Meeting+19

toc

** Agenda ** 0. Review action point tracker from last meeting
 * 1) Thematic discussion: sustainability of local IPs
 * 2) Brief follow up from wiki/web clean up
 * 3) Preparations for the closing meeting
 * 4) Update on publications planned and potential help by Terry/Doug for science paper authors
 * 5) AOB e.g. ANYONE HAS ANY OUTCOME STORY TO SHARE?

**Next team meeting**: (tentative) Thursday 7 November 2013 Check the list of action points and find them in red in the minutes below. = Minutes = Attending: Alan Duncan, Simon Langan, Kees Swaans, Beth Cullen, Randall Ritzema, Kindie Getnet, Eva Ludi, Kebebe Ergano, Belay Yazew, Aberra Adie, Via Skype: Josie Tracker, Doug Merrey.

1. Thematic discussion on sustainability of local innovation platforms?
(prepared by Beth/Zelalem)

Platforms have been running for 2 years and in each site forage-based interventions have emerged. Also around platforms there has been work around landscape level interventions. Mostly in Fogera and trimmed down version in other site. This has involved going beyond fodder interventions. Wat-a-Game has been a key tool. The workshops have helped to identify some landscape level issues. IP's have generated many valuable lessons. Good partnerships with local stakeholders - ups and downs but we've come a long way. We've raised expectations among people we have been working with. REgional stakeholders are becoming involved.

Questions:

-How to capitalize on what we've learned? -Do we continue or not? -How do we communicate future plans with stakeholders and how much are they involved in decisions on future? -How will they be facilitated as we go forward?

Are IP's already partly handed over to local partners? Yes, in the first year we led the IP's but thereafter we handed over facilitation to local partners. Lots of discussion on who would facilitate but eventually they were devolved to local NGO's. We drew up partnership agreements connected with innovation funds. Conducted training in Addis on platform facilitation. Training also included Technical Groups. Increasingly co-ordination/facilitation has been handed over to local NGO's. They call meetings, document meetings, lead preparation of action plans.

What do local partners want? Lots of enthusiasm in the sites for the IP's especially as things have moved to developing plans at landscape scale. We need to take a cautious approach to that. In Fogera, there is talk of starting a committee to develop proposals to seek partnerships to bring about implementation.

Options: -drop them all -continue them all -pull back in some of the sites

If we drop them now we waste a lot of resources that have already been put in. In Fogera we've said that we won't be providing more project resources for interventions. They seem ok with that and are being pro-active about seeking funds.

Zelalem pointed to rather negative experiences with RIPPLE. How to avoid repeating that. On their own they are unlikely to keep going. What they need is people going in and backstopping, rather than necessarily needing lots of funds.

At what stage to pull out completely? We are still at a very early stage. NBDC goals were highly ambitious. If we could engage with them for another 3 to 5 years we would be getting somewhere.

Focal topic of NRM has been challenging. There is a chance to refocus the platforms around sustainable intensification. This could lead to greater buy-in.

How can we scale this up? How can we make these replicable? Is it possible to train people in facilitation skills. Need to develop a solid conceptual understanding of what the platforms are really about. Important output of NBDC can be an important way of implementing participatory planning and implementation processes. But there are research questions around how to scale these processes.

Scaling up would be helped by generating evidence around their impact.

Is there financial input to IP's? Are local NGO's being paid. Yes, facilitation costs are being covered and some funds for activities themselves. Real test of sustainability is when people come without being paid.

Andre van Rooyen found that IP's were still functioning 5 years after project pulled out. But Andre's platforms were value chain platforms with strong financial benefits for members.

Fodder has been entry point but in Fogera, for example, there is strong interest in landscape level issues.

For WLE there is very little in terms of operational budget aside that that sits in partner budgets. For WLE, things will move beyond the Ethiopian Highlands. Some interest in use of IP's. Different systems being studies: Lake Victoria, Sudd Wetlands, Nile Delta, Ethiopian highlands. Different issues in each system.

For Humidtropics, Jeldu and Diga have been earmarked as potential Humidtropics field sites and ILRI are keen to continue IP work in those sites using Humidtropics funds.

Belay/Kees and Regional partners developed a concept note following the Bahir Dar meeting that could be interesting to funders.

Very soon we need to have some concrete decisions about what the future of these IP's are so that we can communicate with partners. This needs to be flagged next week at WLE meeting.

2. Brief follow up on wiki/website update
See minutes last team meeting and ensure that people assigned take charge of their respective pages i.e.:
 * Gender - Annette
 * Innovation platforms - Beth, Zelalem etc.
 * Livelihoods - Katherine Snyder and Liza Rebelo
 * Participatory video - to be changed into 'participatory approaches'
 * Policy engagement - Belay + Kees
 * Project Interdependency and Other related projects in the region (Alemseged + Mengistu to add details of their projects on this).

2.1. Gender: Annette is in Diga at the moment for site familiarization visit. Tracy and Beth in collaboration with Nicole? of the WLE have some inputs (3D Participatory resource mapping, WAT-A-GAME exercises, knowledge and resource mappings to be fed to GIS based biophysical and socio economic information, etc.) to be fed to the gender page 2.2. Innovation Platforms' page: This page has continued updates but refinement and restructuring the lay out needs to be done - Tsehay from KMIS with assistance from Zelalem to do this 2.3. Livelihoods page: Beth to talk to Katherine Snyder and pass some materials to KMIS for inclusion in the page. 2.4. Participatory Video and WAT-A-GAME: Beth and Zelalem will update this page with latest materials from recent works 2.5. Policy engagement: Belay and Kees need to feed some materials from the national and regional stakeholders' engagements 2.6. Key Messages for Mahider: Alan and Doug to talk on this 2.7. Project Interdependency: ??? A thought for post NBDC?

3. Preparations for closing meeting
Ideas for closing meeting: 2 days meeting (Nov 14 and 15) suggested. The first day with about 20-30 participants from the higher levels (MoA, ATA, SLM, etc.) over a dinner. A story board + digital story to be displayed to gear the discussion on key lessons and experiences of the NBDC partnership engagements over the past 2-3 years. Apollo with assistance from Elias will develop a digital story for this session. Beth volunteered to take a lead in preparing the story board and configure the whole process. A team consisting: Beth, Zelalem, Apollo, Elias, Randall, Tracy, Simon, Alan, Eva, Belay, Kees, and Ewen to meet on Oct 21 at 10:30am to further discuss and finalize this preparation. Beth will facilitate the discussion on story board development. The second day meeting will include technical experts (including some representatives from project sites - Jeldu/Diga/Fogera) from the various organizations that NBDC has been working with. This will be more of a share fare event. Belay will be facilitating the event. Preparation of materials like DVDs, brochures, books, posters, etc. need to be done ahead of time. There are some materials (examples: IP briefs, participatory community engagement exercises, etc. ) here and there which need to be organized in a form to be communicated to the stakeholders to convey key messages of the NBDC processes. A concept note to verify the feasibility of the activities so far could be developed for actions of future projects like Humidtropics- Alan + Nicole? prepare for a fareshare? There will be group sessions about future policy implementations + future key priority research areas (to be facilitated by Doug) and publicizing what has been done so far and utilization of our outputs and any need from our side to enhance these (to be facilitated by Simon)
 * Introduce floating ideas about closing meeting
 * Get a sense of what team members would like to do/present and whether they'd see a point in having some time just for the team members (and the rest of the closing event open to external parties)
 * Take stock of possible materials that can be presented (get this organised with team members)

4. Update on publications planned and potential help by Terry/Doug for science paper authors
Some of the presentations during the last science workshop could be looked in to for development in to publications. About 8 -9 papers could come out of the total presentations. Some of the Ethiopian authors were approached with the idea, but they did not respond. Simon to follow on this and check if they are interested. This could be an opportunity to the national authors to publish their papers in well known international journals. Once this is verified, Terry could organize a write shop for preparations to write. Alan to talk to Don on the status of the synthesis paper on Livestock Water productivity Simon told a paper on cross-basin lessons will come out next week - Emmy to be communicated on this? Paper to be developed on the outcome stories (IP stories, stories on capacity building work shops, formal training, development of communication tools, arousal of enthusiasm by local stakeholders, etc.) - Alan and Simon to talk to Terry on this. Beth and Annet to synthesize digital stories and M & E materials

See publication pipeline. Most of the papers on pipeline to be published are in the same status as seen on the wiki page (publication pipeline). The lead authors are encouraged to update the exact status of their respective papers otherwise. Kebebe reported that he submitted his paper on agricultural water productivity on 10 October 2013 for review? Doug's paper on institutional history has been submitted to CPWF? when? Josie reported that the paper on political economy is still in draft stage. Beth needs to look in to it. Randall/Beth submitted a paper on Innovation development for review. Beth told that 2 more papers on WAT-A-GAME methodology and outcomes to come by December. Peter to take a lead on this? She also told that the paper on Participatory Video work is 50% complete

5. AOB
An idea for closing events at the three NBDC sites has be raised. Beth to discuss the practicality with the rest of the team and come up with proposals