Report of the CGIAR Site Integration National Consultation Workshop for Nigeria Workshop Participants at the Sandralia Hotel in Abuja on 16th & 17th November 2015 1 The meeting was facilitated and documented by the Institute for People, Innovation and Change in Organizations – Eastern Africa (PICO-EA). This report documents the Site Integration National Consultation Workshop for Nigeria held on 16th and 17th November 2015 at Sandralia Hotel, Abuja, Nigeria. THIS IS MEANT TO BE A REFERENCE DOCUMENT for participants and provides details of what transpired. Essentially, all results of the key note presentations, working groups and plenary sessions are reported as they were presented. It is not a synthesis report but a verbatim documentation of the proceedings and outcomes without interpretation. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) conducts research on various issues through 15 centers distributed in different countries across the world. National research institutes and other development agencies also work on related aspects of agricultural value chains alongside the CGIAR initiatives. Due to lack of, or weak mechanisms to harmonize the operations of these multiple partners, there is a possibility for duplication of efforts and resource wastage especially where several institutions are conducting similar research in isolation in a given site. In order to address the above challenge, the CGIAR and development partners mandated the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) to lead a process of integrating research activities and sites in Nigeria, one of the 20 selected countries for site integration in the world. Towards this effort, a national consultation workshop for Nigeria was held in Abuja Nigeria on 16th and 17th November 2015. The workshop focused on: Understanding Nigeria’s agricultural research and development strategy; Mapping the CGIAR activities and sites in the country; Developing a common understanding of integration and key principles to be considered; Identifying the roles of various stakeholders in the integration process and; Developing a framework for integration. The main outcomes of the workshop were:  Elements of integration: Participants agreed that effective integration must entail pursuit of common goals, joint action plans, collaboration, inclusiveness, co-ownership and communication.  Integration principles: When selecting sites and issues, consideration must be given to opportunities for value addition on the collaboration and alignment with major issues. To effectively integrate work, there must be local ownership, institutional commitment at the highest level and open dialogue.  Harmonizing focus: There is need to harmonize Consortium Research Program (CRP) thematic focus with priority ARD challenges in Nigeria, while building synergies on the on-going major initiatives such as the agricultural transformation agenda for productivity and sustainability.  Operationalizing the integration: Implementation of an integrated approach requires the understanding of key challenges, guiding principles and specific steps on six important issues – project development, resource mobilization, partnerships, coordination, monitoring and evaluation, and communication.  Integration framework: A comprehensive integration plan must comprise stakeholder consultations to identify the issue/problem, sites and partners. It must also specify the steps for project development and implementation.  Lessons for future planning: The national consultation workshop in Nigeria offered important insights on the need for stakeholder inclusion; collaboration among 3 government entities and CGIAR Centers; understanding national strategies and; scheduling of integration meetings to provide adequate time for discussions and synchronizing such meetings with government calendars to ensure effective government presence and participation so as to create local ownership of the outcomes. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Eexecutive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 7 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Background and Context ..................................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Objectives of the Workshop ............................................................................................................. 10 1.3 Workshop Agenda............................................................................................................................. 10 2. Workshop Process............................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Welcome and Opening Remarks....................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Participant Introductions and Expectations...................................................................................... 11 2.3 PICO-EA Facilitation Values ............................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Meeting Process and Co-Management............................................................................................. 13 3. Scene Setting........................................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Context and Why We Are Here ......................................................................................................... 14 3.2 CGIAR in Nigeria ................................................................................................................................ 16 3.3 Strategic Agenda of Nigerian Government for ARD ......................................................................... 17 4. 5. Meaning and Principles of Integration................................................................................................ 19 Harmonizing CRP Themes with Priority Challenges in Nigeria ........................................................... 22 5.1 Main CRP Themes in Nigeria ............................................................................................................. 22 5.2 Priority ARD Challenges in Nigeria .................................................................................................... 23 6. 7. 8. 9. Operational Aspects of Integration..................................................................................................... 24 Towards an Integration Framework ................................................................................................... 29 Lessons Learned from the National Consultation Workshop ............................................................. 41 Next Steps, Evaluation and Close........................................................................................................ 42 9.1 Next Steps ......................................................................................................................................... 42 9.2 Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 42 5 9.3 Closing Remarks ................................................................................................................................ 43 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 44 Appendix 1: List of Participants .............................................................................................................. 44 Appendix 2: Workshop Agenda .............................................................................................................. 49 Appendix 3: PSG Reflections on the National Consultation Process ...................................................... 50 6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary Agenda for the National Consultation in Nigeria .......................................................... 10 Table 2: Participants’ Expectations ............................................................................................................. 12 Table 3: CGIAR Research Programs............................................................................................................. 16 Table 4: Participants’ Understanding of “What Integration Means …” ...................................................... 19 Table 5: Meaning of Integration ................................................................................................................. 20 Table 6: Integration Principles/Guidelines.................................................................................................. 21 Table 7: Main CRP Thematic Focus in Nigeria............................................................................................. 22 Table 8: Priority ARD Challenges for Integration in Nigeria ........................................................................ 23 Table 9: On-going and Planned Initiatives with Potential for Integrated Action ........................................ 24 Table 10: Important Operational Issues Raised by Input Presentations .................................................... 25 Table 11: Possible Structure of an Integration Plan.................................................................................... 30 Table 12: Project Development .................................................................................................................. 32 Table 13: Resourcing ................................................................................................................................... 33 Table 14: Partners and Partnership Management...................................................................................... 33 Table 15: Governance and Coordination .................................................................................................... 34 Table 16: Monitoring and Evaluation.......................................................................................................... 35 Table 17: Communication ........................................................................................................................... 36 Table 18: Proposed Integration Planning Framework ................................................................................ 37 Table 19: Participants’ Evaluation of the Workshop .................................................................................. 42 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: PICO-EA Core Facilitation Values ................................................................................................. 13 Figure 2: An Example of the PSG Meeting .................................................................................................. 14 Figure 3: Distribution of CGIAR Centers and CRPs in Nigeria ...................................................................... 17 Figure 4: A sub-group of Stakeholders working on a synopsis of the National Strategy ............................ 18 Figure 5: Illustration of the Integration Process.......................................................................................... 29 Figure 6: Working Group Discussions on Operational Aspects of Integration ............................................ 32 7 ACRONYMS ARD CGIAR CRP GCARD GFAR IITA PICO-EA PSG R&D R4D Agricultural Research and Development Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Consortium Research Program Global Consortium on Agricultural Research and Development Global Forum on Agricultural Research International Institute for Tropical Agriculture Institute for People, Innovations and Change in Organization – Eastern Africa Process Steering Group Research and Development Research for Development 8 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Context The Consortium of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Centers has launched the 2nd generation of Consortium Research Programs (CRPIIs), a portfolio of integrated research agendas to more effectively contribute to the objectives and targets set by the Strategic Results Framework of CGIAR. Previously research topics and sites have been picked independently by centers for CRPs work in countries that may not be ideal from a CGIAR system point of view. Therefore, it was suggested that (a) the CRPs and Centers develop a more integrated and strategic portfolio of research activities in countries and (b) they review and rationalize (which may include reducing) the number, location, and scale of the field sites in a country from a national and CGIAR system perspective. Further, this integration should be undertaken in consultation with the countries involved in order that the research is contributing to their agricultural goals. The national consultation is, therefore, part of and feeds into the Global Consortium on Agricultural Research and Development (GCARD 3) process (http://www.gfar.net/about-gcard and http://gcard3.cgiar.org/). Consequently, all CGIAR Centers and their respective CRPs, in order to ensure coordination of Research for Development (R4D) activities, are in the process of developing country and site integration plans which will bring together the work of CGIAR Centers and programs in key countries, where innovations are expected to reach millions of people. A key dimension of this increased integration aims to focus on improving coordination and collaboration within selected geographies, meaning ‘site integration’ which is largely expected to take place at country level and, as appropriate, within specific field research sites. Country and site integration entails the preparation of integration plans, including carrying out necessary consultations with national partners and stakeholders as a vital step in this process. Nigeria is among the six countries selected by the Consortium for piloting the integrated approach because of the many CRPs and Centers with plans for continued investment. Importantly, there is the potential to achieve research outcomes at scale, if the CGIAR can better coordinate research contributions and link them with the major agricultural research and development initiative undertaken in Nigeria. It is expected that the site integration/collaboration plans developed in any particular country will have to be included in the CRPII proposals showing how the CG Centers and CRPs are going to work together while also aligning with the national strategies and priorities. Following on this, a national consultation workshop for Nigeria was held at the Sandralia hotel in Abuja on 16th and 17th November 2015. Participants at the workshop were: federal and state government 9 representatives in Nigeria, CGIAR researchers working in Nigeria, donor organizations and other stakeholder groups including farmer associations and input suppliers. The list of participants is provided in Appendix 1. 1.2 Objectives of the Workshop      To understand the country’s ARD strategy and plans for agricultural R&D To get a common understanding on how various groups contribute to the R&D goals and targets To agree on basicprinciplesfor achieving(improved)integration To develop an integration framework as a first step towards a plan to realize the country’s R&D goals and targets To identify key operational elements in the context of an integrated approach including: o Progress tracking and assessing impact o Resourcing modalities o Communication o Governance and coordination. 1.3 Workshop Agenda A summary of the workshop agenda is shown in Table 1, while the detailed agenda is presented in Appendix 2. Table 1: Summary Agenda for the National Consultation in Nigeria Day 1 Day 2  Welcome and opening remarks  Overnight thoughts & recap of Day 1  Introductions, expectations & process  Operational aspects of integration (resourcing mechanisms, progress tracking & impact  Current status (CGIAR & national ARD assessment, communication, governance agenda) structure & coordination of integrated  Gaps & opportunities for integrated approach) implementation  Towards integration framework  Principles for site selection/integration  Next steps, evaluation & close 2. WORKSHOP PROCESS 2.1 Welcome and Opening Remarks The workshop was officially opened by a representative of the Permanent Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, who assured participants of the Nigerian government’s commitment to supporting the integration process. Godwin Atser (IITA-Ibadan) then invited Kenton Dashiell (Deputy Director General for Partnership and Capacity Development, IITA) to welcome participants. In his remarks, Kenton Dashiell emphasized the importance of Nigeria in 10 being the first country where the CGIAR is piloting the site integration concept. He encouraged all participants to freely share their perspectives on the integration. On behalf of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) and the CG Consortium, Kwesi Atta-Krah (Director of Humidtropics CRP) informed participants that the site integration initiative is part of the GCARD 3 process which seeks to ensure all voices are represented in the consultative process. The Agriculture Development Partners’ Working Group representative, Atsuko Toda (Country Representative, International Fund for Agricultural Development) noted that donors are investing over 1.5 billion dollars in agriculture in Nigeria. She asked participants to actively engage in priority identification for investment. Ed Rege summarized the key message from these opening remarks as – a commitment to working better together. He challenged participants to think of how to achieve these aspects during the two-day workshop. 2.2 Participant Introductions and Expectations The facilitator asked participants to familiarize themselves with each other and share their expectations through the following task:     At a table, sit with people you do not know well yet Get to know each other – names, institutional affiliations and roles Share why you think your presence at this meeting matters Looking ahead to the meeting itself (the two days) o What should happen for you to consider it a success – 2 green meta-cards o What should NOT happen – 2 yellow meta-cards o Why your presence matters here? The main expectations from participants on what should happen and what should not happen in the site integration national consultation meeting are presented in Table 2. 11 Table 2: Participants’ Expectations What should happen for it to be a success                      Develop framework for working together Feasible action plan for integration of development partners/synergistic collaboration Programs being beneficial and relevant Communication tools for clarity of messages Transparency and openness among stakeholders Actionable plans Increased funding for research Integration plan aligned to national policy Understanding areas for research and development intervention How to get research results to farmers Non-implementation of meeting outcomes x2 Non-demand driven outcomes Not reaching agreements x3 Talk shows x2 Self-centered talks x3 Lateness Unnecessary arguments Use of phone and laptops No specific action plan Bias in the process Loss of focus The facilitator shared with participants the core values of PICO-EA facilitation, some of which are similar to the expectations raised by participants. Adhering to these values enables smooth running of meetings. 2.3 PICO-EA facilitation Values In meetings and events facilitated by PICO-EA, participants are always encouraged to observe and practice key values that include: inclusiveness; constructive criticism and; informality with discipline (Figure 1). What should NOT happen 12 Figure 1: PICO-EA Core Facilitation Values 2.4 Meeting Process and Co-Management The workshop was conducted through participatory flexible methods comprising: key note presentations to introduce major aspects; group buzz sessions at tables; working groups in break-out sessions and; plenary discussions. Each participant was given a chance to contribute to discussions by asking questions, making comments and suggestions on various aspects discussed. At the beginning of each day, participants were asked to reflect individually for one minute on the previous day’s activities and identify the main learning and/or observations. These were reported per table group and discussed in the plenary before implementation of each day’s agenda commenced. Through this inclusive approach, important insights and lessons were captured and used to enhance the workshop process and obtain outcomes that represent individual and shared interests. In order to stimulate learning and experience sharing, presentations were done using a combination of simple visual aids including meta-cards, posters, flip charts and PowerPoint slides. The meeting was facilitated and documented by PICO-EA; Ed Rege and David Jakinda. Workshop logistics support was managed by Ezinne Ibe and other secretariat members from the IITA. A Process Steering Group (PSG) was formed prior to the meeting. The PSG’s role was to: ensure workshop room arrangement and facilities were organized to suit different session tasks; observe dynamics in the meeting and suggest ways of enhancing participation by all; strategize on the best processes that would optimize on available resources including time, participants’ experiences and discussions, and refine the agenda to ensure the meeting was on track and 13 that discussions helped to achieve the objectives of the meeting. At regular intervals during each day, the PSG held brief meetings to reflect on progress made and to identify areas that needed improvement in subsequent sessions. A summary of the PSG observations is provided in Appendix 3. The PSG approach was deemed appropriate in enhancing participants’ sense of ownership of the workshop process, so as to improve the acceptability of outcomes to those who would be expected to implement and/or use such outcomes in future. One of the PSG meetings is illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2: An Example of the PSG Meeting 3. SCENE SETTING In order to provide a clear background and set the tone for the consultation meeting, various key presentations were made on the context of the CGIAR work, its activities in Nigeria and the main priorities of the Nigerian government regarding agriculture development. 3.1 Context and why we are here This presentation was made by Kwesi Atta-Krah who noted that the CGIAR has 15 centers (IITA included) that have worked with various partners on diverse issues for over 40 years. IITA has its head office in Ibadan, Nigeria. Kwesi Atta-Krah explained that in 2012, the Consortium of the CGIAR was formed with the aim of fostering multi-center broader partnerships by working along 15 CRPs on a range of issues. He mentioned that IITA was mandated by the CGIAR to spearhead the integration process in Nigeria, which involves among other activities, to review 14 progress made from the 1st cycle of CRPs and inform the integration process before the launch of the 2nd cycle of CRPs in 2017. The integration process involves exploring possibilities and modalities for:  Integration within sites  Rationalization of sites in country  Country coordination of CGIAR activities  Better thematic alignment  Enhanced strategic engagement with country entities – R&D pathway  Coordinated CGIAR Some 20 countries from those in which CGIAR Centers work have been identified for integration; 15 of them are in Africa. Six of the 20 countries (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Tanzania and Vietnam) have been selected as top priority for integration. The key elements for consideration in the integration process are:  A sustained mechanism for collaboration  Ongoing dialogue and engagement with partners and stakeholders  Collective meeting of the goals and targets of the strategic results framework and country strategies – with clear country outcomes  Alignment of CGIAR research activities  Joint research outputs and public goods  Use of a common set of research sites  Greater delivery and scaling of CGIAR research  Streamlining policy engagement Kwesi informed participants that the national consultation workshop was meant to begin the thinking process towards integration and their presence was highly valued due to the expectation that everyone in the meeting had some unique contribution to make in the thinking process. He stated that ‘we are here’ to build collective understanding and commitment to engage together in reaching the major development targets by:  Engaging and partnering with a wide range of stakeholders, as necessary ingredients to plan and implement research for better impact.  Finding synergies and ways to better collaborate and coordinate the research activities of the CRPs with country entities in their common geographies.  Learning about priorities and activities in agriculture, development and other related sectors in the countries, for better alignment towards important development goals.  Providing useful input into the development of the Integration Plan. Ed Rege emphasized the key messages from this presentation as: collaboration, commitment, integration. 15 3.2 CGIAR in Nigeria Alfred Dixon (Head, Partnership Coordination Office – IITA, Ibadan) gave a brief overview of the CGIAR research programs and its work in Nigeria. He noted that the CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food secure future. The key themes of the CGIAR are:  Reducing rural poverty  Improving food security  Improving nutrition and health  Sustainably managing natural resources In addition, the CGIAR does research on the overarching themes of gender, capacity strengthening and partnerships/stakeholder engagement. The specific CGIAR CRPs are presented in Table 3. Table 3: CGIAR Research Programs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Gene banks Dryland cereals Maize Rice Grain legumes Livestock and fish Policies, institutions markets Roots, tubers and bananas Wheat Aquatic agricultural systems Integrated systems for the humid tropics 12. Agriculture for nutrition and and health 8. 9. 10. 11. 13. Water, land and ecosystems 14. Climate change, agriculture and food security 15. Dryland systems 16. Forests, trees and agroforestry The geographic spread of CGIAR activities in Nigeria is shown in Figure 3. 16 Figure 3: Distribution of CGIAR Centers and CRPs Research Activities in Nigeria In a brief plenary discussion of this presentation, participants asked for specific details on the partners working with CGIAR Centers in different parts of Nigeria. They were also interested in seeing the sites/projects classified by theme and extent of gender inclusion. Ed Rege asked participants to look for convergence, divergence and room for integration between CGIAR and national priorities and activities. 3.3 Strategic Agenda of Nigerian Government for ARD The national agriculture strategy for Nigeria was presented by a representative of the Permanent Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Agriculture who highlighted progress made in increasing food production and reducing imports in the past year. In a plenary discussion of this presentation, participants emphasized the need to consider the following aspects:  Multiple uses of products: Other non-food uses of cassava for example in production of ethanol 17      Farmers’ access to inputs: Provide policies and coordination mechanisms that enable easy access to fertilizers, seeds and technologies. Extension services: Government investment planning should prioritize extension in order to replicate and maintain research station performance and thus improve productivity. Stability of policies: There needs to be an assurance from government that policies/plans being discussed during the integration process will not change drastically in the short run. Recognition of other stakeholders in national planning: Commodity associations and farmer groups should be incorporated in planning process as key stakeholders in agriculture. Irrigation: The development of irrigation systems should be tailored for the different needs of small scale and large scale farmers. In order to get more synthesized insights from this presentation, the PSG meeting held at midday decided to form a small sub-group of about twelve people comprising national stakeholders, representatives of commodity associations and agricultural research councils (Figure 4) to discuss key elements of the national strategy and recent national agriculture policy documents, and report back to the plenary. Figure 4: A Sub-group of Stakeholders Working on a Synopsis of the National Strategy The break-out group noted that the national strategy focuses on the following main aspects: 18     Food security: The aim is to increase productivity, quality, accessibility and profitability along value chains through: o Development of high yielding varieties, hybrids and improved seed systems. o Increased access of farmers to farm inputs e.g., fertilizers, seeds and agro-chemicals. o Good agronomic practices o Capacity building o Climate smart agriculture o Mechanization along the value chains o Access to food and farm inputs o Better land governance o Improved agricultural finance Diversification of the economy: By strengthening value addition and developing market-oriented policy. Job creation Investment o Developing policy to stimulate investment o Creating innovation platform on investment o Align policies with international commitments such as the Malabo declaration and strategic development goals. The synthesis break-out group discussion on the national strategy was held concurrently with other break-out group discussions on the concept on integration. The specific task for this session was: Discuss at your table and agree on three things that describe what integration means. Write on three meta-cards per table – 1 point per card. 4. MEANING AND PRINCIPLES OF INTEGRATION Participants’ feedback on integration is presented in Table 4. Table 4: Participants’ Understanding of “What Integration Means …”     Effective communication among stakeholders and having platform Coordination x2 Alignment of different efforts towards common goal x3 Pooling resources together/sharing of resources/synergizing for common purpose      Developing joint action plan Creating and sharing knowledge Collaborating/working together/team work for common goal Inclusiveness/involvement/joint planning Co-ownership Having enabled participants to gain a common understanding of integration, they were asked to discuss the principles that should guide integration as follows. 19 Given your collective understanding of integration, what principles should be applied in the following stages of integration?  Selecting issues and sites – 2 green cards per table  Integrating work – by different stakeholders – 2 yellow cards per table. The integration definitions and principles/guidelines reported by the table groups were synthesized by the PSG and are summarized in Tables 5 and 6 below. Table 5: Meaning of Integration Integration means? Coming together for common goal:  Team work towards a common goal  Alignment of different efforts towards a common goal  Working together in a more cohesive manner  Common goal and ownership  Coming together from different background to accomplish a common goal  Synergizing for a common purpose Inclusiveness:  Inclusiveness in everything  Involvement of different units Collaboration and alignment:  Collaboration of interrelated units  Collaboration among different stakeholders  Coordination with stakeholders How? Coordination and harmonization:  Harmonizing efforts and approaches etc.  Developing a joint action plan Leading to?  The whole is bigger than the sum of the parts Effective communication:  Effective communication among different stakeholders  Platform for joint dialogue and engagement Sharing:  Sharing of resources  Creating and constant sharing of knowledge 20 Table 6: Integration Principles/Guidelines Principles for issue/site integration Complementary and comparative advantage:  Issues/sites where the CG has comparative advantage to add value (in the collaboration) to existing initiatives and/or to product  Issues that allow the complimentary efforts of the CG Centers/CRPs Relevance and priority:  Select issues /sites that have opportunity for alignment with major initiative or grand development challenge  Relevant to targeted beneficiaries  Allow local ownership for sustainability  High priority and importance to the clients, country Sustainable impact at scale:  Issues/sites with potential for sustainable impact at scale, not small localized impact  Location with large concentration of stakeholders  Sites that are representative (in terms of socioeconomics, targeted beneficiaries and agro ecology) of the issue being addressed  Sites that allow equity and equality of stakeholders Principles for working together Inclusiveness:  All-inclusive process of engagement, project planning and implementation for mutual benefit  Collective responsibility Effective two-way communication:  Consenting framework and constant dialogue between the CG and national program  Clearly defined roles and responsibilities in line with agreed timeline  Open communication that build cordial relationship, mutual understanding and trust Credit sharing/recognition and attribution: Partners should be consistently recognized for their contributions Agreement and institutionalized commitment at the highest level of decision making in the institutions 21 5. HARMONIZING CRP THEMES WITH PRIORITY CHALLENGES IN NIGERIA This session involved discussions on CRP thematic focus in Nigeria, priority ARD challenges and existing initiatives with potential for integration. 5.1 Main CRP Themes in Nigeria Before discussing what Nigeria wants to work with CGIAR on, the facilitator asked CRP leaders to briefly share with participants their key areas/themes of research. These are presented in Table 7. Table 7: Main CRP Thematic Focus in Nigeria CRP Theme Presenter Livestock and Kwesi Atta-Krah fish, and /Acho Okike agriculture for nutrition and health Rice Francis Nwilene Issues to Consider for Integration  Policies that support integration of livestock in different farming systems  Developing separate CRPs on livestock and fish to ensure enough attention to both  Research interventions and policy options for mitigation of micronutrient deficiency, undernutrition, and overnutrition  Seed systems  Mechanization  Value addition – fortified rice  Ex-ante analysis  Innovative extension  Biosafety  Value chains and smallholder constraints  Agricultural transformation – youth and job creation  Implementation challenges to policies and programs – gender issues  Sustainable agro-intensification – reducing degradation, managing water resources, land and water management solutions to different systems  Rural-urban food systems  Landscape management  Developing flood risk maps  Harvesting flood water in a business approach using flood apps  Genetic improvement  Sorghum transformation agenda  Documenting effect of trees for sustainability  Use of drought and remote sensing to predict yields and disease PIM Frank Place Water, land Olufunke Cofie and environment Dryland Hakeem Ajeigbe systems/dryla nd cereals and grain Legumes Gene bank Michael Conservation and utilization of genetic resources Abberton Roots and Olapeju Phorbee  Sweet potato, cassava, yam and banana and plantain tubers improvement 22 Maize wheat and Stephen Mugo Humid tropics Kwesi Atta-Krah           Creating markets for orange fleshed potato Post harvest management - processing Developing stress-tolerant maize Proper mechanization for sustainable intensification Maize seed systems access and gender Developing adaptable wheat for small scale farmers Systems analysis/situational assessment of agro-ecologies Pulling partnerships to respond to the systems needs Strategies for scaling efforts Systems integrating all commodities/multiple CRPs 5.2 Priority ARD Challenges in Nigeria Table groups were formed with at least three Nigerians conversant with ARD in the country per table. The groups were asked to discuss and agree on key challenges that should be addressed in the integration. Task: What are the major ARD challenges that Nigeria should prioritize to address in collaboration with CGIAR Centers over the next 5 – 10 years? The main ARD challenges worth considering in the integration process are given in Table 8. Table 8: Priority ARD Challenges for Integration in Nigeria      Human Capacity building for research and development Developing statistical data Dissemination and extension of technologies and adoption x2 – ICT based modes of mass dissemination Cereal and tree crop improvement including biofortification Germplasm conservation and developing modern tools for genetic improvement/biotechnology        Climate smart agriculture – sustainable ecosystem management in collaboration with CCAFS Business incubation models along the value chains Job creation along value chain - youth agenda Land governance Looking for innovative agricultural research financing and agribusiness development Market access Mechanization – small and medium scale It was emphasized that during the integration process, the CGIAR Centers would be expected to use these suggestions in redefining/recalibrating/reconfiguring their work. Having discussed what matters for Nigeria in the integration process, participants were asked to discuss at the table groups the following task: Discuss and agree on the major on-going or planned ARD initiatives or programs which present opportunities for integration/alignment with the work of CGIAR Centers (what and where). The key initiatives that could be incorporated in the integrated approach are summarized in Table 9. 23 Table 9: On-going and Planned Initiatives with Potential for Integrated Action  Agricultural transformation agenda for  Value chain development program productivity and sustainability (ATAPS)supported by the International Fund for staples crop processing zones Agricultural Development  Reaching Agents of Change (RAC2)  Youth in Agriculture – funded by the African Development Bank  Agricultural Research Technology Transfer Centers (ARTTC)  Biotechnology development agenda  The Introduction of resilient wheat seed  West Africa Agricultural Productivity that is specific to the North East of Nigeria Project in Nigeria - working on aquaculture, rice, sorghum, maize, value  Rural Finance (RUFIN) in Nigeria addition  Feed the Future  Cassava adding value for Africa  USAID- Markets II  GIZ/FMARD project on potato, cassava,  Commercial cassava seed systems – supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates rice, maize Foundation  Nigeria Agriculture Payment Initiative  Sustainable weed management system for (NAPI) cassava systems supported by the Bill &  Agriculture Research Outreach Centers Melinda Gates Foundation (AROCs)  Cassava bread intervention  Adopted Villages  Up-scaling Nigeria flash drying experience  Commercial Agriculture – World Bank for regional trade in West Africa – CORAF/WECARD  YEAP Program 6. OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF INTEGRATION This session consisted of four input presentations and plenary discussions on four operational aspects that should be considered in the integration process. The topics covered and input presenters were:  Resourcing – representative of the Agriculture Donor Working Group (ADWG)  Integrated monitoring and evaluation – IITA monitoring and evaluation team represented by Richard Ofei  Communication – IITA Communications Team (represented by Katherine Lopez)  Governance and Coordination – Frank Place (IFPRI, PIM Program) The main issues noted from the input presentations are summarized in Table 10. 24 Table 10: Important Operational Issues Raised by Input Presentations Operational aspect Issues Raised        The input presentation focused on a summary of on-going initiatives funded by different development partners – what (project focus), where, and funding levels For purposes of the integration discussion, it was suggested that the focus should be on active (and pipeline) projects rather than historical ones. There was a specific discussion on the challenge facing seed systems, and the need for better coordination mechanisms that harmonize community seed systems to ensure farmers access good quality seeds was recognized. Donor agencies need to inform national government/agricultural research council on what they are doing and where (on an on-going basis) – so that their work is integrated with national plans. The integration discussion should reflect on annual/biannual meeting/forum to update partners (government and donors) on what is being funded where – these must be documented and shared frequently among partners. The need for a sustainable coordinated integrated approach: an on-going dialogue platform of implementation partners should bring on board also the development partners. Donor financing including concessionary loans to agriculture must be reflected in the national borrowing plan to ensure accountability. Resourcing – perspectives of Development partners 25    Integrated monitoring and evaluation        The M&E system would need to blend or accommodate approaches used by CGIAR, national research system and development partners. This will be a challenge, but not insurmountable. Need for a centralized monitoring and evaluation approach that captures all projects’ contribution to the country’s development agenda – how to make this approach is a challenge. Consider how to streamline data management tools to generate information comprehensively, and set up mechanism to track common funding arrangements and results achievement. Need to define elements to be built in the site integration plan, indicators to be monitored and assessed, and how to manage the monitoring and evaluation system. How to assess if projects are realizing the indicators set. How to link the centers/initiatives to a central system for ease of monitoring and evaluation. Time concern – how to develop this complex system to be able to meet deadline for integration and resourcing for CRPs by 2017. Establish levels of learning communities at several levels: among national partners; between CG entities and national partners; among CG programs/projects (Internal & Collective). Establish information sharing platform/forum for presentation of data on common indicators and track and document contributions of stakeholders to overall achievements There is urgent need for CRP representatives attending this meeting to report back to their CRP leaders/CGIAR institutions on the deliberations of this workshop so as to help expedite the buy-in and adoption of suggestions made here. Perhaps, the integration team needs to revise their plan to allow for adequate time to incorporate the many dimensions coming from this workshop. A lot of quality conversions among various key stakeholders will be crucial in the next 3-6 months following this workshop. 26    Communications      Aim to develop a communication framework that underpins commitment to improve the effectiveness of communication among CGIAR programs and between the programs and national partners. The main communication goals will be: o engage and stimulate regular communication among partners to generate active interaction and strong collaboration: incorporate the voice of partners o ensure appropriate engagement and communication approaches for planning, delivering research, and putting research into use for development impact To make the integration work, a strong focus of communication will have to be on developing and managing relationships – i.e. partnerships Important considerations will include: Common messaging, branding, work processes, etc. Establishment of on-going platform for dialogue among partners, setting up of platforms for managing/sharing data and information, and training of key partners in communications were considered critical for the success of integration There is need for an innovation platform that bring partners together so as to foster continued interaction, sharing, learning, innovating among partners. In an integrated system, the CGIAR Centers need to consider how to work directly with all actors including farmers rather than working with intermediaries. Integrated communication means facilitating partners to know what is being done by all. The key messages are: o Delivery of outcomes: Consistently recognize that communication and knowledge sharing have a critical role to play in the delivery of outcomes. o Integration: Clusters of activities in full proposals should include description of what approaches and tools will be used to ensure that resulting products or research outputs are taken up by next users/stakeholders. o Commitment: Include communication, partnerships, M&E specialists who will be critical to the successful delivery of outcomes. 27      Key coordination needs: o Priority setting, targeting, funding of research and joint planning o Partnership, capacity and communication strategy o Implementation – co-investment and complementary investment o Synthesis of results and implications o Monitoring and impact assessment Issues and questions to consider: o Can build upon existing site integration team from the CGIAR o How best to involve Nigerian research partners? o How to deal with coordination needs at different scales? o A coordination office with dedicated staff, or something less formal? o What form and structure should the governance take – who should be involved and how can it be effective yet nimble, recognizes and respects independence of partner institutions Coordination for integrated framework needs to bring on board non-traditional actors such as farmer organizations and non-government organizations beyond researchers. Define the space and time for operationalizing the coordination approach. Need for coordination secretariat and stakeholders’ forum – building on synergies from existing platforms at national level. Governance and Coordination 28 7. TOWARDS AN INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK The PSG suggested a matrix that could guide the integration process (Figure 5) in a stepwise manner. Figure 5: Illustration of the Integration Process 29 This proposal was discussed in plenary and formed the basis for the “integration planning framework” developed according to the structure in Table 11 below: Table 11: Possible Structure of an Integration Plan ARD Process Key Challenge in Guiding integrated Principles implementation 1. Problem Identification 2. Project Development 3. Partnership Development & Management 4. Project Implementation 5. M&E 6. Communication 7. Resourcing 8. Governance & Coordination Critical Action Steps Time lines An integrated framework would comprise steps for ensuring inclusive: identification of R&D issues to be tackled, project development, partners and partnership, resourcing, monitoring and evaluation (through adaptive project management), communication (with special emphasis on nurturing the partnerships) and, governance and coordination. Eight breakout groups (corresponding to the above ARD processes/components) advanced the development of the framework guided by the following task: In respect of the topic you are addressing:  What is the specific challenge that ‘integrated implementation’ presents?  What should be the specific guiding principles for making it work?  What are the specific steps for operationalizing it? (Name the stakeholders to be involved, as appropriate). The working group discussions are illustrated in Figure 6. The main outcomes from the breakout discussions are presented in Tables 12 to 17 below. These are summarized in a single “integration planning framework” presented in Table 18. 30 31 Figure 6: Working Group Discussions on Operational Aspects of Integration Table 12: Project Development Challenge Guiding principles Specific steps Agreeing on a common focus/objective/scope of the integrated project Allow transparency, complementarities, inclusiveness, participatory, equity and win-win decisions  Define the various components (Objectives/outcome; output; activities input),  Identify skills and expertise that are required /available. Important stakeholders are: researchers (international and national), farmers groups, NGOs, women and youth groups, private companies, government agencies; donors  Assign tasks and responsibilities  Set time lines  Develop project by compiling all the information gathered  Mobilize financial resources 32 Table 13: Resourcing Challenges                How to harmonize different methods of funding Establishing clearly what is new based on national priorities Alignments of CGIAR with national agenda Accessing resources from national government Lack of continuity due to change due to change in leadership. Current state of the national economy Challenges of financial, material and human resources Harmonization of resource mobilization process Transparency among the stakeholders Joint fund raising process Establishing trust among partners Time frame for achieving resource mobilization Having common idea of research issues and common priorities of projects Identifying research topics of common interest and jointly develop proposal to secure grants Identifying key donor and engaging with them on the proposed projects Guiding principles Specific steps Table 14: Partners and Partnership Management Challenges  Understanding of common goals/shared vision  Effective communication  Differences in ways of working  Clash of interest  Credit sharing  Capacity/knowledge/skill gap Guiding principles  Complementarities  Sincerity of purpose  Clear definition of roles and responsibilities  Transparency  Equity  Credibility  Mutual understanding of purpose  Clarification of shared values Specific steps  Identify the objectives of the partnership  Contents of partnership  Identify the partners  Conduct due diligence of partners  Select partners  Partnership agreement  Implementation  Review meetings 33 Table 15: Governance and Coordination Challenges  Choosing physical site for the coordination office  Turfs and promoting individual institutions above the collective goal  Acceptance of governance or agreements set by the group  Agreeing the roles and responsibilities  Conflicts on mandates between the federal and state governments Guiding principles  A common vision for the collaboration: define scope of work between the CGIAR and the national research system; CGIAR research conducted in collaboration with Nigerian researchers and presented as the collective results. Mutual respect and equality among partners Joint ownership and recognition of all partner roles A coordination mechanism that involves both the CGIAR and the national research system. Integration Coordination office: Coordinator for integration, Communications expert, Monitoring and evaluation expert, Administrative assistant. Technical Steering Group to oversee the research integration (CGIAR and national research system to chair and co-chair). This Steering Committee will review progress made on the intended integrative research agenda, assess its quality and suggest changes in course of action. Development Steering Committee (development representatives). This would ensure that the research is meeting the needs of the agricultural development strategy and goals. The coordination unit therefore will have to present progress of the research community in meeting these goals. The unit will also interface with the donor community as part of the development partners. Location: We would propose Abuja to be the office, hosted by ARCN. Ibadan at IITA is the other candidate. Agreement on the approach to coordination CGIAR site steering committee plus ARCN will establish a task force to establish the coordination office The task force will develop a work plan for establishment of the coordination office Agreement on financing mechanism for the coordination secretary (e.g. coinvestment from the CGIAR and the Nigerian government)        Specific steps     34 Table 16: Monitoring and Evaluation Challenges  Inadequate technical manpower  How to harmonize indicators of the stakeholders and at the various sites Guiding principles  Need for a focal person for each stakeholder to form a community of practice  Training for focal persons who do not have the technical capacity  Stakeholders are willing to share their indicators  Willingness to harmonize their indicators to achieve the site goals Specific steps  Stakeholder mapping (Farmers, Farmer groups, CGIAR, NGOs, Private Sector,             Government etc.) Appointment of focal point persons Training for focal persons who do not have the technical capacity Alignment to vision of the site within the framework national vision Development of objectives (achievable) Development and harmonization of results framework Development of a common data collection tool and instruments (Data Matrix) Develop indicators for the site Share indicators Harmonize indicators Adaptive learning Baseline survey Data collection 35 Table 17: Communication Challenges  No clear articulation of the audiences, objectives, messages, and channels to          be employed Lack of priority given to communication in the research agenda; lack of buy-in from different stakeholders, levels; no resources put on communication Lack of strategy for engaging with partners on communication initiatives. Lack of mechanisms of working together, including the absence of information sharing mechanisms within the system Lack of an internal communication strategy among the stakeholders Lack of willingness to share information among partners Transparency Willingness to work together Attribution Mutual respect Need to conduct stakeholder analysis (including segmentation) – who are our audiences (both internal and external), what information do they need, what tools do they have, what will be the tactics to be used (farmers, CGIAR, NARES, FMARD, NGOs, private organisations, etc.) Identify partners and their roles and accountabilities Set up a robust collaboration platform/mechanisms (for internal and external communication), e.g., a website, e-mail list, face-to-face meetings, conferences, etc. Develop own identity (one voice), e.g., “One CGIAR” Identify resources, including a coordinating communication specialist, equipment, tools, and others Identify list of communication activities and events, that includes audiences, objectives, messages, approaches/ tools/media, budget, timeline Develop an evaluation tool for communication and feedback analysis Guiding principles Specific steps       36 Table 18: Proposed Integration Planning Framework Key Guiding Principles R&D integration Process challenges Critical Action Steps Indicative Timelines (To be developed by Integration Team) Marrying CGIAR mandate of regional and global public goods R&D with national priorities      1. Problem identification – Alignment with national priorities could be based on previous High potential for impact at scale analysis and priorityComparative advantage of the setting CGIAR, including regional and public 2. Engagement of goods content or potential stakeholders, i.e. Opportunity for alignment with researchers (international existing or planned major initiatives and national), farmer Availability of, or possibility to raise, groups, NGOs, women and resources for implementation that youth groups, private delivers desired outcomes companies, government agencies & donors to confirm/agree on problem and intervention components (Objectives/outcome; output; activities) Attention to, and clear articulation of, win-win possibilities - in both processes and ultimate outcomes Unwavering commitment to national and local ownership Institutional commitment by partners at highest level Clear definition of roles and responsibilities based on transparent and objective criteria Commitment to and practice of open and quality communication Clear link between accountability to roles and responsibilities 1. Identify required skills and expertise that are required and where they are or how to get them 2. Agree on responsibilities, ensuring commitment at highest possible levels in partner institutions 3. Develop project that reflect stakeholder priorities as agreed 4. Mobilize required resources 5. Set time lines for delivery on various tasks 1. Problem Identification  Managing the vested interests and expectations of the diverse stakeholders that need to be engaged for integration to really work 2. Project Development      37 Identifying the win-win content of integrated institutional arrangement, connecting to and managing dynamic partner expectations  Partnering and partnership management is key to success of ‘integration’  Choice of partners: Primary beneficiaries, local ownership, required skills, comparative advantage, and sustainability  Full commitment by partners individually and collectively to doing whatever is needed and is possible for the success of the project or program  Commitment to pursuit of mutual respect, space for all voices, transparency in all processes, and towards attainment of win-win outcomes  Commitment to sharing of intellectual credit or recognition  Partnership agreements as critical instruments, but trust and collective ‘good faith’ must be continuously inculcated and will underpin relationships 1. Identify the objectives of the partnership 2. Developing the contents of partnership 3. Identifying the key partners for each integrated initiative 4. Conduct due diligence on partners – to determine what they can contribute … 5. Selection of partners 6. Identifying and selecting lead partner for each initiative 7. Developing and executing a partnership agreement 8. Implementation and ongoing reviews 3. Partnership Development & Management  Transparency, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in implementation process as a key responsibility of all partners – individually & collectively  On-going quality communication among partners  Roles and responsibility may evolve but they are consistently assigned using transparent criteria and attention is paid to capacity development opportunities for partners  Role clarity as a central piece to effective implementation  Conflict management: Efforts will be made to avoid/reduce conflicts, but mechanism will be in place to resolve them when they arise  Sharing of credit arising from the integrated implementation, including joint publications with partners that transparently reflect contributions  On-going focus on sustainability & scaling Ensuring on-going commitment to and focus on delivery by partners; and maintaining mutual trust Steps will depend on the nature of the project; quality interactions among partners will be critical; regular reviews, learning and using learnings to adjust implementation 4. Project Implementation 38 Achieving a harmonized M&E system for integrated implementation which accommodates special needs and requirements of all partners, including donors among partners Communication is the responsibility 1. Establishment of a partnership platform – e.g. of all partners Innovation Platform – that  Partnership nurturing as a core facilitates on-going communications function dialogue among partners,  Commitment to open & quality including national and communication and on-going international development dialogue among partners partners  Investments will be made as needed 2. Development and to address ‘communications capacity implementation of a gaps’ in partner institutions partnership communication strategy that pays special attention to internal communication –and is directly linked to the coordination function 3. Development of capacity of partners in key areas of communication  M&E approaches & tools co-created 1. Identification, with partners appointment & training of  M&E designed and consistently M&E expert focal points in applied as a learning tool partner institutions  Lessons-learning is a collective responsibility & integral to project 2. Adapting/developing implementation blended M&E approach(es)  Capacity in M&E is a recognized that works for all challenge in partner organizations, stakeholders and investments will be made to address this  All stakeholders have equal access to 3. Development of common data collection tools and data generated from the integrated platforms & results implementation framework 4. Establishment of baseline and development of mutually agreed indicators 5. Progress tracking that pays attention to learning and adaptation based on lessons  6. M&E Ensuring that all partners are continuously aware of what is happening and that they have space and a voice, and their voices do count! 5. Communication 39 Establishing a governance and coordination arrangement that is light, context responsive and yet effective and ensures partners work well together without perceived or real loss of institutional independence 8. Governance & Coordination  Joint resource mobilization – by multiple partners  Exploring opportunities for leveraging resources – through partnership with existing and planned initiatives (grants & loans)  Proactive engagement of donors to keep a tab on ARD resourcing possibilities  Using comparative advantages of the range of partners in responding to or developing resource mobilization opportunities  Flexibility: in terms of which partner initiates, applies for & manages resources  Mutual respect and equality of voice among partners.  Joint ownership & recognition of all partners  A governance and coordination mechanism that is developed and endorsed by partners  Governance and coordination practice that is facilitative, nimble and focused on results  A dynamic governance and coordination mechanism that responds to changing needs and circumstances Mobilizing sufficient and quality resources – and from multiplicity of sources - required to support integrated programs that have components along the ‘basic-to-applied’ research continuum Engaging donor national group to identify opportunities – based on ongoing or planned programs 7. Resourcing  Establishment of a governance mechanism – Steering Committee with membership representing all key partners operating under ToRs created/endorsed by all partners  Establishment of a partnership platform which enhances communication, adaptive program management and facilitates coordination  Establishment of a coordination office/secretariat - in Abuja (ARCN) or Ibadan (IITA) with coordinator and communications expert  Transparency in the recruitment of the coordinator and other secretariat staff 40 8. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION WORKSHOP A number of observations that could offer useful lessons for future planning were made by the PSG from the stakeholder discussions in various sessions of the national site integration workshop in Abuja, Nigeria. These were:  Stakeholder composition: considering that the CGIAR Centers in any country usually work with a myriad of stakeholders, participants for a consultative process such as site integration need to be drawn in a manner that includes representatives of all the institutions, thematic areas and sub-sectors concerned. This is particularly important to ensure inclusiveness and avert the feeling of exclusion from some groups. Relationship among government entities at different levels: in determining the roles of various actors at the consultative meetings, consideration must be made on the governance context in the country including the functions of national/federal and regional/local governments. Working together among CGIAR Centers: prior to attending the consultative process, CGIAR Centers within a country need to have preparatory meetings to understand each other’s activities in a particular site/country and harmonize their roles, responsibilities and expectations at the consultative workshops. Ownership of the process: national institutions must be seen to be actively playing a driving role in the consultative process in order to have local buy-in and assurance for implementation of the outcomes. Thus, physical presence and participation of national officials in the identification of workshop objectives, assigning of roles, presentations and moderation of discussions is very critical. Caution must be made to avoid the process being seen as CGIAR-driven. It is important to harmonize the work of government and CGIAR Centers to fully capture local priorities. Understanding national strategy processes and documents: in order to ensure quality participation of stakeholders in the consultative process for integration, it is important to provide national strategy documents as reference materials prior to the meetings. Preparatory meetings among stakeholders before national consultative meetings are also crucial to harmonize thoughts. Timing of the consultative meetings: when planning days for consultative meetings, it is important to consider other national commitments so that the dates chosen are those when key national officials are available to attend. It was noted that cabinet meetings are held in different countries on certain dates; so it is difficult to have participation by top government officials. Complexity of the site integration process: participants realized that the task of integration is a very broad and complex process that requires a lot of consultations over a longer period. Considering this, it is impractical to finalize an integration plan in a twoday meeting. What is possible is to brainstorm and agree on a common understanding 41       of what integration generally mean, identify principles for integration and suggest a framework that can possibly guide the integration process. 9. NEXT STEPS, EVALUATION AND CLOSE 9.1 Next steps What When Confirmation of integration steering November 17th 2015 committee (CGIAR Centers and stakeholder institutions) focal points Workshop report submission to Alfred Dec 4th 2015 Consultation with CG focal points to agree on draft integration plan (what and how) Share the integration plan with stakeholders, Consortium, CRP Directors and GFAR Finalize integration plan, share with stakeholders and submit to Consortium and December 2015 to January 29th 2016 January 29th 2016 Who The Integration team (Alfred Dixon) Emerge Africa (Ed Rege & David Jakinda) Alfred Dixon Alfred Dixon February 15th 2015 Alfred Dixon 9.2 Evaluation In order to provide feedback for improvement of future consultations on integration, participants were asked to evaluate the workshop by discussing in table groups and agreeing on two points per table regarding the following aspects:  What I liked about this workshop was ….? (2 green meta-cards).  What could have been better ….? (2 pink meta-cards)  An inspiration or learning I am taking away from this meeting ….? (2 white meta-cards). The harmonized responses from the table groups are presented in Table 19. Table 19: Participants’ Evaluation of the Workshop  Organization and coordinationx2  Cock tail  Participatory processx2  Workshop achieved set goals  Informative  Effective and well guided moderation  Interactivex2  Facilitationx2  Educative  Wide range of stakeholder attendance  Positive level of engagement What went well 42                  Inadequate representation at state level Time too short – at least 3 days neededx4 Pre-workshop sharing of background materials and reference documentsx3 Early review of presentation from Ministry Stakeholder representation diversity, quality and numbersx2 Donor interest and level of funding in Nigeria Team workx2 Stress-free organization and moderation Integration concept Facilitation is useful skill Maturity of participants and inclusiveness CGIAR’s deliberate move towards integration Motivation and commitment by participants Learning of new concepts from stakeholders Exciting future for Nigeria Togetherness and joint effort Hope for agriculture 9.3 Closing Remarks In closing the workshop, Alfred thanked participants for their contributions during various sessions of the two-day workshop. He assured them that their deliberations and suggestions captured in the workshop report would be used as a basis for subsequent consultations with all groups of stakeholders. The national consultation workshop in Abuja ended on 17 th November 2015 at 0600 hours. Inspiration/learning I am Taking from this workshop What Could have been better 43 APPENDICES Appendix 1: List of Participants S/No Names Organization International Potato Center (CIP), Country Leader, Nigeria Sahel Capital Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, Abuja Deputy Director, National Universities Commission, Abuja Syngenta Foundation, Nigeria Syngenta Foundation, Nigeria Federation of Agric. Commodity Association of Nigeria Director, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Asst. Director, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Punch Newspapers African Development Bank, Abuja Asst. Director, Federal Department of Agriculture and Extension, FMARD Ag. Director, National Biotechnology Development Agency Premier Seeds Nigeria Limited Asst. Director General, AfricaRice Emerge- Africa (Rapporteur for Facilitator) Email 1 Olapeju Phorbee 2 Temitope Adegoroye o.phorbee@cgiar.org temitopeadegoroye@gmail.com ; temi@sahelcp.com yomi-za@yahoo.com calaunus@yahoo.com iruansi_imonikhe.itoandon@syn genta.com abdoulayefsad@gmail.com sijaminigeriaco@yahoo.com olaakeju@mail.com adelekema63@yahoo.com nnodimovictor@gmail.com j.kaltungo@afdb.org okunlayaadekunle@gmail.com nasiruibra@yahoo.com ogungbileao2000@yahoo.co.uk m.nwalozie@cgiar.org david.jakinda@picoteanea.org 3 Oguntunde Abayomi 4 Lauretta N. Achor 5 Iruansi Itoandon 6 Diop Abdouloye 7 Isaac S. Ojonugwa 8 Akeju M. O. 9 Adeleke M. A. 10 Nnodim O. Victor 11 Kaltungo Joseph 12 Okunlaya Adekunle Musibau 13 Nasiru Ibrahim 14 A. O. Ogungbile 15 Marcel Nwalozie 16 David Jakinda 44 17 Ojo Olawale 18 Olufunke Cofie 19 Kwesi Atta-Krah 20 Evelyn Ohanwusi 21 Michael Abberton 22 Katherine Lopez 23 Kenton Dashiell 24 Frank Place 25 Stephen Mugo 26 S. F. Abimiku 27 Philip O. Bankole 28 Ayuba Musa A. 29 Agadafini Theophilus Young Professionals for Agricultural Development (YPARD), Nigeria International Water Management Institute (IWMI)- West Africa Director, Humidtropics CRP Youth Agripreneur, IITA-Ibadan Head, IITA Genetic Resource Center, Ibadan; representing Genebank CRP Head, IITA-Communications DDG, Partnership and Capacity Development, IITA PIM, IFPRI, Washington CIMMYT-Africa Regional Rep. Director, National Agricultural Seed Council Director (Forestry), Federal Ministry of Environment Federal Ministry of Environment Federal Ministry of Environment Food Farm News, Press Director General, National Agricultural Seed Council Extension Specialist, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Agricultural Team Leader, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) International Fund for Agricultural Development Country Program Officer, International Fund for Agricultural Development lawaleojo@gmail.com o.cofie@cgiar.org k.atta-krah@cgiar.org e.ohanwusi@cgiar.org m.abberton@cgiar.org k.lopez@cgiar.org k.dashiell@cgiar.org f. place@cgiar.org s.mugo@cgiar.org eslasunday@yahoo.com philipbankole@gmail.com audua2002@yahoo.com theophilagadas@yahoo.com foodfarmnews@gmail.com dr.poojo@gmail.com issafola@gmail.com dayo.ogundijo@crs.org t.newman@ifad.org b.odoenena@ifad@org 30 Seun Ayeni 31 Olusegun Ojo 32 Issa Olayiwola 33 Ogundijo Dayo 34 T. Newman 35 Ben Odoemena 45 36 Zidafamor, E. J. Reuben Garba Akintse Deputy Director, National Agricultural Seed Council, Abuja National Export Promotion Council, Abuja National Export Promotion Council, Abuja International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Area Federal Ministry of Environment, Abuja Deputy Director, Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria Technical Program Director and Deputy Chief of Party, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Corporation Commercial Officer, FMARD Commercial Officer, FMARD Notore Chemical Industries, Nigeria Nigerian Women Agro Allied Farmers Association (NIWAAFA) Public Relations Officer, National Cassava Growers Association National Cassava Growers Association Asst. Chief Agric. Officer, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development National Biotechnology Development Agency Director, National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control Federal Ministry of Environment United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) esjzidafamor@gmail.com reubengarba@yahoo.com kasimsq@yahoo.com s.assefa@cgiar.org davinafeel@hotmail.com yndirpaya@yahoo.com 37 38 Kasim A. Ahmed 39 Solomon Assefa 40 Ndifreke Enoh 41 Yarama R. Ndirpaya 42 Charles Iyangbe 43 Kunle Olagunju 44 Ehidiamhen Paul 45 Kafiya R. M. 46 Isaac Mamman 47 RoselineHemen 48 Austine Maduka 49 Emma Y. Kwapwoe 50 Tobaba Ajayi charles.iyangbe@crs.org olagunjuadekunle@ymail.com ehiobohpaul@yahoo.com chitex238@yahoo.com isaac.mamman@notore.com rosehemen@gmail.com; niwaafa@ymail.com tableco20@gmail.com steward.computer@yahoo.co.u k tobabaajayi@yahoo.co.uk sundayuhiene@gmail.com bukar.usman@nafdac.gov.ng oluyemi07@yahoo.com c.ezedinma@unido.org 51 Sunday Uhiene 52 Bukar Ali Usman 53 Egundebi Y. M. 54 Chuma Ezedinma 46 55 Queen Kunde 56 Olatunji Adenola Reporter National President, Maize Association Of Nigeria (MAAN) Crop Production Coordinator, Sasakawa Global 2000, Nigeria Country Rep., International Fund for Agricultural Development President, Federation of Agric. Commodity Association of Nigeria (FACAN) International Food Policy Research Institute, Nigeria Mashala Seeds Nigeria Ltd. Director General, National Biotechnology Development Agency 3D Media, Abuja National Biotechnology Development Agency National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency National Board for Technology Incubation (NBTI) Facilitator, Emerge-Africa Gender Specialist, Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa Head, Partnership Coordination Office, IITA-Ibadan (Focal Person for National Consultation for Nigeria Site Integration) International Livestock Research Institute, Nigeria (representing livestock and Fish, and Agriculture for Nutrition and Health CRPs) queenkunde@yahoo.com tunjiadeadenola@yahoo.co.uk idrisgarko@saa-safe.org at.toda@ifad.org POKEBAKARE@YAHOO.COM g.mavrotas@cgiar.org mashalaseeds@yahoo.co.uk lucy.ogbadu@gmail.com diranx@msn.com achimuguejura@yahoo.com comfort.sesan@nesrea.gov.ng tosin.adekola@nesrea.gov.ng moussaumarmamman@yahoo.c om ed.rege@picoteamea.org aapekey@faraafrica.org a.dixon@cgiar.org 57 Idris Saidu Garko 58 Atsuko Toda 59 P. O. Bakare 60 George Mavrotas 61 Aliyu Dansadan 62 Lucy Ogbadu 63 Diran Onifade 64 Achimugu Ejura Christy 65 Comfort Omokere 66 Adekola Tosin Moussa Umar Mamman 67 68 Ed Rege 69 Ann Apekey 70 Alfred Dixon 71 Acho Okike i.okike@cgiar.org 47 72 Appolo Goma 73 Adebowale A. A. Notore Chemical Industries Limited West and Central African Council For Agricultural Research And Development International Crops Research Institute for The Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) RTB-CRP Officer, IITA-Ibadan OIC, AfricaRice-Nigeria Monsanto IDR-Nigeria Country Rep., African Development Bank, Nigeria Videographer, IITA-Ibadan IITA-Tanzania (Learning Visit for Tanzania National Consultation) IITA-Tanzania (Learning Visit for Tanzania National Consultation) Organizing committee Appolo.goma@notore.com rasaq_adebo@yahoo.com 74 Ajeigbe H. A. 75 Richard Ofei 76 Francis Nwilene 77 Anjorin E. Bamiyo 78 Ousmane Dore 79 Olaoluwa O. Olabode h.ajeigbe@cgiar.org r.ofei@cgiar.org f.nwilene@cgiar.org emmanuel.bamiyo.anjorin@mo nsanto.com o.dore@afdb.org o.olaoluwa@cgiar.org r.kapinga@cgiar.org c.njuguna@cgiar.org 80 Regina Kapinga 81 Catherine Njuguna 82 Godwin Atser 83 Ibe Ezinne 84 Deji Adewunmi 85 Osunde Timilehin IITA-Ibadan IITA-Ibadan IITA-Ibadan IITA-Ibadan g.atser@cgiar.org e.ibe@cgiar.org a.adewunmi@cgiar.org t.osunde@cgiar.org 48 Appendix 2: Workshop Agenda Time November 16, 2015 November 17, 2015 0830 Session 1A: Welcome & opening statements by key stakeholders Overnight thoughts and recap of Day 1 Session 5: Operational aspects of integration 5.1 Resourcing mechanisms – who is funding ARD in Nigeria? What (new) opportunities and options Tea/Coffee Break 1000 Tea/Coffee Break 1030 Session 1B: Introductions, expectations and process Session 2: Current status  Why we are here  CGIAR in Nigeria: What is happening? Where?  National ARD agenda  Plenary/buzz: Towards a common understanding of current status Lunch Break 5.2 Progress tracking and impact assessment – reflections on what needs to change and how 5.3 Communications – what we would need to do differently 5.4 Governance structure & Coordination of an integrated Session 6: Towards an integration framework for Nigeria 1300 Lunch Break 1400 Session 3: Gaps and opportunities for integrated implementation Session 4: Principles for site selection/integration Tea/Coffee Break Session 6: (Continued) Session 7: Next steps, evaluation and close  Next Steps: From an integration framework to a plan Tea/Coffee Break 1600 Session 4 (cont’d) Session 7: (Continued)  Evaluation  Close 49 Appendix 3: PSG Reflections on the National Consultation Process What went well  Participation  Attendance by multiple stakeholders  Facilitation – allowing people to freely express themselves  Brainstorming on integration  Enabling environment for free expression  Buy-in of ‘integration’ What could have been better  Engagement of stakeholders at state and local levels  Absence of strategic national research institutes – how to escalate engagement down to lower levels  Preparatory work during planning e.g. confirming existing strategies, initiatives and documents and providing them as reference materials to participants before hand  Choice of day for meetings to ensure attendance by senior government officials – when they are not attending cabinet meetings  Preparatory meeting of CGIAR Centers before the site integration workshop 50