1. Dublin II:
Enhancing CAADP and CGIAR
Alignment and Collaboration.
Teagasc, Dublin
17–19 September, 2012
Mapping & Aligning CAADP & CGIAR Investments
A Technical Platform Prototype
Commissioned 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
2. 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?
3. 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?
• Spillover: What entry points exist for technology/
innovation/knowledge providers beyond Africa (e.g.
4. 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
6. Geography as a Central Concept
Location, 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
7. African Farming System Domains (2001)
• Click to edit Master text styles
– Second level Significant update
– Third level well advanced
• Fourth level (ACIAR/ICRAF)
– Fifth level
Dixon et al. (2001)
8. 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
9. 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, Targets
Standard 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
2 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
10. 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?
11. Two way Indexing
Plant production
Upper level & Protection
Theming with
Controlled 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. Way forward – Some ideas
Five 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
30. Way forward – Some ideas
Five 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)
− Potential partners include CILSS/CSI, regional KM teams e.g., KIS,
ReSAKSS, WB/Development Gateway.
• Prepare initial best practice guidelines and investment data
