerging from Monty Jones’ presentation

Clarification 1: what will happen to existing programmes? Where will the US$25million come

from?


Change in fundamental mindset –towards INRM

SSA CP ‘Securing the future of Africa’s SSA CP ‘Securing the future of Africa’s children’children’

Inculcate the new paradigm of INRM

New methodologies adopted in the

primary and secondary education

Children will be the beneficiaries & the main actorsChildren will be the beneficiaries & the main actors


Focused strategy

Efficient institutions Sustainable

financing

Capable human

resources

Strong partnerships

Demand driven & outcome oriented

African agricultural research

ConclusionsConclusions


Answer: thank you very much for asking this. SSA-CP is a programme that'll reflect the priorities

of sub-regional organisations and the national programmes. SSA-CP brings additional things

to be done, new areas of research, a new dimension that will add value.

Clarification 2: similar question regarding national strategies, what will happen to them. It seems

SSA-CP is a process and tackle the software issue. It's a process to "golden eggs", maybe it

should start with iron or copper eggs.

Answer: indeed, research in natural resources management is not new, but 20 to 30 years old.

What is new is the integration, all issues brought together. For that matter different structures

are required, as well as capacity-building.

Clarification 3: the women issue is missing.

Answer: the gender issue will be addressed in the full proposal. It hasn't been developed in this

presentation that remained at a general level. By the way, 16% of women in this workshop is

an improvement!

Clarification 4: INRM is changing the way of doing business.

2.4 The vision for SSA-CP A working group among the process steering group had been requested a day before by the

facilitator to come up with a proposal for a vision statement for the CP. Moctar Touré on

behalf of a working group presented the proposed vision statement as follows: VISION OF THE SSA-CP: The SSA-CP is part of the resource mobilisation process for the hunger and poverty targets of the Millennium Development Goals and NEPAD. The SSA-CP will provide added value to the on-going agenda for agricultural research for development in Africa by providing a framework for resource allocation and prioritisation with the objective of achieving greater coherence, efficiency and impact through the application of the principles of Integrated Natural Resource Management. The CP will build capacity for integrated approaches in both Programmatic and Institutional dimensions. At the programmatic level the CP will promote work on the interactions between the components of the

resources to policy chain

The Resources to Policy Chain

POLICY

MARKETS

RESOURCES

PRODUCTION

Cross-Cutting

Component:

CAPACITY

BUILDING


Institutional Integration: Multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional teams, drawn from the full spectrum of partners, learn to work together towards joint INRM goals.

After the proposed vision statement was presented, the facilitator encouraged participants to

react, give feedback and inputs with regard to the statement so that the group could refine

their statement. Discussion points emerging from the vision statement presentation

Reaction1: problem with the spider graph, where all bubbles are groups of research, except for

the bubble named "others". The others have an other role than research, they cannot be

graphically represented at the same level than bubbles.

Reaction2: in the phrase synthesising the vision, "resource allocation" should not be presented

as the first role for SSA-CP, but well behind science (prioritisation…).

Reaction3: need for clarification on "others".

Answer: they are partners, their role depends how we see the CP, the structure is not imposed.

Integration:The Links in the Chain:Focus on

Thematic Interactions?

NATURAL RESOURCESNRM x ProductionPRODUCTIONProduction x MarketsMARKETSMarkets x PolicyPOLICY

CAPACITY BUILDING

Policy x NRM

SOME INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THEMES

POLICY

MARKETS

PRODUCTION

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Land,Environment

& Input Policies

National andWorld Trade

Policies

MarketOpportunity

MarketOperation

ProductionResponse

AdaptiveNRM

AdaptedMarketableGermplasm

SROs

NARS

IARCs

ARIs

OTHERS

FARA

SSA-CP?

??

?

??


Reaction4: to what extent do the NARI’s really exist in terms of organisations? To what extent

are universities organised to be formally part of NARI’s?

Answer: this draw us back to the definition of NARI’s, including research centres and

universities, NGOs… This definition, given at the beginning, was supposed to be accepted in

the absence of reaction then.

Reaction5: We are all here under the hat of FARA, which has R for Research, but we are talking

about a change programme rather than a research programme.

Reaction 6: On the spider graph, FARA should be left because it will integrate all partners. The

graph should bring into prominence the other partners, instead of simply putting "others".

2.5 Issues emerging from all the re-cap presentations After all the presentations were made, the facilitator requested the participants to discuss

around their table, issues that are emerging from the presentation. A number of issues

emerging were distilled in plenary. The issues as visualised by the facilitator are as follows:

Issues emerging from the Re-cap about the pre-proposal • Link with non-research constituency in policy issues &

non research issues

• Added value in addressing issues at regional level

• Present it as a truly innovative program

• Gap between new science and application (Intermediary science)

• Education system to be included

• Mechanism to integrate gender, participation

• Broadening scope for interaction

• Integration with water and food CP

• How to reach beneficiaries (not only farmers)

• Role of SMMEs

• Labour productivity, not only soil • Poverty alleviation: research only means

• Need to focus- CP will not solve all the problems

• HIV/AIDs?

• From theory to practice • Why soil fertility as an entry point?

• New way (INRM) what is it?

• Link to markets- INRM • FARA-SRO, how to manage the links?

(Regional scale problems) • Role of children? Future or now

• Role of farmers as key players?

• Better ways of dealing will all players • Approach not holistic R4D- hypothesis

testing • Use/ building on existing research

• Supply drive agenda-not demand driven • Not well organized- Farmer

organisations not well considered

• Is it a change program?

A major discussion emerged on the issue whether the CP is a change programme or a research programme. Participants were divided on this issue and no proper agreement could be reached

at that time. The facilitator left it open to be clarified towards the end of the workshop.

However, it triggered a critical thinking among participants.


3 Sharing of experience - Keynote paper presentations

A number of presentations were made in order to share different experiences and ideas.

After every presentation, participants were given a chance to ask questions of clarity to the

presenters. The participants were then requested

to discuss around the tables about challenging issues that are emerging from these presentations

and visualise them on cards. After all the eight

presentations were made, the emerging challenges were then clustered, together with the

participants.

The presentations were in power point and contained numerous graphs. Not all of them can be

displayed here due to the size of the diagrams. For

the full presentations, please contact the authors or consult the full papers.

3.1 Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) - Towards a

new social contract for science, by Bruce Campbell

Bruce Campbell shared his experience by presenting a paper on Integrated Natural Resource Management.

Outline Conceptual framework Framework for operationalising INRM Concluding remarks Balancing hard and soft sciences Decisions must be Made and internalised by stakeholders Creating adaptive capacity So, technologies devised today may not be relevant to tomorrows livelihoods Institutional analysis and development is central Becoming systems thinkers Multiple scales of analysis and intervention

SocialSocialAdapting

and learningAdapting

and learning

Towardsaction research

Towardsaction research

MeasuringImpact

MeasuringImpact

ManagingknowledgeManagingknowledge

Socialorganization

of science

Socialorganizationof science

10. Realigningscientific

culture andorganization

10. Realigningscientific

culture andorganization

11. Leadershipand facilitation11. Leadershipand facilitation

Institutionalanalysis

Institutionalanalysis

What typeof science

to do where

What typeof science

to do where

Creatingadaptivecapacity

Creatingadaptivecapacity

Balancinghard and soft

sciences

Balancinghard and soft

sciencesMultiple scales

of analysisand intervention

Multiple scalesof analysis

and intervention

Becomingfocusedsystemsthinkers

Becomingfocusedsystemsthinkers

Conceptualcornerstones

of INRMSocial

organizationof science

Socialorganizationof science Adapting

and learningAdapting

and learning

What typeof science

to do where

What typeof science

to do where

9. Buryingthe research-developmentcontinuum

9. Buryingthe research-development

continuum


→ Households: S&W conservation and tree planting → Groups: Irrigation expansion → Groups: Empowering irrigation committees → Communities: common property resources → District council: reforming bye-laws

Towards action research “If you want to know how things work, just try and change them” (Kurt Lewin) Measuring impact Impact assessment must be integral to social learning Burying the research-development continuum Partnerships built on mutual trust, respect and ownership by all

Greater inclusiveness in planning More transparent and open communication Especially in preparatory stages

Cross-disciplinary research and development teams In this CP audience… how many social scientists?? Use integrative hypotheses

Current: That improved water saving/collecting technologies for rain fed agriculture can significantly improve production potential In Future: Identify weaknesses in organizations for implementing INRM Focus on capacity of local organizations for INRM M&E and impact assessment part of entire process, from start

Concluding remarks Cornerstones serve as a checklist which can be used for self-reflection and evaluation Each cornerstone needs to be considered – the weakest becomes threat to whole INRM: a new way of doing business? Don’t get lost in the “whole”

Discussions on Bruce’s presentation

Question 1: Does the low representation of social scientists invalidate the SSA-CP?

Question 2: about institutions, how do you inform policy makers?

Question 3: has the SSA-CP already started on the wrong foot, there is not enough farmers?

Question 4: are we lost, close, or somewhere?

Answers: a lot of stakeholders are involved but not necessarily at the same time. In fact, it is

difficult to know when to bring players in the process, INRM by itself is a learning process,

setting up a framework to make sure different stakeholders are involved. On a continent wide

meeting, it is impossible to invite farmers, more realistically farmers' organisations.

Operationalising INRM

Operationalising INRM

1. Partnerships built on mutual trust, respect and

ownership by all

1. Partnerships built on mutual trust, respect and

ownership by all

2. Cross-disciplinary research and

development teams?

2. Cross-disciplinary research and

development teams?

3. Organizational capacity for INRM

processes

3. Organizational capacity for INRM

processes

4. Clear roles and commitments of implementing

partners at each level

4. Clear roles and commitments of implementing

partners at each level

5. PAR & learning process approaches by

all partners

5. PAR & learning process approaches by

all partners

6. Access to pragmatic knowledge

(technologies, policies, institutions)

6. Access to pragmatic knowledge

(technologies, policies, institutions)

7. Effective communication

strategy

7. Effective communication

strategy

8. Shared problem focus

8. Shared problem focus

9. Effective facilitation and coordination at

different levels

9. Effective facilitation and coordination at

different levels

10. Explicit scaling-up strategy-based on best bets

10. Explicit scaling-up strategy-based on best bets

11. Short-term gains through the process itself – no

handouts

11. Short-term gains through the process itself – no

handouts

1. Partnerships built on mutual trust, respect and ownership by all

1. Partnerships built on mutual trust, respect and ownership by all


Remark 1: the title is misleading, it does tell precisely what should be integrated.

Answer 1: because the way INRM is now included in the CG is accepted, we have to live with it.

Answer 2: a better title would be "a new contract for science".

Remark 2: the example is problematic, examples always are even if the point they are to

illustrate is right, because it is an example of poverty reduction instead of production increase.

Remark 3: INRM involves much more people than the research people we are.

3.2 Combating Soil Fertility Degradation In Africa: Problems, Progress

and Partnerships by Nterana Sanginga

Content

• Problems • Progress and achievements • Challenges • Developing partnerships in SSA-CP

Problems: Why Focus on Soils in Africa • Low /declining/ unstable land productivity • Interactions with the other factors such as climate change, water quality, C sequestration • Limited returns to crop breeding • Many soil research initiatives but what is NEW?

Sols comateux du Benin • A story of Rosalie in Benin • Similar experience reported by Conway & Toenniessen, Science 299:1187-88

Successful commercial farmer • A story of Bwenga in Nigeria • 20 ha of maize with 120 kg N /ha resulted in 6 t maize/ ha/year that was sold to the

Guinness Brewery. But after 5 years yields had declined to ˜ 2.5 t ha/year Fertilizer Prices 1998/99 -- DAP Location Price per ton ($) USA (Kansas) 260 Pakistan 283 Bangladesh 286 South Africa 348 Central Ethiopia 350 C. Kenya 415 Malawi 470 Uganda 550

“Subsidy” Specific Fertilizer RecommendationsHybrid Maize in Malawi FFaarrmmeerrss’’ SSttrraatteeggiieess :: CCoonncceennttrraattiinngg RReessoouurrcceess Resource flow mapping of smallholdings


Discussion on Nterana’s presentation

Remark 1: stabilized yields, plant breeding did not pay off for reasons of constraints. Genetic

material is required to overcome the constraints.

Remark 2: genetic data is misleading when looking at yields. Better look at acreage not yields,

for instance maize on marginal land.

Remark 3: the success of plant breeding cannot be qualified as limited, plant breeder did what

they were asked to do.

Remark 4: sometimes there are success stories, but yields have been low on average over time.

Yields improvements haven't been higher than population growth. Of the production

increases, only 25% come from yield improvement, 75% Remark5: from acreage increase.

Inverse proportions in developed countries.

Problems are different in different parts of Africa.

Remark 6: instead of saying adoption is a problem, we should think technology is the problem

because inappropriate.

Question 1: how do you take other dimensions such as root rotations?

Question 2: how the issues raised could be addressed using Bruce Campbell's framework?

Question 3: success is a continuum. The approach presented is very much technology-led. How

can we have social impacts?

Answers: yes, problem of rotation with uneatable crops. Economics are driving farmers' choices,

going for what they can sell, hence the interest for soybeans for instance.

Problem of understanding Bruce Campbell's approach, which makes it difficult to know how to

use it.

Remark 7: problem of doing the diagnosis: the response to fertilizers depends of other factors,

namely pest, that research must necessarily address.

Remark 8: two ways of addressing food and poverty, either focusing on traders or on small

farmers. Focusing on marginal areas implies a trade-off with focusing on high potential regions

giving access to markets, the challenge is structural.


3.3 The crop technology challenge for African rural development: WHAT will WE do Today: that will MATTER Tomorrow? by Rodomiro Ortiz

IITA: Research to nourish… • Health • Livelihoods • Markets

• Harvests • Dreams • Africa

Most important crops of African farmers Crop t (million) CGIAR IARC Cassava 92 IITA Yam 37 IITA Maize 27 IITA/CIMMYT Plantain 23 IITA Sorghum 18 ICRISAT Millet 14 ICRISAT Paddy rice 11 WARDA/IRRI Sweet potato 9 CIP/IITA-SARRNET Banana 6 IITA Potato 4 CIP Cowpea 3 IITA Wheat 2 CIMMYT

Beans (Phaseolus) 2 CIATTwo interdependent pathways for rural development of sub-Saharan Africa

• Developing commercial “windows” for the less vulnerable farmers through enhancing marketing pathways of agricultural produce with high levels of added-value

• Increasing food security by broadening the resilience of cereals (mostly maize) monoculture into diversified crop-livestock systems, which are more environmentally resilient and nutritionally superior

Crop technology uptake paradigm • Replacement of old technology by new technology with better fitness to “environments” • Farmers and researchers search for crop technology adaptation in gradients arising from (a)

biotic stresses, and other factors • Crop Technology Paradigm: Technology = Genotype x Environment x Crop Management x

Policy x Institutions x People

Research-for-development (R4D) • R4D replaces with a means-for-end continuum approach the old disconnecting concept of

research and development (R&D) • R4D needs society-conscious committed researchers, who transform into developers by

bringing technology focus to their work • Research products from R4D are demand- (not supply-) driven by end-users or markets • From planning development goals should drive the agenda: “from thinking to action” – “research

to decision”

R4D end-user-driven key elements • Trade and marketing to encourage rural economic growth: “money in the pocket instead of only

one meal in the table” • Crop diversification to avert famine and strengthen food security • Enhanced governance to build ownership between investors and implementing actors in

development


• Partnerships to attain win-win synergies

Private sector (incl. farmers) in R4D • Stakeholders: ranging from smallholder with agro-entrepreneur skills to large scale company • Common: looking for better income or profits • Roles: Investor, R4D partner or beneficiary Uptakes: Scaling-up and scaling-out Decentralizing R4D through networking • End-user participatory R4D with local partners • Decentralizing after refining target areas and partners • Shifting R4D from a central research station to local undertakings • Individual R4D programs maintain diversity across environments • Driven by needs of the rural poor • Agro-eco-zone approach for developing locally adapted technology • Responsive to local systems for technology exchange • Reduces yield loss and confer great stability: input and output

African impacts in crop technology • New cultivars; e.g. 206 cassava in 20 nations, and 267 maize in 11 nations (incl. 81 by

private sector – hybrids) • Mean on station yield gains in above nations: 49% for cassava and 45% for maize • Economic return for cassava biological control: US $ 2.2 billion for US $ 14.8 million or 200:1 • Potential 100:1 for cassava green mite integrated pest management • Water hyacinth control in Lake Victoria and others

Assessment of impact of IITA germplasm improvement (CGIAR-commissioned study)

Cassava (20 countries of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) • Between 1965 and 1998, 200 cassava cultivars were released by NARS • IITA materials represented 80% of the germplasm incorporated in new varieties for the

1990s • Resulted in yield advantage of about 49% • Represents an increment to annual production that provides food security to a further 14

million people

Partnership example: NARO-IITA East Africa Root Crops Research Network (EARRNET)

• National program of Uganda in partnership with EARRNET has released to farmers 12 CMD-resistant varieties of IITA origin, and are being grown in over 100,000 ha

• Benefits from Uganda CMD-resistant cassava multiplication project (ACDI PL480) were approximately US$36 million over 4 years (1998–2001) for an investment of US$0.8 million (DREAM impact model of IFPRI)

Southern Africa Root Crops Research Network (SARRNET) In-country impact of Regional Crop Network

• National program of Malawi in partnership with SARRNET officially released 3 CMD-resistant cassava cultivars and 3 sweetpotato cultivars in 1999

• Area under cassava in Malawi increased from 1991/92 to 1997/98 season by 139% and 587% for cassava and sweetpotato


New cultivars (% of total area) in the SARRNET region as result of SARRNET multiplication and distribution program

1998 1999 2000 2001 Cassava 5.00 7.38 8.81 9.76 Sweetpotato 6.00 12.57 12.77 15.59

Maize (11 countries in West and Central Africa) • Number of released cultivars (1965–1997): • Proportion of genetic materials in released cultivars: • Total area planted to improved maize varieties: • Contribution of increased cultivation of improved cultivars in 1998:

Impact • 186 from public sector and 86 from private sector • 49% from IITA, 11% from CIMMYT, and 16% from NARES • 37% Could supply 2200 kcal per person per day to 9.3 million people for one year

Biological control of aflatoxin • Competitive exclusion (one strain competing to exclude another) as a biological control

strategy is relatively new but very promising

Impact on feeding people in Africa • Without these research efforts, 25% less maize would currently be produced in sub-Saharan

Africa, equal to 8 million t year-1, or the food requirements of 40 million people. Cassava production would be 50% or less, or over 13 million dry cassava t year-1, enough to meet the calorie requirements of 65 million people.

• For maize and cassava alone, R4D meant in excess 100 million more people can be fed (or one out of six inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa!!!)

Impacts in US $ and livelihoods • 10% in area and 20% in yield of legumes in Nigeria = US $ 44 m N • Soybean in Nigeria from 60,000 ha to 405,000 ha within 1984-1999 • 341% in area and 310% in Nigeria cowpeas, leading to US $ 650 million of annual value • Musa germplasm for black Sigatoka better 10:1 than pesticides (rainy season) or 5.5:1 (dry

season - scarcity)

Agro-biotechnology for rural Africa: Strategy • Conduct applied biotech research to address the food and income needs • Transfer, in collaboration with partners, biotech products from labs to markets • Serve as a platform for biotech transfer between advanced labs and NARS • Enhanced selected NARS capacity to apply and monitor biotech via comprehensive

interactions and training-through-research programs

Agro-biotechnology R4D • Tissue culture and micropropagation • Recombinant DNA and diagnostics • Transgenics and GM-food, -feed, -fiber • Genomics and marker-aided introgression and selection • (Biosafety and IPR management)


Some examples of on-going CGIAR-NARS biotech partnership projects in sub-Saharan Africa

• CIAT: bean biofortification • CIMMYT: QTL mapping in maize at Kenya and Zimbabwe: drought, insects, MSV, QPM • }IRMA: Insect-Resistance Maize for Africa • CIP: micropropagation of pathogen-tested potato and sweetpotato • ICRISAT-IITA-ILRI: Plant Biodiversity and Genomics Center in Nairobi • IITA: Nigerian Biotech Program • IPGRI-IITA: Musa biotechnology in Uganda • ISNAR: Capacity building on biosafety, planning and priority setting, IPR • WARDA: NERICA

Cowpea nutritious but under attack: Maruca, the major threat to cowpea

• The legume pod borer, Maruca – losses up to 80%

Plant Breeding and Biotechnology • The rationale for investing in biotechnology is that this field of research may provide the

opportunity to achieve technological advances beyond what could be realized from the use of existing conventional methods

• Modern plant breeding programs cannot operate without biotechnology

What WE will do Today that will contribute to their laughing and smiles?

• End-user driven research-for-development to nourish Africa

Research-for-development Framework Developing a R4D proposal

• Assess demand or opportunity for impact • Identify constraints/traits • Propose solutions • Use interventions/tools • Find/develop technology • Deliver outputs to end-users or markets

Implementing the project • Purpose (s) • Objective(s) • Activity plan • Results as per milestones

5. Outcomes leading to impacts on Science and livelihoods

Discussions on Rodomiro’s presentation

→ end-use participation, what types of approaches IITA applies to ensure that end-users are driving

the agenda?

⇒ participation approaches, a feedback from population before starting an intervention.

→ biotic stresses for cassava, particularly in Kenya and other places in Africa, that threaten the

gains in yields, need for lasting solutions.

⇒ solutions already exist, they should be taken into account in an integrated approach.


→ adoption is market-driven, markets are probably the key to adoption, even for small farmers.

Technology might not be central.

⇒ we have the technology, we need to look for markets. There is also a market for soil.

→ when the technology is not affordable, what is the role of crop breeding?

→ The work done is impressive but we must go in another direction. We should be different if we

want to address the pressure of population growth, much faster than the yields

improvements obtained.

→ the issue of species disappearance is not clear, namely for banana species. African farmers are

told to diversify crops, as botanical zoos !

⇒ we shouldn't be exclusive, methods are not exclusive either hybrid or non hybrid. Results

presented are averages including both. Maybe improvements are not impressive, but they

work in drought-prone environments.

→ crop technologies as presented are efficient… in depleting the soils !

⇒ disagreement

3.4 Agricultural Biodiversity: Africa’s natural resource underpinning

food and agricultural production by Edward Rege

1. Problem definition • Rich and yet starving: Africa is rich in genetic resources (for F & A)

- Out of 150 food crops, 115 are indigenous to Africa - Centres of origin of a number of major crops (e.g. coffee, oil palm, yams, cowpea) - Some of the world s major regions of crop & livestock diversity are found in Africa - Centre of domestication of some livestock species - Endemism is high in the continent.

•Africa is of fundamental importance for agricultural diversity conservation in the world. • •Current ability of the majority of SSA farmers to survive (subsist) is largely dependent upon:

- the specific adaptations of their crops and animals - farmers knowledge of their animals, plants & production environment - resilience of the systems

• •Will our children have access to these? • •Can livelihoods be sustainably improved for today’s generation? • •What can the SSA-CP contribute & how? • •Principally an ‘issues presentation’

What is agro-biodiversity?

• Genetic variation within and between landraces/ breeds/ strains and species: - Crops - Livestock - Fish - Wild and semi-domesticated relatives - Biological diversity which provides ecological services (nutrient cycling, pest & disease

regulation, watershed protection, carbon sequestration, etc)


Agro-biodiversity: Contributions to livelihoods

• Given the wealth of (agro) biodiversity of SSA, how do we`make it contribute to sustainable livelihoods? - Access to food - Income - Nutrition - Health - Social functions - Ecological services

• NUTRITION: - Vitamins, trace elements and nutrients vital for good health

• HEALTH - Improved nutrition leads to good health. - Medicinal plant & animal products

• FOOD SECURITY: - landraces adapted to local conditions and tastes; yield stability/system resilience - Material for crop & animal improvement

Why we need agro-biodiversity • Access to diverse food and agricultural products/functions in wide range of production

environments • Breeding - use of genetic diversity to produce more productive genotypes • Basis of Agriculture and forests • Biotechnological options – e.g. genetic combinations to address specific production

constraints

Neglected and Under-utilized Species • Leafy vegetables

- Bisaab, amaranthus, cowpea, baobab, etc. • Roots and tuber crops

- Yams, cocoyams, frafra potato • Cucurbits

- Egusi, gourds, watermelon, melon • Small grains

- Fonio, finger millet, wild rices • Livestock species

Biodiversity

Biodiversity and Agriculture

Biodiversity and Energy

Biodiversity and Health

Biodiversity and Water

Biodiversity in the WEHAB context


- Over 40 species domesticated or semi-domesticated - Grasscutter, guinea fowl, rabbits, etc

Complementary Conservation Approaches in Agrobiodiversity

Policy and Legislation on Genetic Resources

• Awareness/ Engagement • Local, National, International levels • Capacity building • Economic & Policy analysis • International processes and conventions – contribution to SSA position? • CBD • International Treaty on PGRFA • Global Strategy on AnGR

•

Complementary Conservation Approaches in Agrobiodiversity

nature reserves managed areas introduction to reserves

field genebanks

pollen banks DNA libraries

o n-farm management (farmer exchanges; new introductions)

o n-farm conservation (community genebanks)

seed genebanks (short -term; long-term)

in vitro genebanks (slow growth; cryopreservation)

Ex situ

In situ


2. Partnership opportunitiesWho, What, Where in Agro-biodiversity • Who is working on agro-biodiversity ?

- Discrete, isolated efforts relay match approach - Research for Development: Innovation process mutually reinforcing - Inadequate focus on impact on livelihoods?

• Institutions - NARES - IARC’s (& ARIs) - NGOs and Development Partners - Networks national, regional, international - Private sector? - NEPAD - Other CP’s

Some GR networks in SSA • Sub-regional networks

- EAPGREN eastern Africa - GRENEWECA West and Central Africa - SPGRC southern Africa - AnGR ??

• Commodity networks - Yam, Millet, Sorghum, Maize, Beans, Potatoes, etc - Livestock

• Thematic networks - Agroforestry, Forestry, etc

3. Challenges for the CPDefining the project components: main issues • Low agricultural productivity and production • Highly variable production environment • Large, but poorly understood and underutilized biological diversity • High levels of biodiversity loss • Inadequate human capacity and infrastructure • Need to increase food production without further loss in biodiversity

Needed action • Increased knowledge and understanding of SSA agro-biodiversity • Enhanced utilization to contribute to sustainable livelihoods

- Under-utilized ‘old’ technologies - Under-utilized species - New technologies

• Increased human capacity & policy instruments to facilitate conservation and sustainable use

Improving understanding • Relationships and synergies among components of agro-biodiversity at local and landscape

scales • Underlying causes of loss and consequences • nature and distribution of below ground diversity • role of interactions between different components (soil/plant/animal) - • Economic valuation (need for integrated/multidisciplinary approaches)

Enhancing utilization • Untapped potential & neglected species, e.g.

- Wild and semi-wild plant and animal species - Indigenous knowledge of ‘marginalised’ communities: understanding and applying - Underutilized technologies


• Novel genotypes – link to other CP’s

Community-based conservation • Models for CBM of agro-biodiversity:

- Understanding farmers knowledge & practices - Identifying best practices for in situ conservation & sustainable use - Exploring mechanisms for enhancing product and value of diversity - Participatory selection and breeding of local varieties/land races - Sharing & Awareness: Seed fairs, Farmer Field Fora, Seed Systems - Scaling up & out

Using the benchmark site approach

• Semi-arid zone (e.g. Sahel) • Sub-humid (e.g. Guinea Savannah) • Humid forest zone • Lowlands / Highlands

- 3 sites per AEZ - Multi-Stakeholder participation - Multi-activity benchmark sites to facilitate integration - Capacity building as integral component

Principles for implementation • Broad partnerships that exploit complementarities • Consensual priority setting – who is best placed to do what? • M & E with built-in mechanism for learning and critical reflection • Identifying, synthesizing and disseminating best design/implementation practices • Adjustments based on lessons learnt and M & E outcomes: flexible mechanism

Discussions on Ed Rege’s presentation → the satisfaction to hear this presentation is reinforced by the fact that most agricultural

curricula don't include agricultural biodiversity which is taught only in botany and forestry. There is an enormous need for the capacity to understand the issues.

→ it would be appropriate to work not only in terms of agro-ecological zones, but also in terms of agro-sociological zones.

Community level

NARS / institutional

Policy and legislation

Pilot in situ and On-farm Projects

Gene Banks and Research /Extension

International, National and Local Levels

Integration into overall Agriculture R&D

Capacity Building,Education/Awareness at all levels


→ there is a need for clarification on practical issues, for instance what to do in Northern Cameroon where biodiversity is mined. Do we really want to diversify?

⇒ we have examples of combinations in a functional system. There are areas where integration brings benefits, though it cannot be implemented across whole Africa.

→ it is assumed, but there is no evidence, that there are strong relationships between diversity and stability as well as between diversity and resilience. Should we assume the relationships or put them as research questions?

⇒ there is literature to support opposite sides. The influence of management is strong, hence the importance of education.


3.5 Sustainable Marketing Systems to Support Integrated Natural Resource Management by Kofi Debrah

A presenation made by Kofi Debrah of Policy and

Market Programme: IFDC

Africa Division, Lome, Togo

Present Context of SSA Agriculture

- Poor Natural Resource Base - Soils low in N & P; NHC of soils limited - Extreme climate (particularly in the sahel) - Increasing food gap - Aggregate food production (2.1%), population growth (3.1%); per capita food production

declined by 7% - Unfriendly policy and socioeconomic environment - Incomplete market reforms - Unstable policies - Policies favouring better-endowed and large scale producers - Policies discriminating against women

Future Context: Drivers of SSA Agriculture • Globalization and trade liberalization

- Offers opportunities but also a risk for those not prepared • Rapid Urbanization & Risk of degradation

- Growth in urban populations (55% y 2007) - Increased urban demand for food (opportunities for urban agriculture) - Risk of overexploitation of urban land for agriculture

• Rapid technological change - Research to farmer extension system to IT-based system (risk of excluding majority of

farmers)

Presentation Outline

Critical issues influencing market

performance

Promising marketingSystems for ISFM

MarketDevelopmentexperiences

Intensification (ISFM as a tool,

element in INRM)

Role of Markets Market

linkages with ISFM

Key Components

Priority actions for

markets to triggeradoption of ISFM

Research

Capacity Building & mkt

Dev.Partnership

Context ofSSA agriculture

Present Situation

Driving forces

Facing thechallenge


Linkages between Markets and ISFM

• Farmers will adopt ISFM if profitable • Profit Indicator = Value cost ratio (VCR)

- VCR = (Y/X) * (Py/Px) > 2 - Y/X = agronomic environment (ISFM) - Py/Px = price environment (Markets)

• Markets can be a springboard for sustainable agricultural intensification but they have to go beyond just marketing of inputs and products

Agricultural Intensification: Meeting the imperatives of food security, global competition and environmental protection

Sustainable Input SupplyAnd Product Marketing

Systems

Access toAppropriate

And ProfitableTechnology

Effective andWell-functioning

Policy and InstitutionalEnvironment

SustainableAgricultural

Intensification

A sub-sector approach for visualizing a sustainableinput supply and product marketing system.


Critical Issues for A Sustainable Marketing System

• Policy and socio-economic environment • Stability & Consistency enabling macro and sectoral • Skills and Information • Technical, business, financial, advocacy • Market information • Institutions • Supportive formal and informal credit • Legal and law enforcement • Infrastructure • Roads, storage facilities, telecommunications

Priority Actions for Market Development: Principle of strengthening the weakest link in the marketing chain:Input manufacture-procurement-distribution-farmer access-farm level use-production-processing/marketing-final

consumption Farmer access to inputs often the weakest link in the chain; priority action directed towards its strengthening

Some market development experiences • IFDC’s experiences in E. Europe and Africa

- Human capacity building - Cadre of dealers trained - Helped to have access to funds - Become cadre of technology transfer agents - Become potential sources of credit for farmers - Trade associations and farmers organizations strengthening - Access to market information - Assistance in developing quality control regulatory systems

• Market Gardens in Lome - Availability of domestic and export market provides incentives for investments in

Fertilizers, Irrigation, Pesticides and Hired Labour • West and Central Africa Cotton Model

- Inter-locking mechanism of input supply-credit-technical assistance-marketing in the cotton sub sector

- Resolves farmers problems of timely supply of high quality inputs, access to credit, access to markets, but has some disadvantages of dependence of farmer on only one outlet and entrepreneurial opportunities of farmer suppressed

• Food Crop Model (FPFD, Guinea) - Inter-locking mechanism of input supply-credit-technical assistance-marketing for

potatoes, onions and tomatoes - Resolves farmers problems of timely supply of high quality inputs, access to credit,

access to markets, but has some disadvantages of dependence of farmer on only one outlet and entrepreneurial opportunities of farmer suppressed

• Food retail supermarkets model (E & S Africa) - Supply contractual arrangements between retail supermarkets and smallholder producers - Assistance provided by supermarkets to improve farmers organizational and technical

skills and also to invest in business - Resolves farmers problems of lack of stable markets for good profit, access to

investment credit, access to market information, but has some disadvantages of high initial investment cost and dependence on one buyer

Experiences of market access leading to overexploitation


• Cotton in Mali - Area expansion, decreased fallow periods, inadequate use of organic and inorganic

fertilizers have led to soil fertility degradation in some parts of Mali. • Shrimp farming in Thailand

- Farmland salt water ponds for shrimp farming yielded quick profits followed by years of barren land

• Potatoes in India - Large-scale potato farming on hillsides yielded quick profits followed by loss of topsoil

Recommended Research, Capacity Building and

Market Development Activities

Understand the linkages and propose mechanisms of how the linkages could be exploited

Opportunities exist to use the strong linkages between livestock products demand and the supply of manure for soil amendments

3. Livestock product market demand and manure supply linkages providing incentives for investments

Identify mechanisms necessary to involve more remote and dispersed farmers in more difficult environments

Information lacking on the applicability of the system for smallholder producers, particularly subsistence food crop producers in difficult environments

2. Adaptive research on the promising marketing systems that integrate input supply, credit and markets for high value crops

Identify conditions under which market access is most likely to trigger resource degradation

Negative impacts on environment not received much attention

1. Medium to long-term environmental impacts of market access

Research

Indicative ActivitiesJustificationArea of Concentration

Recommended Research, Capacity Building and

Market Development Activities (cont’d)

Train dealers and farmers to have access to market information

Market information is essential for informed decision making and competitiveness

3. Provide dealers and farmers with the relevant market information

Identify sources of credit; assist trade associations and farmers organizations to mobilize funds from internal sources

Access to credit is a major constraint for investments in resource management

2. Linking dealers and farmers to sources of credit

Develop or Adapt existing training manual for training; Build trade associations: Conduct study tours

Input dealers and farmers have inadequate business, technical and lobbying skills

1. Human Capacity Building

Capacity Building and Market Development

Indicative ActivitiesJustificationArea of Concentration


Conclusion • SSA’s poor natural

resource base, globalization, and increasing trade liberalization compels SSA to move away from extensive and unsustainable agriculture towards agricultural intensification

• Agricultural intensification requires attention in the areas of policy, appropriate and profitable technologies and well-functioning

markets • Improvements in the marketing chain to provide incentives for farmers and input dealers is

essential for stewardship and investments in ISFM • Research, capacity building and market development activities paying attention to the

incentive aspects as well as the negative aspects of market access on the environment is essential

• FARA is in a strong position to play a major role in leveraging partnership among the NARES, SRO’s, CGIAR institutes, the Private Sector, Farmers’ Organizations and the Donor Community to make the dream of securing the future of Africa’s children a reality.

Discussions on Kofi Debrah’s presentation

→ Thanks for mentioning that it is important to look not only at what to do, but also at how to do it.

In the current context of liberalisation, the biggest constraint lies on the capacity to advice farmers, namely where the traditional extension system is not working.

→ giving added value is done through putting the market at the heart of the system. But we are facing dysfunctioning markets because of liberalisation and international negotiations are leading to unreal competition.

Food security being at the heart of our preoccupation, gives us the opportunity to enter international negotiations.

However, we face there quality problems, hence non tariff barriers when exports, namely with pesticide residues.

→ the presentation pleads for the strengthening of farmers' organisations, and highlight the need to understand how to link them to the private sector.

→ Farmers should be supported by strengthened capacity building for negotiation.

Partnership of Stakeholders essential for success

Assurance of international food security ; hence decreased food emergency aids, reduction in international conflicts etc

Donor community

Assurance of national food security; the better the resources become, the higher the productivity and the more FE savings accrue

Decision makers

Increased business in supply, value added and other services as farmers increase their production

Input dealer and other businessmen

Primary user of land and directly affected by its degradation through declining yields, household food insecurity , etc

Farmer

Stakes in ISFMStakeholder


3.6 Policies for Smallholder Development in Africa by Peter Hazell (IFPRI) Past agricultural research investments have not done that badly in Africa!

There are many improved varieties of staple foods, and a recent CGIAR impact study shows these have already been widely adopted Yet the results are not showing up in aggregate productivity trends

An obvious explanation is that yield gains are constrained by low fertilizer use and declining

soil fertility

• •Without fertilizer subsidies and effective supply systems, fertilizer use is not profitable for many African farmers and there is need to focus on low external input (LEI) approaches

• •Some INRM technologies look promising as LEI approaches. Give higher yields with minimal but judicious use chemical fertilizers. They also address soil moisture and organic matter constraints which can be important

Payoffs to Agricultural Research

Median Mean Std. Dev.(percent)

Developed 39 66 120Developing 50 59 38

Africa 36 46 27Asia and Pacific 56 77 52LAC 48 52 27

Developed, up to 1985 41 80 153Developed after 1985 34 57 93

Developing up to 1985 48 55 32Developing after 1985 51 60 40

Rate of Return

Source: Roseboom 2002,and Alston et al 2000

$ = 1989-91 International Dollar

Land and Labour Productivity (1961-97)

10

100

1000

100 1000 10000

Labour Productivity ($ per ag. worker per year )

Lan

d P

rod

uct

ivit

y($

per

ha

per

yea

r)

Tropical LAC Tropical SSA Tropical SAsia Tropical SEAsia

19611997

1961

1961

1997

1997

Crop and Livestock Products

2

3

4

5

6

4 5 6 7 8 9

Ln(agricultural output per unit labor)

Ln

(ag

ricu

ltu

ral o

utp

ut

per

un

it la

nd

)

Central Africa East Africa

Nigeria South Africa

Southern Africa West Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa

1999

1961

1999

1999

19611961

1961

SSA Agricultural Productivity (1961-99)

Acquaye, Wood and Pardey 2002


• But adoption is often disappointing because of high labor requirements, insufficient land to generate organic matter and collective action requirements

• Hypothesis: INRM approaches that are more likely to be adopted are those that increase labor and labor productivity and which individual farmers can do on their own. Good examples are conservation tillage, vegetative barriers and crop varieties that use scarce nutrients more efficiently.

• Hypothesis: INRM will be particularly difficult in HIV/AIDS afflicted areas, and will likely be negatively impacted by the increasing feminization and aging of farmers, and by livelihood diversification into nonfarm activities

• But even INRM that works will not be enough to feed Africa and slash poverty. Will simply move to new plateaus of productivity and then stagnate again while populations continue to grow.

• Sustained growth in productivity will require:

• ?Continuous germplasm improvement

• ?Access to fertilizers

• Will need to invest in these options now even while investing in INRM (they are not alternatives given the long lead times involved)

Technology is only part of the solution to developing African agriculture. There are other crucial pillars of a smallholder development strategy that demand attention. You have correctly identified markets as one of them.

Market and Trade PoliciesIs INRM a solution seeking markets, or a response to market opportunities?

• Markets drive agricultural development not the other way round. And they are not always conducive to INRM; they encourage specialization rather than diversification.

• But urbanization and access to high value export markets can help create markets for more diverse outputs, especially in peri-urban areas

• Hypothesis: What markets want and what INRM specialists want are often different and the best prospects for INRM will often be in subsistence farming systems!

Average annual nutrient depletion (NPK) 1993-95

Fertilizer application rates (1997)

Source: FAOSTAT 1999.

Compiled by Stan Wood, IFPRI

kg NPK per hecta re

0 10 20 50 100

no d ata


• Where are the Future Market Opportunities in Africa?Is 6% agricultural growth per annum possible given market constraints?

• Four markets to consider:

• Traditional export crops

• Nontraditional export crops

• Domestic markets

• Regional The value of traditional agricultural exports has stagnated in recent decades. Now worth about $7 billion per year

• Opportunities for reclaiming traditional export markets are not good. Would require significant increases in productivity to reduce production costs per unit output, and improvements in quality

Non-traditional ExportsCurrently worth about $6 billion per year (fish $2.2 billion, fresh

fruits and vegetables $2.3 billion, cut flowers $0.25 billion). • There are no obvious market constraints at present if quality and safety standards can be

met

Domestic Markets•Most African countries will double their consumption of livestock products and food staples by 2020. This is a huge market (over $100 billion) that can absorb 3-4% growth per annum in agricultural output. Urbanization will also increase domestic demand for higher value and processed foods, as will rises in non-agricultural income.

• •But African farmers must increasingly compete with low cost (often subsidized) and higher quality imports from Europe and elsewhere

Africa Regional Markets • Currently not very large (about $1 billion), but they could grow significantly in the future if

trade barriers were lowered and there were appropriate investments to reduce transport and marketing costs. E.g. South Africa could be importing maize from Zambia rather than using irrigated land and imports from the USA and Europe.

Adding it up! • 6% agricultural growth = ~ $8 billion additional demand each year • 6% growth in each market gives: • Traditional export crops = $400 million • Nontraditional export crops = $360 million • Domestic markets = $6,000 million • Regional markets = $60 million • Total = $6.82 billion

”Overall, Africa’s share of the world’s value of agricultural exports has been declining”

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Coffee Cocoa

Monthly Averages Real Prices of Coffee and Cocoa(cent/pound deflated by U.S. wholesale price index, 2000=100)


• Will really need to expand nontraditionals and intra-regional trade

Market demand is only part of the problem • Small farmers will increasingly be challenged by: • Low cost competition from abroad • Higher quality and food safety standards demanded by the market • Access problems to increasingly integrated market chains (e.g. supermarkets) • Price and other market risksThey will need to be organized into voluntary producer

organizations that can: • Connect them to markets • Bulk up their produce • Ensure quality and safety standards • Act as intermediaries for futures and insurance Rural infrastructure (irrigation, roads and

transport, power, water, schools, health, etc.) • More effective institutions that service rural areas and agriculture (including marketing

institutions, credit, input supplies) • Property rights over natural resources • Environmental policies to offset market failures • Safety nets to protect the vulnerable • If Africa’s smallholder agric. is to grow at a sufficiently fast rate to halve hunger and poverty

by 2015, then will need an agricultural investment strategy costing $4-5 billion + annully • A CP focusing on INRM and costing $5 million per year will need to be integrated into this

larger development strategy if it is to make a significant impact. Influencing the larger S&T agenda would help

Discussions on Peter Hazel’s presentation. → there is political interference in the marketing system, namely when politicians decide it is

more interesting to import from developed countries.

→ won't market barriers and new quality requirements for value-added products appear as soon as Africa will rise its production and its exports? What now seem opportunities could turn out like the cases of coffee and cocoa.

→ what are the lessons to be learnt from case studies of success stories?

⇒ food trade is a very big issue where policy reform is critical. WTO reform will be crucial. Africa can only gain from liberalisation. At the level of national policies, real changes are required, hence the role of NEPAD for policy changes.

Africa's share of European and US markets is so small, a doubling or tripling of it won't make Europe feel threatened.

Successes in Africa will be discussed later this year at a workshop before which no clear conclusion can be given, the results must be analysed case by case, identifying the respective roles of market, of technology.

Additional comment on European peculiar sensitivity regarding consumer protection, because of serious crises (mad cow…), cf. EU white book on food safety.


3.7 Strengthening Agricultural Research Capacity in Africa by August Temu

WWhhaatt iiss tthhee pprroobblleemm?? •• IInnaaddeeqquuaattee iinnvveessttmmeenntt iinn aaggrriiccuullttuurree aanndd nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrccee rreesseeaarrcchh •• MMuullttii--ffaacceetteedd rreesseeaarrcchh aaggeennddaa iinn hhiigghhllyy sseeccttoorreedd iinnssttiittuuttiioonnss •• IInnaaddeeqquuaattee nnoo.. ooff sscciieennttiissttss,, llooww iinncceennttiivveess aanndd wweeaakk rreeccooggnniittiioonn ooff sscciieennttiissttss •• LLiimmiitteedd ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess ttoo lliinnkk wwiitthh tthhee gglloobbaall ccoorrppuuss ooff kknnoowwlleeddggee •• IInnaaddeeqquuaattee ccaappttuurree ooff rreesseeaarrcchh nneeeeddss •• PPoooorr rreeaacchh ooff rreesseeaarrcchh ffiinnddiinnggss •• WWeeaakk lliinnkkaaggeess wwiitthh eedduuccaattiioonn aanndd eexxtteennssiioonn//ddeevveellooppmmeenntt •• PPoooorr mmaannaaggeemmeenntt ooff kknnoowwlleeddggee

GGooaall:: SSttrroonngg aaggrriiccuullttuurraall sscciieennccee aanndd iinnnnoovvaattiioonnss,, rreeaacchhiinngg AAffrriiccaann ffaarrmmeerrss

•• SSttrroonngg sscciieennttiissttss wwoorrkkiinngg iinn ssttrroonngg iinnssttiittuuttiioonnss •• RReelleevvaannccee aanndd qquuaalliittyy aassssuurraannccee •• EEffffeeccttiivvee iinntteerr--iinnssttiittuuttiioonnaall ccoollllaabboorraattiioonn •• IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall lliinnkkss aanndd ccoollllaabboorraattiioonn

•• GGoooodd kknnoowwlleeddggee mmaannaaggeemmeennttWWhhaatt aarree tthhee ccaappaacciittyy nneeeeddss HHuummaann rreessoouurrcceess

•• TToottaall ## ooff sscciieennttiissttss •• SScciieennttiissttss iinn nneeww ttooppiiccss •• GGrraannttmmaannsshhiipp •• CCoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn sskkiillllss •• AAttttiittuuddiinnaall cchhaannggeess •• LLiinnkkss wwiitthh ppeeeerrss

IInnssttiittuuttiioonnaall ccaappaacciittyy •• SSttrraatteeggiicc rreesseeaarrcchh pprrooggrraammmmeess •• RReesseeaarrcchh mmaannaaggeemmeenntt ccaappaacciittyy •• CCoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn ccaappaacciittyy aanndd iinnffrraassttrruuccttuurree •• LLiinnkkaaggeess wwiitthh ootthheerr rreelleevvaanntt iinnssttiittuuttiioonnss

FFoorr ssuucccceessss wwee nneeeedd ttoo iinnvveesstt iinn HHuummaann ccaappiittaall ++ iinnssttiittuuttiioonnaall ccaappiittaall ++ lliinnkkaaggeess..((NNeeeedd ttoo ffoorrmm NNAARRSS)) TThhee uullttiimmaattee cclliieennttss

•• FFaarrmmeerrss ttooddaayy –– ddeeffiinniinngg pprroobblleemmss aanndd sseelleeccttiinngg ssoolluuttiioonn//iinntteerrvveennttiioonn ooppttiioonnss •• PPoolliiccyy mmaakkeerrss aanndd iinnvveessttoorrss –– pprriioorriittiizzaattiioonn aanndd ssuuppppoorrtt •• TThhee yyoouutthh ((ffuuttuurree ffaarrmmeerrss)) –– aattttiittuuddee,, kknnoowwlleeddggee aanndd sskkiillllss ddeevveellooppmmeenntt

SSoouutthh--SSoouutthh CCoollllaabboorraattiioonn •• AA ssyysstteemmaattiicc aasssseessssmmeenntt ooff iinnssttiittuuttiioonnaall ccaappaacciittyy bbuuiillddiinngg nneeeeddss,, aanndd eeffffeeccttiivvee jjooiinntt

ssttrraatteeggiieess ttoo aaddddrreessss tthheemm •• IImmpprroovviinngg tthhee ccoonntteenntt aanndd ddeelliivveerryy ooff aaggrriiccuullttuurraall aanndd NNRRMM ccuurrrriiccuullaa •• CCaappaacciittyy mmaannaaggeemmeenntt ,, nneettwwoorrkkiinngg •• TTrraaiinniinngg--ooff--ttrraaiinneerr ccoouurrsseess iinn ssppeecciiffiicc ssuubbjjeecctt aarreeaass •• LLiinnkkss aanndd ccoollllaabboorraattiioonn aammoonngg eedduuccaattiioonn,, rreesseeaarrcchh aanndd ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ssyysstteemmss


•• TThheessiiss rreesseeaarrcchh,, jjooiinntt rreesseeaarrcchh,, ppeeeerr rreevviieewwss,, ppuubblliisshhiinngg eettcc

TTrriippaarrttiittee lliinnkkss •• DDeevveelloopp tteeaacchhiinngg aanndd lleeaarrnniinngg,, wwiitthh ppeeeerr uunniivveerrssiittiieess iinn tthhee NNoorrtthh •• PPaacckkaaggee rreesseeaarrcchh rreessuullttss iinnttoo uusseeffuull wweellll--ccoonntteexxttuuaalliizzeedd tteeaacchhiinngg mmaatteerriiaallss •• JJooiinntt rreesseeaarrcchh aanndd ddeevveellooppmmeenntt aaccttiivviittiieess iinn tthhee SSSSAA--CCPP •• PPrroovviiddee rreelleevvaanntt tthheessiiss rreesseeaarrcchh ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess iinn tthhee SSoouutthh •• IInnccrreeaassee iinncceennttiivveess ttoo sscciieennttiissttss ((rreesseeaarrcchh ggrraannttss,, ppuubblliiccaattiioonn cchhaannnneellss •• FFaarrmmeerrss ttooddaayy –– ddeeffiinniinngg pprroobblleemmss aanndd sseelleeccttiinngg ssoolluuttiioonn//iinntteerrvveennttiioonn ooppttiioonnss •• PPoolliiccyy mmaakkeerrss aanndd iinnvveessttoorrss –– pprriioorriittiizzaattiioonn aanndd ssuuppppoorrtt • TThhee yyoouutthh ((ffuuttuurree ffaarrmmeerrss)) –– aattttiittuuddee,, kknnoowwlleeddggee aanndd sskkiillllss ddeevveellooppmmeenntt

SSoouutthh--SSoouutthh CCoollllaabboorraattiioonn •• AA ssyysstteemmaattiicc aasssseessssmmeenntt ooff iinnssttiittuuttiioonnaall ccaappaacciittyy bbuuiillddiinngg nneeeeddss,, aanndd eeffffeeccttiivvee jjooiinntt

ssttrraatteeggiieess ttoo aaddddrreessss tthheemm •• IImmpprroovviinngg tthhee ccoonntteenntt aanndd ddeelliivveerryy ooff aaggrriiccuullttuurraall aanndd NNRRMM ccuurrrriiccuullaa •• CCaappaacciittyy mmaannaaggeemmeenntt ,, nneettwwoorrkkiinngg •• TTrraaiinniinngg--ooff--ttrraaiinneerr ccoouurrsseess iinn ssppeecciiffiicc ssuubbjjeecctt aarreeaass •• LLiinnkkss aanndd ccoollllaabboorraattiioonn aammoonngg eedduuccaattiioonn,, rreesseeaarrcchh aanndd ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ssyysstteemmss •• TThheessiiss rreesseeaarrcchh,, jjooiinntt rreesseeaarrcchh,, ppeeeerr rreevviieewwss,, ppuubblliisshhiinngg eettcc

WWhhyy ccaappaacciittyy bbuuiillddiinngg iinn AACCPP?? •• TToo mmoobbiilliizzee aanndd rraattiioonnaalliizzee tthhee uussee ooff aavvaaiillaabbllee ccaappaacciittyy •• TToo iinnccrreeaassee tthhee rreeaacchh ooff rreesseeaarrcchh –– ssppaattiiaall aanndd tthheemmaattiicc iimmppaacctt ppootteennttiiaall •• TToo iimmpprroovvee rreelleevvaannccee ooff rreesseeaarrcchh pprroojjeeccttss

March 2003 FARA

RR--EE--D linksD links

Education(Building human resource capacity)

Extension(Applying knowledge to development)

Research(Producing and sharing knowledge and innovations)

March 2003 FARA

Tripartite linksTripartite links

Universitiesin the North

Universitiesin the South

Case studies

PrioritiesPedagogies

CGIAR + partners

March 2003 FARA

Beyond training and educationBeyond training and education

RESOURCES(funds, facilities..)

SYSTEMS(Institutions, programs..)

COMPETENCE(knowledge, skills, attitudes)

CONTEXT(social, political, environmental…)

CAPACITY


•• TToo pprroovviiddee iinncceennttiivveess ffoorr rreesseeaarrcchheerrss ttoo rreemmaaiinn iinn tthheeiirr iinnssttiittuuttiioonnss ((rreetteennttiioonn)) •• TToo pprroodduuccee pprraaccttiiccaall aanndd rreelleevvaanntt rreesseeaarrcchh rreessuullttss

SSoommee pprriinncciipplleess •• ?? BBuuiilldd oonn eexxiissttiinngg eeffffoorrttss aanndd ssuucccceesssseess ((aallssoo lleeaarrnn ffrroomm ppaasstt mmiissttaakkeess)) •• ?? AAiimm aatt lleevveerraaggiinngg nneeww aanndd aaddddiittiioonnaall ccaappaacciittyy bbuuiillddiinngg rreessoouurrcceess

• ?? FFooccuuss oonn ssttrraatteeggiicc ((lloonngg--tteerrmm)) bbeenneeffiittss

SSppeecciiffiicc aaccttiioonn aarreeaass •• 11..SSuurrvveeyy ooff CCBB mmeetthhooddss •• 22..RReevviieeww ooff CCBB nneeeeddss •• 33..DDeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff CCBB ssttrraatteeggyy •• 44..BBuuiillddiinngg uupp sscciieennttiiffiicc rreessoouurrcceess •• 55..TTrraaiinniinngg iinn rreesseeaarrcchh mmaannaaggeemmeenntt •• 66..NNeettwwoorrkkiinngg ffoorr ggrreeaatteerr ssyynneerrggyy •• 77..EEnnhhaanncciinngg ccaappaacciittyy mmoobbiilliizzaattiioonn

Discussions on August Temu’s presentation → what about the capacity-building of the farmers themselves, that play a central role, being

by nature the managers of natural resources?

→ the role of institutional capacity development in the SSA-CP is not explicit. Capacity-building issues should be detailed not just regarding the form ("hardware") but also regarding the "software" including rules, the regulating environment, transactions, the process. There is necessity to build capacity to response to change.

⇒ need to identify the institutions, to define who does what at which level, and the role of the SSA-CP to add value to what the NARS can do. The comparative advantage of FARA is not on work that can be done through NARS.

Policies are necessary to define what is needed.


3.8 Institutional Change and New Institutional Arrangements - Conditioning Factors on Agricultural Research in Africa by John Lynam

• Diversity from farm to continental scale • Rapid institutional change

TThhee RReesseeaarrcchh CCoonntteexxtt • •Low-input, diversified farming systems • •Significant subsistence component • •Agro-ecological heterogeneity • •Thin markets/market failures

TThhee RReesseeaarrcchh CChhaalllleennggee • •Scale economies require innovative institutional arrangements • •Technology is not sufficient for impact

IInnssttiittuuttiioonnaall IInnnnoovvaattiioonnDrivers: • •Democratization • •Decentralization • •Market liberalizationIImmpplliiccaattiioonnss:: • •Accountability of local government • •Institutional adaptation to local needs • •Shifting roles of public/private sector

MMuullttiippllee FFuunnccttiioonnss iinn SSeerrvviiccee PPrroovviissiioonn • Technologies and diagnostic services • •Farmer organization • •Product assembly and input distribution

EExxtteennssiioonn RReeffoorrmm UUnnddeerr DDeecceennttrraalliizzaattiioonn•Privatization, e.g.

veterinary & IPM services • •Contracting advisory services • •NGO services • •Public service provision • –Farmer Field Schools • –NRM • ?? Where to build capacity • ?? Connectivity to adaptive

research

System Change Under Decentralization & Research-Extension Linkages

Technology Sourcing

Adaptive Research

District Farmer Committees

Service Providers

Technology & Information

Market Access Private

Sector

Farmer Organization


IIssssuueess iinn NNAARRSS RReeffoorrmm • •Balance between strategic/applied and adaptive research • •Division of labor/differentiation in R&D system • •Capacity for upstream linkages

FFuunnccttiioonnss ooff SSRROO’’ss • •Rationalizing NARI and CGIAR institutional arrangements in Africa • •Developing regional economies of scale in research

SSyysstteemm CChhaannggee UUnnddeerr RReeggiioonnaalliizzaattiioonnRegional Capacities: • Biotechnology • Crop breeding • Animal diseases • Role of Networks: • Specialization vs. division of labour • NRM networking • NARS Adjustment: • Regional economies of size and maximizing spillovers • Competitive

Agricultural Research Since Independence

Decentralization Market

liberalization

Pluralistic System

2000

Economic crisisAutonomous NARI

1980-2000

Shift in client focus

Ministry of Agriculture

1960-1980

Drivers of Institutional Change

Institutional Form

Period

Institutional ApproachReturnsResearch UnitOrganization

National Research Progams

Zonal Research Institutes

Technology baskets-Natural resource management- IPM-Adaptive research

AgroecologiesFarming SystemsFarmer ParticipationEconomies of Scope

Technology spilloversLong-termIntractable constraints

-Crop breeding-Animal health-Livestock breeding-Biotechnology

Multi-DisciplinaryCritical MassEconomies of Size

Market ApproachResearch Coordinating Council

Competitive Grants

Universities Private Sector Research Institutes

Zonal Research Stations

Competitive Grants

Zonal Research Committee


OOrrggaanniizziinngg CCGGIIAARR AAccttiivviittiieess iinn AAffrriiccaa•42% of funds for Africa • •All IARC’s have programs in

Africa • •Most IARC’s have germplasm,

NRM & policy programs • •IARC’s research organized by

mandate and not eco-region

RRoollee ooff CCPP PPrroocceessss More Coherent Research Priorities in Africa

• Defined at continental or sub-regional level

• Defined within INRM framework • Within or between NRM,

germplasm, markets, and policy themes

?? More Efficient Institutional Arrangements

• –Working modes between IARC’s • –Working modes with SRO’s • –Allocating financial and personnel resources • –Competitive vs. program grants • •

Discussions on John Lynam’s presentation.

→ disconnection between the efforts made at a sub-regional level to build upstream capacity and the difficulties at NARS level to adjust capacities and processes.

→ Institutional change and new institutional arrangements are costly. There are trade-off to analyse with the costs of a network and its benefits (scale and spillover effects).

INRM being very site-specific, is there benefits as scaling-up? At the conceptual level?

⇒ SROs have very limited capacity, relying on international funds. There are whole areas on which building capacity (biometrics, GIS…). The question is how NARS think about responding? There is a huge leap of faith there because it takes much time to build capacity, having revamped priorities.

Increased synergies for poverty alleviation,promotion of sustainable practices & conservation of natural resources

Approaches to integrated natural

resources management

Adaptationto climate change

Agriculture, health& nutrition

Analysis of problems, priorities & impacts

Management ofagrobiodiversity

Improving learning mechanisms & the

spread of knowledge & capacities

Market Chains

Policies

The ESA regional Programmes


4 Challenges emerging from the 8 presentations After each presentation made on experiences, participants were requested to discuss in the

table groups to come up with challenges to make R4D more effective, coherent and impact-

oriented that were emerging from those presentations.

The challenges were clustered as follows: (details see table below)

• Role of FARA/ SSA-CP as coordinator and integrator, info exchange

• Issues and procedures towards the SSA-CP

• FARA/ SSA-CP role in Advocacy

• How to influence policies to become conducive to an INRM contest

• How to integrate markets into an INRM contest binding regionally, locally?

• How to build institutional arrangement and partnership for effective R4D?

• How to build individual, institutional & organisational capacity for R4D/ INRM?

• How to integrate biodiversity in the broader context of INRM?

• How to ensure that the demand side can articulate itself, considering livelihood improvement?

• How to move towards integrated approach?

• How to put soil fertility management in a broader NRM context?

• How t influence trade policies to be favourable to NRM?

• How to put plant breeding in a broader context?

Challenges to make R4D more effective, coherent and impact-oriented Role of FARA/ SSA-CP as coordinator and integrator, info exchange • How does CP link to big picture (what is niche)?

• Investing in activities creating synergies (e.g. to NEPAD, to SRT agenda)

• Getting balance right as to what is done Africa-wide, SRO level, pilot level is critical

• Recommend strong link with water & food CP

• Coordination, networking, info exchange-proper FARA role

• Coherence between CG centers in training on capacity building

• CP must find a niche within the context of the trigger, overwhelming challenges facing African agric. And concentrate its resources on a few key aspects to make a difference

• Linking with genetic resources challenge program

Issues and procedures towards the SSA-CP • If INRM most appropriate for subsistence farmers

(resource poor), should CP explicitly focus on these people?

• What would be the suggested core activities, how would they be chosen, how would you choose who would do it?

• Should the SSA-CP set up a GIS-based data base to match best bet soil improvement technologies with project

• Critical for benchmark selection

• Holistic approach but prioritised

• At what stages does the core group of SSA-CP bring the other strategic partners & how?

• SSA-CP should endeavor to support creation of critical mass of expertise at sub-regional levels

• How do we define a workable framework

• Income generation should be the first objective of the CP embedded into an INRM approach

• What are the research questions?


FARA/ SSA-CP role in Advocacy • FARA to provide strong advocacy for agric.

Research (technical info, policy, markets, trade, politicians

• CP efforts on catalytic activities

• National governments have to pit more money into e.g. research so that better capacity can be made operationally

• FARA & SRO’s must encourage government to support recruitment of young scientists

How to influence policies to become conducive to an INRM contest • Technologies should be accompanied by adequate

policy • Policy instability leads to unsustainable markets • Expanding capacity for understanding policy

processes to make them more relevant/ effective

• Policy research and reaching decision makers (advocacy for reforms)

• Identification of policy options to increase inter-regional trades in SSA

• Negative effects of subsidies in parts of the world to African farmers

• Farmers and policy makers empowerment How to integrate markets into an INRM contest binding regionally, locally? • Adaptive research on promising and successful

market system

• Must have credible plan for increasing availability fertilizers & credit

• Poorly developed agro-industrial sectors limits market opportunities

• Linkage to markets

• How do we encourage development input-output markets?

• How to value no little marketed goods (non-monetary value)?

• How to make markets be used to give positive incentives for INRM?

• Tenure security-investment in land

• Support to informal market

• When do markets lead to degradation or improved sustainability need for better understanding

• Emphasize market agro-industries

• How to mitigate negative effects of market on INRM market intelligence

• Important to identify market factors with positive and negative impact on INRM

• How to arrive at better market integration within Africa? (Regional markets)

• Soil degradation risk of creating market access & tendency to intensify production

• Access to land & tenure- a barrier to supplying domestic and regional markets

How to build institutional arrangement and partnership for effective R4D? • NGO’s may be better qualified to do action

oriented INRM, than IARC and SRO’s

• Clear role of the ‘others’

• How to define roles of stakeholders (NARS

• Mechanism to interact with private sectors • Definition of technology as interaction of several

factors useful

• Given complexity of relationships, the challenge is in ability t effectively involve strategic partnership to make a difference

• Including linking with regional org. E.g. ECOWAS & COMESA

• Role of private sector in production in addition to marketing

• Incentives required to catalyze partnership

• Enforce mechanism for greater linkage and integration at national level

• Define element of institutional building

• Decentralization of R4D

• A working support extension system

• NGO’s coordinated and monitored • Building strong & sustainable SRO and NARS • Strengthening the link between local traders, input

suppliers and technology developers requires- transformational development, capacity building of local traders into agro-dealers- attention to credits to increase access

• Increasing impact of science & making it more relevant by identifying and empowering necessary partners

• Functions of SRO’s- do they have the capacity to do the rationalization between NARI and CGIAR?

• Privatization of advisory services is questionable in SSA context

How to build individual, institutional & organisational capacity for R4D/ INRM? • Promotion of regional capacity building

How to integrate biodiversity in the broader context of INRM?

• Biodiversity of crops and livestock contribution to soil stability and fertility need to be explored


institution (formal and hand on)

• System thinking on capacity building (Partnering/ networking)

• NARS capacity to collaborate in regional programs

• Degree training should not be funded by the CP, but the Cp should encourage partners/ donors to do so with other funds

• Develop capacity of intermediary organisations to build farmers innovation capacity

• How to better manage knowledge

• Capacity building need to consider how to institutionalize new approaches of CP

• How to manage implementation of CP- changing the culture of technical research for institutions?

• Attitude change or mindset approach

• How to ensure alignment of capacity building regional dimension of problem

• Challenge in developing capacity is soft science

• How to integrate system approach into research agenda?

• How to reward scientists for adopting the system approach

• Need for an integrated approach for sustainable markets

• How to build capacity for agro-dealers/ institutions?

• How to build capacity to manage/ share agriculture knowledge/ information?

soil stability and fertility need to be explored

• Agro-biodiversity is a tool for crop and livestock improvement

• How to choose biodiversity interventions relative to impact, millennium goal etc?

• Biodiversity and ecosystem resilience assumes complementarity’s existence

• The CP should emphasize the importance of animal genetic resources, but link with other program (FAO, ILRI etc)

• Interims of biodiversity need to focus on 1 researchable issue across sites

• Do not overload the INRM agenda but do include key relevant biodiversity elements

• Community based conservation of biodiversity (field based gene banks)

• Relationship between agro- biodiversity and markets

• Need to focus on situations where biodiversity conservation also promote the welfare of farmers & communities

• Integrated conservation and utilization of agro- biodiversity

• Exploit the community based management of biodiversity concept at CP benchmark sites

• Increase ecosystem resilience

How to ensure that the demand side can articulate itself, considering livelihood improvement? • Consistency with household situation

• Biodiversity must be linked with livelihoods improvement – community based approaches

• Farmers purchasing power of low inputs-credits, subsidies etc.

• Testing hypothesis that address livelihood issues rather than research

• Farmer’s institutional organisation to increase adoption of INRM technologies

• How to raise the voice of farmers in international negotiations

• How to create need awareness of farmers?

• What mechanisms to articulate user’s demand in terms of markets, long-term yields etc?

• Existence of farmers’ organisation and NGO’s

How to move towards integrated approach? • Move from farmers system research to INRM

• Participatory action research missing from the SSA-CP operational approach

• More system modelling for efficiency

• Link the two papers- technology and processes

• Show to involve farmers throughout the process

• Risk of science being all modelling and data base

• Undertaking inventory of success stories & community NRM

• System approach a crucial tool for INRM

• INRM to be defined better

• Role of INRM in achieving the overall goal

• How to integrate crop technologies in INRM and more holistic context?

• Backstop demand-driven INRM research with fundamental studies

• Implementing the integrated approach is lacking

• How to develop an INRM approach for SSA-CP?

• INRM alone will not feed Africa- need plant breeding and fertilizer supply

• A need for an multidisciplinary/ holistic approach

• Soil fertility interacts with other major factors- disease, water etc.


• Participatory approaches need more emphasis and should be used to define research agenda criteria for crop-breeding and crop selection

• Best practices and optimal of NRM enhances livelihood for rural communities

How to put soil fertility management in a broader NRM context?

• Need to analyse soil degradation PBS spatially in terms of its drivers (socio-economic)

• Need to study economic & social aspects of soil fertility restitution

• Soil fertility is a problem but solutions in wider context

• Soil fertility is not silver bullets

• Intensification: ISFM x IPM (to avoid problems rich world)

• If focus is on soil fertility management, when & how do we bring in other NRM component e.g. germplasm, weed management?

• If soil fertility is a key problem/ constraint then we must demonstrate it

How t influence trade policies to be favourable to NRM?

• Protect African crops from unfair competition

• Protection of local markets

• Components on bio security IP missing from CP

• Barriers to entry in Africa’s export market

• Access to international markets and sustainable input market

• Problem of non-tariff barriers for export products

• FARA to facilitate harmonised bio-safety regulations at regional level

• Unfair international trade & international policies

• FARA’s role in supporting Africa global negotiations

• A vision of farmer as successful business wo/man

• CP can enhance NRM in peri-urban & urban agric. to promote increased food base for urbanites and improved incomes through marketing

• Role & risk of urban agriculture in urbanized continent

How to put plant breeding in a broader context? • Cross breeding ISFM and plant breeding

• Role of breeders in soil fertility management

• Soil/ water management through crop breeding

• Prioritise and accelerate work on crops that would enhance food security and increase income


5 Conceptual framework and Cornerstone for INRM by Mike Swift

It appeared that INRM as a concept was not fully understood. Therefore, Mike Swift, who has

been in the INRM task force since 1999, was asked to present the concept in a concise form

which is well understandable. He presented on the basis of the cornerstone – model and elaborated further on it (see

presentation Bruce Campbell).

Discussion on the INRM presentation → concern that a choice has emerged, to be done between research and change. Research for

development not research for its own sake, because research is about change, about new paradigm.

→ there is an issue of mutual responsibilities, when a team has to perform, one element not performing put the whole team in danger.

→ regarding one cornerstone, the Conservation Ecology website has nice papers that may be useful.

→ the cornerstones graph is built on experience, 50 persons have been put together to elaborate it.

→ it is impossible to disagree with question of ownership, anywhere, at any level. In Europe, the principle of subsidiarity is applied, recommending to operate at the lowest possible level. Hence why doing things at the continental level in Africa?

⇒ the right level of implementation is a difficult issue.

→ is SSA-CP an INRM pan-African programme?

→ is SSA-CP going to add value at all the money invested in agricultural research in Africa. Can't we be much bolder, do better, providing a conceptual framework?

→ there is need for understanding of approaching the synergies, amongst our diversity. There is need for political harmonisation.

⇒ there is need for an integrated approach.

The discussion clarified the conceptual background and made it easier to engage with the concept in order to apply it to the SSA-CP.

Building on this understanding and the discussions so far, the facilitator focussed on the

value-added of the SSA-CP to existing research work.


6 The value added by the CP Participants were requested to discuss about the issues that will be adding value to the CP.

After the participants had discussions around their tables, the following emerged form the

discussions as issues that add value to the CP.

The value added by the CP • INRM as an umbrella • INRM as a cornerstone

Providing mechanism for bringing people working in similar theme

• Integration multidisciplinary approach

• Maximize synergies

• Multi sectorally approach

• Design of CP

• Collaboration across NRS/SRO in big project to provide for economy of scale

Linking production, market and policy to generate income

• It takes care of the markets

• It must have market –orientation

• Using INRM approach to link up production, market-capacity

• Integration of resources (policy res, market res- output to influence transboundary trade

INRM approach to influence existing research to have better impact

• INRM adds value to existing component research in NRS

• Value added through – Policy, Markets and Advocacy

Value added in building systems research capacity • Capacity building (Knowledge system, individual

and institutional)

• Strengthening SRO’s

Value added in applying common methodology • Methods development

• Monitoring and evaluation of the implemented program

• Common methodologies (Mete analysis, mega analysis, transect) Enlarge recommendation domains

Feeding FARA results & information for effective advocacy at continental level

• Rapprochement with political leaders-Encouraging reinstate of subvention, extension

• Advocacy at appropriate level • Support by FARA at higher level-NEPAD

(policy)

Direct of indirect on poverty reduction • Poverty alleviation (start POV mapping)

Innovative (New science, partners) • Change innovation (methods, approaches, policy

changes (+ve)

Value added in common support • Interventions (technologies and institutions)

Coordinated priority setting for INRM at continental level

Task for Table discussions

If this proposal is to attract the commitment and energy of the major stakeholders (Donors and implementers), what are the criteria for “adding value” to existing work/ what is the “added value” of the CP?


7 A first Synthesis towards formulation of SSA-CP The synthesis group (Mano, Asaba, Taha, Marul, John, Assetou and Ade) were volunteering to

synthesize the issues that were dealt with since the beginning of the workshop. The group,

then reported back to the participants in plenary, and comments and inputs were invited from the participants. The synthesis group is highly commended for the job well done.

VViissiioonn SSttaatteemmeennttTThhee SSSSAA--CCPP wwiillll pprroovviiddee aaddddeedd vvaalluuee ttoo tthhee oonn--ggooiinngg aaggeennddaa ffoorr aaggrriicc

rreesseeaarrcchh ffoorr ddeevveellooppmmeenntt bbyy pprroovviiddiinngg aa ffrraammeewwoorrkk ffoorr pprriioorriittiizzaattiioonn ooff aaccttiivviittiieess wwiitthh eemmpphhaassiiss oonn ffoooodd sseeccuurriittyy,, rruurraall ppoovveerrttyy aanndd ssuussttaaiinnaabbllee lliivveelliihhoooodd wwiitthh tthhee oobbjjeeccttiivvee ooff aacchhiieevviinngg ccoohheerreennccee,, eeffffiicc iieennccyy aanndd llaassttiinngg iimmppaaccttss tthhrroouugghh tthhee aapppplliiccaattiioonn ooff pprriinncciipplleess ooff IINNRRMM

PPrrooppoossaall IIssssuueess •• SSccooppee:: ((SSppaattiiaall,, ccoonntteenntt))

•• VVaalluuee –– AAddddiinngg ((IImmpprroovvee uuppoonn eexxiissttiinngg aapppprrooaacchheess))

•• LLiinnkkaaggeess && PPaarrttnneerrsshhiippss ((ootthheerr pprrooggrraammss ((&& CCPP’’ss)) aanndd ssttaakkeehhoollddeerrss))

•• RReesseeaarrcchh VVss CChhaannggee ((RReesseeaarrcchh ffoorr DDeevveellooppmmeenntt))

IINNRRMM aass aa FFrraammeewwoorrkk DDeeffiinniittiioonn::

•• ––PPrroocceessss ooff mmaannaaggiinngg ccoommpplleexx ssyysstteemmss ((SSwwiifftt))

•• ––IInntteeggrraattiioonn ooff nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess ((ssooiill,, wwaatteerr aanndd ggeenneettiicc rreessoouurrcceess)),, pprroodduuccttiioonn ssyysstteemmss,, mmaarrkkeettss aanndd ppoolliicc iieess

KKeeyy CCoorrnneerrssttoonneess •• WWhhaatt ttyyppee ooff sscciieennccee ttoo ddoo??

•• SSoocciiaall oorrggaanniizzaattiioonn ooff sscciieennccee

•• AAddaappttiinngg && lleeaarrnniinngg

KKeeyy CChhaalllleennggeess ffrroomm CCoommmmiissssiioonneedd PPaappeerrss •• HHooww ttoo bbuuiilldd iinnddiivviidduuaall,, iinnssttiittuuttiioonnaall aanndd oorrggaanniizzaattiioonnaall ccaappaacciittyy ffoorr RR44DD iinn IINNRRMM

•• HHooww ttoo bbuuiilldd iinnssttiittuuttiioonnaall aarrrraannggeemmeennttss aanndd ppaarrttnneerrsshhiippss ffoorr eeffffeeccttiivvee RR44DD

•• HHooww ttoo iinntteeggrraattee bbiiooddiivveerrssiittyy iinnttoo tthhee bbrrooaaddeerr ccoonntteexxtt ooff IINNRRMM

•• HHooww ttoo iinntteeggrraattee mmaarrkkeettss iinnttoo aann IINNRRMM ccoonntteexxtt aatt llooccaall aanndd rreeggiioonnaall lleevveellss

•• HHooww ttoo eennssuurree tthhaatt RR44DD iiss ddeemmaanndd--ddrriivveenn

•• HHooww ttoo iinnfflluueennccee ppoolliiccyy ttoo bbeeccoommee ssuuppppoorrttiivvee ffoorr IINNRRMM ssyysstteemmss

•• RRoollee ooff FFAARRAA iinn aaddvvooccaaccyy,, ccoooorrddiinnaattiioonn aanndd ffaacciilliittaattiioonn

•• IIssssuueess aanndd PPrroocceedduurreess

-- TThhee ccoonncceepptt ooff IINNRRMM

-- BBeenncchhmmaarrkk ss ii tteess,,

-- GGeennddeerr iissssuueess

-- SSppeecc iiffiicc rreesseeaarrcchh qquueesstt iioonnss && pprroocceesssseess ,,

•• GGeenneerraall ccoonnsseennssuuss:: rreesseeaarrcchh ffoorr ddeevveellooppmmeenntt


CCrriitteerriiaa ffoorr SSeelleeccttiinngg CCoommppoonneennttss ooff tthhee CCPP PPrrooggrraamm •• SSuubbssiiddiiaarriittyy

•• CCoommpplleemmeennttaarriittyy

•• IInnnnoovvaattiivveenneessss

•• CCoonnttrriibbuuttiioonn ttoo ppoovveerrttyy rreedduuccttiioonn

VVaalluuee AAddddiinngg tthhrroouugghh tthhee CCPP •• MMeetthhooddss ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ((RR44DD,, iimmppaacctt oorriieennttaattiioonn))

•• BBuuiillddiinngg ccaappaacciittyy ffoorr ssyysstteemmss rreesseeaarrcchh

•• MMaaxxiimmiizziinngg ssyynneerrggiieess

•• SSccaalliinngg uupp aanndd ssccaalliinngg oouutt

•• AAddvvooccaaccyy aatt aapppprroopprriiaattee lleevveellss

•• SSyynntthheessiiss && ddiisssseemmiinnaattiioonn ooff bbeesstt pprraaccttiicceess

•• RReessoouurrccee mmoobbiilliizzaattiioonn

IIssssuueess ffoorr DDiissccuussssiioonnss iinn SSRROO GGrroouuppss •• OOppeerraattiioonnaall aarrrraannggeemmeennttss bbeettwweeeenn SSRROO’’ss && FFAARRAA SSSSAA--CCPP

•• PPrriioorriittyy--sseettttiinngg aatt ddiiffffeerreenntt lleevveellss

•• GGaappss iinn eexxiissttiinngg RR&&DD oorr RR44DD pprrooggrraammss

•• MMooddee ooff ppaarrttnneerrsshhiippss:: rroolleess&& rreessppoonnssiibbiilliittiieess

•• GGoovveerrnnaannccee

•• GGuuiiddeelliinneess aanndd pprroocceedduurreess ffoorr iimmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn

Discussions on the Synthesis presentation

→ nice list of what we have been discussed, the capacity-building issue is omitted.

⇒ capacity-building was not discussed in great details, it is mentioned as an issue.

→ the power point text has modified the vision statement for the sub-Saharan Africa visually, with brighter and darker parts of the sentence, why?

⇒ it is meant to highlights the theme of the SSA-CP, to highlight potential elements of the proposal. The initial single sentence is now two sentences.

→ the issue of dissemination should be of bringing in all players.

⇒ yes.

→ we are going to provide a framework, great, but is it all we are going to be doing?

→ we say how but not what will be achieved. For instance, it mentions coherence without precision, coherence of what?

→ we want to change the agenda of agricultural research but write about "on going research" in the Vision statement.

⇒ we want a vision, vision of NEPAD. Vision is not Mission, it is bigger, it is the dream.

⇒ a vision statement is by nature incomplete without objectives.


→ a vision statement is about what we want to see.

→ the SSA-CP is new science, new way of achieving it, of carrying out and implementing research.

→ markets are not visible, neither are income generation and food security. The issue of natural resources management is not very clear. Let's go back to the objective of the Vision statement.

⇒ we have a tool and we think INRM is good. Still, the deductive logic of it is missing. We still have to demonstrate that INRM is good to achieve what is wanted, that it is where you want to put your next dollar.

→ let us synthesise what was done.

→ Vision and Mission, we should look at both of them.

→ are benchmark sites useful?

Discussion on entry points → the selection of an entry point is critical.

→ what are the criteria to select an entry point? The likelihood of success in the short run, the importance of the problem being addressed.

→ what are the reason FARA chose soil fertility as an entry point?

⇒ that was asked by SRO’s in the first draft (2000).

⇒ soil fertility is universal, inclusive. It explains the failure of revolution in Africa.

→ it would be a mistake to have only one entry point. Entry points must vary across projects. Are we in a situation where we went to reinvent the wheel?

→ the framework is empty, there is no content, no definition of what the SSA-CP is about.

→ why break-out groups by sub-regions? Where is the pan-African vision?

⇒the 3 regions will define priorities, research activities that will add value. From there, priorities that cross cut will conform the Pan-African programme.

⇒ definitions should come from NARS and sub-regional organisation (bottom-up) rather than from NEPAD and FARA (top-down).

⇒ FARA is not a research body, it is a coordinating and facilitating body. Let's the Africans take the lead, let's the SRO’s drive the agenda. The SRO’s will identify priorities and problems that run across the whole continent.

→ we are ready to move forward to the slide: "7: role of FARA in advocacy, coordination and facilitation". We should add information exchange.

→ let's move to the mission statement. Have we forgotten Anne-Marie Izac had summarised the priorities of the 3 SRO’s Monday afternoon?

Discussion on criteria for selecting components → integration is missing in "value adding through the CP" slide.


→ is the impact principle sufficiently mentioned, as overarching? ⇒ all points of value adding should be seen as means to increase the impact.

Next slide on issues for discussion is SRO groups. → there are many processes going on with documentation. One group at this meeting is not

going to speak for all stakeholders, we are only one part of the stakeholders.

→ let's look at what NEPAD is doing.

→ more emphasis on what the sub-Saharan Africa is going to do.

→ FARA is putting together the SSA-CP, which is one instrument to respond to the agricultural research agenda. There are other agendas, with other stakeholders, we should think of dissemination. SSA-CP is not driven by one CG, all CG are there. Please let the SRO’s define the priorities, the issues that are most important, let's the SRO’s provide us with agendas.

→ the day is critical, in order to get something tangible. Most important is priority-setting. Let's go rapidly to group discussion on priority.

After the plenary discussion on the synthesis, the group split into working groups.


8 Sub Regional Level Group Discussions

Building on the discussion of the first 2 days (which clarified the overall frame of the SSA-CP) and the synthesis discussion, group work at sub-regional basis was carried out to further

develop the details under the overall frame. The sub-regional groups (ASARECA, SADC and

CORAF) were then sent out for their discussion, which lasted for the rest of the day.

The proposed questions for the group discussion were as follows:

8.1 Presentation of the ASARECA group 1. What possible entry points do you see in your sub-region (define criteria and options)? Cross-cutting ThemesNatural Resource Management

• Production • Markets

• PoliciesNatural Resource Management: Sub-Themes-Entry points • Land and water Mgt. • Crop-livestock Integration • Bio-Diversity Conservation

Production sub-Themes (Entry Points) • Enterprise Diversification (Crops &Livestock) • Opportunities for and Risks of System Intensification • Enhance and Sustain Production in Marginal areas

Marketing Sub-themes (Entry Points)

Questions for SRO group discussions Define the content, strategy of the proposal in line with the value-added at continental level: - 1. What possible entry points do you see in your sub-

region (define criteria and options)? 2. What kind of outcome s/ impact do you want to

achieve in line with the value-added at continental level?

3. What are the key strategies how you want to reach your desired outcomes?

4. Who are then the main potential stakeholders? 5. What are the 3 main overarching research

questions? 6. What processes are you using to further develop

the program with stakeholders


• Market access (Domestic, regional & international) • Market Institutional Innovations (Cooperatives, contract farming) • Farm and Non-Farm linkages (agro-industrial sectors etc)

Policies Sub-Themes (Entry points) • Regional Trade Policies • Domestic Trade Policies (Land tenure, input-output, taxation) • Food Safety

Capacity Building • Short trainings for INRM teams (multi-stakeholder teams) • University training (Change in Curriculum towards system orientation) • Capacity building for smallholder farms

2. What kind of outcome s/ impact do you want to achieve in line with the value-added at continental level?

NRM outcomes: Land and Water Mgt.Farmers adopt technologies to manage better the soil and water

• Integrated soil fertility management developed and adopted by the farmers • Soil erosion on hillsides reduced

Crop-Livestock Integration • Increased use of forage legumes on smallholder farms • Technologies for crop/livestock integration

BIO-DIVERSITY • Enhancing mgt and utilization of bio-diversity

Production outcomes: System Intensification

• Technologies and practices that enhance the productivity of crop-livestock systems adopted

• Farmers capacity to manage risks increased

Production in marginal areas • Strategies to mitigate drought in marginal areas • Technologies suitable for marginal areas • Reduce land degradation and prevent loss of NRB

¦Marketing outcomes • Market access->Improved market access to smallholder farms and traders • Market Institutional innovations->Innovations to enhance competitiveness established • Linkages->linkages between farm and non-farm linkages strengthened

Policy outcomes • Enabling Institutional/policy environ. for production, marketing and trade • Trade policies harmonized to promote regional trade • Policies and technologies available for production and marketing safe food.

Capacity Building OutcomesShort-training for INRM Teams-> Functional INRM Teams in place • University Training-> Curriculum toolkits for system analysis developed and used; curriculum

on systems approach embedded in Msc and PhD • Farmer capacity build.-> farmers empowered to management resources sustainable

3. What are the key strategies how you want to reach your desired outcomes?

• Participatory technology development/innovation • Market institutional innovations • Capacity building at all levels


• Broad partners at all levels 4. What are the 3 main overarching research questions?Soil and water mgt.

• Market issues • Enabling policy environments

Main Stakeholders • Farmers, Extensionists, NGOs • Private sectors, Donors • SRO’s, CBO’s, FARA, Public sector • Regional organisations, development partners, NARI’s.

5.What processes are you using to further develop the program with stakeholders • Consultation of the major stakeholders led by the sub-regional organizations

8.2 Presentation of the SADC group SSAADDCC OOrrggaanniizzaattiioonnssSADC – under going reforms

• SADC-FANR: currently being reconstructed but shall have the mandate to spearhead agricultural research and training formerly with SACCAR

• SACCAR: on its way out • SADC Council of Ministers of Agriculture • Other SADC sub-regional organizations • FANRPAN: policy research and advocacy • SoilFertNet: SFM research & technology development • Agro forestry network • RANESA: natural resource and environmental economics • SADC Donor Hub: agricultural and economic development

KKeeyy PPrriioorriittyy RReesseeaarrcchh AArreeaass sseett bbyy FFAANNRR 11.. DDeevveellooppiinngg ssuussttaaiinnaabbllee mmaarrkkeettiinngg ssyysstteemmss ffoorr ssmmaall llhhoollddeerr aaggrriiccuullttuurree 22.. SSuussttaaiinnaabbllee mmaannaaggeemmeenntt ooff tthhee eennvviirroonnmmeenntt 33.. EEmmppoowweerrmmeenntt ooff iinnssttiittuuttiioonnss 44.. IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn aanndd ccoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn FFuunnddiinngg:: -- EEUU//FFrreenncchh//AADDBB//UUSSAAIIDD:: UUSS$$((22++22++1177))mm

IImmpprroovviinngg IImmppaacctt ooff SScciieennccee && TTeecchhnnoollooggyy oonn AAggrriiccuullttuurraall DDeevveellooppmmeenntt ((SSAADDCC PPrriioorriittyy AArreeaass –– ffrroomm UUNN PPoossiittiioonn PPaappeerr ffrroomm SSAADDCC)) PPooll iicciieess::

• Domestic food, agricultural and NRM policy: land tenure policy • Trade Policy: building capacity for SADC to negotiate favorable global trade policies, • Land tenure policies

GGoovveerrnnaannccee • Reform weak public institutions e.g. NARI’s • Improving institutional arrangements & linkages: regional, continental, global levels

AAggrriiccuullttuurraall rreesseeaarrcchh && tteecchhnnoollooggyy ddeevveellooppmmeenntt

• Natural resource management : soil, water, crop & livestock, bio-diversity of flora/fauna • Harmonization of breeding programs and variety release policies for SADC seed security

CCrroossss ccuuttttiinngg iissssuuee ooff hhuummaann hheeaalltthh:: HHIIVV//AAIIDDss,, mmaallaarriiaa,, TTBB

• Mainstreaming traditional medicine


• Improving labor productivity • Capacity building

DDeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff ddoommeessttiicc aanndd rreeggiioonnaall aaggrriiccuullttuurraall aanndd ffoooodd mmaarrkkeettiinngg ssyysstteemmss IImmpprroovviinngg aaggrriiccuullttuurraall ttrraaiinniinngg,, rreesseeaarrcchh aanndd eexxtteennssiioonn ll iinnkkaaggeess

• Information mgt systems e.g. use of modern Information and communication technology • Reform of agricultural training institutions and review of curriculum • Reform of research and extension institutions and policies, • Making agricultural professions attractive to youths

UUnnddeerrlliinniinngg VVaalluueess ooff tthhee CCPP • Effective institutional partnerships • Multi-disciplinarily • Participation of relevant stakeholders

CCoorree tthheemmeess ffoorr vvaalluuee aaddddiinngg tthhaatt ccuutt aaccrroossss tthhee ccoonnttiinneenntt CCaappiittaalliizziinngg oonn SSccaallee oorr ssppiilllloovveerr EEffffeeccttss

• –Institutional collaboration innovation • –Policy linkage innovation • –Market linkage innovation • –INRM research approach innovation • –Policy advocacy at Pan African and global level • –Pan-African trans-boundary resource management and collaborative technology research

PPrriioorriittyy RReesseeaarrcchh TThheemmeess:: PPoossssiibbllee EEnnttrryy PPooiinnttss ffoorr CCPPMarkets & Policy • Institutional and Capacity Building • Mechanisms for Technology dissemination & scaling –up and out • New research and technology development • Research on Research Approaches • Implications of HIV/AIDS on Research for Development

RRaannkkiinngg ooff PPoossssiibbllee EEnnttrryy PPooiinnttss • Criteria for possible entry points • Scale and spillover -possibility for extrapolation to other African region, address common

priority problems for the sub-region and potentially common solution • High potential impact on development goals (food security, poverty eradication) to the sub-

region and beyond • Add value to past, present and future research for development programs • Clear link to sustainable management of natural resource by farmers • Demonstrable potential to benefit disadvantaged groups • Potential for quick and sustainable benefits • Capacity to implement

RRaannkk OOrrddeerriinngg ooff SSeelleecctteedd EEnnttrryy PPooiinnttss MMeetthhoodd UUsseedd:: IInnddiivviidduuaall ssccoorriinngg bbyy ccrriitteerriiaa RReessuullttaanntt rraannkkiinngg ooff EEnnttrryy PPooiinnttss

• Action Research on Markets & Policy (379) • Action Research on Mechanisms on scaling up (366) • Research on Implications of HIV on Research for Development (363) • Action Research on Research Approaches (289) • NRM & biotech research to develop new technology (254)

CCrroossss ccuuttttiinngg IIssssuuee:: IInnssttiittuuttiioonnaall iinnnnoovvaattiioonn aanndd ccaappaacciittyy bbuuiillddiinngg MMAAIINN SSTTAAKKEEHHOOLLDDEERRSS IImmppoorrttaannccee ooff eeaacchh ssttaakkeehhoollddeerrss ddiiffffeerrss bbyy iissssuuee:: ((pprriimmaarryy,, sseeccoonnddaarryy aanndd tteerrttiiaarryy))


• Farmers & farmer organizations • Policy makers at NARI’s, National Government, SADC, • Private sector, civic and public sectors • Regional Organizations, • Researchers • Donors, investors • NGOs, Development agencies • Health institutions

IImmppoorrttaanntt SSttaakkeehhoollddeerrss bbyy TThheemmaattiicc EEnnttrryy PPooiinnttss

Markets & Policy

Mechanisms for Technology Dissemination & Scaling up/out

Implications of HIV/AIDS on research for development

Research approaches

Development of New Technologies

Capacity-building of institutions & farmers

1 Farmers & farmer organizatio n s

3 3 3 2 3 3

2 Business community

3 2 2 1 2 2

3 Consumers & consumer organizations

3 0 1 0 1 1

4 Policy Makers

3 3 3 3 3 3

5 Donors & Investors

3 3 3 3 3 3

6 Research & education & extension

2 3 3 3 3 3


IImmppoorrttaanntt SSttaakkeehhoollddeerrss bbyy TThheemmaattiicc AArreeaa……..

EExxppeecctteedd AAffrriiccaa--wwiiddee OOuuttccoommeess bbyy KKeeyy TThheemmaattiicc EEnnttrryy ppooiinnttss 11..RReesseeaarrcchh oonn MMaarrkkeettss && ppoolliiccyy

• Informed policy debate on regional and inter regional agricultural trade issues • Effective models for linking smallholder farmers to markets identified, shared and

implemented across regions • Africa wide approach to international trade negotiations crafted and implemented

22..RReesseeaarrcchh oonn MMeecchhaanniissmmss oonn ssccaalliinngg uupp mmeecchhaanniissmmss • New strategies for technology dissemination and best practices in scaling up/out identified,

shared and implemented across sub regions • Factors determining success in scaling up identified and shared with policy makers within and

across the SRO’s 33.. IImmpplliiccaattiioonnss ooff HHIIVV//AAIIDDss oonn RReesseeaarrcchh ffoorr DDeevveellooppmmeenntt

• Continental strategies for addressing HIV/AIDs in R4D identified and shared • Strategies for mitigating effects of HIV/Aids staff attrition in agricultural research • Institutions developed and shared across regions • Appropriate labor saving, high yielding technologies for HIV/AIDs impacted farmers

developed and shared across the continent 44..RReesseeaarrcchh oonn RReesseeaarrcchh AApppprrooaacchheess

• Research approaches that produce effective livelihood outcomes identified and tested across regions shared and institutionalized across SSA

55.. TTeecchhnnoollooggyy DDeevveellooppmmeenntt • Efficient NRM technologies and improved varieties for specific pan- • African agro zones e.g. dry areas develop and shared across sub regions • Pan African systems established for financing resource-intensive • Biotech technology development and resultant research products and • Technologies shared across regions

66.. IInnssttiittuuttiioonnaall IInnnnoovvaattiioonnss && ccaappaacciittyy bbuuiillddiinngg • Weaker institutions capacity built through partnership and sharing of expertise across sub-

Regions • Economies of scale in development of training materials and offering specialized training in

critical areas of R4D realized

Markets & Policy

Mechanisms for Technology Dissemination & Scaling up/out

Implications of HIV/AIDS on research for development

Research approaches

Development of New Technologies

Capacity-building of institutions & farmers

7 NGOs & development agencies

2 3 3 2 3 2

8 Regional and international organizations & networks

2 2 3 2 2 3

9 NRM Authorities

1 1 2 1 2 2

10 Information providers

2 1 1 1 2 2

11


• Best practices in sustainable training methods developed and shared across regions • Knowledge management systems cutting across regions established • Best practices in institutional arrangements crafted to enable research products to reach and

improve livelihood of farmers across regions

WWaayy FFoorrwwaarrdd

• Hold regional level stakeholder consultations to discuss draft CP • Shall include a broad group of stakeholders NARI’s, resident CGIAR, FANR, • FANR in possible collaboration with FANRPAN and SoilFertNet to organize • Feed back review of draft challenge program • Encourage regional teams to prepare INRM inspired draft proposals for the SSA-CP and

others

Discussions on SADC group presentation → the excellent presentation show that small in not always a disadvantage, here regarding the

size of the group that met all requirements from the facilitator in terms of focus and food for thought.

→ the presentation allows us to come up with criteria on what would qualify, what would squarely fit in the guidelines. With a little bit of extension of these criteria, we can embrace all entry points.

→ HIV/AIDS popped up as a critical issue. Does it imply for agricultural research a new cross-cutting issue?

→ proposition the SADC break-out group join the drafting committee!

8.3 Presentation of the CORAF group PPrriioorriittyy AArreeaass ffoorr WWeesstt aanndd CCeennttrraall AAffrriiccaa TThhee mmaajjoorr ffooccuuss ffoorr WWCCAA iinncclluuddeess

• Poverty alleviations • Food security • Impoverished soils • Entry points should be driven by the markets • Capacity building • Priorities set by NARS, SRO’s CORAF • Commodity based priorities • Systems based priorities • Transversal priorities – NRM, policy, biotechnology, information and communication

CCoonncceerrnnss

• Technologies had focused on production • Future INRM programs should also focus on whole value chain: processing, marketing,

consumption • Policy issues largely neglected • Production x markets • How to enhance benefits to small scale farmers • Effects of markets on environmental issues • Markets and access to inputs

OOvveerraallll FFrraammeewwoorrkk:: IINNRRMM


• Good soil base • Water issue –rain fed agriculture • Linked to agro-biodiversity • Pests and diseases • Role of communities/participants • Forest/fisheries management??

TThhee eennttrryy ppooiinnttss

• Production; • Markets; • Policy; • Capacity development as cross cutting.

PPrroodduuccttiioonn:: eelleemmeennttss ttoo bbee aaddddrreesssseedd

• Improved germplasm • Low efficiency of input use • Low labour productivity • Little market orientation • Weak productivity of the farming system • Poor integration of the production systems • Land tenure constraints • Weak access to credits

MMaarrkkeettss:: eelleemmeennttss ttoo bbee aaddddrreesssseedd

• Access to markets; including infrastructural issues, limited competition • Quality of products, harvest, produce processing, conservation, conditioning • Poor market information systems • Poorly organised producer organisations

PPoolliiccyy:: eelleemmeennttss ttoo bbee aaddddrreesssseedd

• Facilitating/guaranteeing access to inputs; subsidies; decentralisation and liberalisation • Strengthening research, and extension; partnerships with farmers- extension agents • System on market control/information – training on international markets; policy that promotes

regional and international markets • Promotion and institutionally strengthening of professional producer organisations/

stakeholder involvement • Access to credits • Land tenure securities, • Quality control issues • Promotion of agro-industries


FFrraammeewwoorrkk ffoorr pprriioorriittiissiinngg ttooppiiccss ttoo bbee aaddddrreesssseedd bbyy tthhee SSSSAA CCPP Cross-cutting themes

Natural resource mgt

• Need for a good soil base

• Water issue –rain fed agriculture

• Agro-biodiversity/ genetic diversity

• Pests and diseases

• Role of communities/participants

A. Production A1. Improving the productivity of production. Systems A2. Diversification of production systems

B. Markets B1. Development of market information systems B2. Market control x legislation B3. Organisation of producer groups. B4. Improvement of access to inputs

C. Policies C1. Strengthening institutional capacity in respect of research x extension. C2. Improving access to inputs/ B4. Improvement of access to inputs C3. Market regulation/ B2. Market control x legislation C4. Improving access to credits C5. Improving land tenure securities

Building sustainable livelihoods

A1. Improving the productivity of production Systems A2. Diversification of production systems

B1. Development of market information systems B3. Organisation of producer groups

C1. Strengthening institutional capacity in respect of research x extension. C2. Improving access to inputs C3. Market regulation C4. Improving access to credits

Integrated natural Resources mgt



C1. Strengthening institutional capacity in respect of research x extension. C2. Improving access to inputs C3. Market regulation C4. Improving access to credits C5. Improving land tenure securities

Capacity building



C1. Strengthening institutional capacity in respect of research x extension. C4. Improving access to credits

Priority topics must involve two or more core themes

RReesseeaarrcchh QQuueessttiioonnss

• How may integrated natural resource management be most effectively used in the diversification of production?

• How may integrated natural resource management be most effectively used to increase productivity of major commodities driven by good market policy?

• In what situations can INRM make significant contribution to improve food security and to poverty alleviation.

• Can the INRM approach be scaled up, and out in a cost effective manner?

• Can the rural poor afford to get involved in INRM?

• Can the rural poor afford to get involved in INRM?

• What is it about the interaction between policy and markets that leads to either a degrading or an enhancing NRM trajectory?


• Effects of best-bet practices of soil and water conservation on improving productivity of major food crops and conserving biodiversity?

• Policies enabling farmers to replace soil mining by sustainable production?

• Soil re-capitalisation. Efforts made to correct major soil deficiency problems?

• Formulation of policies providing leverage effects?

OOuuttccoommeess:: NNRRMM • Increased adoption of soil & water mgt strategies

• Increase pest & disease mgt integration with soil fertility mgt

• Improved mgt of agrobiodiversity at community levels

• Enhanced utilisation of genetic diversity and their conservation

OOuuttccoommeess:: pprroodduuccttiioonn

• Increased productivity and production of selected major crops/livestock of food security significance

• Increased production of high value crops in urban and peri-urban areas

• Improved productivity and production a number of neglected and under-utulised species of food security significance

OOuuttccoommeess:: mmaarrkkeettss • Improved access to markets: national regional and international

• Improved market information systems at community and national levels

• Better organisation of producer groups

• Enhance value addition to agricultural produce

• Niche markets identified for neglected and under-utilised species

OOuuttccoommeess:: ppoolliiccyyPolicy in place to support improved access to inputs and credits

• Policy on to strengthen extension and it link with farmers and research

• Appropriate policy on market control and facilitation

• Strengthened policy on international trade

Discussions on CORAF group presentation

+ capacity building at all level.

+ emphasis on the lack of access to markets, on policies that require research to be delimited.

+ analysis that structural adjustment hasn't been accompanied by policies allowing the private sector to take over.

+ cooperation across regions requires attention

+ markets constraints and food security are linked where domestic markets are very limited.

→ lots of commonalities with SADC priorities, though the manner of presenting is different, content is less different than presentation.


→ the approach is pedagogic, very fruitful, enriching, highlighting common things. → need for a strategy to consolidate without loosing information, perhaps SADC matrix, to which other groups inputs will add content.

→ the election on priorities is needed for other groups as well.

→ the issue of affordability should be raised: can the rural poor afford natural resources management? Human health factors must be included, how can the SSA-CP address the issue?

→ it is very important to flash the need to do a thorough environmental assessment, cf. Kofi Debrah's presentation on possible positive impact of improving productivity on the environment.

→ congratulations for taking into account marginal lands, knowledge and know-how of peasants there should also be taken into account, they are de facto those in charge of natural resources management.

→ the market is there. After policy design, implementing policy is crucial.


9 Synthesis of Sub-Regional Group Presentations After the three sub-regional group presentations were made, the facilitator requested the

participants (around the table discussion) to synthesis the presentation by answering the

following questions?

9.1 Common threads/ convergence

Common threads/ convergence Market & policy

• Market and policy

• Market emphasis & appropriate policy incentives

• Enabling policies for national, regional & global trade

• This Cp should focus on market access for farmers (local).

• FARA should find other ways to work on regional trade issues

• Market orientation

• Regional trade policy harmonization

• Market integration, efficiency, information

• Politique- reform

•

Human & institutional capacity building

• Capacity building and empowerment at all levels

• More focus on farmers and farmer organisations

• Enhancing human and institutional capacity

• Capacity building and maintenance

• Institutional innovation

• Renforcement de capacites

New paradigm • New paradigm

• INRM approach

• Participatory approaches to technology generation and transfer

• Embracing INRM

Scaling up/ out

• Scaling up & out (dissemination)

• Moving available technologies off the shelf to the farmers

Focus on methodologies Better knowledge management

Table discussion task 1. What are the common threads across

the three presentations?

2. What are the divergent across the three?

3. What are the new/ different issues on which the proposal should focus?


9.2 Divergent Issues

Divergent Issues Ranking priorities (process & criteria)

• Ranking & prioritisation of entry points not done in all groups

• Divergent thematic priorities

• Prioritisation based on pre-defined criteria

• Lack of clear methodology for prioritisating

Marginal lands • Marginal lands

• Focus on marginal areas & small holder farmers

• Not focus on marginal areas but rather where many small farmers, market potential, chronic soil and other problems

• Focus on soil

• Urban/ peri-urban agriculture

• Issues on soil fertility not coming out as an entry point

• Is marginal areas research a priority?

Gender integrally included • Gender focus was not explicit in all groups

Research on research/ new approaches • Research on research methodologies/ approaches

• Acceptability of INRM as an approach

• SADC group considered continent wide issues HIV/AIDS

• HIV/AIDS not in all groups

• Implication of HIV/AIDS in Agricultural research for development

• Develop more technologies under SSA-CP or not

•

The ‘divergent’ issues were debated in length to reach a common understanding and agreement on the issues. Finally the plenary reached consensus on the issues


9.3 What is new/ different? The participants were also requested to synthesis the SRO group presentation with regarding to the issues that are new, and should be included in the proposal. The issues emerged as

follows:

What is new/ different?

Health issues • Health issues including HIV/AIDS

• HIV/AIDS effect/ implication on R4D farming system

The what & how –new paradigm • New research, paradigm could leverage value of

future research expenditure by NARI, SRO’s & IARC

• What is new is not WHAT but HOW?

• Research on process

• Demand-driven research in PAR mode

• Research on better ways to conduct to scale up/out, to incorporate clients/ improve impact assessment

• Crop-livestock in the new

• New approaches INRM as the paradigm

• Put on going work into new frame to create value added and address the issue of scale

Market orientation • Importance of markets to agriculture research

Involving of private sectors as key players • Importance of involvement of small-scale

private sectors in INRM teams as key players

• The role of private sectors is missing

Partnership and teams • Effective (smart) partnership

• Mode of collaboration ‘TEAM’

• Need for a mechanism for sharing credit by all partners

Influence on the big picture • Opportunity influencing NEPAD’s agric.

agenda

• Emphasis on institutional capacity building

The exercise brought out well the distinct differences between SSA-CP and existing

mainstream work. It highlighted the innovative character of the future proposal.


10 SSA-CP Proposal Development: Outline, gaps, process Mike Swift outlined the state of affairs in the workshop towards the proposal development.

He indicated what elements have been clarified and which ones still need to be further

elaborated as well as an initial drafting process schedule. SSA CP CONTENTS Draft 1.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN

1. Background

2. Vision, Mission, Goal, Objectives etc.

3. Rationale

4. Programme Themes: Building sustainable livelihoods

5. Research for development approach

6. Building capacity

7. Implementation procedures

8. Research for development plan


1.Background 2.Vision, Mission, Goal, Objectives

Content Durban Statement etc, FARA, SRO’s, NEPAD •Origins of the CP, process of integration of activities. •etc

Status OK – pre-proposal

•OK – position paper

Content As above

Status Mission’ drafted (Synthesis Group) •Vision, Goal and Objectives need drafting and discussing.

3. Rationale 4.Programme Themes: Building sustainable livelihoods

Content •Trends in African Agric: constraints to progress etc •Definition of the CP problem – lack of impact of research results.

Status •Rich material in papers; needs selecting and organising. •Needs to be drafted

Content •INTEGRATION as the major response. •The four components of the system. •Linkage with all livelihood components •Added values •Importance of interactions •etc

Status •Stakeholder buy-in to the concepts. • •Rich material generated during workshop needs to be collated and organised.

5. Research for development approach

6. Building capacity

Content •Managing complexity for increased impact of ag research is the innovation brought by the CP. •‘INRM’ principles provide a model of a suitable research and development paradigm . •Research on research.

Status •Buy-in by workshop. •Case to be made that complexity science is as cutting edge as genomics. •Customised paradigm needs writing as knowledge management system for CP. •

Content •Adoption of integrative and system approaches implies change for all stakeholders both individual and institutional.

Status •Substantial material generated during workshop. •Needs collating, organising and drafting.

•Training for INRM needs more discussion?

7. Implementation procedures

8. Research for development plan

Content •Selection of Implementation teams, Sites etc. •Competitive grants process •‘Core’ research projects? •Management structures. •etc

Status •Remain to be discussed?

Content •Main research agenda section ie what will be done. •Programme Outputs by theme. •Guideline for Project design. •By Theme with emphasis on interactions? •Structure by hypotheses, research questions, outputs etc?

Status •Pre-proposal hypotheses need revisiting. •Very substantial material (entry points, priorities etc) generated by SRO groups. •Needs discussion of structure and level of detail to be addressed?

B. BUSINESS PLANGovernance

2. Budget


3. etc

C. PROCESS FRAMEWORKProject timetable (and Milestones)

2. Inception phase

a. -What will we do in the first year?

Summary: Issues for Discussion by small groups 1. Vision, Goal and Objectives.

2. Definition of the CP problem.

3. Implementation procedures.

4. Timetable particularly Inception Year.

Proposal Drafting Process • March 14: Drafting Committee (DC) meets; agrees structure, timetable and

responsibilities.

• March 28th Writers circulate Draft.1 to DC.

• April 4th: Inputs from DC to writers.

• April 11th: Draft.2 circulated to all stakeholders.

• April 18th: Inputs from stakeholders to writers and DC.

• April 28: Draft 3 passed to editor.

• May 11th: Edited draft (=Version 1) submitted to FARA and all stakeholders.

• May 19/20: FARA General Assembly comments on Version 1.

• May 20: Deadline for receipt of stakeholder comments.

• May 30: Final draft submitted to editor.

• June 6: submission to CGIAR iSC.

After Mike’s presentation on the achievements and gaps, the governance group was tasked to

present their group work results which they reached during the day-long discussions. They were able to fill some of the existing gaps.


11 Presentation of the Governance group Sarah made a presentation on behalf of the governance group.

Proposed Governance of the SSA-CP Participants

• Bruce Scott • Philippe Vialatte • Monty Jones • Joseph Mukiibi • Ralph von Kaufmann • John Lynam • Sarah Gavian

Background: SSA-CP in FARA • The SSA-CP is one of several activities FARA can and will undertake.

• Sample activities include:

- Coordination of implementation of NEPAD’s agricultural research strategy - Technical secretariat of the Multi-country agricultural productivity program for Africa

(MAPP) - Representation to GFAR - Works with the SROs to implement the Competitive Grant Scheme for Agricultural

Research for Development in Africa - Coordination of the SSA-CP

• FARA is not the same as the SSA-CP: FARA’s Governance structure

- General Assembly - Executive Committee - Secretariat

• FARA will be a Legal Persona end of March 2003: enter into contracts

• FARA has a financial status independent from CP

- Already receiving some donor support - Discussions underway with several donors above/beyond CP for broader range of

activities • Proposing a governance structure for the SSA-CP only, not for all of FARA or all of its

evolving activities - At a minimum, this structure must satisfy the conditions of the CGIAR for Challenge

Programs. - Ideally, the SSA-CP governance structure can serve as a general model for how FARA

will do business, building credibility • In terms of legal persona

- FARA’s Executive Committee has already given FARA the authority to be responsible for the SSA-CP

- FARA will exercise both program and fiduciary oversight of the SSA-CP (the buck stops here)

Guidance usedGuidance used to develop our proposals for SSA-CP Governance: - CGIAR Guidelines (from web site)


- Lessons learned, both in general and specifically from other approved Challenge Programs (ie, water, biofortification)

- Comments received on pre-proposal - Communications between FARA and CGIAR Secretariat

CG Guidelines for Governance • Specific governance structure for each CP is determined by core parties

• Structures must provide effective, credible, accountable approach to running the CP

• Recommendation for a steering group - Independent chairperson

- Representatives of core parties, including end users, stakeholders

- Minimum of 2 CG centers and 2 NARS

• External peer review

• Use of competitive funding mechanisms

Working Group’s Proposed Principles of Governance for SSA-CP

• Transparency

• Accountability to stakeholders

• Representativeness and inclusiveness

• Objectivity

• Integrity and probity

• Subsidiarity (what can be better done by lower levels should be done there)

Proposed Governance Structure for SSA-CP • Program Steering

Committee

• Scientific Advisory Committee

• Challenge Program (CP) Office

• Sub-regional Steering Committees (3)

Program Steering

Committee

Scientific Advisory

Committee

CP Office

Sub-Regional Steering

Committee


Committee


Committee

FARA


Program Steering Committee (PSC) • Role: Responsible for overall priorities for SSA-CP

- equivalent of a Board of Directors

• Functions - Makes policy related to SSA-CP; determines program & priorities (including scientific

priorities) - Ensures quality of programs, assesses performance - Appoints Scientific Advisory Committee and CP office - Allocates financial resources for approved proposals and other activities of CP - Makes linkages with SRO’s, NARS, CGIAR, other CP’s, countries and with constituents

and stakeholders - Mediates conflicts - Ensures outreach and communication

PSC: Membership (11) • FARA (1)

• SRO’s (3)

• CGIAR (2)

• ARI (1)

• Community Based Organization (1)

• Farmer Org. (1)

• Nongovernmental organizations (1)

• Private sector (1)

• CP Coordinator (1) - ex officio

PSC: Selection of Members • PSC members are to serve as effective links back and forth between their

constituencies and FARA

• Each group sends own representative

• Choice of group to represent “constituency” varies a bit depending on category - Each SRO, selected by Committee of Directors - ARIs: FARA will contact European Council for Agricultural Research in the the Tropics

ECART, and the US counterpart and ask them to propose candidates; (possible rotation) - CBOs, FOs, NGOs, PS: FARA will work from existing inventories of networks of these

bodies to determine which ones to ask to send representatives (as they did for this meeting)

- CGIAR representatives will be selected by Center Directors Committee

Program Steering Committee • Tenure: 2 year staggered rotating terms, but initially 3 years during inception

• Chairperson will be selected from the group

• PSC will meet at least once a year, but more often as needed (and probably considerably more in the first year)


Scientific Advisory Committee • Role: to ensure that the CP employs the best science and methods in a coherent

manner between regions

• Membership

• Composition depends on outcome of SRO meetings

• Appointed by PSC

• Reporting: reports to and advises PSC

SAC: Core Functions • Ensure scientific quality and relevance of components and outputs of the SSA-CP

• Recommends scientific criteria and framework for competitive grants within SSA-CP

• Evaluate concept notes and proposals (pre-screened) and recommend to PSC for funding

• Set up necessary mechanisms to implement emerging scientific agenda

Challenge Program Office • Headed by CP Coordinator

• Reports to PSC

• Functions: - Management - Coordination - Implementation of CP - Review concept notes and proposals before submission to SAC

Issues in Developing Next Level? • Subsidiarity: want decision-making delegated to lowest level possible to ensure

ownership and representation

• Issue of how best to combine thematic concerns with sub-regional representation - Concern that matrix approach (themes x subregions) would be too heavy - Propose that the degree of complexity depend in part on size and number of CP activities

to be managed - Propose to create sub-regional mechanisms with flexibility to pull in additional technical

resources or stakeholders as needed

Sub-Regional Steering Committees • Role: Ensure overall coherence of CP activities with sub-regional priorities

• Membership: Committee of Directors, which may create task forces and pull in

appropriate stakeholders as needed

• Functions - Review and endorse concept notes before submission to SAC - Ensure CP activities are in accordance with ongoing sub-regional priorities - Ensure CP activities maximized value-added (rather than duplicate) - Appoint own representatives to PSC

• Origin of proposal topics and criteria to be determined by SAC


• Any FARA member can submit a proposal (CG Secretariat confirms that it not necessary for a CG center to serve as lead implementing agency in research consortium formed under the CP)

• Two stage process: concept note, full proposal

• Vetted by sub-regional steering committee(s) and CP Coordinator

• Evaluated and selected by SAC

Unfinished BusinessGuidelines for competitive grants process including

- Process by which topics are selected for funding - Criteria for selecting proposals

• •Work plan for inception phase

Discussions on governance group presentation

→ what'll be the size of the advisory committee?

⇒ not specified yet

→ who are the stakeholders at this stage of the SSA-CP? Do they include the policy and the end-beneficiaries? In that case, shouldn't they include representation of governments, of NEPAD, of ministries of trade?

⇒ representation of the NEPAD is a good point, but the PSC should remain of limited size.

→ proposition to elevate the CP office closer to FARA secretariat.

→ beware of duplication in the process from the concept note stage to the full development proposal and implementation.

FARA General Assembly

Program Steering

Committee

Scientific Advisory

Committee

CP Office

Exec Comm of CGIAR


Committee


Committee


Committee

Support, Advise, select CNs & proposals

Annual Report

External Review

FARA Secretariat

FARA ExCo

Reports

Report

Review Concept Notes & Proposals

Appt own members to PSC

Appoints members

Review Concept notes & Proposals


⇒ the issue of complexity has been tackled by the governance group.

→ what is the rationale for including the ARIs vis-à-vis other institutions outside Africa? What's the definition of CBOs, where are they coming from?

⇒ ARIs are part of the historical baggage, we kept the categories we have used in the past, as for composing FARA.

→ we should study the defeat experiences, the programmes that spent so much time reviewing and evaluating proposals.

→ core funding and competitive bids: competition can be destructive, successful teams should be identified for core funding.

⇒ let's rely on the flexible nature of SRO committees.

→ in the Water and Food challenge programme

- the CG centers don't have to be leaders, they only have to be included

- there are 6 persons full time for reviewing

- there are independent scientific advisors, independent reviewers not a sitting committee

- PSC is larger

- Guidelines don't need to be set now, they can be done by PSC later.

⇒ the committee of directors should not constitute the steering committee for the CP. We leave it to the SROs how they constitute the PSC.

→ however, the directors should approve…

→ SRO are going through a flux of change, not always in a position to be represented.

→ on your chart, there is no provision for management structure. Will it be inside FARA, within FARA? What about the management of funds. Will there be leveraging additional funds?

⇒ the PSC that has overall responsibilities will constitute a structure that'll handle the funding. The structures are underdeveloped. To address that the CP office will have responsibilities of scientific management…funds raising, we need an office, not only one person.

⇒ the SSA-CP is facilitated by FARA through the FARA secretariat.

Issues to be re-visited by governance group

After the presentation by the governance group, the facilitator set a platform for participants’ around the table’ s discussion, and a number of issues that the governance group

should re-visit emerged and visualised as follows:


Issues to be re-visited by governance group

• Financial management

• SRO steering committees composition • How to ensure the projects deliver, who will be

accountable • Regional steering committee

• Co-funding should be considered competitive • CP coordinators to be hired from SSA-CP areas

in all proposal and vice-versa

• % of budget for governance? • Obligation to imply CG centers

• Need to balance bottom up SRO with Pan African perspective project formulation

• Core funding should be considered-competitive-satellite funding

• How big should the grant be?

• What % split between competitive and core funds?

• What mechanism for disbarment of core funds?

• CP office should be individuals in FARA office

• SRO’s comments but not veto

• Existing SRO review structure and other institutional representation

• Monitoring & evaluation?

• Equity of project approval/ allocation to sub-regions?

• Sub-regional and/on Pan African proposal • Serious consideration of funding plan &

responsibility • Creation of a M & E team/ committee?

• Ensuring appropriate representation of stakeholders on sub-regional steering co.

• Clear strategy and institutional mechanism for financial management and accountability

• Co-coordinator to be placed within the FARA secretariat

• Guidelines need to be discussed now and in proposal (gender balance)

• New ways of doing business require new ways of representation- regional stakeholders

• Integrating Governance structure, M&E framework and responsibility

• Keep the review process simple & scientifically rigorous to minimize time

• Composition (broad representation) of nomination to regional committees

12 Other issues There were others issues which were not yet fully addressed in the workshop. The facilitator

therefore requested the participants to form small groups in order to informally address

those issues. The issues included the following:

The outcomes of the short gropup work was very useful to fill some of the gaps:

- Linkages with other CP’s

- What should be done in the 1st year?

- Vision, mission, goals and objectives

- Definition of CP problems

- Governance


12.1 Linkages with other CP’s

Linkages with other CP’s • CP for Bio-fortification

• CP for Unlocking bio-tech

• CP for Water and food

• SSA-CP to link with FEF for projects on land degradation and biodiversity

Potential overlaps:

• CP’s for water and food

• SWP, DMP, SIMA, HIV/AIDS, SLP, SP-IPM, SGRP

• Observer status for other CP • Joint call for proposals CP’s

12.2 What should be done in the first year?

What should be done in the first year? Getting governance in place (assuming governance structure and process fully defined)

• Appointing PSC

• Recruiting coordinator and team

• Identifying independent reviewers/ appointing SAC to review CNs

• Formation of SRO committees

Competitive grant process

• Finalizing selection criteria (Drafting committee and Stakeholders- how?)

• Including allocation of grant funding- suggest a minimum/ maximum level by region to retain equity but still preserve merit incentives

• Define indicators for CN and proposal evaluation based on above criteria

• Formulation and dissemination of CNs and proposal guidelines, including limitations on number of CNs

• CN process: receipt of CNs, review process, notification

• Proposal process: receipt of selected proposals, review, notification

• Disbursement of funds

Establishing effective monitoring and evaluation process

• Coordinate a body to develop a common methodology for project M&E and carry out independent, external review 9need to consider number of projects so cost is not enormous)

• Organize capacity building for grant projects to build in internal project M&E capacity to enable iterative impact assessment and continuous/ ongoing process of project adaptation and improvement. (This may include self-defined project impact indicators in addition to those established by the SSA-CP)


12.3 Definition of CP problems

Definition of CP problems Africa is in dire straight:

• Food insecurity and poverty

Research thus far, has not delivered

• Reductionist/ sectorally approaches • Wrong “environment”

• Supply drive CP aims to introduce a NEW way of doing business

New dimension in Research needed • Process

• Institutions

• Policies, market etc

Whatever research is conducted should be done within this framework

• Redressing soil degradation should be seen, as a core need. However, a new way of doing soil research is needed, with a view on sustainable livelihoods and poverty alleviation

• Increase the ability of agricultural research to deliver livelihood enhancing benefit to the rural poor

12.4 Governance The group incorporated their new aspects in the report above


13 Workshop evaluation and closing

The table groups were given the task to evaluate the workshops in their groups. Each table responded to the 5 questions below with one or more statements:

If back at home someone ask me to explain in 1 sentence what this program is all about, I would say…

• Use of INRM in partnership to do things differently

• Integration

• CP is about R4D in INRM in SSA

• Food security & alleviation of Poverty in Africa

In my opinion, the biggest threat this SSA-CP is……… • In effective management of partners

because of the size of the program

• Self interest of groups may derail the CP • Complexity of the CP

• Lack of ownership

• Change on how R&D is done in Africa

• High transaction cost

• Politics, size, complexity • Lost in complexity

In my opinion, the biggest opportunity is…. • Smart partnership

• Offers to up lift people out of poverty in conceived

• Bring multiple stakeholders • Good policy and funding

• Ownership by those involved

• Renewed interest in SSA by donor community

• New way of doing things • Donors are receptive to Africa owned projects

What I liked about this workshop is………. • Good facilitation process

• Active brain storming • Networking at continental level

• Discussion • Active participation and interaction

• Table discussions

• Enough fun • Organisation of the workshop

• Positive attitude of participants

What I did not like about this workshop is………. • Project planning too much research driven

• Not enough farmer participation

• Pre-empted focus • In not careful, we can derail the whole

project

• Many hidden agendas

• You

• Some break-out groups were too large • Poor representation of stakeholders

The workshop was closed with two speeches: one from Prof. Joseph Mukiibi and another one from Francis Idachaba.


14 Annex

14.1 Annex 1: list of participants

Kwaku Agyemang Director General International Trypanotolerance Center PMB 14 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 463423 Fax: (220) 462924 E-mail: [email protected]

Walter S. Alhassan Consultant P. O. Box CT 5988 Accra, Ghana Tel: (233) 20 2110668 E-mail: [email protected]

Peter T. Ewell, Ph.D. Regional Agricultural Advisor REDSO/ESA/Food Security USAID P. O. Box 30261 00100 Nairobi, Kenya or Unit 64102 APO AE 09831-4102 USA Tel: (254) 2 – 862400 Ext. 2336 Fax: (254) 2 – 860562 Mobile: (254) 733 634933

Bahiru Duguma, Ph.D. Senior Agric. TDT Advisor US Agency for Internal Development University of Maryland Eastern Shore 1325 G. St. NW Suite # 400 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 219-0491 Fax: (202) 219-0518 E-mail: [email protected]

Ponniah Anandajayasekeram Regional Representative International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Private Bag X813 0127, Silverton Pretoria, South Africa Tel: (27-12) 845 9139 Fax: (27-12) 845 9110 E-mail: [email protected]

Jane Frances Asaba Information Scientist CAB International Africa Regional Center ICRAF Complex P. O. Box 633 – 00621 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 02 524450, 524462 Fax: (254) 02 522150, 524001 E-mail: [email protected]

Eyasu Elias Executive Director SAREM Ethiopia (Sustainable Agricultural Research Mgt.) P. O. Box 43065 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Tel: (251) 1 492017/627492 Fax: (251) 1 613744 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Ade Freeman Economist ICRISAT P. O. Box 39063 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 524 553 Fax: (254) 2 524 001 E-mail: [email protected]


Wim Andriesse International Co-operation/Africa ALTERRA Environmental Sciences Wageningen UR Strategy, Marketing and Communication P. O. Box 47 6700 AA Wageningen The Netherlands Tel: (31) 317 47 44 76 Fax: (31) 317 41 90 00 E-mail: [email protected]

Kwesi Atta-Krah Regional Director IPGRI P. O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 524507 Fax: (254) 2 524501 E-mail: [email protected]

Peter T. Ewell, Ph.D. Regional Agricultural Advisor REDSO/ESA/Food Security USAID P. O. Box 30261 00100 Nairobi, Kenya or Unit 64102 APO AE 09831-4102 USA Tel: (254) 2 – 862400 Ext. 2336 Fax: (254) 2 – 860562 Mobile: (254) 733 634933 E-mail: [email protected]

Nancy Gitonga Director Fisheries Department P.O. Box 58187 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 3744530 Fax: (254) 2 3744530/3743699 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Boubacar Barry, Ph.D. Land & Water Specialist International Water Management Institute IWMI, Ghana Office PMB CT 112 Cantonments, Accra Ghana Tel/Fax: (233) 21 784752 E-mail: [email protected]

Jean-Luc Battni CIRAD French Embassy P. O. Box 187 Accra Tel: (021) 513142 E-mail: [email protected]

Abigail Fallot, Ph. D. Economist CIRAD 45 bis, avenue de la Belle Gabrielle 94736 Nogent-sur-Marne Cedex, France Tel: (33) 0 1 43 94 73 05 Fax: (33) 0 1 43 94 73 11 E-mail: [email protected]

Monty Jones Executive Secretary Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) C/o FAO Regional Office for Africa GP 1628 Accra, Ghana Tel: (233) 21 675 000 Fax: (233) 21 668427 E-mail: [email protected]


Robert H. Booth, Ph.D. Directeur Adjoint ICRA P. O. Box 88 6700 AB Wageningen Pays Bas Tel: (31) 0 317 422 938 Fax: (31) 0 317 427 046 E-mail: [email protected]

William Bradley Agricultural Governance Specialist USAID Benin Cotonou, Benin Tel: (229) 30 05 00 E-mail: [email protected]

Anne Marie Izac Director of Research ICRAF P. O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 524235 Fax: (254) 2 524001 E-mail: [email protected]

Rogers A.D. Jones Chief Executive NARCC PMB 1313 Freetown, Sierra Leone, West Africa Tel: (232) 22 222179 Fax: (232) 22 224439 E-mail: [email protected]

Henk Breman Directeur Division Afrique IFDC B.P. 4483 Lome, Togo Tel: (228) 221 79 71 Fax: (228) 221 78 17 E-mail: [email protected]

Samuel Bruce-Oliver NARS Senior Visiting Expert Global Forum on Agricultural Research GFAR Secretariat – c/o FAO, SDR Viale Delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy Tel: (39) 06 5705 4431 Fax: (39) 06 5705 3898 E-mail: [email protected]

Sarah Gavian Senior Associate Abt Associates Inc. 4800 Montgomery Lane Suite 600 Bethseda MD 20814 USA Tel: (1-301) 347 5397 Fax: (1-301) 652 3839 Email: [email protected]

Michael Jackson Director for Program Planning and Coordination International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) DAPO 7777 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 845 0563 ext. 72747 E-mail: [email protected]

Bruce M. Campbell (Prof.) Director Forests and Livelihoods Program P. O. Box 6596 JKPWB Jakarta 10065 Indonesia Tel: (62 – 251) 622 622 Fax: (62 –251) 622 100 E-mail: [email protected]

Tim Chancellor Group Leader Plant, Animal and Human Health Group Natural Resources Institute Medway University Campus Central Avenue, Catham Maritime Kent ME4 4TB, United Kingdom Tel: (44) 0 1634 883466 Fax: (44) 0 1634 883379 E-mail: [email protected]

Richard Hall Deputy Director International Foundation for Science (IFS) Grev Turegatan 19 SE 114-38 Stockholm, Sweden Tel: (46-8) 545 818 14 Fax: (46-8) 545 818 01 E-mail: [email protected]

Peter Hazell Director Environment and Production Technology Division IFPRI 2033 K Street, NW Washington DC 20006-1002 Tel: (1-202) 862 8151 Fax: (1-202) 467 4439 E-mail: [email protected]


S. Kofi Debrah Leader, Policy & Market Programme IFDC BP 4483 Lome, Togo Tel: (228) 221 7971 E-mail: [email protected]

Selome Dogbe IIRA – Togo/POCARIZ Directeur BP 2318 Lome, Togo Tel: (228) 441 1156 Fax: (228) 441 0060 E-mail: [email protected]

Jacques Gigou Agronomist CIRAD TA 74/09 34398 Montpellier Cedex 05, France Tel: (33) 4 67 59 38 89 Fax: (33) 4 67 59 38 38 E-mail: [email protected]

Danisile Hikwa Head, Agronomy Research Institute Department of Research and Extension P. O. Box CY 550 Causeway, Harare Zimbabwe Tel: (263) 4 704531/9 Fax: (263) 4 728340 E-mail: [email protected]

Gisele d’Almeida Presidente INTERFACE Network BP 7456 Dakar Medina Dakar, Sénégal Tel: (221) 825 6685 Fax: (221) 824 6026 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Anne Dennistorn Consultant – Editor FARA P. O. Box 1272 Northcliff, South Africa 2115 Tel: (27-11) 626 2769 (Hse) E-mail: [email protected]

Habib Halila Regional Co-coordinator Nile Valley & Red Sea Regional Program ICARDA P. O. Box 2416 Cairo-Egypt 15 G Radwan Ibn El-Tabib Str. Giza, Egypt Tel: (20) 2 5724358 / 5725785 Fax: (20) 2 5728099 E-mail: [email protected]

Francis Idachaba Principal Research Fellow, Head, ISNAR Nigeria Office ISNAR c/o IITA, Oyo Road Ibadan, Nigeria Tel: (234) 2 241 2626 Fax: (234) 2 241 2221 E-mail: [email protected]

Sekou Cissé Directeur General Institut de Recherche Agronomique de Guinea B. P. 1523 Conakry, Republique de Guinea Tel: (224) 269131 Fax: (224) 45 42 46 E-mail: [email protected]

Olufunke Cofie, Ph.D. Regional Researcher International Water Management Institute IWMI, Ghana Office PMB CT 112 Cantonments, Accra Ghana Tel/Fax: (233) 21 784752 E-mail: [email protected]

Charles Crissman Regional Representative CIP P. O. Box 25171 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 630743 Fax: (254) 2 631499 E-mail: [email protected]

Saliou Dia Interpreter BP 20415 Dakar – Sénégal West Africa Tel: (221) 637 0679 Fax: (221) 824 1390 E-mail: [email protected]


Anna Knox Programme Manager CIAT/PRGA AA 6713 Cali, Colombia Tel: (57) 2 445 0131 Fax: (57) 2 445 E-mail: [email protected]

Reneth Mano Convenor – Economics & Policy Group SOILFERTNET 22 Working Drive Northwood MT Pleasant, Zimbabwe Tel: (263) 4 301612 E-mail: [email protected]

John Lynam Associate Director Rockefeller Foundation P. O. Box 7543 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 228 061 Fax: (254) 2 218 840 E-mail: [email protected]

Andrina F. Mchiela Principal Secretary Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation Malawi Government P. O. Box 30134 Lilongwe 3 Malawi Tel: Office - (265) 01789033 Direct - (265) 01789702 Cell 1 - (265) 09942054 Cell 2 - (265) 09957438 Fax: (265) 0788738 E-mail: [email protected]

Chaboba Zaid Mkangwa Senior Agricultural Officer Sokoine University of Agriculture P.O. Box 3008 Morogoro, Tanzania Tel: (260) 3990 E-mail: [email protected]

Joseph Mukiibi (Prof.) Director General NARO P. O. Box 295 Entebbe, Uganda Tel: (256) 41 320 512 Fax: (256) 41 321 070 Mobile: (256) 77 700722 E-mail: [email protected]

Mamadou Kabirou N’Diaye Co-ordinator, Regional PSI/CORAF IER/PSI/CORAF BP 258 Rue Mohamed Bamako, Mali Tel: (223) 2222 606 Fax: (223) 2223 775 E-mail: [email protected]

Ababacar Ndoye Directeur de la Recherche et du Développement Institut de Technologie Alimentaire ITA – Route des Pères Maristes B. P. 2765 – Dakar, Sénégal Tel: Bur: (221) 832 00 70 Tel: Cell: (221) 630 85 38 Fax: Bur: (221) 832 82 95 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]


Christian Nolte Soils Agronomist Humid Forest Ecoregional Centre IITA P. O. Box 2008 (Messa) Yaounde Tel: (237) 33 74 34 / 23 52 22 Fax: (237) 23 74 37 Mobile: (237) 988 08 34 E-mail: [email protected]

Dennis Rangi Director CAB International Africa Regional Centre ICRAF Complex P. O. Box 633 – 00621 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 02 524450, 524462 Fax: (254) 02 522150, 524001 E-mail: [email protected]

Marcel Nwalozie Scientific Co-ordinator CORAF/WECARD Scientific Coordinator BP 8237 Dakar Yoff, Senegal Tel: (221) 8259618 Fax: (221) 825569 E-mail: [email protected]

Kanayo F. Nwanze Director General West African Rice Development Association, (WARDA) 01 B.P 2551 Bouake 01 Tel: (225) 31 65 93 00/52 Abj: (225) 22 41 06 06 Fax (225) 31 65 93 11 E-mail: [email protected]

Daniel Mugendi Senior Lecturer Kenyatta University Dept. of Environment Foundation P. O. Box 43844 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 811622 ext. 216/8 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Ephraim Mukisira Ph.D. Deputy Director; Research and Technology Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Kaptagat Road, Loresho P. O. Box 57811 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 583149, 583720 Fax: (254) 2 583344 Mobile: (254) 733 878 650 E-mail: [email protected]

Narihide Nagayo Chief Advisor Small-Scale Irrigated Agriculture Promotion Project (SSIAPP) JICA JICA Ghana Office P. O. Box 6402 Accra-North, Ghana Tel: (233) 21 238419-22 Fax: (233 21 238418 E-mail: [email protected]

Jean Ndikumana Co-ordinator, ASARECA AARNET Co-ordinator, CORAF/WECARD-ILRI International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) P. O. Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 630743 Fax: (254) 2 631499 E-mail: [email protected]

Mercy Karanja Chief Executive Kenya National Farmers Union P. O. Box 43148 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 608324 Fax: (254) 2 608325 E-mail: [email protected]

Jean-Claude Legoupil Agricultural Research Expert Technical Advisor FANR, Directorate SADC Secretariat P/Bag 0095 Gabarone, Botswana Tel: (267) 3951863 Fax: (267) 3972848 E-mail: [email protected]

Chebet Maikut Chair, IFAP Science and Technology Committee & President, UNFFE IFAP/UNFFE P. O. Box 6213 Kampala Tel: (256) 41 340 249 Fax: (256) 41 230 748 E-mail: [email protected]

Doug Merrey Director for Africa IWMI Private Bag X813 0127 Silverton Pretoria, South Africa Tel: (27) 12 845 9100 Fax: (27) 12 845 9110 E-mail: [email protected]


Nancy Karanja (Prof.) Director MIRCEN Department of Soil Science University of Nairobi P. O. Box 30197 Nairobi, Kenya Tel/Fax: (254) 2 631643 (off) (254) 154 33544 (hse) E-mail: [email protected]

Assètou Kanoute Coordinator ROCAPRA B.P. 3267 Rue Gamal Abdel Nasser Badalabougou Bamako, Mali E-mail: [email protected]

Adjumane Kadio Directeur des Etudes et Projects SODEFOR 01 BP 3770 Abidjan 01 Côte d’Ivoire Tel: (225) 22 44 55 98 Fax: (225) 44 99 07 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Nahimana Melchior Institut de Recherche Agronomique et Zootechnique (IRAZ) P.O. Box 91 Gitega Burundi Tel: (257) 40 3020 Fax: (257) 40 2364 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Shivaji Pandey Director, Maize Program CIMMYT AP 6-641 Mexico D. F. Tel: (1-650) 833 6655 Fax: (1-650) 833-6656 E-mail: [email protected]

Edward Rege Head, Animal Genetic Resources International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) P. O. Box 5689 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Tel: (251) 1 463215 Fax: (251) 1 464645 E-mail: [email protected]

Dannie Romney Scientist International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) P. O. Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 630743 Fax: (254) 2 631499 E-mail: [email protected]

Nteranya Sanginga Director TSBF-CIAT ICRAF Complex P. O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 524765 Fax: (254) 2 524764 E-mail: [email protected]

Douglas Pachico Director of Research CIAT AA 67 13, CIAT CALI, Colombia Tel: (57) 2 445 0062 E-mail: [email protected]

Pascal Sanginga Sociologist CIAT-Africa P. O. Box 6247 Kampala, Uganda Tel: (256) 41 567670 Fax: (256) 41 567635 E-mail: [email protected]

Luc Sas CGIAR Officer Federal Public Service for Foreign Affairs, Trade & Development Co-operation Brederosdestraat 6 1000 Brussels, Belgium Tel: (32-2) 519 0500 Fax: (32-2) 519 0570 E-mail: [email protected]

Germain Sawadogo (Prof.) Co-ordinator, Research Development EISMV BP 5077 Dakar, Sénégal Tel: (221) 682 5715 Fax: (221) 825 4283 E-mail: [email protected]


Onesmo K. ole-MoiYoi Director, Research and Partnerships International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) P. O. Box 30772 Nairobi 00506, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 861680-4/861242 Fax: (254) 2 860110/803360 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Rodomiro Ortiz Director, Research and Development International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) PMB 5320, Ibadan, Nigeria Tel: (234-2) 241 2626 Fax: (234-2) 241 2221 E-mail: [email protected]

Mamadou Ouattara International Co-ordinator UA/SAFGRAD BP 1783 Ouagadougou 01 Burkina Faso Tel: (226) 306071/311598 Fax: (226) 311586 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Emmanuel Owusu-Bennoah Ag. Director General CSIR P. O. Box 32 Accra, Ghana Tel: (233) 21 760166 Fax: (233) 21 779809 E-mail: [email protected]

Mike Swift Consultant – FARA P. O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 524766 Fax: (254) 2 524763 E-mail: [email protected]

Abdelmoneim Taha Technical Officer ASARECA P. O. Box 765 Entebbe, Uganda Tel: (256) 41 320424 Fax: (256) 41 321126 E-mail: [email protected]

Yo Tiemoko Directeur General Adjoint Centre National de Rechereche Agronomique (INRA) 01 BP 1740 Abidjan 01 Côte d’Ivoire Tel: (225) 23 47 21 53 Fax: (225) 2345 33 05 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Philippe Vialatte Principal Administrator European Commission G.12. S/52 1049 Brussels Belgium Tel: (32-2) 2966 336 Fax: (32-2) 2992908 E-mail: [email protected]

Moctar Toure Senior Lead Scientist The World Bank 1818 H. St. N.W. Washington DC 20433 Tel: (1-202) 473 9008 Fax: (1-202) 473 8132 E-mail: [email protected]

Abdoul Aziz Sy Senior Officer, Research and Technology FAO RAF P. O. Box 1626 Accra, Ghana Tel: (233) 21 675 000 Fax: (233) 21 668427 E-mail: [email protected]

August Temu Theme Leader - Strengthening Institutions ICRAF P. O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 524197 Fax: (254) 2 524001 E-mail: [email protected]

Jean Tonye Director of Farming Systems Division Institute of Agricultural Research P. O. Box 2067 Yaounde, Cameroon Tel: (237) 2 238963 Fax: (237) 2 237440 E-mail: [email protected]


Ramadjita Tabo Principal Scientist (Agronomy) ICRISAT BP 12404 Niamey, Niger Tel: (227) 722 626/722 529 Fax: (227) 73 43 29 E-mail: [email protected]

Paco Sereme Scientist INERA 03 BP 7192 Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso Tel: (226) 31 92 02 Fax: (226) 31 92 07 E-mail: [email protected]

James Sumberg Ag. Director of Research WARDA – The Africa Rice Center BP 320 Bamako Mali Tel: (223) 222 33 75 Fax: (223) 222 86 83 E-mail: [email protected]

Bruce Scott Director, Partnerships & Communications International Livestock Research Institute P. O. Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 630743 Fax: (254) 2 631499 E-mail: [email protected]

Meredith J. Soule Agricultural and Natural Resource Economist Office of Environment and Science Policy USAID EGAT/ESP/IRB, Room 2.11-085 RRB 1800 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20523-2110 Tel: (202) 712 1058 Fax: (202) 216 3010 E-mail: [email protected]


John Wendt Soil Scientist IITA-ESARC P. O. Box 7878 Kampala, Uganda Tel: (256) 75 787 807 E-mail: [email protected]

Timothy William Agricultural Economist/Regional Representative International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) PMB 5320 Ibadan, Nigeria Tel: (234) 2 241 2626 Fax: (234) 2 241 2221 E-mail: [email protected]

Myra Wopereis-Pura Consultant Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) C/o FAO Regional Office for Africa GP 1628 Accra, Ghana Tel: (233) 21 675 000 Fax: (233) 21 668427 E-mail: [email protected]

Ralph von Kaufmann Senior Resource Person Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa P. O. Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254) 2 630743 Fax: (254) 2 631499 Or FARA C/o FAO Regional Office for Africa GP 1628 Accra, Ghana Tel: (233) 21 675 000 Fax: (233) 21 668427 E-mail: [email protected]

Co-facilitator Hlami Ngwenya Wageningen University Dept of Agrarian Technology Netherlands [email protected] or [email protected]

Workshop facilitator Jürgen Hagmann Independent process consultant/ facilitator Talstrasse 129 D-79194 Gundelfingen GERMANY Tel: +49 (761) 54762 Fax: +49 (761) 54775 E-mail: [email protected]

SSA Challenge Program - Program Formulation Workshop · The sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme...

Documents

Transcript of SSA Challenge Program - Program Formulation Workshop · The sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme...