Dublin II:Enhancing CAADP and CGIARAlignment and Collaboration.Teagasc, Dublin17–19 September, 2012Mapping & Aligning CAADP & CGIAR InvestmentsA Technical Platform PrototypeCommissioned by the Dublin Partners Luz Marina Alvare, Nienke Beintema, Maria Comanescu, Zhe Guo, Joseph Karugia (ReSAKSS/ECA), Zahia Khan, Soonho Kim, Maction Komwa (GMU), Jawoo Koo, Stella Massawe (ReSAKSS/ECA), Nilam Prasan, Michael Rahija, Ryan Whitley (SpatialDev), Ria Tenorio, Indira Yerramareddy, Stanley Wood with inputs and collaboration from The Dublin Steering Committee, Godfrey Bahigwa (IGAD), Sam Benin, Polly Eriksen (ILRI), Adam Kennedy, Athur Mabiso, Valerie Rhoe (CRP4), Pascale Sabbagh (CRP2 and Yield Gap Database), Heather Wylie cgiar csi cgiar-csi.org
Driving Questions - 1• What priorities have been established for technology and innovation investments in African countries?• What is the aggregate landscape of planned investments across sub-regions or across Africa?• What are CGIAR (& SROs/NAROs) investment plans? On what themes, where? (by CRP/all CRPs).• How well do National and CGIAR investment plans align? Can we identify R&D areas that are over- or under-represented relative to national needs?
Driving Questions - 2• Search: Can we provide on-line, low-cost services for; – R&D providers/Donors to scan innovation demands so as to better target/market R&D investments, products and services, and identify critical investment gaps? – National planners to find programs, projects and institutions (within and) beyond their borders that are developing/testing innovations they need?• Coordination: What/where are opportunities to improve coordination among development actors; e.g., planning and implementation agencies, R&D and extension institutions, and development funders?
Driving Questions - 3• What additional data/information/knowledge can be brought to bear in order to; – Better characterize investment opportunities – Validate the impact potential of planned investments – Improve the identification of coordination opportunities – Inform detailed design of implementation – Help private sector, service providers, and other partners recognize opportunities for engagement
Geography as a Central ConceptLocation, agroecology, and farming system context are key dimensions of agricultural knowledge;• Need to identify and characterize key agroecosystems• A spatial framework provides a rigorous means of understanding location context, and of recognizing and accounting for technology/knowledge spillover potential• Provides a basis for assessing the potential
African Farming System Domains (2001) Significant update well advanced (ACIAR/ICRAF) Dixon et al. (2001)
Principles & Learning•Not a single-shot assessment, but a live, accessible platform that can be kept current and expanded to meet evolving/different needs•Minimize development of new components, focus on integration and interoperability of existing
Harmonized Investment/Activity Database Structure CAADP | CGIAR Country | CRP Source Reference, Time Period, Currency Units ID1: Name, #, Description ID Level#: Investment Cost ID2: Name, #, Description ID Level#: Outputs, Outcomes, Impacts, TargetsStandard ID Level#: Partners tags, & ID3: Name, #, Description Themes Pillars | SLOs Activity: #, Description Region/Country AEZ/Production System Dictionaries Commodity/Value Chain Need standardized theming (FAO, CABI) CRP Documents: CAADP Documents: 1.1 Drylands Ethiopia (PIF), Review 1 Policies, Institutions, Markets Kenya (MTIP)*, Review 3.1 Wheat Uganda (ASDS), Review 3.2 Maize IGAD (Ethiopia, Kenya CPPs) 3.6 Dryland Cereals Tanzania (G8) 3.7 Livestock and Fish Ghana (G8) 4 Nutrition and Health 5 Water, Land & Ecosystems 7/CCAFS Climate Change
Matching/Aligning Concepts• Set: What set of investments need to be compared? e.g., what specific combination of CAADP, CRP, SRO etc investments and activities need to be “matched”?• Dimensions: What specific attributes of the selected investments (set) will form the basis for matching? e.g., their common themes, commodities, agroecosystems, countries, locations, or partners?
Two way Indexing Plant production Upper level & Protection Theming withControlled vocabulary Plant genetic Crop & Crop Post harvest Crop pests and resources and management management diseases Breeding CRP2 Theme 1 CRP2: 1.3.4 Assess & validate importance of agrobiodiversity species and products for diversification and improved Sub-theme 3 livelihoods, nutrition and health Activity #4 Health Biodiversity Sustainabilit Granular level y Etc… other Etc… other tags Tagging with tags Dryland AGROVOC farming Nutrition Productivity keywords
Compare Locations to Key Indicators (live link into HarvestChoice database)
Compare Locations to Key Indicators (live link into HarvestChoice database)
Access functionality from other web platforms (live link into HarvestChoice database)
Findings/Summary - 1• Very wide variation among CAADP and CGIAR planning documents in; – specificity/granularity of investment information – terminologies/vocabularies used to describe investment activities – articulation of focus commodities, geographies, partners and costs• Design of CAADP-CGIAR core alignment database and spatial harmonization essentially complete and stable, extending beyond plans (programs) to encompass implementation (projects)• Major effort, but an established process, to add standardized themes and tags/keywords (and soon, synonyms) to activity records in order to significantly improve the efficiency and reliability of retrieval and “matching” of investment activities of different actors
Findings/Summary - 2• Development requires access to a range of specialist skills; thematic knowledge, GIS, web programming, indexing, ontology, collaboration tools (library science/KM), web page design, content management systems, server infrastructure, etc.• Technical challenges remain (e.g. backend “plumbing”), but largely a matter of formalizing best practices and providing tools to minimize future alignment challenges,
Other relevant developments…..• Consortium Open Data Access Policy/Regulations – MPL meeting mapped progress to May 2013 “Launch” of Open Data Access across the Consortium. – Crop Breeding, Spatial Data and Project Management identified as priority areas for progress. – Responding to this agenda will simultaneously advance the ability of the Consortium and its partners to deliver more harmonized/interoperable investment data• G8 New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition
Way forward – Some ideasFive parallel steps• Establish willingness to explore adapting current investment characterization and documentation procedures, and to make such information accessible as part of a commitment to the data interoperability/alignment goal (CAADP, Consortium, SROs) Does CO or CAADP Secretariat agreement imply CRP/Center and National CAADP team agreement, and if not, what needs to be done?• Circulate prototype to relevant CAADP and CRP teams and other key stakeholders for broader feedback, validation and updating Needs basic documentation• Establish implementation phasing approach, e.g., agroecosystem
Way forward – Some ideasFive parallel steps• Expand participation in the technical design support team to engage more specialists from partners and individuals and tap outside expertize. Draw up a scope of work and implementation plan for this extended technical leadership/support team (including scoping long-term implementation needed by partners) Potentialpartners include CILSS/CSI, regional KM teams e.g., KIS, ReSAKSS, WB/Development Gateway.• Prepare initial best practice guidelines and investment data description guides and tools (e.g. standard vocabulary prompts, data format conversion routines) and “no-regrets” technical integration.