Africa RISING in Ethiopian Highlands project: Review and Planning Meeting, ILRI Campus, Addis Ababa, 21–22 May 2019 Compiled by: Meron Mulatu, Birhan Abdulkadir, Million Getinet and Kindu Mekonnen Produced and published by: International Livestock Research Institute August 2019 www.africa-rising.net The Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation (Africa RISING) program comprises three research-for-development projects supported by the United States Agency for International Development as part of the U.S. government’s Feed the Future initiative. Through action research and development partnerships, Africa RISING will create opportunities for smallholder farm households to move out of hunger and poverty through sustainably intensified farming systems that improve food, nutrition, and income security, particularly for women and children, and conserve or enhance the natural resource base. The three projects are led by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (in West Africa and East and Southern Africa) and the International Livestock Research Institute (in the Ethiopian Highlands). The International Food Policy Research Institute leads an associated project on monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment. This publication is copyrighted by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). It is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. To view this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. This document was made possible with support from the American people delivered through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of the US government’s Feed the Future Initiative. The contents are the responsibility of the producing organization and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of USAID or the U.S. Government. Cover photo: Africa Rising Annual Review and Planning Meeting at Lalibela Hall, May 21–22, 2019 Addis Ababa Ethiopia (Photo credit: ILRI/Apollo Habtamu) 2 Contents Objectives of the meeting ............................................................................................................................. 4 Posters Session ............................................................................................................................................. 4 General observations indicated after the posters were presented ............................................................. 4 Presentations Session ................................................................................................................................... 5 Presentation 1: Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework (SIAF) ..............................................................5 Presentation 2: Trade-off and synergy analysis of ES for improving land management strategies in Ethiopia ........6 Presentation 3: Update on RHoMIS Survey carried out in April 2018 (through skype) .............................................6 Presentation 4: Africa RISING Monitoring, Evaluation and Data Management .......................................................7 Presentation 5: Feeds and forage research and development under SIMLESA project: Achievements and lessons .8 Presentation 6: Knowledge and communication in the Africa RISING Program .....................................................10 Presentation 7: Working with Multi-Stakeholder Innovation Platforms .................................................................11 Presentation 8: Africa RISING Workplan Template for the 2019.............................................................................12 Way forward discussion with partners ....................................................................................................... 14 What went well .......................................................................................................................................................14 Areas of improvement .............................................................................................................................................14 Closing remarks ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Annexes ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Annex 1: Program of the meeting ...........................................................................................................................16 Annex 2: Workplan Template ..................................................................................................................................17 Annex 3: List of meeting participants ......................................................................................................................18 3 Objectives of the meeting The main objectives of the two days’ Africa RISING review and planning meeting were: • • To review the project’s results, achievements and share lessons learned. To review and refine research for development and scaling plans of the 2019 cropping season. Posters Session The review of activities, achievements and challenges of the Africa RISING project for the years 2017 and 2018 were presented in a poster session organized around five thematic areas. • o o o o • o o • o o o o • o • o o Thematic area: Field crops and fruit trees Diversification of wheat-based cropping system through the introduction of high yielding barley and durum wheat in the highlands of Ethiopia Diversification of wheat-based cropping system through the introduction of high yielding cool season food legumes and oil seeds in the highlands of Ethiopia High value fruit trees production and scaling in the Ethiopian highlands Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS) and Scaling of Enset landraces Thematic area: Livestock feed and forages innovations Feed and forage development and scaling in the Ethiopian highlands Postharvest feed handling and utilization innovation Thematic area: Land and water resources management Land restoration initiatives and their performances in Ethiopia: a systematic assessment based on meta-data analysis Big Data analytics to transform agriculture: experience and progress Promotion of energy efficient and water saving technologies for smallholder irrigation Targeting Inputs in Appropriate Landscapes and Farming Systems Thematic area: Agricultural mechanization Scaling small-scale mechanization in the Ethiopian Highlands Thematic area: Gender, capacity development and multi-stakeholder platforms Empowering women farmers to participate in agricultural research processes Multi-Stakeholder Engagement, Partnerships and Capacity Building General observations indicated after the posters were presented • • The major challenge is on the start-up of technologies, the inputs and the resources including finance. So, there is need to pull resources for the next upscaling to happen. Skill, technology starting from selecting technology up to management and other aspects is a challenge. 4 • • • • • • • • • In terms of capacity building, experience sharing from one site to another is not much. Trainings should be more practical with more experience sharing. The project has implemented a lot of technologies but has not tracked the beneficiaries properly. So, there is need to find ways to track the beneficiaries. Disease issue and management of this needs to be thought about. Prioritization of technologies. Gender mainstreaming is very important in all activities and continuous engagement and training is very useful in that regard. So, it would be good to have couple training as an approach to increase the number of women farmers in the technology transfer system. Technologies developed by the project need to be validated against the SIAF domains and need to be used. The project should have planned this planning meeting in line with the development partners planning time. May is a bit late for planning. In the highlands of Ethiopia soil degradation is a critical problem and acidity is becoming very serious. Technologies that solve this problem should be given due consideration. project. Presentations Session Presentation 1: Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework (SIAF) Presenter: Peter Thorne, ILRI Key Points • • • The combination of terms “sustainable” and “intensification” indicates that desirable outcomes more food and improved natural resources can be achieved simultaneously (it is about methods – using systems approach and evaluating trade-offs and synergies). Purpose of the SI Assessment Framework o How do we assess if our technology of interest is moving towards sustainable intensification? o Provides a synthesized list of indicators and metrics categorized into five domains. o Proposed innovations never effect just one domain. There are many tradeoffs and synergies that occur across farming systems. o Visualization techniques such as radar charts allow you to compare performance of innovations or interventions. How to Use the Assessment Framework (process is key!) o Engaging stakeholders o Selecting indicators o Identifying critical tradeoffs and synergies o Selecting metrics o Visualization o Share and reflect on output with stakeholders Questions, comments, answers • If you have a technology that is going to cause problems that is not a valid technology. It is only after that you have addressed that problem that a technology becomes valid. 5 • o What was presented was the potential of this technology and the environmental domain needs more work. We need to find some mitigation measure. We might need to adjust the application of the technology. It is just a tool for analyzing the technology development. There are few models that do an impact assessment for example ex-ante impact assessment work in crop rotation but there are challenges of integrating livestock into the modelling especially when it comes to looking at the different scales for example grazing it is already a landscape issue (is it something that is under discussion). o That is part of the study design. You will be operating on livestock system and when you do analysis you will think about where it operates principally so you would select your indicators from the set of indicators to the relevant landscape scale. You may want to look at some of the downstream effects of the households as well because there will be household benefits from changes in landscape management so you will also need. For that one you probably need to go to the plot scale or the individual animal scale. Presentation 2: Trade-off and synergy analysis of ES for improving land management strategies in Ethiopia Presenter: Leulseged Tamene, CIAT Key Points • • • Natural resources and ecosystem degradation are costing Ethiopia over $4.3 billion but investing over $1.2 billion per year to restore degraded areas. Majority of studies assess impacts considering single ‘commodity’! This can underestimate and undermine the real benefits of landscape restoration efforts! However, there are no adequate database about the spatial distributions of those interventions and quantitative evidences about their performances are lacking. Tradeoff analysis for the contributions of different SLM options for different ecosystem functions, i.e. reducing runoff and soil erosion are the most achieved goals by SLM interventions. Questions, comments, answers • Looking at the impacts of CA in crops it was indicated that a high impact on productivity and relatively low impact on soil and carbon. Shouldn’t this be the other way around. o This needs further investigation by referring to the data. Presentation 3: Update on RHoMIS Survey carried out in April 2018 (through skype) Presenter: Jim Hammond, ILRI Key Points • A household survey in April 2018 was carried out after completion of the first phase of Africa RISING activities. 6 • • • The objectives were to evaluate what interventions were adopted more highly, and if particular combinations of interventions were adopted; and to evaluate any changes to farm productivity, human welfare, or sustainability criteria could be observed, due to adoption of interventions Many households trialed multiple interventions. Prosperous but land constrained households were the biggest adopters About 30 indicators were gathered in the RHoMIS survey to address Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework (SIAF) Questions, comments, answers • • • • Crop and fodder technologies were much more adopted than other technologies like mechanization why is it this way? Is it because the people can carry seeds in their pockets and travel long distances while the NRM’s are much more knowledge intensive? Or are there any other explanation o NRM technology are difficult to take up and mechanization (tractor) is more capital intensive and but need to check why seed multiplication and seed exchange may be quiet desirable. Fodder trees usually have different niches. Do you see any differences in household when different options are adopted by single or different groups? o Needs further checking. Have seed related technologies done because of complementarity or is it because farmers who have employed NRM technologies gained higher benefits compared to the others. o We have put a question in the surveys why farmers choose a particular mix of technology, and from the top of my head 25-30% of households had technology complimentary to one another The economic performance is poor in terms of volume, so are we going to conclude that all technologies do not have economic viability. o If we look at the proportion, we can see how popular a technology is by looking at how many households continue to use that technology and how many households increase the amount to which they use the technology. Presentation 4: Africa RISING Monitoring, Evaluation and Data Management Presenter: Beliyou Haile, IFPRI Key Points • • • Monitoring tools prepared for various data types (FtF indicators; direct-indirect beneficiaries & technologies; beneficiaries of scaling up/out; agronomic/ socioeconomic data; and process evaluation) by defining the frequency of data collections and responsible bodies. Program data repository platform – Dataverse: Steps for uploading datasets on Dataverse o Researchers complete Dataverse metadata template, crucial for proper tagging and discoverability o Researchers submit completed metadata, de-identified data files, documentation, and codebook to IFPRI M&E team o M&E team and Dataverse administrator review submitted documents and data and uploads them (interoperability) Program data management plan 7 o All de-identified data for which AR funds have been used (even partially) must be uploaded at least every year, whether they are part of a multiyear experiment or not o Datasets that are not part of a multiyear experiment shall be made open data within 12 months of completion of the data collection (embargo period) o Embargo period for datasets not part of a multiyear experiment extends up to 12 months after the completion of the experiment when complete datasets are available Questions, comments, answers • • • • We have reached to more farmers and now technologies are spreading but we don’t know how these technologies are impacting livelihoods of the farmers so that we can be confident on our contribution to the farmers. o Impact assessment can be done when validating the technologies at plot/farm level and through ex-post impact assessment. o We can do impact assessment when you actually try to validate the technologies at the plot/farm level. The other one is through ex-post impact assessment. o Once the beneficiary and tracking tool are complete, we should be able to know how many of the farmers started testing specific technology and estimate the impact of specific technology (ex-post). o The ex-ante evaluation is more promising method to provide the kind of evidence that would inform the program. Is there any possibility for some of the planned activities you indicated to include suitability maps of the selected varieties? (not the crops) to help us advise the extension which varieties can be scaled out. o One aspect of the ex-ante evaluation that was presented tries to identify which innovation, conservation agricultural practices are more likely to be adopted and under what condition and that evidence was generated as part of the experiment. Yes, it is doable, but I haven’t done it myself, but my colleagues have done it. CIAT (we are working with GIZ on technology scaling and a colleague of us who is working on Bioversity is still working with us and he used a kind of tool which is a network analysis tool to trace the adoption, the technologies within different boundaries and different areas. So, I find it very interesting. So, I suggest that he presents something and if we find it feasible and useful, he can be engaged. (Assefa Seyoum) I think what is done in Zambia can be done in Ethiopia and the model is not complicated. (For CA for different countries). Presentation 5: Feeds and forage research and development under SIMLESA project: Achievements and lessons Presenter: Endalkachew Wolde-Meskel, ILRI Key Points • After end of SIMLESA Phase I, it has become clear that implementing Conservation agriculture (CA) in mixed crop-livestock smallholder systems is difficult without a strong alternative feed resource development. Feed is a limiting resource for livestock production in the mixed system. 8 • • • • Menu of feed/forage options introduced and promoted. Daily weight gain of fattening sheep significantly increased when supplemented different levels of cowpea and oat-vetch forages. Access to quality forage seed supply remains a bottleneck. Additional work on the seed supply system is required. Integration of cultivated forages in the cropping system helped to realize improved biomass yield, increased livestock productivity and income and reduced burden on women and children Questions, comments, answers • • • The fertilizer that was mentioned in the presentation can be environmentally bad, lime is needed to correct it. So how do you explain this? o When the student set this experiment, we argued whether this is feasible for farmers to really prefer to put fertilizers to grasses rather than crops, he insisted this is comparison. I was convinced. The residual effect will be there farmers usually need something to go to the pocket. This is a one-year study and it needs further research. o Additionally, the comparison among the different treatments is there for commercial fertilizer, for manure and for lime. Almost all our farmers are crop-livestock farmers. The yield from cattle/manure is better than wood ash. Though it is slightly lower than that of chemical fertilizer, this is just a one season experiment. And if we could measure the impact of the manure the coming years perhaps it could be better than some other treatment. This is to show the different options to counter the environmental effect of the urea but farmers for sure will opt as far as they have livestock to go manure because they have it available. o Manure may not be available also to cover larger areas. Lime could have been cheaper and if accessibility is ensured production increases. But all of it has its pros and cons. So there are different solutions for this. Project has come to an end. You have two partners there in the south: send a cow and Inter Aide. You have worked in different geographic areas. Are you discussing how Africa RISING would continue to support some of these activities? o Yes, I think these areas are within Africa RISING scaling zones so the work can continue. Each time we come to end of a project we really need to think about how to sustain the activities especially since we see positive responses. Mine relates to the forage seeds what are your thoughts, did you work with any seed entrepreneurs at the research stations picking it up? Do you have lead farmers? It will be sad to see this really affecting continuity. o It is always good to work on projects with partners. Projects always come and go but the local partners are there and the farmers are there. What we have been doing from last season was we have bought and supplied seeds for innovative farmers so that they can share it with the communities and eventually also to produce enough and sell. That is the arrangement we have but there are also some emerging seed companies who may be interested to take up this forage seed development aspect. o The forage seed issue is also under discussion, we have agreed to test the different modalities for forage seed production and supply. There are formal and informal seed supply systems. So, the formal is to do with big seed companies who have got to do with crop seeds. But we felt that we are not yet in this stage of forage seed at the formal seed system whereby we produce seeds basically at university campuses, research centers and so on with some model farmers. Then we 9 • bring around farmers. The livestock farmers are the major utilizers of this seed, so the demand has to come from farmers. So, we draw the interest of those farmers and we bring them along those seed farms, and we build their capacity. If we address the issues of seed quality and clustering issues, there are opportunities coming for seed production. o One of the things that needs to be considered during the planning phase is that we talked about 3 systems: 1. Formal one (which we have good examples in some places and where we can encourage cooperatives or unions (e.g. around Debre Berhan, North Shoa there is a cooperative which we can take as an example). So in the coming season that could be one of the areas we need to focus and do. 2.The semi-formal system NGO’s have the possibility of working with the farmer groups. 3.The informal one (working with model farmers. So, if we at least mange these 3 models on ground and test them and see what support is needed. What I am missing in these presentations is the social aspects. Could you share with us the changes for example the changes in terms of household relationships as a result of producing forages? Give us some examples social aspects that we can learn from. o Usually when we think of the backyard forage planting it is mostly done by women and milk production is mostly done by women (that is the authoritative side). Somehow the fattening of small ruminants is taken up by women. They don’t go to oxen farming. So, the available data can be put on table. But your point is taken in production as well as marketing. o In some of our scaling partners the majority of the beneficiaries are women. So, the main reason is to empower women give opportunities for small scale businesses related to smallholders as well as small scale dairy which is handled by women. On average, 50% of the beneficiaries are women households and this is not done randomly but these are targeted to technologies which are being promoted but as you said putting this information to show the real impact is necessary. And we purposely select beneficiaries (30% all of our beneficiaries are women but this doesn’t mean that they are widowed, and the husband might be there but to increase their empowerment, their participation and decision making we allow the women to take part in the project activity including training and resource provision but since our approach is a household based approach whoever participates in that training will come to the entire family and share whatever is obtained from the project. So, the husband and the wife, including the children participate in each and every activity so it is family focused. Apart from the direct participation of the women, we also give spouse training so that they can have a common understanding about the project, and they can make joint decisions at a family level (resource sharing, land allocation, decision making what to produce). Presentation 6: Knowledge and communication in the Africa RISING Program Presenter: Jonathan Odhong, IITA Key Points • • Strategic Goal: provide excellent knowledge sharing, communication and information exchange facilities and expertise to ensure that the Africa RISING program and its associated projects operate effectively and have their intended results. What we need from you o SHARE WITH US your planned upcoming activities, well in advance 10 • o SEND TO US all completed study reports, journal articles, photos and other outputs from your work o INFORM US about the emerging success stories from your work o ENGAGE WITH US on your work in the field 6 steps to publishing study reports in Africa RISING o Draft report by partner o Report is shared with Chief Scientist for review/comment o Comments/feedback/reviews from Chief Scientist incorporated by partner o Partner sends revised report to comms. team for editing and formatting (Africa RISING branding) o Edited & formatted report sent back to partner & Chief Scientist for final validation o Final report published on CG Space & where possible comms. teamwork with partner on a story for the Africa RISING website about the new study report. Questions, comments, answers Presentation 7: Working with Multi-Stakeholder Innovation Platforms Presenter: Million Getnet, ILRI Key Points • • • • • Africa RISING is a project with limited time span, hence needs to build local capacity. Scaling involves multiple actors at multiple levels: technology generators, technology translators, technology disseminators, funders & users. Multi-stakeholder innovation platforms (MSIPs) effectiveness is a function of internal (level of investment) and external (institutional environment) factors. They need to be supported by innovation brokering and capacity building. Basic Structure of MSIPs: o General Assembly: composed of 25-30 members; membership will be open for those involved in scaling and R4D works; provides strategic directions; meets twice a year. o Technical committee: composed of 5-7 members; provides tactical direction; meets frequently on demand. o Innovation Clusters: organized around relevant commodities and/or scaling districts; members could include manageable number of actors along the ‘scaling-chains’; provides operational guidance; will have one champion per commodity/district; could meet as demanded. Next Steps o Launching the MSIPs in the four sites. o Capacity building for Technical Committee and Innovation Cluster Champions. o Engagement facilitation o Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Questions, comments, answers • Looking at the innovation clusters that are predominantly focuses on input supply and predominantly on seeds, do you think that this will naturally kind of expand into marketing issues as or will the multi-stake holder platforms have a role to play. I appreciate that you tackle seeds and there is no need to go to the marketing side. 11 • o The first thing we need to do when we sit for launching the innovation platforms is sit together and discuss what we want to achieve exactly. We put seed because somehow this was a preoccupation during the review and planning meetings but other issues could also be included (anything which can be taken as a week point within the innovation platform for each commodity can be part of the innovation clusters but this is just a starting point and that can expand. Because we are dealing with upscaling and some of the results have some business models it would be good if you can involve the private sector like cooperatives or some private entities. o We started it this year and we now have more cooperative unions at each site that is what we are focusing on but if there are other private actors that you think would take up the technologies we will consider. . Presentation 8: Africa RISING Workplan Template for the 2019 Presenter: Kindu Mekonnen, ILRI Key Points • • • • The template that the participants needed to work on which indicated the list of Africa RISING validated technologies in broad categories, and regions, zones, woredas and kebeles to scale the technologies. The template also includes number of beneficiaries (male and female households), and expectation of the development partners from Africa RISING project. The template was submitted to different development partners and to each of the site coordinator of Africa RISING. Multiple trainings were organized to provide training of trainers for development partners and farmers and that helped partners understand the different technologies and it helped them to properly implement technologies developed by the project. Questions, comments, answers After a though discussion within the regional site coordinators and partners for each site from different regions (Amhara, Oromia, SNNP and Tigray), each site presented a draft work plan to all the participants and some suggestions were given back to each presenter. • • You have 3 watersheds and we can scale the tools we developed, and the extension can adopt tools and manage the water shades properly, so it is not clear why soil conservation and soil fertilities are indicated in the plan. If there is a recommendation from ICRISAT Ethiopia office, we want to engage more farmers and see how those recommendations can work. Rename landscape management to landscape and agricultural water management because when come to the technologies you have components for technologies related to agricultural water management. In line with that you targeted 3 watersheds and not households so if you want to implement pilot work to scale up irrigation it is not clear how this can be at watershed level because there must be someone to adopt this technologies and that is households so the target should have been number of households rather than watersheds. And there is no need to stick one technology here and another technology there. 12 • • • • • A lot of small-scale irrigation scheme in North Shoa where they grow faba bean, lentil, barley and potato. Does that include just to run the concentration of this major crops in that small-scale irrigation area? Is this supplementary or small scale? Can you clarify that and try to address those small-scale irrigation over North Shoa? Initial seed expectation from Africa RISING coordination unit of the area or from the target woredas? Capacity building was also mentioned in the presentation in many places, but it is good to indicate the type of capacity building that is needed. On livestock forage seed, it was mentioned about vegetable, fodder but the varieties to be multiplied or to be experimented were not specified. So, would be good to specify the variety? When implementing water management, it should be integrated when with other components. 13 Way forward discussion with partners Participants were asked to comment on the past two years achievement and suggest areas for improvement. What went well • • • • • • • • Africa RISING has become source of different validated technologies, innovations and this is very important for the program. The project is committed to scaling out with partners, so Africa RISING is facing the challenge that the development actors are facing in scaling out. The partnership that this program brought together with different researchers; development actors is unique. This will contribute in narrowing the long-standing vacuum between research and extension. The project’s engagement in facilitating scaling out to reach many farmers so that farmers can benefit. Knowledge, big data is there which is an asset and is very important. The project introduced many technologies. And some of the few technologies are being scaled up and this has improved the lives of our small-holder farmers. For ICARDA, the first phase of Africa RISING was an input for a bigger project. There is need to take this opportunity fully (this is a message specifically for partners). The CG centers are producing technologies and other partners need to exploit these technologies. Areas of improvement • • • • • • • • For the past two years, the support by AR to CGIAR centers was not uniform because of funding but for the coming years it must be continuous. The project must avoid duplication of efforts in validation of technologies. We shouldn’t integrate everything, there is need to be selective and it shouldn’t be too complicated. Proper attention needs to be given to critical stakeholders. There is need to work more on economic analysis (agri-business analysis) that will make our story more solid. Scaling based only on the productivity is not good enough. Impact assessment is very important for Africa RISING at the end of the lifetime. Would be good to have special meeting with the agro-industries like the breweries, pasta factories as they can inject some money. Africa RISING will be sustainable because the actors as well as the donor own the project already. 14 Closing remarks The closing remark was given by Kindu Mekonnen, Africa RISING program coordinator in Ethiopia. He emphasized the following points. • • • • • • The scaling work is not a separate work so I want you all to consider it as your regular work so that we can achieve a lot. We want to trace and document beneficiaries in your respective sites. For the next step, we will review the draft plans which you have prepared and prioritize and allocate resources to implement the plans. For the CGIAR team we have the CGIAR research core team so we will have a meeting soon. Then we will discuss how the research can complement each other. We will also identify key areas of research and develop a model protocol which will help our national system. We will also try to integrate the sustainable intensification assessment. Finally, Kindu thanked all who were involved from Ethiopia and abroad that contributed for the success of the workshop. 15 Annexes Annex 1: Program of the meeting Africa RISING Ethiopian Highlands Project Review and Planning Meeting 21 – 22 May 2019 Lalibela Auditorium, Addis Ababa Objectives • Review project results, achivements and share lessons learned. • Review and refine research for development and scaling plans of the 2019 cropping season. Day 1 (21st May 2019) 8:00 Registration 8:35 Welcome, agenda and participants introduction 09 :00 Overview of the Africa RISING in the Ethiopian highlands – Kindu Mekonnen and Peter Thorne 09:15 Review of 2017 and 2018 activities, achievements and challenges - poster sessions 10:30 Coffee break and Group Photo 11:00 Review 2018 activities, achievements and challenges – poster sessions CONTD’ 13:00 Lunch break 14:00 Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework (SIAF) - Peter Thorne and Lulseged Tamene 14:45 Rural Household Multi-Indicator Survey (RHoMIS) - (presentation) 15:15 Africa RISING Monitoring, Evaluation, and Data Management – Beliyou Haile 15:30 Coffee break 14:00 Wrap up and Close 17:30 Cocktail reception Day 2 (22nd May 2019) 8:30 Recap of Day 1 09:00 Sustainable Intensification of Maize-Legume Cropping Systems for Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa (SIMLESA): Experience on feed/ fodder action research and scaling – Aberra and Melkamu 10:00 Coffee break 10:30 Work plan template – Kindu Mekonnen 10: 50 Work plans (group work - per site) 12:30 Lunch break 13:30 Work plans reporting 14:30 Multi-Stakeholder Innovation Platforms – Million Getnet 15:00 Africa RISING 2019 communications plan, access to tools and outputs – Jonathan Odhong 15: 30 Coffee break 16: 00 Way forward discussion with partners 16:30 Next Steps 17:00 Close 16 Annex 2: Workplan Template Categories Technologies, approaches to scale Crops High value perennials Crop varieties Disease tolerant Enset varieties Livestock Water Mechanizatio n Landscape management Number of region/s to scale Number Number of of zone/s woreda/s to scale Number of kebeles to scale Number of HHs (direct beneficiaries) / watersheds Expectation from Africa RISING project High value fruit trees Cultivated forages Post-harvest feed management technologies Water lifting devices Multipurpose Two-wheel tractors Approaches/tools 17 Annex 3: List of meeting participants # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Name Aberra Adie Abiy Legesse Abiye Astatike Addisu Asfaw Ahmed Kelil Amare Hailesilasse Amerga Menji Annet Mulema Assefa Asres Beliyou Haile Birhan Abdulkadir Birhan Ali Debela Sime Derbe Gemiyo Desta Gebre Endalkachew Wolde-meskel Fikreab Mekebo G/hawaria G/her Gebrehiwot Hailemariam Getachew Kahsay Getamesay Demeke Girma Aba Edemo Girma Betebo Habtamu Forsido Hadia Seid Hadush Kahsay Tefrei Haile Kassa Jonathan Odhong Kahsay Berhe Tela Kassahun Erikocha Kedirela Wabela Kidane Wolde Kifle Woldeaegay Kindu Mekonnen Likawent Yiheyis Mahmud Muhammed Mateete Bekunda Mebrahtom Gebrekidan Mekonnen Gebre Giorgis Menbere Birhane Meron Tadesse Mesfin Zenebe Moges Bizuneh Mohammed Beriso Mohammed Ebrahim Muaweya Fuad Peter Thorne Organization ILRI ARARI-DBARC Faji Farm ILRI Madda Walabu University IWMI Butajira Nursery ILRI Southern Tigray BoAND IFPRI ILRI Sunarma Bale Zone BoANRM SARI-Areka ARC EIAR ILRI ECC IWMI ICRAF Maichew ATVET College InterAide Lemo Woreda BoANRM Hadya Zone BoANRM E-mail a.adie@cgiar.org abiyu83@gmail.com aastatke@yahoo.com a.asfaw@cgiar.org phdindia2013@gmail.com A.Haileslassie@cgiar.org amergamenji@yahoo.com a.mulema@cgiar.org assefaasres@gmail.com b.haile@cgiar.org b.abdulkadir@cgiar.org birhan.ali@sunarma.org debela.sime2018@gmail.com ICRAF Endamehoni Woreda BoA Southern Tigray BoAND IITA Endamehoni Woreda BoA h.seid@cgiar.org SARI-Worabe ARC TARI-Alamata ARC Mekelle University ILRI ARARI Bale Zone BoLF IITA-Africa RISING Tigray BoANR Tegulet Union Tigray BoANR CIAT Send a Cow destabanje89@gmail.com e.woldemeskel@cgiar.org fmekebo@yahoo.com g.hailemariam@cgiar.org gechov8@gmail.com getu.demeke@interaide.org j.odhong@cgiar.org kahsay.berhe2010@gmail.com kerikocho@yahoo.com kedruwabe@gmail.com kidanew2009@gmail.com kiflewold@yahoo.com k.mekonnen@cgiar.org likawenty@yahoo.com m.bekunda@cgiar.org mebru2014@gmail.com meku1980ge@gmail.com menbere2017@gmail.com merrytade@gmail.com mesfin.benebe@sendacow.org Basona Worena Woreda BoA OARI-Sinana ARC ILRI Sinana Woreda BoA ILRI mbariis2008@gmail.com m.ebrahim@cgiar.org muaweya2013@gmail.com p.thorne@cgiar.org Telephone 251 910756005 251 911923120 251 911912649 251 911751098 251 923033299 251 911735747 251 911544211 251 936662340 251 914785350 251 911315779 251 910050022 251 921296042 251 924441256 251 912449441 251 911737318 251 910507992 251 921753737 251 914702888 251 914788311 251 912053753 251 916535919 251 920650211 251 916462470 251 913293250 251 914735289 234 814347532 251 914210993 251 911057843 251 910185922 251 914169305 251 939649169 251 911469056 251 911532866 251 912251278 251 980447598 251 911762699 251 945479447 251 910271930 251 911704165 251 913399714 251 949297653 251 910496826 251 913016519 18 # 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Name Seid Ahmed Kemal Shewangizaw Hailemichael Solomon Gebre Selaaie Tadele Tadesse Teklay Abebe Temesgen Alene Temesgen Kebede Tesfaye Geleta Tesfaye Yaekob Tilahun Amede Tolesa Alemu Tsedeke Zewdie Walter Mupangwa Workineh Dubale Worku Moges Wuletaw Abere Wuletaw Mekuria Yetsedaw Aynewa Zegeye W/Agegnehu Zerihun Yemata Organization ICARDA North Shewa Zone, BoA Tigray BoANR OARI-Sinana ARC EIAR-Mehoni ARC ILRI Debre Birhan University Sinana Woreda BoA EIAR-Jimma ARC ICRISAT EIAR-Kulumsa ARC Hadya Zone BoLF CIMMYT ILRI North Shewa Zone, BoA CIAT University of Gonder ICARDA E-mail s.a.kemal@cgiar.org shewa1216@gmail.com solomonwah@gmail.com adyeko20@gmail.com teklayabebe6@gmail.com t.alene@cgiar.org tesfayegeleta41@gmail.com tesfaye_yaekob@gmail.com t.amede@cgiar.org tolesaalemu@yahoo.com w.mupangwa@cgiar.org w.dubale@cgiar.org moges.worku@yahoo.com Wuletawu.Abera@cgiar.org wuletaw.m@gmail.com ayenyetse@gmail.com Basona Worena Woreda LDPO SARI-Hawassa yemataw.zerihun@yahoo.com Telephone 212 648587765 251 925505201 251 914763165 251 911967286 251 947293086 251 920512116 251 911052682 251 912949225 251 911102338 251 911230135 251 911488299 251 928846762 251 988474514 251 931163420 251 924140555 251 954986874 251 918714477 251 918710628 251 913103943 251 911960755 19