NBDC+from+the+eyes+of+the+Dragons\is+NBDC+on+the+right+track?

=Goal: To be critical and reflect on the various aspects of the project so that we can be prepared to move forward=

Topics:

 * Connecting science with development
 * Gaps
 * Interventions

Questions:

 * Does the research amount to anything on the ground?
 * What about the project is new?
 * To what degree is irrigation included?
 * What has been/will be the impact of platforms on policy?
 * Are the models effective/usable?
 * Is the transition to participatory methods (including video) worth pursuing?
 * What is the link between the 3 intervention areas?
 * What is the impact of focusing on the interactions of the staff? Does this have any effect of policy?
 * How do we influence policy and NRM at grassroots level
 * Runoff - generation of accumulation?
 * Where is erosion happening - on the slopes or on flatlands?
 * What is the audience for outputs? For whom are they being produced?
 * How can we be proactive and match the government's desire to push forward?
 * What’s our role in engagement? At what level?
 * How does this research support the government?
 * For whom are the maps produced?
 * Is it possible to use a multi-scale approach that feeds into development group and contributes to project planning? (This question was part of the SWOT discussion)
 * How to address gaps?
 * Are there any new technical interventions/inputs?
 * Does new mean effective?
 * Are innovation platforms appropriate for NRM?
 * Is the approach to linear?
 * What does the project have to offer the communities
 * What is attractive to farmers?
 * How many can afford it?
 * Does it answer both global and local problems?
 * What’s the status of participatory models?
 * What looks new in terms of research, and what is emerging?
 * What is our contribution to development outcomes?
 * How do we link different levels of platforms and how do we link to the rest of the world?

Comment from Discussion:

 * 1974 Indonesia rainwater management - upstream/downstream irrigation manual/model(?) has existed for a long time
 * Too much focus on developing models not implementing them
 * There should be more focus on development
 * A handbook on NRM was developed by gov. ministry
 * It is important to summarize interventions and focus on...
 * tools
 * arrangements
 * technical interventions
 * partners at different levels
 * Cropping patterns
 * The ministry is emphasizing irrigation and a move towards market-oriented agriculture
 * Grassroots and policy-level changes require different outputs than research institutions
 * The project is ultimately trying to address livelihoods - how people adopt practices, make decisions, and think is important to understand
 * We must produce outputs for land users
 * Topographic index approach
 * Runoff generation accumulation
 * There was some disagreement over where soil erosion is occurring
 * Unclear how gender is being incorporated - how do impacts affect women?
 * We need more thinking about the how and avoid innovation platforms turning into talk shops
 * Some questions were raised about mapping at different scales
 * Basin?
 * District?
 * Watershed?
 * Should take another look at climate change scenarios because the context is shifting
 * Scale is a big issue
 * SWOT came up a number of times
 * Basic practices lead to hands on interventions
 * Policy making and implementation are real challenges
 * Innovation platforms at different levels
 * Development needs more concrete actions
 * Outputs aren't being used
 * We need a mechanism for putting outputs into practice
 * Local leaders?
 * Must bring science to development
 * Livelihoods aspect produces a number of questions
 * How to address it?
 * Decision-making (individuals, communities, households, etc...)
 * We need a better understanding of the risks, costs, and benefits
 * Need to identify some tangible benefits that are more than minimal
 * Innovation platforms and research process are “new”
 * Technical interventions are “old”
 * Link between technical and platform is new
 * Institutional aspects are new
 * Platform is new but somewhat ad hoc
 * The platform needs more attention
 * Understanding of landscapes, space, and borders is new
 * Types of integration is new (water connects many components of landscape and livelihood)
 * Benefits must also be integrated
 * Gov. & policy cannot integrate as easily as the project
 * Multiple sites/scales is new
 * Recognition of complexity is new
 * 40% failure rate of integration schemes
 * Possibility vs. impact opportunity (?)
 * There are many misconceptions about soil erosion
 * Low slope is the problem (gullies are generated)
 * Topographic index approach is new
 * Results have not yet been quantified
 * Manuals have limits because contexts vary so greatly
 * Mapping/context limit scaling
 * The debate over erosion centered around the location of the erosion and whether or not the analysis/data was correct
 * Development actors
 * Institutional vs. technological
 * The concept of newness is highly contextual
 * Academic vs. applied
 * Better interdisciplinary approach
 * Cannot expect impact over a short time, but we must direct efforts towards it
 * Many at the meeting believed the project is ready for that direction
 * Gender is disaggregated at all levels of research
 * Gender is inherent in the social sciences
 * What do women vs. men vs. landless vs. pastoralists want
 * Innovation platforms are on the cusp of action
 * Innovation funds
 * GIZ in Jedu - engagement with development partners
 * IWMI is potentially a small player at the intervention level
 * Better feedback loops are needed
 * Participatory models are geared towards decision making
 * Science → tools → platforms → farmers
 * Support for planning
 * Research group vs. development actors
 * Learning the watershed approach at smaller watersheds (Oromo)
 * New pilot testing site for smaller watersheds
 * We have made linkages with development partners over the last 2 years
 * Careful not to reinvent the wheel on our own
 * Summarize key interventions
 * Rely on development partners to champion key interventions
 * New institutional models
 * Food aid was given as an example
 * Must distinguish IWMI from previous framework to approach new patterns
 * Happy strategies
 * Staff can contribute to national agenda
 * Time to go beyond N1, N2, N3, etc...
 * Come up with agenda and innovation platform at the national level
 * Discussion about how different projects contribute to the platforms hasn’t happened
 * Virtual network vs. physical meetings
 * Haven’t discussed what to do before national platform meeting in July(?)
 * N4 has different partners, entry point, and strategy
 * Remember that it has only been approx. 2 years
 * Evidence-based not theoretical
 * Research/academic validity must be supplemented by validation from the community
 * Remember to highlight the potential
 * It is important to interact within existing structures