So this week, for vetrans' day and Remembrance Day, I'd like to mention that I have a little freebie over at Teachers' Pay Teachers
Minggu, 04 November 2012
Kamis, 01 November 2012
INSARD @ GCARD: The Voices of smallholders in shaping priorities’
Hilary Warburton and Nicoliene Oudwater (ETC Foundation), on behalf of the INSARD (INcluding Smallholders in Agricultural Research for Development) consortium
The GCARD-2 Foresight paper (F3), “The voice of smallholders in shaping priorities”, raises a number of questions about why the inclusion of farmers, particularly resource-poor farmers, in foresight (and in ARD processes generally) has so far been limited.
The GCARD-2 Foresight paper (F3), “The voice of smallholders in shaping priorities”, raises a number of questions about why the inclusion of farmers, particularly resource-poor farmers, in foresight (and in ARD processes generally) has so far been limited.
This prompted INSARD to think about how “the problem” of lack of inclusion is perceived, and how this affects the solutions proposed. We identified three differing sets of assumptions about the major cause(s) of the lack of inclusion of farmers in ARD. Each leads to an emphasis on a different, sometimes conflicting type of solution. Further, we see that focusing on national level processes would address one of the missing gaps in scaling up.
Gaps in perceptions of why smallholders have little engagement in ARD Some established players in ARD see the problem as essentially one of lack of capacity (skills and resources) within CSOs (Farmer Organisations (FOs) and NGOs). The CSOs do not organise themselves sufficiently to convey common messages from farmers; they are not sufficiently representative of a wide enough number of farmers; they are not able to articulate farmers’ problems as researchable questions, and therefore struggle to design projects; their monitoring and evaluation is often lacking; they have little involvement in recognisable foresight studies etc. The kinds of solutions proposed are therefore concerned with building capacity of CSOs to engage more effectively with formal researchers and other ARD stakeholders. This may include additional resources, stronger partnerships and shared projects – but overall, this approach retains the current form and processes of ARD, and tries to enable smallholder farmers and CSOs to fit better into the ARD mould. It fits with a project-driven research agenda where researchers and CSOs work together and need resources and skills to access funds and deliver acceptable results for donors.
Another view, often held by policy-oriented CSOs, is that the problem is primarily one of lack of democracy. Smallholder farmers are a diverse group with differing concerns; they also overlap with wider communities of rural populations and poor consumers (urban and rural) – all of which have legitimate interests in the future of agriculture and therefore of ARD. Current representation in ARD processes by a handful of CSOs or farmers is simply not sufficient to allow for real influence and equitable engagement. There are also concerns that some FOs represent only a narrow constituency of larger-scale farmers. The corresponding solution therefore focuses less on capacity building and more on widening the numbers of different voices within the ARD processes. An example is the Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) where the numbers of representatives has been widened to include different constituencies (for example, women farmers, pastoralists) and regions. It may change the balance of power between the ARD stakeholders, and deliberately seeks to bring the unheard voices of the more marginalised smallholder farmers and others into the discussion. This approach is less tied to individual field-level projects and more towards support for networks and research agenda setting.
More fundamentally, a third, alternative world view starts with food producers at the core, and the recognition that smallholder producers provide food to about 70% of the global population. Therefore the key question is not: “What role could smallholder farmers pay in meeting future needs in food & nutrition security…” but rather “What role can research play in supporting and enabling smallholder farmers/producers to continue to provide nutritious food to a growing population into the future?” The problem is perceived as a lack of accountability and awareness of researchers towards farmers, rural people and poor consumers. Rather than farmers and CSOs building their capacity to speak the language of researchers, the research organisations have a responsibility to consult and account for their work in ways that make sense for farmers. This means recognising that CSOs have legitimate interests in long term prioritisation of ARD as well as specific field-based projects. This means more openness to communicating, fostering innovative mechanisms for discussions with farmers (for example farmers’ juries), and recognising that formal research forms part of much wider agricultural innovation systems. It also requires recognition that farmers do not tend to separate ARD out from other livelihood and development issues. Few African CSOs focus only on ARD; they tend to cover wider agricultural development and environmental issues. If researchers want to support farmers and CSOs, they need to be prepared to try new processes and to look for entry points on issues of concern to farmers.
Two way process
Of course, there can be overlaps between these views and the Foresight report refers to issues with capacity, democracy/representation and the need to see problems through multiple lenses. Many researchers are actively searching for new ways to partner with farmers, but we sense that there is still a tendency to expect farmers/CSOs to engage within the existing ARD context, rather than for researchers and other private/public stakeholders to engage within farmers’ contexts. It does have to be a 2-way process with more flexibility and willingness on all sides to allow room for farmers to influence how ARD agenda-setting processes are constructed.
Gaps in scaling up There are examples of good practice and productive partnerships between farmers and researchers at local field levels. At the regional and global levels, there are well-established ARD structures where the multiplicity of farmers’ voices struggle to be heard. But we see a huge gap between the local and the international levels. In order to scale up local successes and address the lack of democracy and accountability at the higher levels, we need to fill this gap. National level processes are some of the key missing elements. The Foresight study noted that national level processes are generally more inclusive, multi-stakeholder oriented than the regional or global ones. However, studies for the INSARD project identified a lack of coordination between researchers, CSOs and other stakeholders at the national level. Both studies noted that farmers/CSOs are mainly involved at validation stage and in consultations rather than farmer organisations/CSO co-leading the process. This is where more emphasis is needed, and where the INSARD project is focusing. By brokering processes that bring farmers/CSOs, researchers, public/private stakeholders together around tangible and priority concerns of farmers, there is potential to create spaces where a greater diversity of farmers’ voices can be included, research questions relevant to farmers’ concerns can be identified and stronger, more equitable partnerships forged for the future.
Gaps in perceptions of why smallholders have little engagement in ARD Some established players in ARD see the problem as essentially one of lack of capacity (skills and resources) within CSOs (Farmer Organisations (FOs) and NGOs). The CSOs do not organise themselves sufficiently to convey common messages from farmers; they are not sufficiently representative of a wide enough number of farmers; they are not able to articulate farmers’ problems as researchable questions, and therefore struggle to design projects; their monitoring and evaluation is often lacking; they have little involvement in recognisable foresight studies etc. The kinds of solutions proposed are therefore concerned with building capacity of CSOs to engage more effectively with formal researchers and other ARD stakeholders. This may include additional resources, stronger partnerships and shared projects – but overall, this approach retains the current form and processes of ARD, and tries to enable smallholder farmers and CSOs to fit better into the ARD mould. It fits with a project-driven research agenda where researchers and CSOs work together and need resources and skills to access funds and deliver acceptable results for donors.
Another view, often held by policy-oriented CSOs, is that the problem is primarily one of lack of democracy. Smallholder farmers are a diverse group with differing concerns; they also overlap with wider communities of rural populations and poor consumers (urban and rural) – all of which have legitimate interests in the future of agriculture and therefore of ARD. Current representation in ARD processes by a handful of CSOs or farmers is simply not sufficient to allow for real influence and equitable engagement. There are also concerns that some FOs represent only a narrow constituency of larger-scale farmers. The corresponding solution therefore focuses less on capacity building and more on widening the numbers of different voices within the ARD processes. An example is the Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) where the numbers of representatives has been widened to include different constituencies (for example, women farmers, pastoralists) and regions. It may change the balance of power between the ARD stakeholders, and deliberately seeks to bring the unheard voices of the more marginalised smallholder farmers and others into the discussion. This approach is less tied to individual field-level projects and more towards support for networks and research agenda setting.
More fundamentally, a third, alternative world view starts with food producers at the core, and the recognition that smallholder producers provide food to about 70% of the global population. Therefore the key question is not: “What role could smallholder farmers pay in meeting future needs in food & nutrition security…” but rather “What role can research play in supporting and enabling smallholder farmers/producers to continue to provide nutritious food to a growing population into the future?” The problem is perceived as a lack of accountability and awareness of researchers towards farmers, rural people and poor consumers. Rather than farmers and CSOs building their capacity to speak the language of researchers, the research organisations have a responsibility to consult and account for their work in ways that make sense for farmers. This means recognising that CSOs have legitimate interests in long term prioritisation of ARD as well as specific field-based projects. This means more openness to communicating, fostering innovative mechanisms for discussions with farmers (for example farmers’ juries), and recognising that formal research forms part of much wider agricultural innovation systems. It also requires recognition that farmers do not tend to separate ARD out from other livelihood and development issues. Few African CSOs focus only on ARD; they tend to cover wider agricultural development and environmental issues. If researchers want to support farmers and CSOs, they need to be prepared to try new processes and to look for entry points on issues of concern to farmers.
Two way process
Of course, there can be overlaps between these views and the Foresight report refers to issues with capacity, democracy/representation and the need to see problems through multiple lenses. Many researchers are actively searching for new ways to partner with farmers, but we sense that there is still a tendency to expect farmers/CSOs to engage within the existing ARD context, rather than for researchers and other private/public stakeholders to engage within farmers’ contexts. It does have to be a 2-way process with more flexibility and willingness on all sides to allow room for farmers to influence how ARD agenda-setting processes are constructed.
Gaps in scaling up There are examples of good practice and productive partnerships between farmers and researchers at local field levels. At the regional and global levels, there are well-established ARD structures where the multiplicity of farmers’ voices struggle to be heard. But we see a huge gap between the local and the international levels. In order to scale up local successes and address the lack of democracy and accountability at the higher levels, we need to fill this gap. National level processes are some of the key missing elements. The Foresight study noted that national level processes are generally more inclusive, multi-stakeholder oriented than the regional or global ones. However, studies for the INSARD project identified a lack of coordination between researchers, CSOs and other stakeholders at the national level. Both studies noted that farmers/CSOs are mainly involved at validation stage and in consultations rather than farmer organisations/CSO co-leading the process. This is where more emphasis is needed, and where the INSARD project is focusing. By brokering processes that bring farmers/CSOs, researchers, public/private stakeholders together around tangible and priority concerns of farmers, there is potential to create spaces where a greater diversity of farmers’ voices can be included, research questions relevant to farmers’ concerns can be identified and stronger, more equitable partnerships forged for the future.
Rabu, 31 Oktober 2012
Sharing Agricultural Practices to Enhance Food and Nutrition Security in the Horn of Africa
The AgriKnowledge ShareFair brought together the multiple expertise and networks of international organizations from the region namely: Burundi, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda. Senior officials from Comité permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contra la Sécheresse dans le Sahel (CiLIS) and the affected countries in the Sahel will also be participating at the fair.
Dr. Castro Camarada, FAO Coordinator for Eastern Africa explains why sharing information on good agricultural practices is vital to enhancing food and nutrition security in the region.
PAEPARD @ GCARD II
Breakout session C1.3 North-South and South-South Collaborative Actions – Speaker Brief - The Platform for African-European Partnership on Agricultural Development (PAEPARD).
The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) and the European Forum on Agricultural Research for Development (EFARD) through The European Alliance on Agricultural Knowledge for Development (AGRINATURA), joined forces in the implementation of the Platform for African-European Partnership on Agricultural Development (PAEPARD), established with funding from the European Union. Among the problems addressed by PAEPARD are:
- insufficient capacities of African agricultural knowledge organisations, at regional and national levels, on multi-stakeholder partnership for innovation systems;
- lack of effective linkages between research, extension and rural development.
Blogpost by Nawsheen Hosenally, one of the GCARD2 Social Reporters.
From pre-conference meetings, to opening ceremony and plenary sessions, it was clear from the speakers and participants at the second Global Conference for Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD2), that partnership is the key if we want to improve livelihoods of smallholder farmers and increase food production by 70% to feed a population of 9 billion in 2050. But what are the partnership models that we have and what can we learn from them?
The conference session on North-South and South-South Collective Actions gave a good overview on how multi-stakeholder partnerships have been done in different regions of the world. Interestingly, partnership in Agricultural Research for Development has existed for a long time. Whether it is African-European partnerships, Latin America-Caribbean-Europe-Africa, or African Partnerships, the focus of these partnerships has been mainly on involving stakeholders who normally do not have a say in traditional research.
For example, in projects and initiatives like PAEPARD, CAADP-CGIAR Alliance and IRD/CIRAD collaborative platforms among others, it is not only scientists who are involved in research, but also other stakeholders along the agriculture value chain: farmers, researchers, extension officers, the private sector, academia, processors, exporters, input suppliers and others.
In doing so, each stakeholder contributes in formulating the research proposal that would benefit each one of them. But as simple as this sounds, it is not the case in reality!
From their presentations, the panelists highlighted that in multi-stakeholder partnerships, TRUST is very important, but is not easy to build as different stakeholders have their own objectives. Making all of them move towards a common goal is a challenge.
To overcome this, the innovation that was brought in the PAEPARD (Platform for African-European Partnership on Agricultural Research for Development) project was to introduce Agricultural Innovation Facilitators (brokers), who were independent from the multi-stakeholder consortium and facilitated the process of partnership. According to the panelist from PAEPARD, Mr Sarfatti, facilitators have had an important role in building multi-stakeholder partnerships in the different countries where the project has been funded and implemented.
However, during the discussions, two important points were raised: It was clear that smallholder farmers are involved in these initiatives, but how far are women and youth involved in these multi-stakeholder partnerships?
Regarding the inclusion of women, the representative from the IRD/CIRAD collaborative platforms shared with the audience that in their projects, a gender specialist/consultant was recruited and her role was to ensure that all projects that are selected for funding have women inclusion.
When it comes to youth involvement in these partnerships, it was confessed by the panellist from PAEPARD that to date, there has been no strategy to include the youth in the project, but since PAEPARD is moving to its 3rd phase, the suggestion that youths get into the picture can be considered as they can be facilitators or trainers in the project.
Taking the example from IRD/CIRAD collaborative platforms, whereby a gender specialist has been appointed to ensure that women are included in the projects, can there be a youth specialist to ensure youth inclusion in multi-stakeholder partnerships?
The point to take from the session was that multi-stakeholder partnerships are not as easy as they appear to be, but from the different initiatives taken in different regions we know that we can learn from each other, share our successes and failures so that there is no duplication. We can come up with a strategy that will encourage partnerships so that each stakeholder involved will have equal contribution and benefit from impactful research.
Research is important for food security, but now the time has come to innovate and involve more stakeholders in the process so that the outputs are useful to all of them!
From pre-conference meetings, to opening ceremony and plenary sessions, it was clear from the speakers and participants at the second Global Conference for Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD2), that partnership is the key if we want to improve livelihoods of smallholder farmers and increase food production by 70% to feed a population of 9 billion in 2050. But what are the partnership models that we have and what can we learn from them?The conference session on North-South and South-South Collective Actions gave a good overview on how multi-stakeholder partnerships have been done in different regions of the world. Interestingly, partnership in Agricultural Research for Development has existed for a long time. Whether it is African-European partnerships, Latin America-Caribbean-Europe-Africa, or African Partnerships, the focus of these partnerships has been mainly on involving stakeholders who normally do not have a say in traditional research.
For example, in projects and initiatives like PAEPARD, CAADP-CGIAR Alliance and IRD/CIRAD collaborative platforms among others, it is not only scientists who are involved in research, but also other stakeholders along the agriculture value chain: farmers, researchers, extension officers, the private sector, academia, processors, exporters, input suppliers and others.
In doing so, each stakeholder contributes in formulating the research proposal that would benefit each one of them. But as simple as this sounds, it is not the case in reality!
From their presentations, the panelists highlighted that in multi-stakeholder partnerships, TRUST is very important, but is not easy to build as different stakeholders have their own objectives. Making all of them move towards a common goal is a challenge.
To overcome this, the innovation that was brought in the PAEPARD (Platform for African-European Partnership on Agricultural Research for Development) project was to introduce Agricultural Innovation Facilitators (brokers), who were independent from the multi-stakeholder consortium and facilitated the process of partnership. According to the panelist from PAEPARD, Mr Sarfatti, facilitators have had an important role in building multi-stakeholder partnerships in the different countries where the project has been funded and implemented.
However, during the discussions, two important points were raised: It was clear that smallholder farmers are involved in these initiatives, but how far are women and youth involved in these multi-stakeholder partnerships?
Regarding the inclusion of women, the representative from the IRD/CIRAD collaborative platforms shared with the audience that in their projects, a gender specialist/consultant was recruited and her role was to ensure that all projects that are selected for funding have women inclusion.
When it comes to youth involvement in these partnerships, it was confessed by the panellist from PAEPARD that to date, there has been no strategy to include the youth in the project, but since PAEPARD is moving to its 3rd phase, the suggestion that youths get into the picture can be considered as they can be facilitators or trainers in the project.
Taking the example from IRD/CIRAD collaborative platforms, whereby a gender specialist has been appointed to ensure that women are included in the projects, can there be a youth specialist to ensure youth inclusion in multi-stakeholder partnerships?
The point to take from the session was that multi-stakeholder partnerships are not as easy as they appear to be, but from the different initiatives taken in different regions we know that we can learn from each other, share our successes and failures so that there is no duplication. We can come up with a strategy that will encourage partnerships so that each stakeholder involved will have equal contribution and benefit from impactful research.
Research is important for food security, but now the time has come to innovate and involve more stakeholders in the process so that the outputs are useful to all of them!
Related:
Too much talk so farOctober 30, 2012
On Monday, the session “North-South and South-South Collective Actions” promised to be a great opportunity to put into practice some of the tasks mentioned during GCARD2′s opening ceremony, since the session’s main goal was promoting inter-regional learning and capacities through mobilising and strengthening innovative networks to demonstrate and enhance their impacts on the Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D).
However, after the brief presentation of some collaborative research platforms, such as The Platform for African-European Partnership on Agricultural Development (PEAPARD) and also the Brazil-Africa and Brazil-Caribbean Innovation Marketplace, the institutionalist discourse predominated. Paulo Duarte, from Coordination of Technical Cooperation Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), for example, presented Brazil’s experience in implementing the Platform.
During his talk, Duarte said that this marketplace aims to benefit primarily smallholders with focus on agricultural innovation by the engagement of different actors involved in the generation of agricultural knowledge.
“The technologies developed by EMBRAPA were important for the development of Brazilian agriculture and there is interest from other countries to exchange knowledge with Brazil. The agriculture is vital for the economic and social development of Africa, Brazil and Latin America-Caribbean and EMBRAPA have projects in Africa to stimulating the ethanol producing and five other projects in different Latin American countries, such as Bolivia and Colombia,” he said.
So far, it the GCARD sessions appear to be more interested in sharing knowledge and their own institutional experiences.
 |
| Rodrigo de Oliveira Andrade Latin America correspondent, SciDev.Net |
However, after the brief presentation of some collaborative research platforms, such as The Platform for African-European Partnership on Agricultural Development (PEAPARD) and also the Brazil-Africa and Brazil-Caribbean Innovation Marketplace, the institutionalist discourse predominated. Paulo Duarte, from Coordination of Technical Cooperation Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), for example, presented Brazil’s experience in implementing the Platform.
During his talk, Duarte said that this marketplace aims to benefit primarily smallholders with focus on agricultural innovation by the engagement of different actors involved in the generation of agricultural knowledge.
“The technologies developed by EMBRAPA were important for the development of Brazilian agriculture and there is interest from other countries to exchange knowledge with Brazil. The agriculture is vital for the economic and social development of Africa, Brazil and Latin America-Caribbean and EMBRAPA have projects in Africa to stimulating the ethanol producing and five other projects in different Latin American countries, such as Bolivia and Colombia,” he said.
So far, it the GCARD sessions appear to be more interested in sharing knowledge and their own institutional experiences.
PAEPARD users' led process: Eastern Africa Livestock Strategy
In May 2012, the Eastern Africa Farmers Federation (EAFF) contracted the Agency for Inter-regional Development (AFID) to carry out a consultancy study to develop a Livestock Strategy for Eastern Africa. The focus of the strategy was given as “Extensive Livestock Systems” predominant in the dry areas of Eastern Africa. Major species involved were cattle, small ruminants (sheep and goat) and camels. Poultry and pig rearing in the target production systems which involve agro-pastoral and pastoral systems were also to be captured.
AFID experts supported by an adviser Dr. Jean Ndikumana who is an expert in livestock research and development in East and Central Africa with a particular focus on pastoral systems used the market driven value chain approach to identify constraints and opportunities along the major segments of the value chain i.e. production, processing and marketing and through consultations with representative of major actors of each segment, identified priority areas for investment taking into consideration the national, regional and international policy environment. The consultant firm was requested to focus its study on Kenya and Uganda to inform the strategy.
On the processing side, poor value addition practices and generalized lack of knowhow, inadequate infrastructures at slaughter houses with lack of minimum facilities such as drainage facilities and waste disposal and unhygienic practices except in towns, poor hygiene in handling meat and other livestock products such as inappropriate containers during products transport exposing them to hazardous contamination or inefficient institutions for enforcement of regulations are majorm characteristics of the processing segment of the value chain. Other important constraints include limited investment by the private sector in the area due to limited financial facilities and lack of incentives from governments.
Numerous constraints were identified refraining access to market and exploiting market opportunities in agro-pastoral and pastoral systems. These include poor infrastructures ( roads, holding grounds, water, dipping facilities, veterinary services), limited access to market information, high cost of inputs, multiple taxes, inappropriate tax incentives, poor handling and post harvest facilities, failure to comply with standards and sanitary regulations, loss of market value during droughts, inefficient institutions to enforce regulations (e.g. market distortions and low prices offers).
Background:
The general principle of the users led brokerage procedure is giving the lead to “research users” partners (especially FO) in the organization of brokerage activities, in particular the organization of “brokerage workshops” around a federating theme that they have themselves chosen.
AFID experts supported by an adviser Dr. Jean Ndikumana who is an expert in livestock research and development in East and Central Africa with a particular focus on pastoral systems used the market driven value chain approach to identify constraints and opportunities along the major segments of the value chain i.e. production, processing and marketing and through consultations with representative of major actors of each segment, identified priority areas for investment taking into consideration the national, regional and international policy environment. The consultant firm was requested to focus its study on Kenya and Uganda to inform the strategy.
Hereunder follows a video interview with Dr. Jean Ndikumana who explains the objectives of the study: EAFF - Post handling of Extensive Livestock value chains in Eastern Africa with Specific Focus on Kenya and Uganda.
He was interviewed during the EAC-Europe Food Security Thematic Policy Dialogue Workshop, 25th to 26th, October, 2012, Arusha, Tanzania.
He responds to following questions:
- How important is it to identify gaps in research which benefits pastoralism?
- How difficult is it to identify research gaps?
- Do farmers or pastoralists have the capacity to translate a problem into a research question?
- Was such consultation difficult?
- Which gaps did you identify?
- What is the way forward?
- Which is the most important recommendation?
- You recommend a multi sectorial approach?
Other constraints to livestock production in the target production systems include limited extension services, cattle rustling, limited access to financial services and insurance facilities, corroding of traditional institutions and coping mechanisms, and loss of common property resources.
On the processing side, poor value addition practices and generalized lack of knowhow, inadequate infrastructures at slaughter houses with lack of minimum facilities such as drainage facilities and waste disposal and unhygienic practices except in towns, poor hygiene in handling meat and other livestock products such as inappropriate containers during products transport exposing them to hazardous contamination or inefficient institutions for enforcement of regulations are majorm characteristics of the processing segment of the value chain. Other important constraints include limited investment by the private sector in the area due to limited financial facilities and lack of incentives from governments.
Numerous constraints were identified refraining access to market and exploiting market opportunities in agro-pastoral and pastoral systems. These include poor infrastructures ( roads, holding grounds, water, dipping facilities, veterinary services), limited access to market information, high cost of inputs, multiple taxes, inappropriate tax incentives, poor handling and post harvest facilities, failure to comply with standards and sanitary regulations, loss of market value during droughts, inefficient institutions to enforce regulations (e.g. market distortions and low prices offers).
Background:
The general principle of the users led brokerage procedure is giving the lead to “research users” partners (especially FO) in the organization of brokerage activities, in particular the organization of “brokerage workshops” around a federating theme that they have themselves chosen.
The objective of this approach is
National Agricultural Innovation Facilitators (NAIFs) will be inducted to PAEPARD and End Users Led process in a workshop (end of November 2012 tbc). The 3 day-workshop will be facilitated by the 2 PAEPARD regional facilitators, 2 European facilitators and the 2 co-managers. This workshop will lead to agreed objectives, outputs, programme of Multi-stakeholder R&D Question (MSRDQ) workshops and discussions on strategic objectives process and points to monitor.
Multi-stakeholder R&D Question (MSRDQ) workshops
The objectives of the MSRDQ are to: (i) validate federating theme; (ii) identify or refine R&D questions gaps; (iii) identify potential partnerships to address gaps; (iv) identify TOR for platform and core group to take platform forward.
- reinforcing existing dynamics at national/regional level;
- Improving existing partnerships between FO, research and others stakeholders (improvements in terms of partnerships ‘design, of diversity of stakeholders involved, etc.);
- Deepen pending questions and potential solutions.
- EAFF - Post handling of Extensive Livestock value chains in Eastern Africa with Specific Focus on Kenya and Uganda.
- PROPAC - Environmental impact of the value chain inclusive of gardening crops in urban areas"
- ROPPA - Climate change Adaptation technologies on rice production in Niger Guinea Conakry and Burkina Faso
- FANRPAN - Ground nut value chain in Zambia and Malawi
- COLEACP - Mango byproducts; Senegal, B. Faso, Ivory Coast
The studies include:
- A Stakeholder Analysis
- Current Research: What research is being done (which stakeholders, where, how, who financing, etc.) to better understand and/or resolve the constraints identified. Include relevant research being done by European Organisations - to the degree possible via internet search, etc.
- The identification of key stakeholders (to invite to multi-stakeholder workshop to identify research questions; include African and European; research and non-research stakeholders)
Follow up:
Induction workshop National Agricultural Innovation Facilitators (NAIFs) will be inducted to PAEPARD and End Users Led process in a workshop (end of November 2012 tbc). The 3 day-workshop will be facilitated by the 2 PAEPARD regional facilitators, 2 European facilitators and the 2 co-managers. This workshop will lead to agreed objectives, outputs, programme of Multi-stakeholder R&D Question (MSRDQ) workshops and discussions on strategic objectives process and points to monitor.
Multi-stakeholder R&D Question (MSRDQ) workshops
The objectives of the MSRDQ are to: (i) validate federating theme; (ii) identify or refine R&D questions gaps; (iii) identify potential partnerships to address gaps; (iv) identify TOR for platform and core group to take platform forward.
5 MSRDQ workshops will be organized by EAFF, FANRPAN, PROPAC, ROPPA, COLEACP.
Kick start of the Formulation Mission for support to PAEPARD – Third Phase
 |
| Isabelle Martin and Hubert Cathala at the CTA office in Brussels |
The Mid-Term review for the programme was launched in January 2012 and was completed in April 2012. The principal recommendation was to go for a one year no cost extension (17/12/2012-16/12/2013) in order to implement all the activities foreseen by the initial plan of activities.
An overarching finding has been a mismatch between the research proposals prepared by multi-stakeholder partnerships and the available funding instruments which usually rate scientific excellence over development relevance. The MTR recommended the formulation of a third phase of PAEPARD, which would capitalise on the investment in capacity and partnerships in PAEPARD 2 but also explore better matching of research proposals to sources of funding. The possibility of having a competitive research fund embedded in the project, should be considered along with the need to nurture and sustain the partnerships already created in PAEPARD 2.
- At the beginning of the assignment, a kick off meeting was held in Brussels in DG DEVCO premises on Tuesday 23/10.
- A meeting was held with the European co-manager on Tuesday 30/10. Following issues were discussed: (i) Administrative management ; (ii) Fund to be managed by PAEPARD ; (iii) What needs to be consolidated in year 4? ; (iv) Collaboration of SROs ; (v) Are new consortia to be supported? ; (vi) Users led approach (in Skype conference call with the African co-manager)
- The location for the subsequent field visits is Ghana (Accra), Nairobi (Kenya) and Brussels. The expected output from the field mission is the submission of a mission Aide-Memoire with a resumé of the interviews carried out and all other relevant outcomes of the mission.
- a draft of the action fiche
- an agreed draft log frame (revised by PAEPARD co-managers)
- an agreed five year budget (revised by PAEPARD co-managers)
- a draft of the relevant documents to submit to the QSG (see the list in the reporting paragraph)
- aide memoires from the field missions and interviews
Training workshop on the FP7
The workshop aimed at creating awareness of participants to the FP7 (FAFB) funding mechanisms by using theoretical information but also using some practical cases of FP7 projects (example: AFTER project). The procedures of other EC funding mechanisms were also explained such as the FSTP through PAEPARD and the current ongoing call of ACP-UE S&T.
The exercise was made with the current Work Programme KBBE 2013 in which participants tried to choose the themes of their interest. Two themes were revealed of interest to some participants who teamed to respond to:- KBBE.2013.1.2-04: Control of pests and pathogens affecting fruit. The lead institution is University of Ghana, College of Agriculture and Consumer Science. Collison Brentu is responsible of building the partnership (including find a European partner).
- KBBE.2013.1.3-03: Sustainable animal production: an integrated and multi-factorial approach. Prof Charles Okoli from Federal University of Technology, Owerri State, Nigeria will initiate the partnership.
Participants (FARA staff not included):
Background of SARIMA, EARIMA, WARIMA
The West African Research and Innovation Management Association (WARIMA) is the professional body for research management in the West Africa sub-region with the core objective of advancing research and innovation through advocacy of national and institutional policies by ensuring professional development and capacity buildingof individual members. The association promotes best practice, increase the awareness of research and innovation issues in academic and public institutions, as well as promote advancement of science, technology and innovation and thus facilitate access to, and diffusion of knowledge between the West Africa sub-region for socio-economic development.
The Eastern Africa Research and Innovation Management Association (EARIMA) is the rofessional body for research management in the Eastern Africa region. It is anetwork of regional research and innovation management practitioners. The Eastern African Research and Innovation Management Association (EARIMA) is one of the results of the participation of the University of Dar es Salaam, as an African University partner, in the project “The Improvement of Research & Innovation Management Capacity in Africa and the Caribbean (RIMI4AC).” TheRIMI4AC project is funded by the European Union and the Secretariat of the ,Caribbean & Pacific States and has nine partners across southern, eastern, central and western Africa as well as in the Caribbean.
The Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA) operates at an institutional, national and international level, as well as across the research and innovation value chain, from research management to intellectual property management and the commercialization of research output. SARIMA interacts, liaises and forms strategic alliances and partnerships with other organizations as required. The objectives of SARIMA are: (i) Professional development and capacity building of those involved in managing research and/or innovation. (ii) Promotion of best practice in the management, administration and support of research and innovation to create value for education, public benefit and economic development. (iii) Creation of awareness in academic and public forums of the value of a stronger research and innovation system and the contribution it can make to economic and social development. (iv) Advocacy of appropriate national and institutional policy in support of research and innovation and participation in the development and testing of policy. (v) Taking the lead in research and innovation management improvement within Southern Africa, incorporating guidelines for the various components of the research and innovation cycle. (vi) Advancement of science, technology and innovation, including addressing the asymmetries in access to, and diffusion of, knowledge between 'North and 'South'.
- Gaspard Uwimana, Southern Agricultural Zone, Rwanda Agricultural Board (RAB)
- Charles Okoli Ifeanyi, Federal University of Technology, Owerri State, Nigeria
- Wales Singini, Mzuzu University, Lilongwe, Malawi
- Venancio Edward Imbayarwo-Chikosi, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zimbabwe
- Karin Dyason, Project Manager Capacity Building and Professionalization, Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA)
- Kiros Meles Ayimut (PhD), College of Dryland Agriculture and Natural Resources, Mekele University, Ethiopia
- George N. Chemining'wa, Department of Plant Science and Crop Protection
- University of Nairobi
- Samuel-Adjei Nsiah, Forest and Horticultural Crops Research Center-Kade, Institute of Agricultural Research, College of Agriculture and Consumer Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra.
- Francis Collison Brentu, Forest and Horticultural Crops Research Center-Kade
- Institute of Agricultural Research, College of Agriculture and Consumer Science
- University of Ghana, Legon, Accra.
- Wisdom Amoa-Awuah, Food Research Institute, Accra, Ghana.
- Ismaila Mbenga, NARI Gambia, Banjul, Gambia
- Valentine Aletor, Federal University of Akure, Nigeria, Representative WARIMA
- Thomas Lyimo, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, representative EARIMA
Facilitators :
- Ms Chaiara Pacoterra (APRE, Roma, Italy)
- Jonas Mugabe (FARA, Africa co-manager of the Platform for African European Partnerships on Agricultural Research for Development - PAEPARD).
Background of SARIMA, EARIMA, WARIMA
The West African Research and Innovation Management Association (WARIMA) is the professional body for research management in the West Africa sub-region with the core objective of advancing research and innovation through advocacy of national and institutional policies by ensuring professional development and capacity buildingof individual members. The association promotes best practice, increase the awareness of research and innovation issues in academic and public institutions, as well as promote advancement of science, technology and innovation and thus facilitate access to, and diffusion of knowledge between the West Africa sub-region for socio-economic development.
The Eastern Africa Research and Innovation Management Association (EARIMA) is the rofessional body for research management in the Eastern Africa region. It is anetwork of regional research and innovation management practitioners. The Eastern African Research and Innovation Management Association (EARIMA) is one of the results of the participation of the University of Dar es Salaam, as an African University partner, in the project “The Improvement of Research & Innovation Management Capacity in Africa and the Caribbean (RIMI4AC).” TheRIMI4AC project is funded by the European Union and the Secretariat of the ,Caribbean & Pacific States and has nine partners across southern, eastern, central and western Africa as well as in the Caribbean.
The Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA) operates at an institutional, national and international level, as well as across the research and innovation value chain, from research management to intellectual property management and the commercialization of research output. SARIMA interacts, liaises and forms strategic alliances and partnerships with other organizations as required. The objectives of SARIMA are: (i) Professional development and capacity building of those involved in managing research and/or innovation. (ii) Promotion of best practice in the management, administration and support of research and innovation to create value for education, public benefit and economic development. (iii) Creation of awareness in academic and public forums of the value of a stronger research and innovation system and the contribution it can make to economic and social development. (iv) Advocacy of appropriate national and institutional policy in support of research and innovation and participation in the development and testing of policy. (v) Taking the lead in research and innovation management improvement within Southern Africa, incorporating guidelines for the various components of the research and innovation cycle. (vi) Advancement of science, technology and innovation, including addressing the asymmetries in access to, and diffusion of, knowledge between 'North and 'South'.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)