Nile+BDC+'sunrise+strategy';+including+emerging+opportunities+in+the+basin+and+responses+from+Nile+BDC+(3+Groups)

=Group 1:= >
 * How do we take platforms to a higher level
 * Develop a framework and take it forward
 * Must suit donor interests
 * Strong M&E component
 * Research, governance, and institutions
 * How does it fit with CRP?
 * Should it?
 * What are the benefits?
 * The framework can provide an umbrella that the CRPs feed into
 * Technical input is necessary within/outside of the CRPs
 * There should be an international dimension, but we should also
 * Quantify regional impacts
 * Develop a more regionally inclusive component
 * Africa Rising given as an example (5 yr USAID program - feed the future)
 * Connected to ILRI in Ethiopian Highlands
 * It should blend with NBC well
 * Suitable with CPR 1.1 and 1.2
 * Institutionalizing platforms at a higher level
 * Donors and governments
 * Multi-sectoral
 * Donor groups may require government support for platform
 * Perhaps we should focus on this and no on the CRPs
 * Important to remember the following
 * Nile Basin is a highly politicized region
 * There is huge economic interest
 * Must create a platform that accommodates different groups and incorporates continued research

=Group 2:=
 * This group presented two different but related visions
 * Vision 1
 * For NRM to function resilience, equity, and ecosystems must all be managed by a community led effort
 * Innovation platform help make this possible
 * A understanding of different driver is essential
 * Multi-scale is best
 * But it makes it difficult to unite with any one CRP
 * Framed around ecosystem services and integration of water usage and systems
 * Vision 2
 * Vision 2 requires the components of vision 1
 * Shift focus to drivers
 * Population
 * Climate change
 * The transboundary political economy is very important
 * Need more on strategies
 * Kept coming back to basin SRP but we should be more visionary

=Group 3:=
 * Began with the question “what’s the point?”
 * Answer: to improve livelihoods
 * At this point we don’t know how research affects livelihoods
 * All other research fits into livelihoods agenda
 * Livelihoods has been the central driver from the beginning
 * It should not be tacked on or viewed as secondary
 * Understanding livelihoods requires a new research strategy
 * Stakeholder-driven, participatory approach can be very piece-meal
 * An important question is...at what level do we address livelihoods
 * Household
 * Community
 * Individual
 * Basin
 * The termite project was given as an example
 * Community identified
 * Tied to livelihoods
 * Room for improvement
 * The termite project shows that issues related to livelihoods can be viewed through other lenses (livestock, water management, fodder, etc...)
 * The lessons learned from the termite project are a good starting point from which the future of the program can be driven
 * Must be participatory, consultative, and adaptive
 * Identify and adapt more quickly
 * Need a better mechanism for how to make research and projects more adaptive from beginning
 * Feedback is important - what we learn generates something relevant
 * Group three focused more on design strategy than vision - they began their discussion with issues around the different CRPs (poverty, land degradation, and livelihood)
 * A hypothetical was proposed...”assuming there is a change”
 * How is the research relevant/adaptive?
 * Systems are dynamic so economic analysis is necessary
 * How does this research contribute to economic development
 * Some questions
 * What is the scale?
 * Institutional arrangement?
 * The answer is best found in the CRPs
 * Institutional change should be worked into framework from beginning
 * Still talking about landscape as the best scale
 * IPs at different levels
 * Adaptive decision making
 * How to make ecological and economic compatible
 * What are the expected changes 10 or 20 years from now?
 * What are the visible vs. underlying problems?
 * Policy dimension is essential