gfar’s business planning (2007-2009) and re-positioning ...€¦ · gfar’s business planning...

GFAR’s Business Planning (2007-2009)

and Re-Positioning Retreat

Held at the Bibliotheca Alexandria,

Egypt March 30th - 1st April, 2007

Workshop Documentation

Workshop design and facilitation: Dr Jürgen Hagmann

Workshop documentation by: Hlamalani Ngwenya

G F A RF M R AF G I A

LOBAL ORUM ON GRICULTURAL ESEARCHORUM ONDIAL DE LA ECHERCHE GRICOLEORO LOBAL DE NVESTIGACION GROPECUARIA

GFAR Business Planning Meeting 30 March-01 April 2007 page II

II

This report documents the GFAR’s Business planning for 2007-2009 and re-positioning Participatory Retreat, held at the Bibliotheca, Alexandria, Egypt on the 30th March to the 1st April 2007. This report is not a final synthesised report, but tries to capture the workshop output in a non-interpreted way. THIS DOCUMENTATION IS MEANT TO BE A REFERENCE DOCUMENT for all participants and is intended to provide details of what transpired. Almost all results of the working groups and plenary sessions are documented including summary reports of the topic synthesisers.

GFAR Business Planning Meeting 30 March-01 April 2007 page III

III

Table of contents 1 SETTING THE SCENE.....................................................................................................................................1

1.1 OPENING AND REVISITING OF GFAR’S VISION AND MISSION .......................................................................1 1.2 GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER..................................................................................................................3

1.2.1 Introduction of the facilitation team and approach................................................................................3 1.2.2 Introduction of the Participants .............................................................................................................5 1.2.3 Differentiation and Stand point on provocative statements ...................................................................5 1.2.4 Participants’ expectations and fears ......................................................................................................8

1.3 GETTING THE GRASP OF THE AGENDA AND PROCESS....................................................................................9 1.3.1 Anticipated workshop outputs ................................................................................................................9 1.3.2 How to get there: the flow ....................................................................................................................10 1.3.3 Program overview................................................................................................................................10

2 INPUTS INTO THE PLANNING PROCESS- PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ......................12

2.1 BACKGROUND ON THE SECOND EXTERNAL REVIEW ..................................................................................12 2.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF GFAR 2004-2006 BUSINESS PLAN AND LESSON LEARNT ........................................14 2.3 GFAR SECOND EXTERNAL REVIEW: RELEVANT FINDINGS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE BP........20 2.4 GFAR 2006 TRIENNIAL CONFERENCE.......................................................................................................21

3 ISSUES AND IMPLICATION FOR GFAR’S STRATEGY AND BUSINESS PLAN ..............................25

3.1 REFLECTION ON PRESENTATIONS...............................................................................................................25 3.2 ADAPTATION OF THE STRATEGY ................................................................................................................28 3.3 WHAT IS NEW/ DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS STRATEGY .......................................................................33 3.4 EMERGING TOPICS/ THEMES.......................................................................................................................34

4 TOWARDS PRIORITY FOCAL AREAS/ TOPICS ....................................................................................35

4.1 PRIORITIZATION.........................................................................................................................................35 4.2 GROUP WORK ON SELECTED FOCAL AREAS/ TOPICS ...................................................................................36

4.2.1 Group 1: Blending knowledge systems for agric. innovations to benefit smallholder producers- AGRINOVA ........................................................................................................................................................38 4.2.2 Group 2: Promoting transformation in Agricultural Research Extension and Education – AgREE. ..41 4.2.3 Group 3: Linking smallholder producers to markets ...........................................................................46 4.2.4 Group 4: Adaptation to Climate variability and change......................................................................48

5 THEN HOW DO WE THEN ORGANIZE OURSELVES - GOVERNANCE ...........................................51

5.1 HUMAN RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY ..............................................................................51 5.2 RESOURCES MOBILISATION........................................................................................................................55 5.3 OVERARCHING ACTIVITY...........................................................................................................................56 5.4 OPEN ISSUES ..............................................................................................................................................57 5.5 THE KEY MESSAGES ...................................................................................................................................57

6 NEXT STEPS....................................................................................................................................................57

7 CLOSURE AND WORKSHOP EVALUATION ..........................................................................................58

7.1 WORKSHOP EVALUATION ..........................................................................................................................58 7.2 CLOSING REMARKS....................................................................................................................................58

8 ANNEXES:........................................................................................................................................................59

8.1 CONCEPT NOTES ........................................................................................................................................59 8.1.1 Linking smallholder farmers to markets...............................................................................................59 8.1.2 Climate change concept note ...............................................................................................................65

8.2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ...............................................................................................................................68

GFAR Business Planning Meeting 30 March-01 April 2007 page IV

IV

Foreword by the GFAR Executive Secretary

As a unique global and neutral platform, the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) seeks to address poverty alleviation through the mobilisation of the scientific community, farmers’ organisations and civil society to build concerted action for pro-poor agricultural research and innovation. It facilitates advocacy and consensus building on emerging global research priorities; it enables inter-regional and regional partnerships for research and innovation; it supports knowledge mobilisation and communication; and it strengthens and supports the institutional capacity of its stakeholders.

GFAR operations are based on upon a 10- year Strategic Plan (SP) that guides the programs of the 3-year Rolling Business Plan (BP). In turn, the BP guides the preparation of the GFAR –Secretariat annual Work Plan and Budget, the selection of activities undertaken, budget allocation and staffing. The current SP is for 2004-2013 and the last BP covered the period 2004-2006. In conformity with its fundamental principle of participatory decision making, the BP is developed through inclusive consultations with GFAR stakeholders and partners.

The participatory retreat hosted by the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Egypt, from 29 March -1 April 2007 represents a key milestone in the development process of GFAR Business plan for 2007-2009. The number and composition of the participants reflected a balanced representation of GFAR stakeholders. Guided by the recommendations of the GFAR Second External Review completed in January 2007 and its 2006 Triennial conference; and by the inspiring welcoming address of Dr. Ismail Serageldin, Director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, the participants enthusiastically reviewed GFAR progress, aligned the strategic directions of the current strategy with the global context and collectively agreed on the priority thematic projects for the new business Plan and the actions required for a re-vitalized GFAR..

This report provides a comprehensive coverage of the rich discussion and dialogue on the fundamental critical issues that took place amongst the participants during the retreat.

Abdelmajid SLAMA

GFAR Executive Secretary a.i.

GFAR Business Planning Meeting 30 March-01 April 2007 page V

V

Foreword by the facilitators It was a great pleasure for us to be invited to facilitate the GFAR business planning retreat again in 2007. We had facilitated the one in 2004 and so were quite conversant with GFAR and some of the key issues. Besides the active participation and the good atmosphere in the group, we enjoyed very much to be hosted by the Bibliotheca Alexandria which in itself creates a spirit of openness. We would like to thank Mrs. Hanan Abdel-Razek and her team for their care and efficiency. Before we could mention a need, they read it from the eyes and responded so well. Thanks to the GFAR team we managed to have an effective steering group which guided the meeting well. We really appreciated the commitment of Ajit, Antonio, Oliver, Nuur and Gianna, who spent long hours to plan for the next days and to make sure everything is in place and everybody is happy. A special thanks goes to Abdelmajid Slama and to Adel El-Beltagi who were central in finding the direction. Dr Jürgen Hagmann Hlamalani Ngwenya PICOTeam Ltd.

GFAR Business Planning Meeting 30 March-01 April 2007 page VI

VI

Executive Summary – the Key Messages from the

Retreat

2. 3. An innovation systems approach for ARD focused on poor, small holder

producers central to future GFAR actions 2 April 2007 Rome, Italy - Representatives of GFAR Stakeholders which include farmer organizations, non-government and civil society, regional research forums, research organizations of the North and South and international development agencies met for 3 days from 30th to 1st April 2007 at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Alexandria, Egypt to formulate the central theme, direction and priorities through a business plan for GFAR for the next 3 years. The Bibliotheca Alexandrina’s Director Ismail Serageldin in his welcoming address stressed a focus on the world poor and the vital role of GFAR in mobilizing agricultural research globally for development. The stakeholders reiterated GFAR’s focus on the poor, small holder farmers and producers for mobilizing agricultural research and innovation for development. They emphasized an innovation systems approach that involved partnerships of multiple actors in the public, private and community sector for collaborative action for agricultural development.

The GFAR stakeholders revalidated the GFAR strategy with its four objectives of building consensus and advocacy, enabling research and innovation partnerships, mobilizing knowledge and communication and strengthening institutional capacity that underpin all GFAR actions. They identified four new thematic areas with projects to tackle challenges of the highest priority facing GFAR stakeholders. These included:

• Blending knowledge for innovation in smallholder agriculture – from an innovation systems perspective, inform and guide GFAR stakeholders towards appropriate and effective systems and mechanisms that blend and apply different sources and forms of knowledge useful for smallholder farmers and agricultural producers

• Adapting agriculture to climate change – Build consensus among GFAR

stakeholders on a researchable agenda and action related to combating biotic and abiotic stresses on crops and sustainable management of resources, especially optimization of water use brought about by global climate change. This effort will be done in partnership with GFAR Stakeholders.

• Transforming agricultural research, extension and education – identify reforms,

capacities and investments that are necessary to better connect researchers, extension agents, educators, innovators, non-government agencies and civil society organizations to development needs of smallholder farmers and producers;

G F A RF M R AF G I A

LOBAL ORUM ON GRICULTURAL ESEARCHORUM ONDIAL DE LA ECHERCHE GRICOLEORO LOBAL DE NVESTIGACION GROPECUARIA

GFAR Business Planning Meeting 30 March-01 April 2007 page VII

VII

• Linking smallholder producers to markets – bring about global cooperation

among regional agricultural research forums and civil society organizations to improve and support programmes that aim to enhance the capacity of smallholders producers to participate more equitably in markets;

Raghunath Ghodake, the Chairman of the Asia Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) concluded that “we really looked at the crux of the problems … repositioning ourselves in terms of where we want to go and how to really serve all the stakeholders of GFAR.” Myra Wopereis-Pura representing the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) stated that “FARA was reassured that the exercise is leading to a more vitalized GFAR which continues to be a critical supporter for the work of FARA in Africa.” Ibrahim Hamdan of the Association of Agricultural Research Institutions in the Near East and North Africa (AARINENA) expressed that “the new approach of the business plan of GFAR will have significant impact on issues of critical importance for ARD in the West Asia and North Africa Region”. Enrique Alarcón of the Forum for the Americas for Agricultural Research and Technology Development (FORAGRO) was pleased with GFAR explicitly incorporating an innovations systems approach in its new business plan. Iain MacGillivray, representing Canada, stated “It was very useful and productive business planning meeting where participants looked at fundamental critical issues.” Shantanu Mathur of the International Fund for Agricultural Development was of the opinion that the meeting, through introspection and with free, frank and open discussions, was very productive and “held a promise for developing a GFAR business plan to meet the needs of all GFAR constituents.” There was an explicit recognition of the vital role of young professionals as stakeholders in GFAR. Technology on Agricultural R The implementation of the business plan will draw upon expertise and capacities of the entire GFAR stakeholder community. In the coming weeks, the new business plan will be finalized by the GFAR Steering committee and shared with potential investors and partners. Abdelmajid Slama concluded that the meeting helped GFAR “plan actions to address the emerging challenges for the global agricultural community.” The Chair of the GFAR Steering Committee Adel El-Beltagy while thanking participants for their excellent contributions stated that “GFAR was at a crossroad and this meeting helped finding a path for us to repositioning GFAR for the future.” --------------------------------- Contact: Abdelmajid Slama Executive Secretary, GFAR [email protected] GFAR mobilizes the scientific community and all other stakeholders involved in pro-poor agricultural research and innovation for development. It facilitates consensus building and advocacy on global research and innovation priorities; it promotes regional, inter-regional and global partnerships for agricultural research and innovation; it supports knowledge and communication for agricultural research and innovation; and it strengthens and supports the institutional capacities of all its stakeholders.

GFAR Business Planning Meeting 30 March-01 April 2007 page 1

1

SETTING THE SCENE

1 Opening and revisiting of GFAR’s vision and mission In his word of welcome, the chair of GFAR Dr. Adel El-Beltagy indicated that although he acknowledges that the participants were still recovering from traveling and maybe from some intellectual pressures, their active participation in this meeting is of utmost importance in determining the future of GFAR. He indicated that GFAR had two important events which are feeding to this meeting. One event being the GFAR external review and the other being the Delhi Triennial conference, which was attended by the broader stakeholders of GFAR. The result and outcomes of both events will serve as input to this meeting. In a form of short power point presentation Adel refreshed the participant memory about the Vision, mission, principles and objectives of GFAR. GFAR Vision GFAR stakeholders envision a progressive development of a multi-purpose agriculture that:

• contributes in a cost-effective and competitive manner to feeding the global population and to addressing poverty alleviation, through environmentally sensitive resource-utilization systems and technologies;

• is diversified, innovative and built upon modern and traditional knowledge, systems and technologies;

• thrives on research outputs generated through the participation of different stakeholders, including farmers and producers, working together as equal partners and

• stimulates long-term policy and public support to the research systems that produce such beneficial research outputs

GFAR Mission To mobilize and support the scientific community and all other stakeholders involved in agricultural development, in their efforts to:

• alleviate poverty, • increase food security and • promote sustainable utilization of natural resources

GFAR Stakeholders


2

GFAR Guiding Principles

• subsidiarity • complementarity • additionality • partnership • involvement of all stakeholders

GFAR 2nd 2006 External Review

• Confirmed a general consensus, among stakeholders, on the validity of the original vision which led to the creation of the global forum

GFAR 2006 Conference

• Reposition GFAR and improve its cooperate image and visibility In conclusion: To conclude his presentation, Dr. El Beltagy indicated that there are documents with the detailed report on the External review, which are circulated in this meeting. One of the recommendations made by the External review is that the vision and mission are still relevant and need not be changed. , Dr. El Beltagy mentioned that all the presentations that will be made today are just suggestions. This meeting will provide a platform where issues arising from these presentations will be debated. He also brought to the attention of the participants some of the challenges that are debated worldwide, which the participants should take into consideration during their discussions. The challenges include: • The rupturing of the Global ecosystem. • Demographic challenge- • Challenges on practically achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), despite the political

will to do so. He then challenged the participants by saying we cannot change things with the old knowledge- we need new knowledge and new dimension. This is what is core for GFAR, because it works with all stakeholders, and can provide linkages to every part of the system- more especially ensuring that every voice is heard. It is our biggest responsibility as GFAR to have a clear and crisp strategy that is useful for our colleagues in the agricultural research and the end use which are the farmers, pastoralists, fishermen and foresters. Dr. El Beltagy introduced and handed over to Dr. Jürgen Hagmann who was contracted to facilitate and guide the process of the meeting as a professional facilitator. He indicated that Jürgen has been around for years and has been participating and facilitating meetings in the CGIAR, regional Fora and other international organisations. He (Jürgen) is committed to agricultural research transformation.


3

2. Getting to know each other

1.1. Introduction of the facilitation team and approach After greeting the participants, Jürgen introduced his colleague Hlami Ngwenya who is presently writing up her PhD on facilitation and competence development. Hlami will be documenting the whole workshop and assist Jürgen with the facilitation. Both work together in a network organisation called PICOteam (Institute for People, Innovation and Change in Organisations). PICO is a seven country network with focus on among others, integrated natural resource management (INRM), transforming of agricultural research organisation/system as well as institution for higher learning to become more relevant and effective and on issues of local/rural organisational development and economic & enterprise development. Some facilitation principles For those who have not been exposed to Jürgen’s style of facilitation, key principles in facilitation were presented and agreed upon. The facilitation principles comprise the core values and some rules for table interaction: The core values include: Informality-This is key to creating a relaxed atmosphere for free interaction, creativity and active participation by all, therefore participants were encouraged to be as informal as possible. They can stand up if a need arise. Open dialogue Multilog: This meeting is not a chairman type, so there will be no one way communication but rather an open dialogue. This is the reason why the sitting arrangement is in the sense that in will encourage active participation of all. To emphasis this principle, Jürgen mentioned that yesterday during the PSG meeting somebody described ‘monologue as one person is taking to him/ herself, and dialogue as when two people are talking to themselves’. This is the reason why in this meeting we promote multilog, in order to encourage free flow on information. Ownership by participants- The meeting is organised by the secretariat, but the process should be co-created together with the participants in order to have their active input into it. Appreciation of any contribution – We might have different level of understanding of the program. There is no stupid question. Participants are encouraged to ask any question, so that at the end of the meeting no one goes home with unanswered questions. Transparency- He indicated that he as a facilitator did not get any briefing of any specific agenda before; so he urged the participants to open up bring everything on the table Adaptive learning and management: Integrity – He stressed that as a independent facilitator, he has not stake in the meeting agenda per se, but rather to guide the process. He will not be taking any side but will make an effort to balance contributions so that at the end of the meeting every participant is happy of the outcome. Inclusiveness- He indicated that he will foster the participation of everybody, thus give priority to the quiet ones to speak up Flexibility- The meeting does not have a rigid agenda. The process will be flexible in order to cater for any emerging burning issues.

PICO Southern Africa PICO Uganda PICO Kenya PICO Tanzania PICO Dominicana PICO Mexico

People Innovation Change

in Organisations

PICO Germany


4

Process steering group Is a mechanism for co-management of the workshop by the participants. Task: To obtain feedback from the participants on the

content and process - To plan with the facilitator the next day in the evening Members: Oliver Oliveros, Adel El-Beltagy, Antonio

Schiovone , Nur Abdi, Ajit Maru, Slama Abdelmajid, Myra Wopereis-Paru, Enrique Alarco, Raghvnatha Ghodake, Bala, Jürgen, Hagmann

Creativity- “We have not managed so far to solve the problems with the way we are doing things”. Participants were therefore encouraged to think beyond the box- He challenged them to continuously re-assess their perceptions in order to see if there could be new thinking or new way of seeing things, which will be very useful in bringing new ideas, and challenged them to challenge each other. Honesty and Political incorrectness – People tend to be polite especially when real sensitive issues are discussed. This often makes people to put the real issues under the carpet. Jürgen then encouraged the participants to be ‘political incorrect’ and bring out things on the table, without hiding the real issues. Rules for the interaction at tables are:

• Sit on a new table every half day with new people • Observe the group, look at who is not contributing • Encourage the quiet ones • Always think how you would feel in the shoes of the other person • Self-control, check your talk to make sure you don’t deny others to come in • Nobody should present more than once • Think first individually, then discuss

Process steering group: Jürgen also introduced the process steering group (PSG), which is a group that helps take responsibility in the co-management of the workshop. The previous day GFAR secretariat met to discuss what the workshop output should be and agreed on the process. New names were added so that the group is more representative of various stakeholders. The PSG will also meet at the end of each day’s activities to review the process and progress and together plan for the next day’s activities. Jürgen emphasized that this is not representing stand points or positions but is about co-planning and steering the process. He then invited the participants to suggest additional names of people who should be part of the PSG. It was felt by the participants that there should be a voice from the young professional. Hence the name of Bala was suggested. Representatives from RF were suggested al well. The box shows the name of the participants who were selected to be part of the process steering group.


5

Participant’s introduction 1. Make sure you sit at a table with people whom you

do not work with everyday 2. Find out from each other:

a) Who you are, where your roots are b) What are you really proud of in your personal

and professional life? c) If you had to create GFAR again, what would you

do differently 15 minutes

3. Agree together: What you would like to see happening in this workshop, and what should not happen

5 minutes

1.2. Introduction of the Participants In order to create an atmosphere for free interaction, it was necessary for the participants to get to know each other beyond names and where they come from. To do the introduction exercise, the facilitator requested the participants to sit at the table with people whom they do not work with everyday, and follow the guidelines in the box below: After the round table introduction, the facilitator asked the participants to stand up and just say their names and the organisations they represent to the larger group, so that those who were not part of table discussion groups could have a sense of who the other participants were. 1.3. Differentiation and Stand point on provocative statements Who is present? To get a feel of who is represented in this meeting and how this may have implications on the discussions, the facilitator asked the participants move to stand at a large open space in the room. He then asked them to group themselves according to the different categories, as indicated below: Stakeholder representation: This exercise revealed that there was a well representation from the secretariat (with about six participants) and the RFs (APPARI= 3; FARA= 1; FARAGRO= 1; AARENINA=2; CACCARI=0). There was a minimal representation from the Donors, NGOs and farmers’ side and no representations of private sectors. Implications for discussion: There was an agreement that the participants should try to balance their discussions in order to accommodate the needs of those stakeholders who were not represented in this meeting. It was agreed that the participants should put themselves in the shoes of those who are not represented, and engage in discussion from their point of view. Those who were present in the last business planning meetings: There were about 8 participants who were part of the previous BP retreat, and 4 of whom were also part of the meeting that development the strategic planning of 2000. Implication for the discussions: These people were urged to bring their historical experience to enrich the discussion and ensure continuity. However, there should also be a balance between the old and fresh thinking. Those who attended the Delhi conference: The exercise showed that about 15 participants (which make more than 50%) were part of the Delhi conference in 2006. Those who were consulted in the review: Another 15 of the participants indicated that they were consulted during the 2nd external review of GFAR. Implications for discussions: The majority of the participants are familiar with the issues that will be discussed during this meeting, they are urged to bring up issues that they feel are left out. The participants


6

who were part of the previous BP retreat, Delhi conference and those who were consulted by the external review were urged to mix with the other participants during the discussions in order to take a fresh look on the issues. Standpoint on provocative statements As a means of initiating debate on some issues related to GFAR, the facilitator used some provocative statements. The statements were read one at a time, and each participant was asked to position him/herself (take a standpoint) in terms of whether s/he (completely agree; agree a bit, indifferent; disagree a bit or completely disagree). This exercise was used to explore the diversity of opinions with regard to various issues around GFAR, and set the basis for open discussion throughout the entire workshop. The statements were read as follows: Statement 1: GFAR is at crossroad, either we renew and re-position it, or it will die a silent death.

Fully agree: The majority of the participants fully agreed with the statement, giving reasons such as: • There are few shocks that hit GFAR in the recent past, such as HR problems, finance etc. This was a

wake up call for us, and if we want to save this platform, we need to renew the mandate for the BP and make it more credible.

• Although we have managed to get the participation of regional Fora in the debates, nothing has changed with regard to the fundamental issues. People are still doing business as usual- we need to find a new way to make an impact- otherwise, why do we need GFAR?

• What is important is that GFAR should be seen as a dynamic organisation, adapting to global changes. In order to do this, there is a need for introspection.

Agree a bit: • We might not be at the crossroad, but we live in the changing world. So is important for any

organisation to continuously review, reflect and adapt to the changes or else it will perish. Indifferent: None

Disagree a bit: None

Completely disagree: Only two participants disagreed completely. I disagree with the last part of the statement. We need a new future roadmap • Are we really at crossroads? We might be walking at the edge of the cliff, but there are signals that

GFAR is needed. So we need to discuss about these issues and find a way to move forward. The consensus: The consensus was that change is needed in GFAR. This meeting should focus on the analysis of GFAR, in order to find ways to move forward. Statement 2: GFAR should position itself fully towards pro-poor, smallholder farming if it wants to

contribute to poverty alleviation seriously. Fully agree: The majority of the participants fully agreed with the statement, giving reasons such as: • Agricultural research need to work differently. • The commercial farmers do not need GFAR, because they often find their ways of getting the latest

technologies and information. The smallholder producers are the ones who can benefit more from GFAR. Therefore GFAR has to focus more to this level. This means that GFAR has to revise its way of doing business.


7

Agree a bit: The problems are not isolated; therefore the solutions should have impact on both the big and small farmers. •

Indifferent: None Disagree a bit: none Completely disagree: None

The consensus: GFAR need to focus more on smallholder producers. Statement 3: GFAR is supposed to be the driving body of the R4D scene, but in reality it is the club of NARI and their RFs.

Fully agree: None • Agree a bit: about 8 participants agreed a bit with the statement, supporting their standpoint with such

statements: • The regional Forums do participate in debate, but we do not see the impact. • From a perspective point of view, GFAR is seen as a closed group of researchers who are somehow

beginning to bring other stakeholders in the debate. Indifferent: only one participant Disagree a bit: About 9 participants disagreed a bit with the statement • The statement overshadows the initial idea and principles for the creation of GFAR, which is

inclusiveness. We are not perfect, we have al the elements but we are not there yet. • I disagree with the concept of ‘a club’. It is normal that GFAR should be driven by the regional Fora. • In practice GFAR should be inclusive. However, what is missing is viable linkage mechanism to the

farmers. More especially the smallholder producers Completely disagree:

Statement 4: GFAR’s plan has been very unrealistic. We need to boil down to a few key issues we can address effectively.

Fully agree: Only 4 participants fully agreed with the statement. • With the resources that GFAR has and the limited human resources, I think it has to focus and not to

been seen everywhere • If we want to talk about impact, with the limited resources, we have to persist and accept only the

task we can do efficiently. • Being present to every meeting of the RF is impossible due to the small secretariat and proper

budget. We need to focus more. Agree a bit: • GFAR cannot be driven by donor interest, but it should be we who own GFAR that should collectively

decide what to focus on. Indifferent: only one participant Disagree a bit: ? Completely disagree:none

Statement 5: We need to re-think the role and responsibility of the secretariat, if we really want to make a move.

Fully agree: Everybody fully agreed with the statement: This meeting should revise the structures and be clear about the roles and responsibilities of the secretariat.


8

The problem of the secretariat is that it does not have a legal status, which will make governance more accountable and help improve performance and the decision making process.

1.4. Participants’ expectations and fears This section is exploring what the participants’ expectation are in terms of what should and should not happen in this meeting. These were part of the introduction exercise where they were requested (per table) to agree and write of cards what should and should not happen. A representative from each table presented the cards in plenary:

GFAR Afresh • Concentrate on two areas, (Advocacy to influence ARD,

ICT and networking) • Legal entity

• Tackle more controversial issues among stakeholders- policy inputs/ disclosure

• Improve participation of different stakeholders

• More representation of CSO to make research more the needs of clients

• Better and efficient housing • Hosting of GFAR and better systems

• Establish an integrated communication for development component to engage all actors at all levels

• Bottom up approach

• Anchor in distributed net or web of actors • Establish real effective partnership with other NARs

• Farmer focus

The ‘flower’ as a suggested change to GFAR’s understanding


9

Expectations

What should happen in this workshop is… • Work plan and communication strategy • Clare vision and action plan • Development of BP that is effective and implementable – re-visit

the current strategies • Implementable BP- financial mechanism and commitment of

donors

• Seek commitment of donors

• Brainstorming for road ahead • Platform for negotiations of various issues • Clear strategic direction • Re-visit the current BP • Priority areas for business plan • Take Account of lesson learned • Inclusiveness of all stakeholders

Fears What should not happen in this workshop is…

• Business as usual • Business as usual

• Plan is over ambitious

4. Getting the grasp of the agenda and process After getting to know each other better, knowing people’s stand points with regard to some provocative statements and knowing what participants expectations are in terms of what should and not happen in this workshop, the facilitator presented the anticipated outputs of the workshop, the flow of the workshop and the program overview. 1.5. Anticipated workshop outputs The facilitator presented the anticipated outputs as discussed and agreed upon the previous day by the process steering group. Overall, the workshop aimed at updating the current a strategy and develop a new business plan which re-positions GFAR as a global platform for ARD. After the presentation of the anticipated outcomes, the facilitator invited some comments from the participants to see if these anticipated outputs are in line with what they expressed as what they would like to see happening in this workshop. He also invited some additional issues that the participants feel the outputs are not addressing. Generally the anticipated outputs matched the expectations of the participants, but in addition there were some issues that the participants felt needed to be considered during the proceedings of the meeting. Some issues raised were: • How far do we go in re-visiting and validating the strategy given the fact that we only have two days? • The need for validating the strategy is important in order to take into consideration the input and the

recommendations that came out of the review, which are strategic in nature. • The communication strategy should be put as one of the objectives of this meeting.


10

1.6. How to get there: the flow The facilitator then took the participants through the analytic process through which the workshop will follow. The process is based on answering the some questions which are: 1.7. Program overview The program overview was presented and emphasis was put to the fact that it is just a road map, but not fixed. It will allows for flexibility where necessary. Before the break, the facilitator explained that all the outputs and the discussions will be documented:


11

Workshop documentation: • All the outputs will be documented in a full workshop documentation (including discussions, pictures

etc.) which Hlami Ngwenya will produce. She will have a draft by the end of the meeting • Rapporteur’s and synthesis will put together group work and results • A writing group will synthesize the outcomes of the meeting (after the meeting)

Synthesis groups: The get a smaller group of people to pull out the gist of the issues that era emerging from the presentation, Jürgen requested some volunteers to the synthesis the issues based on the different topics. Below are the topics and the names of the volunteers.

1. Implication of Review and Delhi for GFAR (Oliver, Bala, Jack, Ajit) 2. Strategy and priority areas (Myra, Ra 3. Strategies, actions and work plan (Makkouk, Mario, Nur) 4. Organisational issues (Ghodake, Shanthanu, Adel)


12

2. INPUTS INTO THE PLANNING PROCESS- presentations and discussions To level the ground and to give input to the workshop based on the implementation of the previous BP, the outcome of the external review and the GFAR conference, some presentations were made. After every two presentations, Jürgen asked the participants to write on cards the critical issues that are emerging from each presentation, for further discussion in due course. The presentations were made in this sequence:

1. A background on the External review and the implications for GFAR by Abdelmajid 2. Implementation of GFAR 2004-2004 Business plan and lesson learnt: by Oliver and Antonio 3. The recommendation from the 2nd external reviews By Abdelmajid 4. GFAR 2006 Triennial Conference: by Ajit

5. Background on the Second External review Presented by A. Slama

Outline • Approach for developing the GFAR BP • Core Programs

- Strategic Thinking and Advocacy - Institutional Partnerships - Mobilizing and Communicating High Impact Knowledge Packages - Strengthening the Institutional dimension of GFAR

• GFAR Secretariat Program of Work for 2007 Approach to developing the BP • Business Plan also opportunity to:

- Reinforce Commitment to GFAR’s mission - Invest in GFAR’s niche - Restructure GFAR - Renew GFAR’s image and outreach - Satisfy stakeholder expectations from GFAR

GFAR BP • Delay in developing BP for 2007-2009 due to:

- Delay in conducting GFAR Triennial Conference - Delay in placing new Executive Secretary

• BP 2004-2006 did not internalize the concept of a rolling program to mobilize financial resources for adequate staffing and activities for 2007

• Because of resource constraints, BP 2007-2009 to be modest in coverage • Development of BP 2007-2009 to be completed by end of April, 2007 • BP to be revisited in 2009


13

GFAR Business Plan (Current Approach)

• • Propose that the Strategic Plan be for 6 years to cover 2 successive Business plan • Next strategic plan to be developed in 2008 • Next Strategic plan to take into consideration

– Recommendations of 2nd External Review – GFAR 2006 Triennial Conference – Lessons learned from implementing 2004-2006 BP – Research Programs of NARS stakeholders (e.g. Northern and Southern NARS, ARIs,

IARCs and Private Sector) GFAR Business Plan (Proposed Approach)

GFAR Strategic Plan (10 years)

GFAR Rolling Business Plan (3 Years)

GFAR Secretariat Annual Work Plan

GFAR Triennial Conference External Reviews

Stakeholder Consultations

GFAR Strategic Plan (6 years) (2009-2013/ 2009-2004)

GFAR Rolling Business Plan (3 Years)

GFAR Secretariat Annual Work Plan

GFAR Triennial Conference External Reviews

Stakeholder Consultations


14

6. Implementation of GFAR 2004-2004 Business plan and lesson learnt

By Oliver and Antonio Outline

1. 2004 – 2006 Business Plan 2. Achievements and shortcomings 3. Conclusions and Lessons Learnt

2004 – 2006 Business Plan

The pillars Advocacy, Strategic

Thinking

Partnerships Programmes

Inter Regional Collaboration

ICM Systems

Raise profile of ARSD adding GFAR perspectives to global debates and initiatives

Promote, facilitate, develop, implement research partnership on key ARSD issues of regional and global concern, identified by stakeholders in participatory manner

Promote Inclusiveness within RF/SRF

Improve, update EGFAR

Promote holistic approaches to ARSD with emphasis on SMEs using the agribusiness system approach

Draw attention to neglected issues of Regional Importance

Establish MIS on ARD stakeholders, expertise and activities

Identify, draw attention to critical emerging issues that shape/effect ARSD of concern to GFAR

Promote Inter Regional Collaboration

Complement e-media with other communication media

CSO Involvement and participation Involvement of private sector


15

Main achievements and shortcomings

Farmers NGO Regional Forum 2004 2006 2004 2006

AARINENA Observer Rep as CSO observer Rep as CSO APAARI Observer Rep as CSO observer Rep as CSO CACAARI - - - - FARA Not represented Represented Nor Rep FORAGRO Not Represented Represented Represented Represented

Pillar Component Main achievement Short comings

To promote inclusiveness and participatory decision making in RF

• CSO Representation in RFs • CSOs institutional capacity strengthened (e.g.

SSA NGO Consortium, IFAP Farmers Committee on ARD)

See the table above

• Limited impact in advocating active engagement and representation of private sector constituency in GFAR

• Very limited engagement of bigger NARIs which are not currently associated with GFAR (e.g., China, Brazil, etc.)

Inte

r Reg

iona

l col

labor

atio

ns

To promote inter-regional collaboration through networking

• RF priorities revisited • SWOT analysis conducted (FARA) • Networking opportunities created

- Participation of RF reps in General Assemblies of other RFs

- “Institutionalization” of RF Exec. Secretaries meeting

• Less attention paid to the follow up on activities identified for inter-regional collaboration, e.g. - Commodity development networking - Biotechnology and bio-safety issues - Advocacy and public awareness


16

Rese

arch

and

partn

ersh

ip

To promote, facilitate, develop and implement research partnerships

• 2 GPPs fully operational with secured funding : PROLINNOVA, UUS

• 3 new GPPs endorsed with start up funding: ICM4ARD, NTFP, LFM

• GPP external review completed • DURAS Competitive Grants fully operational

• Insufficient monitoring of and reporting on outcomes and impacts of GPPs

Advo

cacy

, Pub

lic

Awar

enes

s and

Stra

tegi

c Th

inkin

g

To raise the profile of ARD by adding the voice and perspectives of GFAR

• GFAR 2006 Conference held and provided recommendations for ARD to contribute in meeting MDGs

• Inclusive governance structure for the CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme developed

• YPARD established as an emerging player in

ARD

• Weak leadership role by GFAR Secretariat in global strategic thinking on key ARD issues

• Policy briefs and advocacy papers as a result of

multi-stakeholder dialogues

ICM

Syst

ems

To improve access and regularly update EGFAR

• Re-engineered EGFAR (e.g., with electronic document repository, FO dbase)

• Improved regional agri info management

among the regions • Improved efforts in publishing Annual Reports

(2003, 2004, 2005), newsletters, etc.

• Limited exchange of information and databases across regions and stakeholders

• Lack of pro-active stakeholder involvement in

managing website • Very limited e-discussions took place within

EGFAR


17

GFAR Secretariat Staffing as per Business Plan 2004-2006

Position

Business Plan Pillar

2005 2006 2007

Executive Secretary All pillars x x x x x x x x x x x x Senior NARS Expert Inter Reg. Collab./ICM x x x x x x x Junior NARS Officer CSO/Inter Reg. Collab. x x x x x x x x x x x x Senior Programme Officer Partnerships/PS x x x x x x x x x x Junior Programme Officer Partnerships/PS x x x x x x x x x x x x Policy Analyst Advocacy Senior ICM Expert ICM x x x x x Junior ICM Officer ICM x Webmaster ICM x x x x x x x x

Professional Staffing at the Secretariat according to the Business Plan 2004-2006 What the table doesn’t show • Staffing is unstable (tenure) and with high turnover

• Positions often temporarily filled by volunteers, short-term consultants, and secondments • DURAS Project Coordinator position • Senior to Junior staff ratio has not been optimal

Total received funds per year

0.00

500,000.00

1,000,000.00

1,500,000.00

2,000,000.00

2,500,000.00

3,000,000.00

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

USD

RestrictedCore

Total received funds per year

Core funding

1,421,2631,421,263

2,467,0002,467,000

1,736,6771,736,677

100,000100,000181,819181,819


18

% of donor contribution on total funds received (2004 - 2006)

Lessons learnt • Achieving inclusiveness in the research system takes time, resources, and perseverance

- Linking up with organized stakeholder networks promotes greater inclusiveness, legitimacy and outreach (e.g., IFAP)

- It is worthy to facilitate the building of stakeholder networks where these do not exist (e.g., SSA NGO consortium)

• Approach adopted by GFAR Sec in engaging private sector did not lead to desired result. GFAR is not attracting enough PS interest partly due to its lack of global visibility and outputs/outcomes which are often not appealing for them

• Fostering cost effective partnership has proven an effective means of achieving GFAR overall objectives: - PROLINNOVA, a success story - The GPP Review has affirmed the centrality of partnerships in GFAR

• Inter-regional collaboration needs to be further pursued. It cannot be fully achieved without the active involvement and “buy-in” of the RFs.

• DURAS experience shows that it is possible to operationalize an innovative CGS that supports research activities that are multi-stakeholder in nature and development-oriented

• Partnership building could have been more effective had the GFAR Secretariat been more equipped with appropriate tools and methodologies needed for this purpose

• Insufficient strategic and high-impact advocacy activities has affected GFAR’s visibility and recognition as a global platform for discussion among ARD stakeholders

• Monitoring and reporting have been carried out in a limited and unsystematic fashion • BP 2004-2007 has been ambitious. Current level and mix of expertise available in the Secretariat

was insufficient given expectations and set targets. • Short-term and unpredictable duration of tenure of GFAR Sec staff impacts on the continuity of

work/activities

Canada41%

France17%

DFID12%

Others*20%

Italy10%

% of donor contribution on total funds received (2004 - 2006)

*Others: Catholic Relief Services, CGIAR, European Commission, FAO, ICARDA, IBRD, IFAD, The Netherlands, Syngenta Foundation, Switzerland


19

• Lack of clear resource mobilization strategy led to unstable funding (source and timing) which has hindered timely and effective delivery of outputs - Cash flow problems - 40% of core funding comes from single donor - Restrictions in donor financing

• Lack of clear understanding on the role of GFAR Secretariat viz. GFAR

Comment and questions Some comments and questions raised by the participants included: Q. Whether there were some outcomes and impact? A. GFAR tends to monitor the outputs not the impact. However there are cases such as PROLINOVA,

which clearly indicates the impact. - We do not monitor the systems adequately. - The opening up of some of the universities like in Ethiopia to work closely with the RF

Comments: We have to know how donors want us to report. So we need have outcomes and impact so that we can be able to show the donors that we are indeed making an impact. This goes beyond just publications, we have to answer the fundamental question of how the money was used to benefit the poor, beyond the publications. The presentation is good basis for our future planning. It helps us to understand better out strengths and weaknesses. We need to analyse deeper to determine why we failed where we failed and work on how to do things better. There are three issues that need to be reflected. Funding, the donors and impact.


20

7. GFAR SECOND EXTERNAL REVIEW: Relevant Findings for the preparation of the BP

By A. Slama

What the External Review of GFAR is Telling Us? – This SWOT is based on the external review

The SWOT of GFAR base on External review STRENGTHS • Strong validity and ownership of GFAR

concept • Relevant niche as a neutral platform for

dialogue on global issues for ARD

WEAKNESSES • Low staffing level of GFAR Secretariat • Low corporate image, visibility and outreach • Over structured governance with slow decision

making

OPPORTUNITIES • Demand for strategic dialogue and

advocacy on emerging research priorities • Demand for global quality partnerships for

collaborative research programs • Demand for operational knowledge to

influence agricultural policies

THREATS • Volatility and inadequacy level of funding • Donor funding withdrawn • Diminishing core funding • GFAR Secretariat unable to compete for and

maintain quality staff at senior level • GFAR Secretariat unable to ensure timely

clearance of financial transactions due to the host institution’s lengthy procedures

KEY DIRECTIONS FOR GFAR BUSINESS PLAN FUTURE DIRECTIONS • Sharper Focus on Strategic thinking and advocacy

- Organize debates on issues of global concern based on high quality papers and expertise • Additional emphasis on the promotion of:

- Partnership between South-South - and South-North regional FORA - Regional approaches to research and exchanges - Out scaling of the DURAS experience

• Capacity building of regional FORA whose constituencies are the weakest and at risk - Priority to CAACARI and AARINENA for institutional development and regional ownership

• Stronger Advocacy for an enhanced involvement and representation of the private sector constituency in GFAR

• Develop and implement a strategy based EGFAR having value added role in knowledge mobilization and sharing

• Enhance the human resource capacity of GFAR Secretariat through an adequate size of qualified staffing and skill mix

• Ensure a sustainable funding level for the GFAR Secretariat to maintain a core staff and assist the regional Fora to be well prepared and represented in priority setting and governance of global and regional research agenda


21

- Advocacy for a more predictable and flexible funding by Donors • Improve the corporate image and the visibility of GFAR

- Timely and quality reporting and communication by GFAR Secretariat and regional Fora on the outcome and impact of funded programs

Comments and questions • The issue of Location and structural impact on performance- how do we evaluate the best place to

be? • The private sectors and the farmers- which farmers? – We need to clarify on the type of farmers we

are talking about, and they all should be included and find a way of how to enhance these linkages with all these component. The same applies to private sector- we need to identify the type of private sectors we should be linking with.

8. GFAR 2006 Triennial Conference

Presented by Ajit Maru

Outline • Why reorient ARD? • The new direction for ARD • What to reorient? • How to reorient? • Emerging global agricultural research priorities Why reorient ARD? • General consensus at the Conference that there is a disconnect between ARD and societal

development needs, especially when viewed from the perspective of the resource poor. New Direction for ARD • Agricultural development has to be pro-poor and environmentally sustainable. • Agricultural research must balance agricultural development with resilience, stability of livelihoods and

gains of more equitable economic growth. • It must satisfy the needs of small farmers and producers which include livestock keepers, pastoralists,

forest dwellers and fisher folk.


22

The New Direction for ARD Concept of Resilience • Concept of Resilience as applied to agricultural development

- Drought mitigation - Disease and Pest Resistance etc

• Concept of Resilience as applied to rural livelihoods - Multiple crop and crop-livestock farming systems - Alternative and supplementary occupation and earning

ARD and Achieving Development Goals

The New Direction for ARDProductivity

Stability

Equitability

Resilience

Goal of ARD tobalance productivitywith resilience, stabilityand equitability inagricultural growth and development

Modified from slide by Sir Gordan Conway

Achieving all Development Goals Such as eliminating hunger, alleviating rural poverty and health

Economic Growth

Agricultural Research for Development

Other factors

Other factors Agricultural and rural growth


23

Social Sciences and ARD • Poverty is caused by a complex set of economic, social, political and environmental causes. • Social sciences are critical to holistically understand and combat poverty • There is a need to imbibe and integrate social sciences (human factor) in ARD which is at the moment

largely physical and natural science oriented if it has to contribute to alleviation of poverty. ARD and Change in Scientific Paradigms What to reorient? • ARD Systems

- Public funded ARD to be pro-poor and satisfy needs of small farmers and producers - Include knowledge and technology generation for all producers, farmers, livestock keepers, fisher

folk - Must contribute to sustainable agriculture - Blend local and traditional knowledge with external and “scientific” knowledge - From NARIS-NARS-AKIS to Agricultural Innovation Systems - Directed to include farmer-led innovation and include interactive learning between all stakeholders

to ARD - Requires change in agricultural education and support systems

• Institutions related to ARD - Stronger client (poor, small producers, markets) orientation - Greater use of partnerships for synergy

• Knowledge and Technology Generation Processes - ARD must rapidly respond to changing societal needs such as coping with population growth,

urbanization, climate change and change in lifestyles - Technology must meet the confidence of society - Greater coherence among researchers, policy makers and consumers

Techno-Centric (Centered around technical solutions through a single disciplinary approach)

Eco-Centric (Centered around technical solutions through multidisciplinary approaches)

Holo-Centric Centered around solutions that are inter and trans-disciplinary

aimed at constructing critical learning systems

Ergo-Centric (Centered around conscious mental change)


24

How to reorient ARD? • Change in ARD will require:

- Change in mindsets - Different Institutional and Organizational arrangements - Technical knowledge - Strategic Thinking, Sensitization, Awareness Building and Advocacy around emerging global

priorities for agricultural development - Enabling partnerships for research and innovation on the global priorities - Mobilizing knowledge and enabling its sharing and exchange around the global priorities

• What the Stakeholders want? - Forum for discussing specific ARD topics - A strong advocacy role for GFAR - Inclusive, multi-stakeholder partnerships in ARD - Capacity building of weak GFAR partners - Greater Private Sector Partnerships - Fostering of Policy Related Dialogues - Assess ARD Impact on Development - Monitor and Assess performance of Advanced Research Institutions contribution to development

goals Global Emerging Agricultural Research Priorities • Balancing income generation and household and community food security • Blending knowledge systems for an inclusive approach to agricultural innovation • Bio-fuels and food security • Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity Some comments and question Q. If we want to alleviate poverty- the trickling down strategy does not work well. How can we orient

ourselves towards the targets that want work done. With ARD could we focus right to what the client or the farmer wants? How do we get the researchers to hear what the client or farmer wants and consider it a researchable issue?

Comment: We need to think about ‘the HOW’ in order to have impact? - Orient the thinking of our partners, not necessary developing methodology. We can invest in the existing methodologies.

Comment: There is a lot of knowledge generated by other institutions- The role of GFAR is to enhance, link and connect all the parties that are able in a short time- we utilise this – we should not wait, we should be proactive- identification of gaps and move

Comment: We are undermining the research capabilities in the regional Fora- there is a lot of research going on in other parts of the world, Africa for example. The challenge is how to deliver these through success stories. CORAF and ASARECA for instance are in a process of evaluating their activities and they are using IFPRI to help them. So RF could work closely with research institutions.


25

3. ISSUES AND IMPLICATION FOR GFAR’S STRATEGY AND BUSINESS PLAN

9. Reflection on presentations After every presentation, the participant distilled, wrote on cards and presented on plenary the keys issues that were emerging from the presentations. As the participants were presenting the key issues in plenary, the facilitators was with the help of the entire group cluster the cards according to similarity, as indicated in the table below. The task guiding this reflection is indicated in the box below.

Reflection on presentations What are the 2-3 most critical issues and implementations for GFAR’s strategy and business plan?

Please think individually first, then discuss Put them on cards (one issue per card)


26

Analysis of the implication from the stock taking

GFAR planning cycle and system • Long term planning • Current strategic plan is sufficient for the

proposed BP 2007-2009 • Strategic plan subsequently re-validated due

to external review of 2006 outcome • Alignment of GFAR BP and RF BP (planning,

reporting and monitoring

Funding and resource mobilisation system • Resource mobilisation plan - follow up • Fundraising – link to M&E and communication • Strategic funding in proposals • Proactive follow up of secretariat for resource

mobilisation for implementing BP • Part of funding allocated to developing concepts

more and proposal (resource persons) • Balance between core, restricted, and overhead • Funding strategy

M and E / impact assessment • Monitoring, reporting and evaluation • Monitoring and evaluation at the beginning-

accountability • Methodology to assess partnership success)

Communication • Communication • Communication strategy

Functioning of the secretariat • Governance mechanism • The role of secretariat • Governance- legality of GFAR • Role of secretariat • Effective staffing in place for all senior positions including the executive secretary • Staff level and quality of secretariat • GFAR secretariat profile given nature of GFAR • Hosting versus housing of Secretariat

Governance • Governance mechanism not over structured


27

Analysis continued

Private sector involvement • Capitalizing on Private sector

involvement • Clear strategy on private sector

involvement • Create new demand advocating new/

existing constraints- entry to attract private sector

GFAR’s niche and core functions • Niche identification (mapping exercise) • GFAR as a level- leveraging what? • GFAR forum emphasis not (only) Agric research • Re-engineering (positions and processes repositioning

given the vision and mission) • What are we?

- mechanism for learning - Platform for advocacy - Forum for dialogue - Facilitators of partnership

• Sphere for networking

• Strategic advice and vision for ARD

Partnership • Quality of the global partnership (expectations from

GFAR- effectiveness) • Involvement of RFs or other stakeholders • Honest broker in partnership • Strengthen research- CSOs linkages • South-south and South north partnership • NGOs, private sector, young professional role in

agricultural innovation

Innovation system thrust • Agricultural innovation as priority • Knowledge based agriculture and economy • Identify (analyse) agric innovation system and approach

for effective ARD partnership • Re-connect ARD to society • Deepens- roll out new orientations, institutions, systems,

K & T • Transfer of technology mechanism/ outreaching/ up

scaling

Emerging issues • Global climate change • Bio-fuels • Crisis management • Resilience (man-made and natural) • Policy reform • Trade • Globalization

Priority setting • Capitalize on regional research need assessment • Is it new concept or validation of what we knew • GFAR facilities setting up global research agenda

and advocate its implementation • What criteria to use to select global research priorities • Shared across regions • Pro-poor • Responds to resource poor • Controversial

Agricultural education thrust • Re-orient agriculture education to build

entrepreneurial skills for efficient delivery

Advocacy • Advocacy for pro-poor ARD (NARS) • GFAR to assume more pro-active role for advocacy function • Importance of agriculture in global issues • GFAR promotes exchange of experiences


28

10. Adaptation of the strategy Based on the recommendations from the external review and the outcomes of the GFAR 2006 conference and the issues emerging from the presentations, the facilitator requested the participants to reflect on the currents GFAR strategy to see if there is a need to adapt it. The discussions were done in the four tables guided by the task in the box below. After the discussions, the outcomes were presented in plenary, and a small group of four representing the four groups was selected to make a synthesis based on outcomes of the four group presentations. The synthesis group made a presentation of the adapted strategy based on the consolidation of the outcomes from the four groups. The participants further made suggestion and gave more inputs. Below is the adapted strategy after incorporating all the inputs made by the participants. Adapted strategy (presented by Peter Ballantyne on behalf of the synthesis group) GFAR stakeholders have collectively formulated a vision of the path agriculture should take in the near future, a guiding mission and a set of objectives, and priority areas of activities that will contribute to realizing their vision. These stakeholders comprise: Farmers’ Organizations (FO), Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), three groups of research institutions i.e. National Agricultural research Systems (NARS) of developing countries through their Regional and Sub-Regional Fora, Advanced research Institutions (ARIs) of the north, and International Agricultural Research Institutions (IARCs), the agri-business private sector, and a group of donors committed to the concept of collaborative partnerships amongst these stakeholder groups. The Vision: GFAR stakeholders envision a progressive development of a multi-purpose agriculture that:

• contributes in a cost-effective and sustainable manner for hunger reduction to alleviate poverty, through environmentally sensitive resource-utilization systems and technologies;

• is diversified, innovative and built upon modern and traditional knowledge, systems and technologies;

• thrives on research outputs generated through the participation of different stakeholders, including farmers and producers, working together as equal partners;

• stimulates long-term public and private policy support to the research and innovation systems, including extension, that produce such beneficial research outputs.

Convinced that developing such a multi-purpose competitive agriculture would require sustained collaborative efforts amongst the several stakeholders involved in agriculture and agricultural research for development, GFAR stakeholders envisage in the near future, the scientific community and other stakeholders involved in Agricultural Research for Sustainable Development (ARSD) collaborating and working together as equal partners to find policy, technical and socio-economic solutions to the triple scourge of poverty, food insecurity and the degradation of natural resources.

Task: Adaptation of the strategy

Looking at these implications as well as the matrix of recommendations handed out, which parts of the strategy need to be adapted. What would they need to be adapted (analyse the weak points) Make concrete suggestions on how to adapt the strategy Please use your flipchart and report back N.B. Strategy- vision, mission (no change), objectives, principles and values


29

The Mission: The mission of GFAR flows directly from this vision statement, as it should do, and this is to mobilize and support the scientific community and all other stakeholders involved in agricultural research and innovation systems for development, in their efforts to alleviate poverty, increase food security and promote sustainable utilization of natural resources. Objectives: In the short to medium term period of the next 10 years, GFAR stakeholders will pursue the following objectives, which they strongly believe will enable them address their mission and achieve the goals envisioned.

• �Facilitate the participation of all stakeholders in formulating and catalyzing the implementation of a truly global framework for pro-poor, development-oriented agricultural research and innovation;

• Foster cost-effective collaborative partnerships amongst stakeholders involved in agricultural research and innovation for development;

• Promote the emergence of research and innovation systems that are truly representative of the range of stakeholders, and enhance their capacity to respond to users’ needs;

• Facilitate and promote information exchange, dialogue, knowledge sharing and management for agricultural research and innovation amongst its stakeholders;

• �Advocate for and sensitise decision-makers in private, public and multi-lateral institutions to the need for a long-term commitment to, and support for agricultural research and innovation.

3. PRIORITY AREAS OF ACTIVITIES The following constitute the priority areas of activities to which GFAR will devote most of its energy and resources during the next decade. 1 Advocacy and Consensus Building on Global Research and Innovation Priorities One of the key issues on which there was a wide consensus during the GFAR 2003 Conference was that GFAR should pay special attention to and step up its advocacy and strategic thinking role. GFAR will therefore focus on the following activities during the current plan period. . Firstly, it will endeavour to add its voice and perspective to current global debates on strategic policy and institutional issues of great significance to agriculture and agricultural research. Stakeholders will identify such issues, organize high-level debates and discussions on them, and produce outputs in terms of a basket of options for solutions targeted to the appropriate decision-makers at different levels, i.e. national, regional and global. Secondly, GFAR will contribute to on-going efforts to demonstrate the contribution of the sector to economic growth and human well being and therefore sensitise and convince policy makers of the need for increased and sustained focus and investment in agricultural research in developing countries. Evidence clearly shows that public expenditures in research have steadily declined in the developing regions especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. This trend must be reversed, and investments must be increased from public and other sectors if we are to achieve the sustainable development of rural areas. Thirdly, GFAR will engage in what it describes as reciprocal advocacy focused on activities which, on one hand, will ensure that all Regional Fora are truly participatory, open to all stakeholders with equal opportunities to participate in decision making processes, and, on the other hand, will ensure that GFAR is better known through stakeholders promoting the GFAR concept. 2 Inter-regional and Regional Partnerships for Research and Innovation GFAR stakeholders are organized into RF and SRF constituted by research institutions, civil society organizations (CSOs), mainly farmers’ organizations, NGOs, the private sector, and educational institutions involved in ARSD. These stakeholders have come to the collective realization that an important value-adding niche of the Global Forum is the linkage amongst the various fora, which it facilitates in order to


30

promote an exchange of ideas, knowledge, technologies and information across the regions. Over the next ten years, special attention will be paid to promoting this special value adding activity, using a three-pronged approach. Firstly, we will strive to ensure that all RF/SRF are true fora in the context of GFAR, with the various stakeholders adequately represented in governance structures and participating effectively in forum activities including decision making processes, research partnerships and networking. Secondly, we will strive to develop capacity to address and implement the above where required. Thirdly efforts will be made to facilitate, promote and actively pursue the exchange of expertise, knowledge, technologies, and information amongst the fora. In order to accomplish this third objective, strengths and opportunities in the various RF will be identified, and needs and resources matched to promote collaboration, including networking along south-south as well as north-south axes. During the indicated period, GFAR will continue to use its preferred tool, the Global Partnership Programmes (GPPs) to promote and implement productive research These GPPs will continue to be viewed as collaborative programmes, projects or activities initiated, developed and implemented by recognized GFAR stakeholder groups, and which remain open to participation by other stakeholders as and when they find a suitable niche. They will continue to exploit the comparative advantages of participating stakeholders, and will be implemented at the most effective level – local, regional or global. In order to maximize the potential impact of GPPs, and to remain faithful to the vision of farmers and communities being the central piece, a special effort will be made to ensure that truly functional linkages exist between researchers and CSOs within the research and innovation system. This may require specific activities that will lead to the development of better-organized and stronger CSOs, capable of working and collaborating with research institutions on ground level activities, and taking their rightful place in decision-making bodies where they can influence ARSD activities at all levels. It is envisaged that sometime during the strategic plan period, at a time when GFAR would have had a sufficient number of on-going or completed GPPs, an evaluation of this instrument in terms of its impact, management and continued relevance for promoting research partnerships would be carried out. Research partnerships will be developed around the following areas considered to be of global importance by GFAR stakeholders [in 2000], and reaffirmed as still being relevant now and likely to remain so in the near future. These thematic areas are:

• genetic resources management (GRM) and biotechnology; • Integrated �natural resources management (INRM) and agro-ecology; • commodity chains, value addition, and linking farmers to markets, • under-utilised species; and • policy management and institutional development. • [climate change, bio-fuels, farmers access to markets, and livelihood options]

With regards to policy management and institutional development which have hitherto not been given the attention they deserve, a special effort will be made during the plan period, to promote national and regional partnerships between NARS and specialized policy research groups in order to establish research, technological and institutional policies, carry out appropriate policy research with the objectives of supporting and influencing decision makers. Such partnerships are crucial because the capacity of NARS is particularly weak in this area. 3. Knowledge and Communication for Agricultural Research and Innovation The role that the new ICT could play in promoting the concept and reality of partnership on which GFAR is founded was recognized very early in its life. Such roles include facilitating access to and the processing of


31

information, the development and operation of networking activities, the promotion of participatory forms of research, and the provision of a convenient forum for the exchange of views and positions either on focused research themes or on more general topical debates. Stakeholders recently reaffirmed the continued importance and relevance of information sharing and knowledge exchange now and for the coming decade. The development and utilization of a MIS for ARSD was therefore identified as one of the essential pillars of the new BP. Activities within this pillar will continue to be focused on: a) the improvement of EGFAR, the Forum’s electronic information-communication medium which will develop new and more versatile capabilities for knowledge sharing and information exchange amongst stakeholders; b) the development of Regional Agricultural Information Systems (RAIS) for all the Regional Fora, and the linking of these RAIS within the context of a Global MIS, which will allow stakeholders to know who is doing what, where, for what purpose and with what outputs. A special effort will be made to take advantage of new and emerging ICT to promote ownership and management of GFAR e–communication systems by the various stakeholders in order to adequately reflect GFAR guiding principles of subsidiarity, stakeholder involvement and participation. Efforts will also be made to complement these e-based strategies with other appropriate media, e.g. print, rural radio, etc, in order to reach all of GFAR stakeholders. 4 Support the Institutional Capacities of GFAR Stakeholders In spite of the efforts deployed to date, there is still limited private sector investment in ARSD in developing countries, hence the need to make renewed efforts and develop new strategies to engage the private sector in GFAR stakeholders’ activities. Furthermore, a central part of our vision is to make the farmer the central piece of all GFAR activities. A special effort will therefore be made to ensure the active involvement and participation of CSOs in GFAR’s affairs. These two areas of activity, i.e., private sector engagement and CSOs full involvement and participation in the ARSD process, will be reflected across all of the priority areas of activity, as crosscutting issues. PRINCIPLES

• Partnership - • Inclusiveness - • Complementarity – global agricultural research and innovation systems…. • Additionality – programs and projects that aim specifically to add value to what each stakeholder is

able to do on its own [and additional innovations?] • Subsidiarity – programs and projects are planned and managed at the lowest level at which they

can be effectively executed. VALUES We, the Fora, value:

• A pro-poor orientation • Openness and transparency • Neutrality • Innovation, creativity, pro-activity and strategic thinking • Commitment to the vision, mission, principles and values of GFAR • Inclusion, empowerment, and respect for diversity [of opinion, culture, gender, communities, etc] • Teamwork, partnership, knowledge sharing, and collaborative behaviour


32

Comments and questions on the presentation of the synthesis group After Peter has made his presentation, a number of issues were raised.

• The merging pillar One and two: The concern was that it might lead to the dilution of effort of collaboration of all regional FOR A- the concern is Not to merge these two pillars.

• Two pillars are our major strength, and if we have to merge them into one,- Independence gives us more strength and get the buy in by the other parties. So I still

• The danger of combining is that it might dilute the

• If we drop the language of supporting the stakeholders as a pillar we might be weakening – If there is no language of farmers only the secretariat will know what they are talking about, but the wider community might not understanding it.

• To re-formulate this in order to articulate better without diluting the focus.- Make clear what the strengthening role is

• The review made recommendation that there is a need to put emphasis on private sector, farmer organisation and NGOs, there is a need to make it more explicit in the pillars. If it does not come clear in the pillars, it has to come clear somewhere in the BP.

• The farmers should be in the middle, with al the other stakeholders linked to them

• Neutrality- What is the underlying meaning – There is a need to make this more explicit

Based on these comments, the synthesis group was asked to meet again and incorporated


33

11. What is new/ different from the previous strategy

Based on the presentations made by Peter on behalf of the synthesis group on adapted strategy, what has changed in the strategy was:

• Research and innovation system (including extension etc)

• Emerging research and innovation issues such as climate change, bio-fuels, markets

• GFAR ‘net’

The participants were then asked to comment on this in plenary. These are some of the issues they raised.

• The issue of innovation and innovation system was debated. The emphasis is to take into account the different type of actors in the agricultural sector include the different innovations at different levels. This goes beyond just research.

• The major change that comes clearly is -The re-enforcing of the farmer organisation constituency (in broader sense, including the pastoralist, forester, fishers etc) as central to our interaction. Everything that we do should be done around that.

• Putting farmer in the center- The innovation is linked to delivery so as to reach the end user, which is the farmer.

• Inclusion of extension as part of the innovation system is important in order to reach the million of farmers that we are talking about.

• Shift from the leaf to the flower with farmers in the center, and the addition of youth

Based on the plenary discussions, the participants were asked to have a more intensive discussion at table group level in order to reach consensus and come up with at least three key issues regarding the changes per table. This is what emerged to be what is new/ different in the new strategy:

What is new/ different?

1) Special Support emphasis on small holder producers and their organisation 2) Focus on research and innovation system for sustainable agricultural development 3) Strengthen linkages between private sector, research and farmers constituencies 4) Inclusion of none land-based agricultural activities 5) Reconnect ARD to the society 6) Stronger focus on institutions and policy 7) Focus on Linking the small holder producers within the commodity chain 8) Adds Youth as the constituency/ platform 9) Focus on globalisation and trade 10) Change in GFAR ‘net’


34

12. Emerging topics/ themes

A small group of participants worked on distilling some emerging topics and themes based on all the presentations, and discussion of the previous day. The topics were presented by Antonio, and a platform was opened for the participants to bring their inputs

Emerging topics/ themes

1. Blending knowledge system for agricultural innovation to benefit smallholder producers 2. Adaptation to climate variability and change 3. Bio-fuels for the benefit of small holder 4. Reorienting agricultural education and extension 5. Linking smallholder producers to market 6. Agriculture and Health 7. Transforming agricultural research systems to meet societal needs 8. Globalisation and agricultural trade 9. Management of increasing water scarcity and water quality 10. managing biodiversity for sustainable livelihoods and improved quality of life 11. New regulatory framework (Biosafety regulations, IPR, access to genetic resources etc)

Logical framework does include the four pillars- the challenge in how to present this in the business plan

• Strategic thinking on advocacy for emerging global agricultural research priorities

• Institutional Partnership for collaborative research and innovation

• Mobilisation and sharing of promising knowledge packages

• Strengthening the Institutional dimension of GFAR

The following table was presented as a suggestion on how we can proceed. Project on topic 1 Project on topic 2 Project on topic 3 Strategic thinking and advocacy

Activities Activities Activities

Enabling partnerships Activities Activities Activities Mobilising knowledge Activities Activities Activities Strengthening Institutional dimension of GFAR

Activities Activities Activities

The use of strategic thinking was debated- The agreement was that the participants need to have a common understanding of what it means in the context of GFAR, and use that as the basis for discussion for the BP. It was agreed that maybe later on a more suitable term can be suggested.


35

4. TOWARDS PRIORITY FOCAL AREAS/ TOPICS

13. Prioritization Based on the presentations on emerging topics and the ‘what is new in the strategy’, the participants were requested to select at least 3 topics that GFAR should focus on in the next three years. Some suggested guidelines for the selection were presented by the facilitator, debated in plenary, modified and finally agreed upon as following: Prioritization: It was indicated that coming with the three key focal areas doesnot necessarily mean that the test are not important. However, there is a need to narrow down. In selecting the key areas, the participants should consider: What they have to do, what they want to do and what they can do. (see the box) The four table groups presented their selection in plenary in terms of priorities. Six (6) major topics were selected, and this formed the basis on which the participants went for their group work.

Guidelines for the selection of topics

1. What are the 3 topics, which must for GFAR to focus on in the next three years in order to achieve the strategic objectives of GFAR? Please use the following criteria:

a) Supporting the modified objectives- relevance/ salience b) Adding value to others’ efforts according to GFAR’s mandate and niche and

comparative advantages c) Greatest opportunity to make a difference/ likelihood of success and impact as

GFAR d) In line with demands and priorities of stakeholders and regional priorities e) Likelihood of resource mobilisation f) Consolidating past successes- including lesson learnt

2. What are the next 3 topics? - Please come up with 3 cards


36

Priority

Agric education, research and extension Blending knowledge systems • Transforming agricultural education,

extension and research system • Repositioning agricultural education and

learning in the emerging context of innovation systems.

• Blending knowledge systems • Blending knowledge system • Blending knowledge system

Linking smallholders to markets Climate change • Linking smallholder producers to markets • Linking farmers to markets • Linking smallholder farmers to markets • Linking smallholder producers to markets

• Adaptation of climate variability and change- the risk and vulnerability of smallholder

• Climate change (dialogue/ advocacy) • Adaptation of climate variability and

change Biofuels Biodiversity and water

• Bio-fuels • Managing Biodiversity • Management of increasing water scarcity

and water quality • Managing biodiversity for sustainable

livelihoods and improved quality of life Comments and inputs There were some issues raised, which are also important for GFAR. It was agreed that these will be looked at a later stage to see in they fit in the strategic areas so as not to loose them. • Public-private sector partnership • Conservation agriculture • Capacity building • INRM

14. Group work on selected focal areas/ topics After coming up with the key areas, the participants were then grouped into four groups based on their interest in order to discuss the topics further. The group work was managed as a two-stage process, with the first step focusing more on the broader issues, and the second step more focusing on the real strategies, including the activities . After the first round, the groups made presentations of the outcomes in plenary. All participants had a chance to give their inputs, which were later incorporated in the group outcomes. The same groups went back to their discussion tables to tackle the second part of the task. The guiding tasks for both rounds are indicated in the boxes below.


37

1st round of the group work

2nd round of the group work

Questions for group work on Key ‘Projects’ of GFAR Step 1

Please use the following template for the group work!

1. What are the central issues / challenges in this topic?

2. What exactly do you want to achieve within this topic? (Realistically achievable within GFAR’s niche as a global platform)?

3. If the ‘topic-project’ is successful, what would the main stakeholders do differently and what impacts will manifest? (outcomes and impacts)

4. How do you think you (GFAR) can achieve it- what are the promising strategies to operationalise?

5. What are the quick wins for GFAR within this topic? Please choose a facilitator and visualize the discussions on flipcharts / cards

Rapporteurs will writes a 2-3 page summary report for the documentation. Report in a matrix form if possible.

Please present the outcomes of your group in the plenary electronically in max 10 minutes

Questions for group work on Key ‘Projects’ of GFAR Step 2

6. Extract priority activities to be implemented in the ‘Rolling business plan’ 2007-2009 from the strategies

developed in each pillar. Use same criteria as before:

Applying the GFAR thrusts on this topic, what activities would fall in each of the GFAR thrusts (Strategic thinking, enabling partnerships, mobilizing knowledge)?

7. Define who should and can do these activities- Champion and collaborating stakeholders, and what should be the role and contribution of a) the regional Fora, b) the secretariat, c) other stakeholders?

8. What time frame and sequencing of activities do you envisage?

9. What are the key indicators for expected outcomes and impacts

10. Who are potential donors who could be interested (in line with their priorities?)

11. After all, what could be a catchy title for this project? Please present the outcomes of your group in the plenary electronically in max 10 minutes We would expect a rather complete outline of a project proposal with a title, rationale, objectives…., which can be used to be developed into the business plan.


38

The group representatives made presentations in plenary of the outcome of their group discussion. The presentations included the outcomes of the first part of the group working, (showing how they have incorporated the inputs given to them), and the second part of the group work. After every presentation, the participants made comments, suggestions and raised critical issues concerning each topic. These inputs were captured at the end of each presentation. The group rapporteurs were also requested to write a short concept note, which serve as the summary to each topic. These concept notes are attached as annexes to this process documentation report. The following section present the outcomes of the group discussions based on the two step group work. The names of the group members are listed with an (F) indicating the facilitator of the group discussion process and the (R) is referring to the rapporteur of the group process and outcomes. 4.1. Group 1: Blending knowledge systems for agric. innovations to benefit smallholder

producers- AGRINOVA Presented by Peter, Group members: Myra (F), Peter (R), Ajit, Ed, Enrique,

What are the issues/ challenges in this topic? Innovation Systems Innovation systems thinking and approaches recognize that farm-level solutions and innovations do not come from research alone. Many actors – public, private, as well as farmers themselves – are both sources and conduits for the delivery of innovation. Actors in these innovation systems interact, communicate and ‘blend’ knowledge from different sources as they catalyze innovation to benefit farmers. The concepts are difficult to understand and put into practice:

- Innovation is not just technology, it concerns processes and institutions - They imply behavioural changes from research (and other) actors - They are multi-actor, demand responsive and are built around the notion that there are no single

questions, nor single solutions - Depending on the specific issue, actors and innovation, they entail multi-directional communication

and knowledge sharing, packaging, and blending. Blending Knowledge and Innovation Past GFAR work on ICM and MIS has strengthened and built information networks and services at regional, national, and global levels. These systems continue to act as mechanisms for organised information flow and exchange among GFAR stakeholders and with partners. For effective research and to catalyze innovations that will benefit farmers, such information systems need to be complemented by approaches that anchor, embed and enhance knowledge sharing and communication within the multi-actor innovation systems that increasingly provide the social, institutional and technical ‘governance’ frameworks for research. What do we want to achieve?

• Better understand innovation system approaches that contribute to more effective research that is pro-poor, farmer-centred, and demand-responsive

– Concepts, approaches, opportunities, risks • Promote partnerships to examine, explore, and research the application of knowledge-based

innovation systems


39

• Catalyze knowledge sharing, co-learning, and experience exchanges on innovation systems • Inform and guide GFAR stakeholders towards appropriate and effective systems and mechanisms

that blend and apply different sources and forms of knowledge, information, and expertise/skills

What differences will this make? • We will see a better ‘connect’ between research and other actors, especially smallholder farmers

and the private sector • Organisations involved in research and innovation will change their behaviours, including:

o More participatory and networked approaches o Greater open-ness to learning o More open knowledge sharing

• Innovation systems and activities will be documented and more visible • Knowledge and information systems will be more deeply embedded in research and innovation,

contributing to their more effective use in addressing challenges identified by farmers What will be the results?

• More interactions by more types of stakeholders • Faster/better response to demands of farmers • More empowered stakeholders • Greater options/opportunities to attract public/private investments • Shift to knowledge-based agriculture • More relevant and recognized role of GFAR

Operational approach

• Conceptual framework developed • Build confidence and leadership • Document/share existing experiences • Mobilize and exchange knowledge through dialogue, action research and co-learning • Advocate ‘improved’ knowledge-based innovation systems using evidence based approach • Practice innovation systems approach

Quick wins include:

• Document/identify examples from our network • Connect with other stakeholders • Build community of interest/practice • Communicate what we want to do

Potential sources of cash and in–kind support includes:

• Matching with donor interests e.g. those interested in innovation, knowledge systems • NARS, regional fora and other stakeholders • CGIAR, FAO, CTA, etc • Traditional GFAR donors


40

Blending knowledge systems for agricultural innovation (AGRINOVA)

Activities Specific deliverables facilitators doers Timeframe & sequencing

Indicators

Building Consensus clear concept/approach framework document

discussion paper, international and regional workshops

Secretariat and RF network of champions (per project, themes, etc)

6-36 months

advocate to policy makers policy briefs, workshops 6-36 months sensitize stakeholders develop guidelines 6-36 months Partnerships action research on blending

knowledge and research inter-regional and regional workshops, exchange visits

18-36 months

co-learning mentoring 18-36 months Knowledge and Communication

identify what we know, generate new knowledge, facilitate dialogues/communication among stakeholders

inventory of resources, case stories, egfar, communities of practice, traveling seminars, conference,

18-36 months

Strengthening institutional capacities of GFAR stakeholders

mobilize human and financial resources

recruit appropriate and adequate expertise and funds

1-6 months

set up network of experts and practitioners

8-12 months

anchor within RF and other stakeholder priorities

allocate as line of action in Business plans of RF and other stakeholders 12-36 months

concept internalized by all GFAR stakeholders greater involvement of private sector pro-poor knowledge blends for farmers GFAR recognized as key player in this area

M&E ongoing M&E 6-36 months Comments and inputs

Bridging the formal and informal research • The risk of singing the song and not changing – Not theory driven • Not do theoretical work on innovation


41

Niche for GFAR • The project for GFAR –We need to be encouraging regional fora to move to this type of research-

help them identify the capacity they have- this take more human research that the traditional research- we should not underestimate that. With the local research people end up with papers.

• Identify capacities and build the capacities need within our GFAR stakeholders. • Preaching this new way of doing research • If we can get every RF to do research in this way, this will be the fasted way of spreading the

experiences. • What is the anchor for such blending- This is action research, collaborative research, multi-

disciplinary researcher (the blending will take place at the interface • GFAR has a big role- the challenge will be to figure out where the entry points are-

Need for taping from what is going on so far • This approach is new for agriculture, but is has been applied in other sectors. • There are some RFs who are going this route, we have to identify that and find a mechanisms of

cross learning. • Make effort to see how we can apply this in practice- we need to find a way to make people

conceptual the direction we are heading. They need to see how it connects to where we come from. • This is not something new, there are I but implementing in agriculture is new

Donors • World bank as the main funder then and the CGIAR • We should also put IFAD and DFID

How it links with eGFAR • This is more than just sharing information- it goes beyond eGFAR • Clarify the how part of it.

4.2. Group 2: Promoting transformation in Agricultural Research Extension and Education –

AgREE. Presented by Oliver, Group members: Bala (F), Oliver (R), May, Ibrahim, Shanthanu,

What are the central issues/challenges in this topic? Why AgREE? (Issues/challenges) • Today’s agriculture

- More knowledge intensive - Confronted with multitude of challenges: - Evolving concepts of agricultural and rural development, innovations - Globalization - Has not adequately responded to societal needs - Lack of coherence and clear policies - Weak human resources capacity

• Decline in enrollment in agricultural universities. Impact in the future of agriculture? • Outdated, conventional agric. education….

- Reductionist approach - Predominance of “science” in one-way teaching - Content-oriented rather than skills-focused - One-way flow of knowledge - Emphasis on theoretical and quantitative aspects


42

- Weak inter-disciplinary and systems-thinking approach - Lack of weak in social/people skills development

What exactly do you want to achieve within this topic? (Realistically achievable within GFAR’s niche as a global platform) • Elevate the issues and the need to address research-extension-education linkages at the global level • Provide a multi-stakeholder analysis of the problematique • Analysis of reforms needed towards

- Development programs that address poverty reduction - Promotion of innovations systems approach to ARD - Promotion of the involvement of the entire chain of stakeholders and explore pathways for

agricultural science to make the desired contributions to livelihoods of farmers - Addressing perception of agriculture as a second class profession (particularly among the young

people) - Developing mechanisms for effectively engaging the entire spectrum of stakeholders in AgREE

• New agricultural professionals?

- Open to learning and adapting - Committed and interested in their organizations and communities - With strong leadership skills - Able to listen and communicate - Innovative and can creatively solve problems - With market-orientation - Possess strong personal and leadership skills

How do you think you (GFAR) can achieve it – what are the promising strategies to operationalize? • GFAR can serve as a platform for identifying the direction and advocating reform in AgREE systems • It can support the conduct of assessment of the state-of the art on the topic (who is doing what and

where and how; what worked and what didn’t work) • It can facilitate the creation of network (programs) to strengthen agricultural education systems at

appropriate levels • It can encourage and organize policy dialogues and debates in order to foster concerted vision on

AgREE linkages • Awareness raising among stakeholders and sensitize appropriate decision-makers to effect better

linkages and the necessary reforms in the systems If the project/topic is successful, what would the main stakeholders do differently and what impacts will it manifest? (Outcomes and impacts) (In the long term…) • New learning modes of teaching and extension practices • Retooling of faculties, “infomediaries” and facilitators of change • More participatory programme planning and priority setting • Closer interdependence of AgREE systems • Emergence of a new science which combines rigour and social relevance • Ag education that is

- Conducive to innovation - Holistic/integrated problem-solving oriented

• New cadre of agricultural professionals (with the skills needed to respond to today’s, and the future’s, agric. challenges)


43

Promoting transformation in Agricultural research, extension and education (AgREE)

Timeframe

Priority Activities

Lead Actor + Roles Y1 Y2 Y3

Indicators

Outcome

Stock-taking: Assessment of the state of the art on the topic

GFAR Sec. (hire ind. Consultant)

X

State of the art paper/report

Core background documents for e-forum + consultation

(Regional) e-Forum (Regional/International ) Expert Consultation Issues: 1. Concerted vision on REE 2. Direction and reforms needed in

agricultural REE systems 3. Ag curriculum with greater farmer focus,

market-orientation, responsive to rural and socio-economic development

4. Pathways through which agricultural research can make reasonable and desired contributions to the livelihoods of resource poor farmers

5. Patterns of paradigm shift in AgREE 6. Policy reforms needed for this to take

place 7. Strategies could be adopted to effect

the transformation of agricultural REE 8. How best can the goals and objectives

Facilitator: GFAR Sec Collaborators: Specialized organization (e.g., FAO, COL, CTA, Global Consortium of Agric. Univ., Wageningen Univ.) YPARD, RF (e..g FARA’s BASIC Programme) + stakeholders

X

X

e-forum and Consultation Proceedings

Problematique better appreciated, understood, acknowledged/recog-nized

Concerted vision… Policy papers on 1. Issues needed to institute reforms 2. Mechanisms for alternative participatory

agricultural extension models identified 3. Pathways…. 4. Patterns of paradigm shift… 5. Policy reforms needed for this to take

place 6. Strategies could be adopted to effect

the transformation of agricultural REE


44

Promoting transformation in Agricultural research, extension and education (AgREE)

Timeframe

Priority Activities

Lead Actor + Roles Y1 Y2 Y3

Indicators

Outcome

of such transformation be achieved in a cost-effective and efficient manner

Policy dialogue at RF/SRF levels

RF (lead) Collaborators: Stakeholders, YPARD

X

X

Policy recommendations

Diagnostic/Pilot multi-locational action-research on REE linkage (to feed into policy dialogue, advocacy and strategic thinking)

- Identify models/case countries with experience to show

- Pilot implementation of reformed agric education curricula

Facilitator: GFAR Sec Collaborators: IFPRI/ISNAR, IFAD, Specialized orgs, RFs, universities

X

X

X

Good practices and lessons learned Revised/improved agr educ. curricula


45

Comments and inputs Strong representation • How much of the training dimension is represented except for the professors • How do we get GFAR to engage in this? • Are the universities well represented at the RF • There is representation by professors- who have the power to effect change I their institutions

Donors • There are donors who will be interested in this for the suitability of development • Gates foundation what to put a lot of money into university • There is

The holistic approach • This is general education not disciplinary based

Identifying champions- Community • Identify some champions that GFAR will lean on heavenly • There is community of practice e.g. CPFE, Wageningen university, Makerere University –

RUFORUM, the Towers, FARA Role GFAR • Be pro-active and have courage to get started- the time is now • Need clear leadership role and identifying an entry point • Take the courage to engage in change- • Starting change in a bureaucratic way does not necessary work – need to have tactic and strategies

at the beginning

The learning dimension • Learning between researchers and farming society- not necessarily through the formal • Linking campuses and communities together to enhance to the innovation part • The formal institutions are more focusing on disciplinary knowledge - there is a need to recognize

other skills • Changing the curriculum is difficult-

There is risk and opportunity • There is a need to include the column on risk and opportunities in the proposal


46

4.3. Group 3: Linking smallholder producers to markets

Presented by Antonio, Group member: Jack (F), Antonio (R), Mario, Ian, Ibrahim What are the issues/ challenges in this topic? • Markets are becoming less accessible due: • infrastructure problems • national markets are opining to more progressive and aggressive economies and laying down

stringent rules of market engagement, based on regulations for quality • often exciting experiences of market links are confined to small islands of success, unknown to

others that seek similar solutions What do we want to achieve? • increased income of smallholders producers through established effective linkages with markets • Scaling out, regional to inter regional, of successful examples. ……“islands of success” into “oceans

of impact” through improved processes of global cooperation among existing regional agricultural forums, CSO organizations and networks.

• Effective collaboration and exchanging of information among stakeholder groups at all levels, from local to national to international, and cross regional

What are the strategies and activities?

Strategy • Capitalizing on and implementing the existing GPP (referred to as the programme) which addresses

the main objectives and concerns identified by stakeholders on this topic.

Main Activities (by year) 2007 • Convene potential and interested stakeholders to outline the detailed elements of the programme

verify roles and responsibilities and identify resources (both HR and financial) • Stakeholders reps. to connect within their constituencies to identify responsibilities and roles (eg IFAP

to connect with national and local orgs) • Initiate activities at regional for a level to identify concrete success stories

- GFAR Sec - Stakeholder reps - Regional Fora

Outcomes for 2007

• Project proposal • Governing body in place • Success stories documented • Committed resources Main Activities (by year) 2008 • Establishing an innovative process for creating market linkages for smallholder producers

- Identify the target groups of smallholder producers (types, area etc) and identify the potential markets they could access

- Analyze the problems and how to solve them • RFs to work on policy implications for advocacy role (eg National FO to pressure local to national

authorities)


47

• Elaborating the results of the identified success stories in order to start a strategy for scaling out of results

• The SC of the Programme to nominate a local “committee/group” based on national to local FOs, NGOs and experts from RFs network to undertake the activity

- Regional Fora - Regional For a in collaboration with GFAR sec.

Outcomes 2008

• Strengthened relation of the GFAR stakeholders at the different levels, from local to international level • Advocacy at local to national levels • A mechanism for scaling out success stories Main Activities (by year) 2009 • Stock taking, analyze and elaborate on the activities performed and outcomes achieved in the

previous • inter regional learning and information sharing workshop among the different actors/players. • Distribute the findings of the workshop

Stakeholders to undertake analysis • GFAR Sec with PSC • GFAR Sec

Outcomes for 2009 • A learning and workshop has been carried out and the results have been analyzed, processed shared

among the stakeholders and are been taken into account for the next business plan

Potential Donors • In the first phase it is recommended to approach the so called GFAR traditional donors (France,

Canada, Italy, DFID, EU, IFAD etc) to build on the established relations and ensure timely approval of findings.

• Links should be established with the various funds that may come in effectively at later stages (Ford, Rockefeller, Gates etc)

Comments and inputs for linking smallholder producers to markets The niche for GFAR • The scaling up aspect • Emphasis on Positioning the primary producers to move up the value chain- identify institutions • Building capacity and stronger linkages with the farming communities • Creating ownerships the RF, not just participating but taking ownership • Getting the Methodology for bringing the community, the researchers, private sector, etc

Meta- analysis of what is already exists. • Evaluate existing projects for lesson e.g. IFAD • Look for element that are replicable – taking into consideration successes at smaller holder producers • Reflect in the document that is building on the existing experiences

The link between this focus and GPP • The meeting in June


48

4.4. Group 4: Adaptation to Climate variability and change

Presented by Nur, Group members: Nur ( R), Slama, Adel, Raj, Magdy The central issues/ challenges in this topic The Central Issue-

• Climate Change

Challenge in this topic: • Impact of Climate Change on Agro-Ecology, biotic, abiotic Stresses and food security as well as

rural livelihoods • Adaptation for biotic and abiotic stresses through GRM and Biotechnology and through INRM with

emphasis on water use related efficiency and drought mitigation. What do we want to achieve?

• Building consensus for action to address climate change. • GFAR to organize a global forum type debate to deliberate issues related to climate change and to

identify researchable agenda • Position paper to address climate change related concerns at national, regional and global levels • Understand the need of GFAR Stakeholders and to facilitate their efforts to address this issue

If the “topic-project” is successful, what would the main stakeholders do differently and impact will manifest?

• Inclusion of climate change issues in national and regional on-going research efforts • Awareness of stakeholders improved • identified priorities would establish new partnerships including inter-regional collaboration • Quick buy-in by policy makers

How do you think you (GFAR) can achieve it – what are the promising strategies to operationalize. Awareness raising

• Expert consultations at the regional level • Sensitise policy makers and all stakeholders on issues related to Climate Change.

The quick wins of GFAR within the topic Have immediately a two pronged approach in place by bringing upfront ARD agenda on Climate Change; and initiate through NARS involvement research on adaptation through a) GRM-biotechnology and bio-safety and b) INRM through optimization of water use efficiency, bench mark sites etc


49

I. BUILDING CONSENSUS ON ACTION FOR ADAPTATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Components

Outcomes Impact indicators

Time-Frame Lead/Facilitator SHLDR. Group

Collaborators

Budget

1. Expert panel Issue paper and discussed through e-conferencing

Quality and its influence within the research community

Sep-Dec 2007

GFAR Secretariat

CGIAR Alliance Science Council FAO, IGPonCC

IFAD/CIDA (initial funding) USD 200,000

2. Regional consultations

Regional research priorities formulated, validated and discussed

internalization of research agenda by NARS

Jan-Jun2008

RF NARS farmers, NGOs, PS CG Centres, ARIs

EC/DFID, CG Centres/FAO/RF Regional Banks USD 400,000

3. Policy forum Global research agenda prepared and presented to policy makers (declaration)

Ministerial declaration generated and adopted

Oct-Nov 2008 GFAR /RF Secretariat

Ministers, MPs, policy/ decision makers

EC/DFID, CG Centres/FAO/RF USD 200,000

II. ENABLING PARTNERSHIP FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE Components

Outcomes

Impact indicators Time-Frame

Lead/Facilitator SHLDR. Group

Collaborators

Budget

1. Launching pilot research program on CC adaptation

- Tolerant genes identified and transferred - Bench mark sites selected and used

-identification of promising germplasm - water use efficient technologies validated

2008-2009

NARS/RF and GFAR Secretariat (for M&E)

IARCs, ARIs

USD 4 million


50

Comments and inputs for climate change: Time frame • Should the time frames be spelt out now?

The niche for GFAR • The topic is timely • The advocacy role for GFAR- exploit its niche with other organisations that are tackle this problem • Sit down with partners who have similar interest such as DFID • Linking effort that is happening at regional level and put it on a global level • Be prepared to convince that GFAR has a niche- focus on areas of outreach that GFAR has

• Al Gore paper

• There are countries that are not covered by CGIAR- this is for the first time that I get to participate in t

such meetings.


51

5. HOW DO WE THEN ORGANIZE OURSELVES – Governance, Resources, Capacities In order to deal with the governance issues within GFAR in order to deal effectively and efficiently with the issues that were raised since the beginning of the meeting, the participants were divided into three groups. The criteria used for sub-dividing the participants was that each groups has to have representation for the different sectors, Below are the topics that each group dealt with, including the task that guided the group discussions. The groups presented their outcome in plenary and the participants gave their comments and inputs to the presentation.

15. Human resources and administrative capacity Presented by Oliver, Group members: Oliver (R), Peter, Mario, May, Shanthanu,

Task- Human Resource and administrative capacity 1. What are the key issues around human resources and administrative capacity? 2. What needs to be done about them to ensure effective delivery and efficiency

of the secretariat? – Actions for BP 3. What are the human resource requirements to implement the business plan,

and by when do they have to be in place? Please take into account the issues identified on Friday Please document and preset in plenary in e-form


52

Group 2: HUMAN RESOURCES and CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

Key Issues

Comments

What needs to be done

Hosting of the GFAR Sec. in FAO

Plus: • Pool of expertise available within FAO • Potential for synergy with international organizations

based in rome, e.g. IFAD, CGIAR-SC, etc. • Political leverage Minus: • Bureaucracy

GFAR Sec. Staffing

Unstable staffing • Volunteers, secondment and consultants result to

high turn over and lack of continuity • Senior to Junior ratio is not optimal Lack of balance in terms of expertise/profile

• Ensure security of tenure of Staff • Define minimum staffing requirements in the Sec:

2 types of staff may constitute the Secretariat:

Core staff which may consist of (minimum)

• 1 Executive Secretary • 1 (Corporate) Communication Specialist • 2 competent (effective and efficient) support staff

Core function: Facilitation and Coordination Expertise needed:

• With very strong “Process” Skills, i.e., organizational, coordination and facilitation skills (as opposed to thematic expertise)

• ES should be a very good manager; good bureaucrat with very good diplomatic skills; research-manager type


53

Key Issues

Comments

What needs to be done

Visiting staff/Visiting Experts

• Core function: more of subject matter specialist • Number depending on key initiatives being facilitated by

GFAR (e.g. number of GPPs or key strategic issues being pursued)

• To leverage on stakeholders’s capacities, explore “secondment” of Senior person from a stakeholder group, e.g. RF, ARI, CSOs, for a period of 6 months.

• Should GFAR have projects, explore arrangements similar to DURAS where the Coordinator also reports to the GFAR Exec. Sec.


54

Comments and inputs on the presentation of group work • What is the Political level for GFAR? • The rotational staff- This is one of the recommendation of the external to get the young professional

to be part of this , and have a mentoring mechanism in place. • GFAR is not connected to the rest of the technical people at all- this • Harnessing the power and the potential f our stakeholders – to optimize the different intellectual

resources- GFAR has to go beyond boxes of capitulation • The idea of having a rotation of the secretariat’s housing was suggested • The minimum critical mass within the secretariat to ensure continuity of GFAR • Think of a different type of organisation

The issues of reporting to the donor • Poor reporting in terms of content and process- This raise concern on the side of the donors- There is

need to show that there is change in order to keep and attract donors. • The key problem is not faulty weak agreement for the services that they offer to GFAR- we have not

put in place a proper communication mechanism • GFAR not being properly placed in FAO • GFAR is not one of the projects of FAO- The issue of bureaucracy within FAO- GFAR have to excises

its independents • Not keeping all the resources within FAO, but only just enough that has to do with administrative

issues. Resources for other activities should be placed somewhere else. • The benefit to be within FAO should not impede out activities. • Te staffing is the issue- • To review the agreement with FAO • Getting independence as GFAR • The steering committee has to take responsibility to get together and have conservation appropriate

people • Get commitment from two to three people to take this issues forward-


55

16. Resources mobilisation

Presented by Antonio, Group members: Slama, Myra (F), Antonio (R), THE STRATEGY Issues Core funding, channelling of resources, planning cycle

1 Budget cycle and financial cycle should be based on a three year rolling BP with a yearly review on budget

2 External review on the housing in FAO on the efficiency of being housed and other opportunities

and possibilities 3 Define a budget for a minimum critical core funding for the functioning of the Secretariat and the

implementation of the BP. Other funding will come from the projects. A core staff of:

• Exec secretary • Communication specialist • Senior professional for proposal development and resource mobilisation • Financial manager

4 Explore other donors, including the philanthropic organizations

5 A short document to accompany the BP which has Intro about GFAR, past project, achievements,

future project, rationale for funding the sect.

Task- Resource Mobilisation Looking at the present status, the lesson learnt and the funding of the new business plan, How can GFAR reach a sustainable funding base?

a) Please come up with a strategy b) What are the activities to be included in the business plan? c) How to deal with the issues identified on Friday? Please take into account the issues identified on Friday Please document and preset in plenary in e-form


56

17. Overarching activities

Presented by Nur, Group members: Ajit (F), Nur (R), Bala,

• Renew the cooperate image of GFAR (e.g. communications strategy) • High level policy dialogue on emerging issues • GFAR to participate in especial events held during FAO Conferences • GFAR to further strengthen linkages with FAO • Support to RF participation in each others meetings • Support to regional Networks (INCANA and APCoAB) • YPARD involvement through inter-regional collaboration • Support to weakest RF: CACAARI • Special attention to be given to north-south collaboration • Public Private Partnership

Particular Strategies and action to strengthen private sector, farmers and NGS involvement • Support to ongoing CSOs activities e.g.: farmers and NGOs • Support CACAARI, and AARINENA to strengthen their CSO constituencies

GPPs • Role of GFAR to be clearly defined at the various stages of development • GFAR should be represented in GPP governing structure

Task- Overarching activities What other activities, beyond the 4 projects do we need to include in the BP in order to fulfill the objectives of GFAR? 1. Activities emerging from the pillar thrust

Pillar Not covered What to achieve Indicators when who Pillar 1 Pillar 2

2. Particular activities to strengthen GFAR’s constituents 3. Particular strategies and actions to strengthen private sector involvement, civil society and farmer

organisations involvement Please take into account the issues identified on Friday Please document and preset in plenary in e-form


57

18. Open issues

There are open issues that were raised during the meeting, but due to time factor did not get necessary attention. Jürgen requested the participants to raise these issues again so that they should not be left out in final drafting of the business plan. Some open issues raised were: The flower • The leaf gives the feeling of growth, whereas the closed circle

19. The key messages

In order to summarise what came out of this meeting in a few words, Jürgen asked the participants to have short table discussion to come up with at least 5 key messages which they would like to communicate out of this meeting.

The key messages to be communicated out of this meeting • Clear roadmap- prioritise work plan • Revitalize GFAR- rejuvenate and strengthen GFAR • Linking farmers to market • Soul searching • Increased focus on innovation, pro-poor and farmers moved to the center. • More inclusiveness and strengthening of Stakeholders • Re-positioning GFAR to play a key role in addressing emerging challenges • Strengthening relations with youth and other stakeholders • Enhanced visibility • Connecting ARD to society • 4 pillars to 4 topics

6. NEXT STEPS

Next steps When Who Workshop documentation 6 April Jürgen Housing of GFAR: Prepare position to SC Chair Seek donor support to transfer operational money to CGIAR

Chair

Steering committee to decide about the flower Chair Preparation of draft BP 10 May Ajit and Ab Circulation to management team 10 May Ajit and Ab Final BP (submission to SC 21/22 May) 30 May Ajit and Ab Donor support group to be consulted


58

7. CLOSURE AND WORKSHOP EVALUATION In closure the participants we asked to say a word or two, and this is what they have to say:

20. Workshop evaluation What I liked in this workshop was ….. • Well focused processes • Well facilitated and very interactive • Open dialogue • Excellent facilitation • Good environment of the library • Good participation with participants open up

What I did not like in this workshop was…… • Having to work for long hours even at night • It is difficult to identify • Although we appreciate the good environment and the tours in the library, some session were

interrupted by this. • Unbalance participation and representation of stakeholders, with less rep from Africa for instant.

Looking ahead with the new GFAR I feel….. • Optimistic and more courageous • Challenged • The spirit of the retreat with continue • Feel good and energized to move forward

21. Closing remarks On behalf of the facilitators: Dr. Hagmann thanked the participants for their active, lively participation and good mood. It is like entering to the unknown- when things begin to get clear it is satisfying. On behalf of the organizers Adel El-Beltagy , Dr. El Beltagy first of all thanked Dr Ismail Serageldin for having hosted the meeting here in the library, • to Hanan and her team- for handling the logistics in such a professional and warm manner. • To Hlami- for the workshop process documentation • To Jürgen- for facilitating the meeting and working under stress • To the Colleagues in the secretariat: Dr Slama, Ajit, Nur, Antonio, Oliver and Gianna • To all participants for their active participation

What you have done here is very valuable for GAFR. We need to do something that will make a difference to the lives of the 55% of the population. We need to inject prosperity. He also thanked the donors, for their commitment to the goals. The workshop was closed at 14:00.


59

8. ANNEXES:

22. Concept notes (some are included in the group work above) 8.1. Linking smallholder farmers to markets Introduction-rationale Issue 1 Smallholder farmers in developing countries are experiencing rapid and profound changes in their marketing environment, caused by major economic changes such as globalization, urbanization and market reform. Markets are becoming less accessible due to the always existing infrastructure problems and also national markets are opining to more progressive and aggressive economies and laying down stringent rules of market engagement, based on regulations for quality, food safety and traceability. Although these changes also offer farmers new opportunities in higher value and high volume markets, in the majority of cases smallholder producers and rural entrepreneurs are unable to capitalize on these benefits. The result is that millions of smallholders are facing exclusion from lucrative and growth markets which will exacerbate the cycle of poverty. Issue 2 Millions of dollars are invested every year into research and development initiatives to improve rural livelihoods in the developing world. These investments have spawned many successful agricultural interventions, but all too often exciting applications of new technologies, social change and market links are confined to small islands of success, unknown to others that seek similar solutions. So, despite these expenditures, poverty alleviation increasing smallholder farmers income remains a major global challenge especially within rural communities Main objectives

• increased income of smallholders producers through established effective linkages with markets • Scaling out, regional to inter regional, of successful examples. Identify and transform “islands of

success” into “oceans of impact” through improved processes of global cooperation among existing regional agricultural forums, CSO organizations and networks.

• Effective collaboration and exchanging of information among stakeholder groups at all levels, from local to national to international, and cross regional

Strategy Capitalizing on and implementing the existing GPP (referred to as the programme) which addresses the main objectives and concerns identified by stakeholders on this topic. Main Activities (by year) Consultations on the linking smallholder farmers to markets programme has undergone two rounds of regional consultations, via the FAO-GFAR-Action led global partnership and a more recent series of planning workshops undertaken under the auspices of GFAR’s Regional Forums in 2005 and 2006 which have produced among others a well set of priorities and issues. Further on both occasions there has been both high demand and considerable interest from stakeholders in moving this initiative forward as market access and linkages are recognized as critical areas of support required by smallholder farmers. A GPP has been developed as a consequence and is in the process of being started.


60

Year 2007.

• Convene potential and interested stakeholders to outline the detailed elements of the programme (outputs, activities, indicators, timeframe, etc) verify roles and responsibilities and identify resources (both HR and financial) for the implementation of the programme

• Stakeholders reps. to connect within their constituencies to identify responsibilities and roles (eg IFAP to connect with national and local orgs) according

• Initiate activities at regional for a level to identify concrete success stories Outcomes:

• Project proposal • Governing body in place • Success stories documented • Committed resources

Year 2008

• Establishing an innovative process for creating market linkages for smallholder producers. A local “committee/group” based on national to local FOs, NGOs and experts form RFs network will work to

o Identify the target groups of smallholder producers (types, area etc) and identify the potential markets they could access

o Analyze the problems and how to solve them

The reporting will be done at the level of the established Governing body for the Programme

• According to the issues raised from the work of the local committee/group policy implications and issues will be analyzed and elaborated, in order to establish an advocacy role on these issues (eg National FO to pressure local to national authorities)

• Elaborating the results of the identified success stories in order to start a strategy for scaling out of

results Outcomes:

• Strengthened relation of the GFAR stakeholders at the different levels, from local to international level

• Advocacy at local to national levels • A mechanism for scaling out success stories

Year 2009 Stock taking exercise, analyze and elaborate on the activities performed and outcomes achieved in the previous years with the objective of assessing progress of the programme, identifying eventual readjustments and re orientation of the activities in order to re align them with the set targets and overall objectives if so, or/and complement them with new merging issues and opportunities. The activity could be carried out through an inter regional learning and information sharing workshop among the different actors/players. The principles on which to base the assessment should be:


61

• Achieved capacity development by stakeholders in effectively analyzing the issues and problem

solving • Farmers at local level are empowered by working together providing joint decision making and are

better equipped to address the problems • A number of small scale farmers are beginning to benefit from the activities of the programme and

are experiencing increases in income Outcome: A learning and workshop has been carried out and the results have been analyzed, processed shared among the stakeholders and are been taken into account for the next business plan Immediate overall outcomes

• Increased visibility of GFAR • Replicability and scaling out of proven success • Stronger inter regional cooperation and synergies • Capacity building of stakeholders

Roles and Responsibilities The GFAR Sec. maintains a monitoring and facilitating role through out the three years implementation of the programme. Roles and responsibilities are assigned by activities in the summary table below. Potential donors In the first phase it is recommended to approach the so called GFAR traditional donors (France, Canada, Italy, DFID, EU, IFAD etc) to build on the established relations and ensure timely approval of findings. Links should be established with the various funds that may come in effectively at later stages (Ford, Rockefeller, Gates etc) Traditional donors (GFAR trad. EU ,CANADA, FRANCE, etc) simply for the timelines because of the working relation w have established…. GATES Foundation because of the strong relations with the CSO Start building a relation (solid) with the different foundations…. FORAGRO


62

Summary table of activities Enabling Partnerships Activities Responsible 07 08 09 Outcome/indicators Convene potential and interested stakeholders to outline the detailed elements of the programme, to verify roles and responsibilities and identify recourses (both HR and financial) for the implementation of the programme

GFAR Sec

Stakeholders reps. to connect within their constituencies to identify responsibilities and roles (eg IFAP to connect with national and local orgs)

Stakeholder Reps

Initiate activities at regional for a level to identify concrete success stories

Regional Fora

• Project proposal • Governing body in place • Success stories

documented • Committed recourses

Establishing an innovative process for creating market linkages for smallholder producers.

o Identify the target groups of smallholder producers (types, area etc) and identify the potential markets they could access

o Analyze the problems and how to solve them

The SC For the Programme to nominate a local “committee/group” based on national to local FOs, NGOs and experts from RFs network to undertake the activity

According to the issues raised from the work of the local committee/group policy implications and issues will be analyzed and elaborated, in order to establish an advocacy role on these issues (eg National FO to pressure local to national authorities)

Regional Fora

Elaborating the results of the identified success stories in order to start a strategy for scaling out of results

Regional for a main responsible in collaboration

• Strengthened relation of the GFAR stakeholders at the different levels, from local to international level

• Advocacy at local to national levels

• A mechanism for scaling out success stories


63

with GFAR Sec Stock taking, analyze and elaborate on the activities performed and outcomes achieved in the previous

• inter regional learning and information sharing workshop among the different actors/players.

• Distribute the findings of the workshop

Stakeholders (FOs, RFs) to undertake analysis SC of the programme together with GFAR Sec to convene workshop

A learning and workshop has been carried out and the results have been analyzed, processed shared among the stakeholders and are been taken into account for the next business plan

2007 2008 2009

Strategic thinking

Partnerships Activity Responsible Indicator/ outcome


64

Activity GFAR secretariat convene to assemble partners, players and verify roles and identify recourses(HR) (agricore) towards a detailed project proposal…what recourses we have GFAR (stakeholders) they have to connect with their constituency and identify who does what (IFAP / national org) For a to work on the policy (FORAGRO) Success stories: Starting checking with the local development agencies (NGOs together with FO) existing initiatives and to identify client groups Indicators Project proposal Committed resources Governing body in place

Activity GFAR Secretariat convening role, unit monitoring and assisting problem solving, Fundraising Set up an innovative process that increases the probability of success: Identify disconnected groups and identify the potential markets (the problems to be solved…(FOs at national and local level and RFs expertise) Outcome: Strengthens the relation of the GFAR stakeholders at the different levels, from local to international level Look at the policy implications to solve the problems (can be translated a role for the National FO for further activity for advocacy) Outcome: Advocacy role played at all level from local level to national and even international Distilling the results of the process that was put in place to solve problems and scaled them out ( local committees plus SC) the secretariat repackages the info to be circulated

Activity GFAR Secretariat convening role, unit monitoring and assisting problem solving, Fundraising Stock taking , analyze the implications of the activities taken put in 2008 to re adjust them in consideration of new emerging issues (analytical work to be done by the actors, GFAR Secretariat convenes the exercise and processes he results together with the SC of the initiative) How much evidence on:

• Capacity element of all actors analyzing and problem solving

• Empowering the farmers to work together at local level providing joint decision making and better equipped to solve the problems

• Income increase How can we use the innovative research outcomes to Outcome: the process taken

Knowledge


65

8.2. Climate change concept note Climate change is considered among the emerging global strategic and pressing issues for the attention of policy makers and the research community. It still requires, however, a high level of an in-depth inclusive dialogue and advocacy among policy makers, scientists, development specialists and civil society organisations at global and regional levels to reach a common understanding about their threats and opportunities. As a unique Global Forum with the RF, IARCs, Civil Society Organisations, the Private Sector and Donors well represented in its governance structure, GFAR is well placed to facilitate the dialogue on and advocacy for future research needs on this emerging and related issues. The output from the dialogue includes the generation of future priority research areas to address these issues with innovative partnership approaches for their implementation. The advocacy aims at promoting their inclusion in priority setting and a mobilization of financial support for their mainstreaming in global, regional and national research agenda. The viability of agro-ecosystems and future food security are progressively being exposed to threats from increased climate variability in the form of changes in temperature and rainfall regimes, increased drought and flooding, and general shifts in the prevailing conditions required to produce food and derive services from these systems. People living particularly in marginal areas such as drylands and mountains face additional challenges with limited management options to reduce the impact of climate change. Adaptation to climate variability and change require research on new knowledge and technology to develop mitigation and adaptation practices. Adaptation refers to adjustments in ecological social-economic systems in response to actual climate variations, their effects and impacts. In the context of the 2007-2009 Business Plan, GFAR consensus building and mobilising stakeholders around specific partnership program on Climate Change. Below tables indicate the activities, outputs, implementing lead stakeholder group, collaborators and estimated budget.


66

I. BUILDING CONSENSUS ON ACTION FOR ADAPTATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Components Outcomes Impact indicators Time-Frame Stakeholder Group

Collaborators Budget

1. Expert panel Issue paper and discussed through e-conferencing

Quality and its influence within the research community

Sep-Dec 2007

GFAR Secretariat

CGIAR Alliance Science Council FAO, IGPonCC

IFAD/CIDA (initial funding) USD 200,000

2. Regional consultations

Regional research priorities formulated, validated and discussed

internalization of research agenda by NARS

Jan-Jun2008

RF NARS farmers, NGOs, PS CG Centres, ARIs

EC/DFID, CG Centres/FAO/RF Regional Banks USD 400,000

3. Policy forum Global research agenda prepared and presented to policy makers (declaration)

Ministerial declaration generated and adopted

Oct-Nov 2008 GFAR /RF Secretariat

Ministers, MPs, policy/ decision makers

EC/DFID, CG Centres/FAO/RF USD 200,000

II. ENABLING PARTNERSHIP FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Components Outcomes Impact indicators Time-Frame Stakeholder Group

Collaborators Budget

1. Launching pilot research program on CC adaptation

- Tolerant genes identified and transferred - Bench mark sites selected and used

-identification of promising germplasm - water use efficient technologies validated

2008-2009

NARS/RF and GFAR Secretariat (for M&E)

IARCs, ARIs

USD 4 million


67

EFARD position for the The development of 2007-2009 GFAR Business plan Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Egypt, March 29- April 1, 2007

EFARD recognizes that GFAR had significant achievements in the past 10 years, and considers that there is a need to re-focus its strategy and activities, and to re-engineer its structure consistently, as pointed out by the second external evaluation, taking into account the changing environment for Agricultural Research. The Business Plan which will be developed at the retreat should allow GFAR to prioritize a well defined set of activities leading to the development of its new strategy and the implementation of its new structure. Hence EFARD shares with GFAR the concept that, given the circumstances and the urgency for having a base for resource mobilisation for 2008 and beyond, GFAR Business Plan for 2007-2009 should be modest in coverage and scope and need to be developed as soon as possible for review and endorsement by the Steering Committee and subsequently by the Donor Support Group, during its next meeting. EFARD wishes that the retreat could successfully elaborate such a plan. The 2007-2009 Business Plan should be responsive to the long term objectives of the current Strategic Plan to the extent of their current relevance and congruency with the recommendations made by the Second External Review of GFAR. The type of programs to be included, their scope and focus would be guided by the outputs of the Delhi conference and a realistic funding scenario. EFARD agrees with the GFAR secretariat proposal, to revise the Business Plan during 2008, as soon as the new Strategic Plan has been elaborated, establishing a mechanism for a rolling planning exercise. Given the particular financial and organisational situation, EFARD thinks that GFAR should elaborate a clear and focused business plan, with a clear prioritization of its programmes. EFARD thinks that the priority should be given to core programme 1 (Strategic thinking on and advocacy for anticipated future global and regional agricultural research) and 4 (Strengthening and re-enforcing GFAR structure and governance as a cross cutting thrust). EFARD thinks that in developing its programmes GFAR should be more effective in facilitating, promoting and supporting inter-regional and global collaborations (south-south and north-south), as well as facilitating and promoting participation in the ARD arena of stakeholders such as Farmers, NGOs and private sector, while linking the different Regional and Sub-regional Fora, strictly respecting the subsidiary principle. GFAR Secretariat should have a strict facilitation role while maintaining a modest backstopping, oversight and outcome monitoring role as required. The major exception for which GFAR should be a “doer” and not only a “facilitator” is the information system. There is a full project proposal available and GFAR should have its funding on top of its list of priorities. In addition to the Executive Secretary, the core professional staff, for the period between the endorsement of the business plan and the new strategic plan, should be recruited according to the prioritization process, and to the financial perspectives.


68

23. List of participants First name Last Name Representation EMAIL

1. Adel El-Beltagy Chair, GFAR [email protected] 2. Jack Wilkinson Vice-Chair,

GFAR / Farmer's Organization Representative

[email protected]

3. Abdelmajid Slama Executive Secretary, GFAR

[email protected]

4. Ibrahim Hamdan Executive Secretary, AARENINA

[email protected]

5. Magdy Madkour AARENINA Representative

[email protected]

6. R.D. Ghodake Chair, APAARI [email protected]

7. H.P.M. Gunasena NARS, Sri Lanka

[email protected]

8. Raj Paroda Executive Secretary, APAARI

[email protected]

9. Myra Wopereis-Pura FARA Representative

[email protected]

10. Enrique Alarcon Executive Secretary, FORAGRO

[email protected]

11. Mario Allegri Chair, FORAGRO

[email protected]

12. Khaled Makkouk CGIAR/ICARDA Representative

[email protected]

13. Ed Sabio NGO Representative

[email protected]

14. May Hani FAO Representative

[email protected]

15. Shanthanu Mathur IFAD Representative

[email protected]

16. Iain MacGillivray CIDA Representative

[email protected]

17. Balasubramanian Ramani YPARD Representative

[email protected]

18. Jürgen Hagmann Independent Consultant

[email protected] ; [email protected]

19. Hlamalani Ngwenya Conference Assistant

[email protected]

20. Peter Ballantyne Independent Consultant

[email protected]

GFAR STAFF 21. Nur Abdi GFAR

Representative [email protected]

22. Gianna deCesare Secretary, GFAR

[email protected]


69

23. Ajit Maru GFAR Representative

[email protected]

24. Oliver Oliveros GFAR/AGROPOLIS Representative

[email protected]

25. Antonio Schiavone GFAR Representative

[email protected]

gfar’s business planning (2007-2009) and re-positioning ...€¦ · gfar’s business planning...

Documents