paepard capitalization workshop

1

PAEPARD capitalization workshop

Highlights from the AIF reflection meeting

Burkina Faso

By Monica Kapiriri

By Monica Kapiriri 2

IntroductionDrew participants from 18 countries:

Burkina Faso; Burundi, Cameroon, Congo Braz, France, Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Netherlands, Nigeria, DR Congo, Zimbabwe , Senegal, Togo, Zambia, Kenya, Uganda, Benin

PAEPARD staff, AIFs, Coordinators, Partners, representatives from WP leading institutions


Purpose of the workshop

To review experiences of AIF’s, what did we learn?

To review AIF’s action plans for MSHRQD workshops, the implementation

The way forward: what will be the way forward for PAEPARD? And what does it mean for the AIF’s?

To explore what ideas for PP III mean in terms of capacity building and support for AIF’s, consortia and the 5 ULP platforms.


The process

Highly interactive and participatory◦Personal reflection and synthesis◦Group work ◦Plenary feedback

Day 1: HarvestingDay 2: Brokerage in Multi-

stakeholder processesDay 3: Way forward


Experience sharingSharing experiences focusing on building

partnerships.Drawn from the process up to and during

the inception workshops. Common “best” experiences Stakeholder mobilization and bring

together producers, researchers, and agro-industry to form successful consortia,

Mobilization and engagement of decision-makers and successfully worked with multi-stakeholder platforms.


Harvesting

Participation/ engagement, consensus building, conflict resolution and mediation.

They participated in lobbying and advocacy, building teams, ensuring equitable sharing of tasks,

Ensuring appropriate institutional arrangement, and achieved good collaboration between facilitators and coordinators; created awareness,

Participated in documentation of expériences and

Promotion of farming for business (entrepreneurship).


AIFs specific best experiences

Stakeholder/ partner mobilization, Inception meetings, MSRQDW, RUFORUM workshops, Multi-stakeholder partnership brokerage

events and facilitating meetings events (funding, coordination, facilitation/moderation).


Coordinators specific best experiencesPartner mobilization and

brokerage, Trust and good working

relationshipsOnce the consortia and

partnerships were established it become easier to interest partners in response to a call.


Conclusion on “best” experiences

Face-face meetings such as inception workshops generated most of the positive experiences.

E-partnerships seem to be superficial

Need for more face-to-face meetings until the partnerships are solidified, then e-communication can add value.


Challenges - AIFsConsortia not able to bring together

all the required stakeholder, Failure to finalize concept notes for

timely submission in response to calls,

Poor communication - timely response to emails/collaboration/communication.

AIFs noted that the of weak development partnerships prior to calls for good synergies,


Challenges - CoordinatorsFunds had not been secured for

proposals submitted, Absence of pre-funding to facilitate

concept/proposal developments meetings,

Managing partners dynamics when there was dominance by a few

Poor communication, collaboration, and input (balanced) by partners


Conclusion on challengesCommunication outside of face to

face meeting emerged from both the AIFs and Coordinators as affecting the partnership building process the most

Demoralization from not receiving funding,


The function and person of AIFs

Heated discussions about AIFs◦Selection process◦Matching◦Performance◦M&E

Core issue was not the roles/function of AIFs as it was their competencies, relevancy to consortia and costs.


AIFS – views by Coordinators Are they best external or internal?Advantages: Familiar with the

thematic area, cheaper, sustainableDisadvantages: Not neutral, liable to

manipulating the process and biases, affects sense of ownership by members, and the levels of participation.

The first cohort used Coordinators and ownership was weak, generating lessons that led to the birth of AIFs


AIFs: Views by AIFsThese were divided into three

categories based on their contractual process.◦Clear TOR and signed contracts: Seen

and effective, motivated and satisfied◦TOR/Contract not signed: Frustrated,

some seen as incompetent◦ULP AIFs: Several satisfied, but a few

felt marginalized by the Coordinators


Reflections on the mini review Discussions mainly focused on the

TORsDevelop and negotiate the TORsEncourage full participation by all

stakeholdersPromote mutual understanding

between partnersPromote social learning among

partners


Reflections on the mini review Promoted and guided joint reflection

by the partners such that the partners learned from the process and improved their own ability to work in partnership with other organisations or interest groups

Promoted the documentation by the partners, both of the results and outcomes of the research but also of the partnership process itself and lessons learned


Mini review - IndicatorsIndicators of success includedDevelop and negotiate the TORs◦The TORs of AIF were clearly formulated◦The TORs of AIF were discussed and

negotiated with the Project Leader◦The AIF know very well their

mission/TORs and roles


Mini review – indicators

Promote mutual understanding between partners◦The AIF guided the partners to agree on well-

defined and shared objectives, the roles and responsibilities of each partner organisation

◦The AIF promoted communication and information sharing between partners

◦Encouraged the adoption of behaviour by stakeholder representatives that is conducive to an environment of mutual respect and trust

◦Ensured that group norms or organisational culture do not oppress individual thinking, creativity and innovation


Mini review - IndicatorsPromote social learning among

partners◦Ensured that group norms or

organisational culture do not oppress individual thinking, creativity and innovation

◦Promoted consensual decision-making by partners, and mutually inclusive solutions;


ConclusionTORs were not shared a cross the

boardCoordinators and AIFs adopted a

process based on assumptions that were not clarified.

The role of PAEPARD/ WP institutions in the contractual process was peripheral

Recommended a tripartite arrangement ◦AIF◦Coordinators◦PAEPARD WP Institution


Proposed improvement

Support by PAEPARDMoney for ◦partnership building process◦consolidating partnerships◦consortia projects◦Resource Persons support responses

to callsDefines rules for funding consortia

and AIF activitiesFocus the capacity building of AIFs

to consortia needs



M&EPerformance indicators developed

and shared among all the three parties to review the effectiveness of;◦ AIFs, ◦Coordinators and◦PAEPARD institutions against


AIF selection process

The process needs to be designed to draw out and align the competencies of AIFs to consortia needs.

Coordinators must take part in selection and appointment of AIFs



TORS/ contract of AIFsContracts should◦Be explicit ◦Be developed and signed between

AIFs, Coordinators and the PAEPARD representatives

◦Harmonize roles and responsibilities of AIFs and Coordinators in all regions

◦Make facilitators neutral to avoid any biases

◦Commit more time for synergy building between coordinators and facilitators


ULPConduct seminars to define and

clarify the roles and responsibilities for Coordinators and AIFs in the Call and User-led process.

Orientation and training for AIFs to better address the innovation process.

Write-shops based on Open Calls, not just for learning skills.


The extension of PAEPARD

Presentation by Jonas generated discussions around:

Drawing from lessons of prior Phases◦Competitive funding

Involvement of private sector, Fear that research would take the

upper hand in accessing the funds; and

Consortia membership coverage - regional or country based partners



Value chain approach to enable private sector find an attractive niche,

Provision of resource persons to guide the proposal writing and address the disparities in proposal writing abilities,

Flexibility in partnership building to enable ULP and consortia to solicit and build wide partnerships at country and sub-regional and regional levels in response to calls



Capitalization workshop would further consolidate lessons and inform the final design of the extension.

Proposed expertise and roles of AIFs and Coordinators for the next 4 years of Phase II extension (Report)


World Café session

Merits and Demerits of a consortia facilitator10

ToR of facilitation (role, objectives, needs and expected results) 13

How to sustain interests of all stakeholders in a consortium10


World Café session

How to make a consortium sustainable – obtain funding without PAEPARD support13

Role of members of core group and AIF Coordinator8


World Café session

1. Terms of Reference for facilitators; Discussed:

The process of recruitment of AIFsRoles/Duties of AIFs in Phase IIContractProduction/DeliverablesRecommendations


World Café session

2. Role of members of core group and AIF Coordinator

Composition of the core groupThe AIF role to the Core groupFunctions of the core groupRecommendation


World Café session

3. Merits and Demerits of Facilitator

Attributes of a good facilitator Why the Coordinator was

better placed Plenary divided


World Café session

4. How to sustain interests of all stakeholders in a consortium

Co-ownershipInstitutional arrangementsCommunicationFunding sourcesCapacity Building


World Café session

4. How to sustain interests of all stakeholders in a consortium

Contributions from plenary◦AIF should play a role in mediation◦Federating themes or topics that interest

members ◦RUFORUM stakeholder platform be

adopted ◦Consortia members need to share their

interests with no hidden agenda/motives.◦time span of the consortia


World Café session5. How to make a consortium sustainable –

obtain funding without PAEPARD supportFunding approach that ensures

continuity after PAEPARD:◦members contribution finances,◦detailed funding and activity plans, ◦projects with clear exit strategies

There should be mechanism to exploit the internal strength and explore possibilities of having members consortia fund priority activities.


World Café session

Joint learning between African and European researchers and non-researchers

Effective ownership by consortium members

Clear roles and responsibilities of stakeholders to ensure clear and balanced participation between actors


World Café session

Participants felt ULP stand a better chance to be sustained than Consortia◦Themes are broad◦central to members work

Consortia are motivated by calls◦Threatened if not funded◦Short lived – limited to project life

paepard capitalization workshop

Technology