Presented by Barry Pound, Adugna Tolera and Harriet Matsaert at the Africa RISING Project Mid-term Review Feedback Workshop, Addis Ababa, 1 April 2015

1. Mid-Term Review of the Africa RISING Project in the
Ethiopian Highlands
Barry Pound, Adugna Tolera and Harriet Matsaert
Africa RISING Project Mid-term Review Feedback
Workshop, Addis Ababa, 1 April 2015

2. Outline of presentation
 Acknowledgements
 Review process
 Observations
 Preliminary findings
 Achievements/strengths of the project
 Areas for strengthening
 Areas for further considerations
 Next steps

3. Review Process
 Meetings with the project
coordination team
 Meetings and interviews with
CG partners
 Skypes with USAID and IFPRI
 Visits to Lemo and
Endamehoni Woredas
o Meetings with Woreda-
level IPs
o Field visits to 4 kebeles

5. Observations – hitting a moving target
 Change in project ‘framework’ – changes from hypotheses +
outputs to components to themes…
 … and from a farm focus to inclusion of wider scale issues…
 … and from a wheat system to a more inclusive mandate.
 Similarly, draft scaling plan still at draft stage, and not clear
where the project role stops.

6. Preliminary findings of the review

7. Achievements/Strengths

8. Project design
 People like the flexibility of the design
 There is a high level of ownership; some CG Centres (e.g.
ICRAF, ICARDA) were involved in the design with ILRI at an
early stage of the project
 Note: communication needs to be very good for every one if
you want to have a flexible design

9. Research and Management Approaches
 Strengths of the research approach are:
 Holistic
 Multi-institutional/multidisciplinary
 Participatory
 project ethos of sharing and collaborating
 Flexibility & adaptive management makes project responsive
and able to meet opportunities and challenges + facilitate
partnerships + integration of systems components (crops,
livestock, natural resources) in a systems approach

10. Output 1 – Situation analysis and program-wide
synthesis
 Large amount of qualitative and quantitative data collected on
the project sites (including socioeconomic, natural resources,
institutional).
 Quick wins gave on the ground experience and create links to
local partners.
 Recognition of heterogeneity – technical & social studies

11. Output 2 – Integrated systems improvement
 Project looks at commodities and landscape level and plans to
work at the macro level through the sustainability indicators
and monitoring.
 Collaborative protocols development (CG and local partners).
 Demand driven and wide range of relevant options being
tested. Farmers enthusiastic about the options.
 Sufficient budget
 Protocol on soil and water management links household to
landscape level interventions.
 Participatory approach in a multi-disciplinary and multi-
institutional setting

12. Output 2 (continued)
 CIP, CIMMYT and ICARDA collaboration for trial management.
 IPs play active role in coordinating and supporting the research.
 Includes some original work – (e.g. analysis of landscape scale
production against hh nutrition requirements)
 Some work is relevant to influencing govt policy (e.g. fertiliser
rates according to soil response in highly variable
environments)
 Inclusion of nutrition/post-harvest in response to recognition of
these as gaps
 Positive response to some of the technologies after the first
season and some initial scaling (where there is community
based seed production in particular).

13. Output 3 – Scaling and delivery of integrated innovation
 IPs and FRGs have an important role to play in scaling.
 Interest shown by regional, zonal, woreda and kebele level
government officials.
 Draft scaling plan has been created. Starting the process of
thinking about Africa Rising’s role in scaling.
 Value chain studies have provided information that will be
useful in scaling process.
 Involving development partners e.g GRAD is facilitating initial
scaling.

14. Gender and Diversity
 Project recognises the importance of, and has put resources
into gender analysis.
 PCA disaggregated results between youth, women and men
and further research is ongoing to look at constraints to
women’s participation.
 Gender action plan, Gender training and creation of Gender
champions at IP level.

15. Data Management
 Good data sharing between partners
 Plan for data repository which potentially enables meta
analysis.

16. Human Resources
 Wide range of skills and expertise in the partnership
 Partnership with local research centers and university staff
 Use of consultants and students to fill gaps (but not too many)
 Building capacity of local partners by supporting MSc and PhD
studies (and in future writing joint peer reviewed papers).

17. Monitoring and Evaluation
 Baseline surveys (IFPRI, PCA, AKT5, etc)
 IPs are monitoring their activities and have appointed M& E
champions.
 At project level, monthly meetings play role in monitoring and
guiding adaptive management.

18. Communication
 Well budgeted for and importance appreciated by the project.
 Electronic communication much appreciated (especially yammer).
 Extensive documentation of the process at program and project
level.
 Have already put thought into the use of communication for scaling
(including partnerships with innovative communication mechanisms
e.g Digital Green and Shamba shape up).

19. Partnerships
 Very strong and positive partnerships within CGIAR & with local
partners (Woreda Office of Agriculture and research centers,
universities).
 Beginning to develop partnerships for scaling, for example:
 Support from zonal and regional agricultural office is beginning
(Tigray).
 Working together with government campaign on sustainable
land management protocol.
 Work with cooperative in Endamehoni and starting in Lemo.

20. Areas for strengthening

21. Lack of a clear framework for the project and its partners to
follow has led to some challenges:-
 Lack of clarity on roles and goals.
 Reduced efficiency.
 Some duplication and lack of integration in survey design.
21
1. Project Design and Management Structure

22. Areas for Strengthening 2
Output 1
 Lateness of some key products which should guide Output 2.
Data should be made available asap.
 Programme level work on sustainable indicators is needed
urgently.
 Overloading of farmers?
 More understanding of trends to supplement ‘snapshot’ of
current systems.
22

23. Areas for Strengthening 3
Output 2
Broaden analysis to look at sustainable intensification at the
whole farm level (linking the different components at household
level).
Include landscape/watershed level features of the system e.g
water budgets to guide thinking and action on sustainable
intensification.
Participation of women in FRGs and IPs still lower than targeted
(participation of young people, households in less accessible
areas?)
Some research gaps identified by farmers and researchers.
Make trial plots size meaningful (forage trials). 23

24. AreasforStrengthening4
Output 3
Due to delay of key milestones, significant scaling unlikely to be
achieved in phase 1.
Project needs to start identifying and engaging partners with
skills, resources and networks to enable scaling.
Project should keep track of formal and informal dissemination
(example seed potatoes) to understand the mechanisms and
destination of scaling.
24

25. Areas for Strengthening 5
Gender and Diversity
Broaden focus of gender work to include attention to range
of household types, individuals and excluded groups.
Use typologies derived from output 1 activity to ensure
inclusion of all typologies and monitor participation and
adoption.
25

26. Areas for Strengthening 6
Data management issues
Different formats, programmes and approaches etc. may mean
data sets are not compatible (could present a problem for meta
analysis).
26

27. AreasforStrengthening7
Human resource management
Site coordinator overloaded by multiple protocols and attitude of
some partners, small financial float and time taken to do and replenish
accounts. Accountancy support and better planning could help.
Local expertise is essential for trial management.
M&E staff needed who are answerable to project management and
who attend planning and partnership meetings
Additional expertise and networking to support scaling required
(discussed under Output 3).
27

28. AreasforStrengthening8
Monitoring and Evaluation
Late collection of baseline data
No evidence of monitoring plan
No collection of data by IFPRI for over-arching project level
monitoring (Outcomes) to guide project management.
No evidence of IFPRI staff apart from the baselineNo country
M&E person appointed as was envisaged
Funding for M&E as separate contract – is not integrated
28

29. Areas for Strengthening 10
Communication
Suggest hard copy updates e.g. quarterly newsletters for sharing
with Local partners and stakeholders.
Financial Management
Slow disbursement from ILRI financial office has been a problem
for some protocols - evidence from ICRISAT, CIAT and both site
coordinators interviewed.
29

30. Areas for further consideration- 1
 How to keep the benefits of flexible design, while addressing its
shortcomings
 How to move towards whole farm integration
 Getting the balance right between broad & iterative research and
farmer support, and not overloading or “changing” farmers
 Think about appropriate scaling research methods and partners,
including mapping and quantification of scaling, and investigating
scaling processes
30

31. Areas for further consideration- 2
 Consider diversity in planning, monitoring & scaling of
technologies – need to develop different technologies for
different social groups within the community
 Data collection – M&E info – what, what for, when, who to
collect, how to share and use
 How do VCs fit into the TOC, and into research and scaling
activities and partnerships?
31

32. Areas for further consideration- 3
 Does the AR Programme “add value” commensurate with
costs, c.f. interaction with CPRs and other SI initiatives
 What is the future of the IPs? What is AR’s role?
32

33. Next steps
 Development of preliminary recommendations (Thursday am)
 Feedback to Project team (Thursday pm)
 Draft report to project partners for comment (by end April
2015)
 Final report, May 2015
33

34. 34

35. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR MIXED GROUPS
1. How do Value Chains fit into research and scaling activities
and partnerships?
2. Think about mapping and quantification of scaling, and
investigating scaling processes
3. How to move towards research into whole farm integration
35

36. Project partners Ethiopia

37. Local partners Ethiopia
 Academic institutions:
 Wachemo, Mekelle, Madawolabu, Debre Berhan and Hawassa universities; Maichew Agricultural College
 Regional research organizations:
 Amhara Regional Agricultrural Research Institute, Southern Agricultural Research Institute, Tigray Agricultural
Research Institute, Oromia Agricultural Research Institute
 Federal research organizations:
 Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research, Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute
 Offices of Agriculture:
 Endamekoni (Tigray), Basona Worena (Amhara), Lemo (SNNRP) and Sinana (Oromia)
 Agricultural Transformation Agency

38. Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation
africa-rising.net
The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.