• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Paepard capitalization workshop

Paepard capitalization workshop






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



14 Embeds 84

http://paepard.blogspot.be 35
http://paepard.blogspot.com 17
http://paepard.blogspot.com.es 9
http://paepard.blogspot.co.uk 8
http://paepard.blogspot.fr 4
http://paepard.blogspot.in 3
http://paepard.blogspot.jp 1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
http://paepard.blogspot.de 1
http://paepard.blogspot.nl 1
http://prlog.ru 1
http://paepard.blogspot.it 1
http://paepard.blogspot.co.at 1
http://paepard.blogspot.pt 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Paepard capitalization workshop Paepard capitalization workshop Presentation Transcript

    • Burkina Faso PAEPARD capitalization workshop Highlights from the AIF reflection meeting By Monica Kapiriri 1
    • Introduction Drew participants from 18 countries: Burkina Faso; Burundi, Cameroon, Congo Braz, France, Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Netherlands, Nigeria, DR Congo, Zimbabwe , Senegal, Togo, Zambia, Kenya, Uganda, Benin  PAEPARD staff, AIFs, Coordinators, Partners, representatives from WP leading institutions  By Monica Kapiriri 2
    • Purpose of the workshop To review experiences of AIF’s, what did we learn?  To review AIF’s action plans for MSHRQD workshops, the implementation  The way forward: what will be the way forward for PAEPARD? And what does it mean for the AIF’s?  To explore what ideas for PP III mean in terms of capacity building and support for AIF’s, consortia and the 5 ULP platforms.  By Monica Kapiriri 3
    • The process  Highly interactive and participatory ◦ Personal reflection and synthesis ◦ Group work ◦ Plenary feedback Day 1: Harvesting  Day 2: Brokerage in Multistakeholder processes  Day 3: Way forward  By Monica Kapiriri 4
    • Experience sharing Sharing experiences focusing on building partnerships.  Drawn from the process up to and during the inception workshops. Common “best” experiences  Stakeholder mobilization and bring together producers, researchers, and agro-industry to form successful consortia,  Mobilization and engagement of decisionmakers and successfully worked with multi-stakeholder platforms.  By Monica Kapiriri 5
    • Harvesting      Participation/ engagement, consensus building, conflict resolution and mediation. They participated in lobbying and advocacy, building teams, ensuring equitable sharing of tasks, Ensuring appropriate institutional arrangement, and achieved good collaboration between facilitators and coordinators; created awareness, Participated in documentation of expériences and Promotion of farming for business (entrepreneurship). By Monica Kapiriri 6
    • AIFs specific best experiences      Stakeholder/ partner mobilization, Inception meetings, MSRQDW, RUFORUM workshops, Multi-stakeholder partnership brokerage events and facilitating meetings events (funding, coordination, facilitation/moderation). By Monica Kapiriri 7
    • Coordinators specific best experiences Partner mobilization and brokerage,  Trust and good working relationships  Once the consortia and partnerships were established it become easier to interest partners in response to a call.  By Monica Kapiriri 8
    • Conclusion on “best” experiences Face-face meetings such as inception workshops generated most of the positive experiences.  E-partnerships seem to be superficial  Need for more face-to-face meetings until the partnerships are solidified, then e-communication can add value.  By Monica Kapiriri 9
    • Challenges - AIFs     Consortia not able to bring together all the required stakeholder, Failure to finalize concept notes for timely submission in response to calls, Poor communication - timely response to emails/collaboration/communication. AIFs noted that the of weak development partnerships prior to calls for good synergies, By Monica Kapiriri 10
    • Challenges - Coordinators Funds had not been secured for proposals submitted,  Absence of pre-funding to facilitate concept/proposal developments meetings,  Managing partners dynamics when there was dominance by a few  Poor communication, collaboration, and input (balanced) by partners  By Monica Kapiriri 11
    • Conclusion on challenges Communication outside of face to face meeting emerged from both the AIFs and Coordinators as affecting the partnership building process the most  Demoralization from not receiving funding,  By Monica Kapiriri 12
    • The function and person of AIFs  Heated discussions about AIFs ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦  Selection process Matching Performance M&E Core issue was not the roles/function of AIFs as it was their competencies, relevancy to consortia and costs. By Monica Kapiriri 13
    • AIFS – views by Coordinators Are they best external or internal?  Advantages: Familiar with the thematic area, cheaper, sustainable  Disadvantages: Not neutral, liable to manipulating the process and biases, affects sense of ownership by members, and the levels of participation.  The first cohort used Coordinators and ownership was weak, generating lessons that led to the birth of AIFs  By Monica Kapiriri 14
    • AIFs: Views by AIFs  These were divided into three categories based on their contractual process. ◦ Clear TOR and signed contracts: Seen and effective, motivated and satisfied ◦ TOR/Contract not signed: Frustrated, some seen as incompetent ◦ ULP AIFs: Several satisfied, but a few felt marginalized by the Coordinators By Monica Kapiriri 15
    • Reflections on the mini review Discussions mainly focused on the TORs  Develop and negotiate the TORs  Encourage full participation by all stakeholders  Promote mutual understanding between partners  Promote social learning among partners By Monica Kapiriri 16
    • Reflections on the mini review Promoted and guided joint reflection by the partners such that the partners learned from the process and improved their own ability to work in partnership with other organisations or interest groups  Promoted the documentation by the partners, both of the results and outcomes of the research but also of the partnership process itself and lessons learned  By Monica Kapiriri 17
    • Mini review - Indicators Indicators of success included  Develop and negotiate the TORs ◦ The TORs of AIF were clearly formulated ◦ The TORs of AIF were discussed and negotiated with the Project Leader ◦ The AIF know very well their mission/TORs and roles By Monica Kapiriri 18
    • Mini review – indicators  Promote mutual understanding between partners ◦ The AIF guided the partners to agree on well-defined and shared objectives, the roles and responsibilities of each partner organisation ◦ The AIF promoted communication and information sharing between partners ◦ Encouraged the adoption of behaviour by stakeholder representatives that is conducive to an environment of mutual respect and trust ◦ Ensured that group norms or organisational culture do not oppress individual thinking, creativity and innovation By Monica Kapiriri 19
    • Mini review - Indicators  Promote social learning among partners ◦ Ensured that group norms or organisational culture do not oppress individual thinking, creativity and innovation ◦ Promoted consensual decision-making by partners, and mutually inclusive solutions; By Monica Kapiriri 20
    • Conclusion TORs were not shared a cross the board  Coordinators and AIFs adopted a process based on assumptions that were not clarified.  The role of PAEPARD/ WP institutions in the contractual process was peripheral  Recommended a tripartite arrangement  ◦ AIF ◦ Coordinators ◦ PAEPARD WP Institution By Monica Kapiriri 21
    • Proposed improvement Support by PAEPARD  Money for ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ partnership building process consolidating partnerships consortia projects Resource Persons support responses to calls Defines rules for funding consortia and AIF activities  Focus the capacity building of AIFs to consortia needs  By Monica Kapiriri 22
    • Proposed improvement M&E  Performance indicators developed and shared among all the three parties to review the effectiveness of; ◦ AIFs, ◦ Coordinators and ◦ PAEPARD institutions against By Monica Kapiriri 23
    • AIF selection process The process needs to be designed to draw out and align the competencies of AIFs to consortia needs.  Coordinators must take part in selection and appointment of AIFs  By Monica Kapiriri 24
    • Proposed improvement TORS/ contract of AIFs  Contracts should ◦ Be explicit ◦ Be developed and signed between AIFs, Coordinators and the PAEPARD representatives ◦ Harmonize roles and responsibilities of AIFs and Coordinators in all regions ◦ Make facilitators neutral to avoid any biases ◦ Commit more time for synergy building between coordinators and facilitators By Monica Kapiriri 25
    • ULP Conduct seminars to define and clarify the roles and responsibilities for Coordinators and AIFs in the Call and User-led process.  Orientation and training for AIFs to better address the innovation process.  Write-shops based on Open Calls, not just for learning skills.  By Monica Kapiriri 26
    • The extension of PAEPARD Presentation by Jonas generated discussions around:  Drawing from lessons of prior Phases ◦ Competitive funding Involvement of private sector,  Fear that research would take the upper hand in accessing the funds; and  Consortia membership coverage regional or country based partners  By Monica Kapiriri 27
    • The extension of PAEPARD Value chain approach to enable private sector find an attractive niche,  Provision of resource persons to guide the proposal writing and address the disparities in proposal writing abilities,  Flexibility in partnership building to enable ULP and consortia to solicit and build wide partnerships at country and sub-regional and regional levels in response to calls  By Monica Kapiriri 28
    • The extension of PAEPARD  Capitalization workshop would further consolidate lessons and inform the final design of the extension.  Proposed expertise and roles of AIFs and Coordinators for the next 4 years of Phase II extension (Report) By Monica Kapiriri 29
    • World Café session  Merits and Demerits of a consortia facilitator10  ToR of facilitation (role, objectives, needs and expected results) 13  How to sustain interests of all stakeholders in a consortium10 By Monica Kapiriri 30
    • World Café session  How to make a consortium sustainable – obtain funding without PAEPARD support13  Role of members of core group and AIF Coordinator8 By Monica Kapiriri 31
    • World Café session 1. Terms of Reference for facilitators; Discussed:  The process of recruitment of AIFs  Roles/Duties of AIFs in Phase II  Contract  Production/Deliverables  Recommendations By Monica Kapiriri 32
    • World Café session 2. Role of members of core group and AIF Coordinator  Composition of the core group  The AIF role to the Core group  Functions of the core group  Recommendation By Monica Kapiriri 33
    • World Café session 3. Merits and Demerits of Facilitator  Attributes of a good facilitator  Why the Coordinator was better placed  Plenary divided By Monica Kapiriri 34
    • World Café session 4. How to sustain interests of all stakeholders in a consortium  Co-ownership  Institutional arrangements  Communication  Funding sources  Capacity Building By Monica Kapiriri 35
    • World Café session 4. How to sustain interests of all stakeholders in a consortium  Contributions from plenary ◦ AIF should play a role in mediation ◦ Federating themes or topics that interest members ◦ RUFORUM stakeholder platform be adopted ◦ Consortia members need to share their interests with no hidden agenda/motives. ◦ time span of the consortia By Monica Kapiriri 36
    • World Café session 5. How to make a consortium sustainable – obtain funding without PAEPARD support  Funding approach that ensures continuity after PAEPARD: ◦ members contribution finances, ◦ detailed funding and activity plans, ◦ projects with clear exit strategies  There should be mechanism to exploit the internal strength and explore possibilities of having members consortia fund priority activities. By Monica Kapiriri 37
    • World Café session Joint learning between African and European researchers and nonresearchers  Effective ownership by consortium members  Clear roles and responsibilities of stakeholders to ensure clear and balanced participation between actors  By Monica Kapiriri 38
    • World Café session  Participants felt ULP stand a better chance to be sustained than Consortia ◦ Themes are broad ◦ central to members work  Consortia are motivated by calls ◦ Threatened if not funded ◦ Short lived – limited to project life By Monica Kapiriri 39