rtb cluster 5.1 planning meeting...cluster 5.1 for the 2017 -19 period will be organized with the...

RTB Cluster 5.1 Planning Meeting

23 – 25 May Rome

RTB Workshop Report

Published by the CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB)

Correct citation: Gotor, E. 2017. RTB Cluster 5.1 Planning Meeting. CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB). Rome (Italy). Workshop Report available online at: www.rtb.cgiar.org

Contact: RTB Program Management Unit International Potato Center (CIP) Apartado 1558, Lima 12, Peru [email protected] • www.rtb.cgiar.org

© International Potato Center on behalf of RTB

Creative Commons License

This Workshop Report is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.

http://www.rtb.cgiar.org/

http://www.rtb.cgiar.org/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

ii

Table of Contents

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

Agenda .......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Meeting minutes ........................................................................................................................................... 4

Session 1 – Background on RTB and Cluster 5.1 ........................................................................................... 4

Session 2 –RTB 5.1 Ex Ante and Foresight Products ..................................................................................... 5

Concluding Remarks...................................................................................................................................... 6

Session 3 – Ex Post Impact Assessment Strategies ....................................................................................... 7

Session 4 – Concept Notes and Resource Mobilization Strategies ............................................................... 9

Session 5 – Conclusion and Next Steps ......................................................................................................... 9

Brainstorming Summary ............................................................................................................................. 11

Concluding Remarks.................................................................................................................................... 11

Open Questions .......................................................................................................................................... 11

Action Points ............................................................................................................................................... 12

Further Feedback ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Participants ................................................................................................................................................. 14

1

RTB Cluster 5.1 Planning Meeting

Place: Bioversity Headquarters, via dei tre denari 472/A, 00054 Maccarese (Fiumicino), Rome, Italy

Date: 23-25 May 2017

Background Cluster 5.1 for the 2017 -19 period will be organized with the objective to increase the quality and value of priority assessment and ex ante analysis, foresight analysis and ex post impact assessment done by the cluster in collaboration with the other flagships clusters and CRPs. A thorough analysis of RTB impact pathways and Flagships theory of changes nested into the monitoring system will be done in order to identify future direction of analysis. The work of the cluster is designed to provide high quality inputs for research planning by RTB itself, partner CG centers, ARIs and the many national and field partners and to provide rigorous evidence about the long-term impacts of RTB technologies. Not only will the cluster team use a collaborative learning approach in the work in each theme, but the 5.1 team will also explore creative links among the three themes, such that impact assessment studies provide increasing relevant data sets for priority assessment and foresight analysis. By better outlining future opportunities and threats at local and global levels, by the end of 2019 cluster 5.1 work will have supported other flagships and RTB management to enhance impact of an RTB portfolio in a gender-equitable way. Ex post studies will have produced valuable information to show actual impacts of RTB research and provided feedback to the entire RTB portfolio.

The cluster leader will coordinate the activities of the centers and partners identified in the work plan through appointing one responsible scientist for each of the work areas identified above; under each of those work areas there will be specific outputs and deliverables identified; each output and deliverable will also have a responsible scientist reporting to the work area and cluster leader.

Objectives (1) Understand the context within cluster 5.1 Foresight and Impact Assessment Operates; (2) Understand which expertise and background each partner is bringing in; (3) Develop a coherent work plan around what TB FP5.1 wants to achieve in the next three years; (4) Identify funding options.

Participants Presentation, dropbox folder link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rlcrpjp1ehymxw9/AAD-EAxsdSjYFIctM1fvWVWOa?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rlcrpjp1ehymxw9/AAD-EAxsdSjYFIctM1fvWVWOa?dl=0

R T B C L U S T E R 5 . 1 P L A N N I N G M E E T I N G

2

Agenda Tuesday 23 Session 1- background on RTB Flagship 5 and its

cluster 1 Who

9:00-9:30 Welcome and details of the 3 days Elisabetta Gotor

9:30-10:00 Presentation of RTB Flagship 5 “ Impact at Scale” Marc Schut 10:00-10:30 Presentation of RTB Flagship 5 Cluster 1-Foresight

and Impact assessment Elisabetta Gotor

10:30-11:00 Coffee Session 2- RTB 5.1 ex ante and foresight products 11:00-11:30 Brief presentation of WUR Impact Assessment

research agenda Jeroen Groot

11:30-12:00 Brief presentation of CIRAD Impact Assessment research agenda

Genowefa Blundo Canto

12:00-12:30 Updating on RTB priority assessment work and next steps

Tahirou Abdoulaye

12:30-14:00 Lunch 14:00-14:30 Updating on the PIM meeting on Global Futures and

Strategic foresight modelling work Steve Prager

14:30-15:00 RTB contribution to Global Future and Strategic foresight modelling work

Thanasi Petsakos

15:30-16:00 RTB 5.1 foresight modelling plans Plenary 16:00-16:30 coffee 16:30-17:30 From ex ante to ex post: how RTB can establish a

continuum? Plenary discussion moderated by Steve Prager

Wednesday 24 Session 3- Ex post impact assessment strategies Who

9:00-9:30 SPIA ex post Impact Assessment strategy and work plan

Nancy Johnson

9:30-10:00 IFAD impact assessment strategy and synergies with the CGIAR

Paul Winter/Romina Cavatassi

10:00-10:30 Discussion 10:30-11:00 coffee 11:00-11:15 Brief presentation of IITA work on ex post impact

assessment in cluster 1 and synergies with other clusters within RTB or other CRPs

Tahirou Abdoulaye

11:15-11:30 Brief presentation of CIP work on work on ex post impact assessment in cluster 1 and synergies with other clusters within RTB or other CRPs

Marcel Gatto

11:30-11:45 Brief presentation of Bioversity work on ex post impact assessment in cluster 1 and synergies with other clusters within RTB or other CRPs

Enoch Kikulwe

11:45-12:00 Brief presentation of CIAT on work on ex post impact assessment in cluster 1 and synergies with other clusters within RTB or other CRPs

Ricardo Labarta

12:00- 12:30 Open Discussion -Confirm the plans and begin planning of what we need to do in each of the cases

Plenary

12:30-14:00

Lunch


3

Session 4- Concepts notes and resource mobilization strategy 14:00-14:30 Rural Transformation: why is it important?

Literature, concepts and methods Jeff Alwang

14:30-15:00 Global assessment of RTB crops Plenary discussion moderated by Tahirou Abdoulaye

15:30-16:00 Open discussion Plenary 16:00-16:30 coffee 16:30-17:30 Identify resource mobilization strategies Plenary Thursday 25 Session 5- conclusions and next steps Who 9:00-10:30 RTB 5.1 impact pathway. What products are needed

in order to reach the expected outcomes Group work

10:30-11:00 coffee 11:00-12:30 RTB 5.1 impact pathway. What products are needed

in order to reach the expected outcomes plenary

12:30-14:00 Lunch 14:00-15:30 Development of a detailed work plan for 2017 and

possible 2018 and 2019 plenary

15:30-16:00 Coffee 16:00-17:30 What does RTB FP5.1 wants to achieve in the next 3

years in the field of foresight and ex post impact assessment work

Plenary- and remote connection


4

Meeting minutes

Session 1 – Background on RTB and Cluster 5.1 The meeting started with attendees’ presentation, followed by a brief summary of the meeting objectives. It was highlighted the need to explore new research ideas and sources of funding in order to deliver concreate join products that would show the value added of the cluster within RTB. It was remarked the need to develop a list of clear deliverables and to discuss the linkages between Ex Ante, Foresight and Ex Post elements embedded into RTB 5.1 cluster

Elisabetta Gotor RTB 5.1 value added is given by the scientists belonging to the cluster bringing prospective from different centres, different crops and CRPs. Scientists can enrich each other with different approaches. Main goal of RTB: to enhance RTB impact, by guiding future investments on RTB innovation at crop and system level.

• Objectives:

(1) Enhance RTB impact through systematic ex ante foresight ex post, (2) Contribute to scaling RTB innovation, (3) Support the establishment of delivery mechanism.

• Challenges: coordinating effort, relevance of topic focus on RTB rather than single centre demand, resource uncertainty, maintain partnership, develop methodologies.

Marc Schut RTB Flagship: improving livelihoods. Main points:

• Need to share knowledge among all participants in order to improve the understanding of what Cluster 5.1 is doing. As the first evaluation will be at the end of the year, is important to secure funding, collaboration and inspiration and start delivery.

• Improving livelihood is a broad and new concept within RTB, as it goes beyond agricultural productivity and accounts also for market development, banking system, labor availability and rights’ access.

• Agriculture adds complexity into the livelihood system, and study this complexity requires a comprehensive understanding – even if not necessarily studying each component, RTB should still be aware. This increase awareness would be a value added in comparison to past approach.

• Stressed the fact that innovation and options should be available to a broader number of beneficiaries, and that such innovations should be developed in a participatory, bottom-up and inclusive approach.

• Scaling up innovation is not sufficient per se, rather it must be combined with policies, infrastructures, markets, education and bring a change in people mindsets.

• Need to be visible and communicate, to add value by strategically embed ourselves in other projects, be output oriented to make noise, be trust worthy, innovative, think out the box, strategic and pragmatic, proactive and action oriented, strong as a team.


5

Session 2 –RTB 5.1 Ex Ante and Foresight Products Jeroen Groot Presentation of WUR research on impact of RTB technologies at farm and landscape level, which uses on-farm experiments, participatory data collection methods, farm and landscapes modeling, simulation as well as socio-ecological system modeling. WUR proposes model-based identification of efficient policy instruments, and aims to contribute to RTB through crop and technologies evaluation. In addition, both historical and future-oriented analysis of trajectories of change in farms can be evaluated for productive, socio-economic and environmental performance indicators, to show farm dynamics in the context of technology development and the process of rural transformation.

Genowefa Blundo Canto Complexity to study, measure and trigger behavioral changes for development purposes, leaving open the question: how can we actually do that? Stressed the fact that such change occur in the long term, and switched the attention on the importance of social factors as complementary to financial and econometric data. For instance, she mentioned that “a peaceful mind” is an important outcome that should be considered. She defines the “culture of impact” as an institutional choice to understand social value from a systemic view, where every individual has a diverse capacity (to learn, experiment and relate to others). She proposes a model of research which involves four components: participatory transfer, co-deign of innovation, supporting innovation process, open innovation. Lastly, she explained that monitoring and evaluation should be flexible so to allow adjustments in itinere. Tahirou Abdulaye Highlighted the importance of Impact Assessment studies, as used by several donors, governments and stakeholders. Proposes a study which aggregates estimates of multi-country impacts of RTB using traditional rate of return method and focusing on crop varieties and productivity. He proposes to include qualitative description of impact pathways as well as describe attributes of most successful varieties. He points out the following advantages:

• Although Centers have done similar studies in the past, no such study for RTB crops as a whole exists,

• In principle no need for additional data collection (desk study), • Adoption profiles will be build based on existing databases, • Estimate other parameters (cost and benefits) from published papers, • Use simple methods to estimate returns to investments.


6

Steve Prager and Thanasi Petsakos Updating from the PIM meeting in the Philippines were provided and linkages with RTB highlighted. It is stressed the differentiation between Ex ante and Foresight:

Ex ante Foresight

Calculates and predicts Anticipates and explores

Usually few variables of interest Multiple system variables

Quantitative analysis Qualitative and quantitative

It is predicted that the largest change in price under the various productivity scenarios analysed is observed for Roots & Tubers, with a decrease in world price of nearly 30% in 2050. Their main key points on linkages with RTB are the following:

• PIM-GFSF is the only CGIAR project devoted to foresight • Unique in that ALL Centers participate in PIM-GFSF • Easier to approach donors as a group than as individual Centers • Anyone can be a “client” of foresight work: Centers, CRPs, governments, private donors • System level mandate for cross-CRP collaboration • Foresight is now part of the RTB CC5.1 agenda: some alignment with PIM is required

Major opportunities include: co-funding, joint products, model improvements, and contribution from relevant focus areas (Informing research prioritization, Center- and CRP-specific demands, Integration of pests and diseases, Crop specific regional analyses).

CONCLUDING REMARKS • Emphasize funding: our cluster this year got one of the highest budget, but we are not sure next

year if we will get the same amount. We must go beyond just publication and show concrete scientific value.

• Make methods and tools available to all the project and not just one. Balance between complexity and usefulness.

• Define better the concepts - ex post and ex ante are labels, need to look at the synergies and the changes they capture.

• Importance of creating a continuum between ex post and foresight: how to do that? • Cluster 5.1 is the only one that represent all the centres together: challenging, but fundamental

collective effort.


7

Session 3 – Ex Post Impact Assessment Strategies Nancy Johnson

Explanation of SPIA mandate: to provide the CGIAR with timely, objective, and credible information on the impacts at the system level of past CGIAR investments and outputs in terms of the CGIAR SLOs, to provide support to and complement the CGIAR Centers in their ex post impact assessment activities, and to provide feedback to CGIAR priority setting and create synergies by developing links to ex ante assessment and overall planning, monitoring and evaluation functions in the CGIAR. Introduction to the SIAC programme, which builds on important earlier initiatives (particularly DIIVA, poverty studies) and wish to responds to donor demand for more (quantity) and more credible (quality) evidence of impact from CG research – with CGIAR reform, CRPs. Overall, the programme aims to strengthen capacity in the Centers for impact assessment. Next steps will include: filling critical data gaps, gather evidence of development effectiveness, and strengthening capacity.

Romina Cavatassi

Share the IFAD experience (focused on climate smart agriculture) and the IFAD 9 initiative, undertaken to engage in strong impact assessment. Started in 2004 (RIMS) as self-evaluation process for donors (baseline and follow up). IFAD 9 started in 2011 for more rigorous impact assessment. 3 pillars are highlighted: methods, results and lessons. Some problems arose because data collection was done ahead of time and beneficiaries were not always correctly targeted. Additionally, poverty line is a too strict criteria, maybe people are better off but still poor – so now IFAD considers different indicators and not only poverty. Main lesson learned: impact assessment design must go hand in hand with project design. IFAD 10 is more of a result based approach. Impact assessment is exponentially expanding. She says that IFAD seeks collaborations for the data collection, and also when there are technical people needed. She mentions the issue of migration, which is now part of some of their projects. In this sense, Caracciolo pointed out the importance to link RTB strategy to LSMS survey.


8

Presentation of Centres’ Previous Works and Next Steps Suggestions

Who What Where How Why

Tahirou Abdoulaye

Ex-post study on impacts of Yam seed technologies, Impact of adoption of improved Cassava

Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda

Use existing data for Nigeria and Ghana, collect new data in Uganda. Creation of econometric estimates

Does adoption of improved Seed technologies have any significant causal effects on crop yields, incomes, food security, and poverty? What are the adopter-level effects of adoption of improved cassava varieties on crop yields, incomes, and food security? Did activities of YIISFWA Contributed to this outcomes?

Marcel Gatto

Impact of C88 potato China Include existing survey data, and collect new data

What are determinants of adoption in rural highlands? What are effects of C88 on income and food security in winter season?

Enoch Kikulwe

BXW control technologies impact assessment

Uganda, DRC

Include existing survey data, and collect new data

Examine the current perceptions on effectiveness of BXW control practices and dissemination channels, assess the impact of training on adoption of control practices, assess the impact of the control measures on banana productivity and income

Ricardo Labarta

Adoption & impacts of soil fertility and erosion control (SFEC) in cassava based system, Impacts of pest & diseases outbreaks under climate change & pest and disease control efforts in cassava based systems

Thailand, Vietnam

Include existing survey data, and new data collection is already planned

Study determinants of adoption of SFEC exploiting the gender analysis and efficacy of extension models, Study impacts of the adoption of SFEC on crop productivity, farm income, food security and expenditures, study the uptake of different pest & disease management promoted and different models of dissemination, study impacts of pest and disease management on crop productivity, farm/community resilience, gender & others


9

Session 4 – Concept Notes and Resource Mobilization Strategies Jeff Alwang Provides a deep and detailed theoretical overview of the rural transformation concept. Focuses on off farm jobs, markets and migration. Suggest to rethink survey to better capture what is going on on- farms but also on the local economy.

Concluding Remarks

• Decided “Rural Transformation” as brand for global assessment. • Improved varieties technology adoption as well as pest and diseases – case studies on

stabilization of agricultural production to understand rural transformation (contribution to strategic SLO framework). How to put all these elements together to contribute to the cigar?

• How to define the added value of our collaborative framework? How do we justify past investments and convince to provide new ones? How to pack our proposal in an innovative way?

• Use what is available already. Can we use existing data to develop hypothesis on rural transformation studies? We have mostly expert interviews, then few field data collection.

• Importance of a feedback loop between Ex Ante, Foresight and Ex Post. • Need to identify rural transformation drivers and link them to RTB, and establish a relationship

between RTB interventions and drivers processes.

Session 5 – Conclusion and Next Steps The meeting started by summarizing the closure of day 2, then a group activity was organize to attempt an operationalization of the strategy. Marcel gave a brief presentation on his view of rural transformation: starting from micro level (technology innovation) then meso level (emergence of leading sector) and then macro level where the transformation occurs.


10

Marcel made a table with drivers (technology push, emergence of sector, and gradual transformation) and suggested indicators, highlighting the need to choose what we would like to focus on. He suggest to look at off-farm employment as big part of rural transformation, Caracciolo agrees stressing the fact that more technology leads to less farm employment.

Stressed the role of Ex Post: to understand when and where and what innovation has the potential to cause shift in livelihoods. In other words: what’s working? It is therefore important to look at something that is overlooked by other clusters and researchers, and to understand linkages, processes and causalities.

Stressed the role of Ex Ante and Foresight: identify RTB hotspots offering key opportunities and challenges, and provide RTB with foresight scenario analysis. Farm and landscape level model can be developed to see what happens with land expansion, in terms of farm size and structure, on-farm and off farm income, changes in livelihood strategy and impact on environment. NB. Look at employment and cross-cutting issues.

Figure 2 Ex Post Brainstorming Figure 1 Ex Ante Brainstorming


11

Brainstorming Summary GOAL: By 2017 develop a common proposal presenting some evidence to show the relevance of RTB for rural transformation

• Key priority is to identify the case studies/countries we want to focus on, trying to combine every centre interest (before the Nairobi meeting?)

• These studies by looking at key opportunities/challenges will identify key RTB hotspots • The research question is: how is RTB affecting rural transformation? (needs to be articulated

better) • Data collection: through panel (baseline 2018) and cross section analyses. Applying mixed

methods (quanti, quali). • Process: It would start complementary but looking at different aspects, as the information starts

to come out and we begin to see impacts, FORESIGHT can create scenario analysis • Key concerns: go beyond productivity and be innovative to show long-term and multiple effects

on society. Measure development impacts of research by looking at multiplier effects and feedbacks.

• Question open: do we want the case studies to focus on the same things in different countries, or look at different things in different countries?

• Areas of interest: livelihood diversification (on farm, off farm, migration), productivity, nutrition, social inclusion (gender, youth)

Concluding Remarks Highlighted the need to be:

– Visible (communicate about your work) – Adding value (strategically embed ourselves in other FP projects) – Output_oriented (high quality science outputs around which we can make noise) – Trust-worthy (we deliver on our promises) – Innovative (new themes/ think out of the box) – Strategic and pragmatic (pro-active and action-oriented – e.g. involve different centres,

different geographies) – Strong as a team that is worth the investment – Collaborate around concrete themes and

topics

Open Questions At the end of 2017 - what will be the CC5.1 pitch? What exciting result will the cluster have produced that ensures its continuity?

– Concepts ling research to Rural Transformation – Methods use the Rural Transformation concept to establish a continuum between ex

ante, foresight and ex post impact assessment


12

– Outputs a concept note articulating our thinking around the two points above described

• Who has an interest in this? Who is our target audience? SPIA, MBGF, USAID • What theme(s)/ topic(s) will be the glue of CC5.1 developing a concept note around the idea of rural transformation will glue us all around a same topic? • Is this product worth $800,000? Is the return on investment substantial? Establishing a continuum between ex ante, foresight and ex post is a methodologies advance that is definitely worthy the investment • Why is this important for RTB, CGIAR and the broader donor community developing pathways linking research to development is manatee for the CGIAR • Who is going to take the lead? Overall and at centre level? the cluster leader • Timeline for delivery? Planning with clear & attainable targets… outlined in the report above • What will be the role of non-CG centres? they will contribute to the proposal ( WUR for ex ante analysis and CIRAD in developing impact pathway. The role of each of us will become cleared in Nairobi • How do we ensure that others are aware of what we are doing (e.g. newsletter)? Participation to the Food Security Conference Symposium

Action Points Timeline Action

June • Report Circulation • Feedback consolidation • Case studies identification • Literature review of rural transformation

July • Case studies definitive choice after the Nairobi meeting • Feedback consolidation and decision on next steps • Literature review on rural transformation

August September • Joint Proposal

• Report of previous activities (collaborative paper on RTB contribution to rural transformation)

October • Joint Proposal • Report of previous activities

November • Joint Proposal • Report of previous activities

December • Joint Proposal final draft • Report of previous activities


13

Further Feedback

(1) Crop specific papers can be uploaded at the end of the year as unplanned. Possibility to focus on 1 joint paper, careful not to be over ambitious.

(2) No new funding can be expected from RTB for those joint outputs so 2 options: a. Fund consultant from part of earmarked funds from each center (pooled), b. Prepare a 1 week write shop to come up with advanced draft that can be finalize online

(or start with advance draft and finalize at writeshop), c. We did discuss the offer from Graham to pay page charges. The centers are often willing

to pay page charges as well, so perhaps Graham could provide the RTB funds for page charges to cover partial costs of consultant and/or post doc.

d. One week write shop is probably more expensive than a consultant. (3) Crop specific papers are not written in the MEL of RTB (4) Another activity is a report on how PS results are being used by RTB and/or other – this needs

attention and leader also. This can be included in the after-action review. (5) Ricardo will be our contact in CIAT to advance the plans of publications (need to add him to calls).

Each group of scientists have their own plan for the crop-specific papers. With CIP-based analysis and a short term post doc, Guy can lead the paper on the expert survey. Diemuth is keen on the after action review and paper and Charles Staver can support her on that, but we need time from others who were involved to ensure a broad reflection on process and uptake.


14

Participants Name Surname Institution

Elisabetta Gotor Bioversity

Marc Schut WUR - IITA Jeroen Groot WUR

Genowefa Blundo Canto CIRAD Tahirou Abdoulaye IITA Steve Prager CIAT-PIM

Thanasi Petsakos CIP Nancy Jonson FAO

Romina Cavatassi IFAD Enoch Kikulwe Bioversity

Ricardo Labarta CIAT Jeff Alwang VirginiaTech

Francesco Caracciolo University of Naples Marta Kozica Bioversity Flavia Scafetti Bioversity

rtb cluster 5.1 planning meeting...cluster 5.1 for the 2017 -19 period will be organized with the...

Documents