DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Face-2-Face WorkshopRegional Consultations

West Asia and North Africa Region

10-12 November 2009Bibliotheca Alexandria

Alexandria, Egypt

Facilitated and documentedby Susanna Smets (susannasmets@yahoo.com)

REPORTFace-2-Face Workshop, Regional Consultations

West Asia and North Africa Region

10-12 November, Alexandria, Egypt

Table of content

List of abbreviations 3

Executive summary 4

Introduction 8

Welcome and keynote speech 11

1. Global and regional perspectives 141.1 Global perspective 141.2 Regional perspective 16

2. CGIAR Strategizing exercise 202.1 Strategic results framework and mega programs 202.1 Concerns and advice to strategy team 22

3. Thematic working groups 243.1 Food security and productivity 253.2 Natural resources management 263.3 Livestock, rangelands and fisheries 273.4 Markets and value chain development 29

4. Cross-cutting working groups 314.1 Poverty and socio-economic policies 314.2 Research management and capacity development 344.3 Dissemination, knowledge management and scaling-up 354.4 Climate change 37

5. Prioritizing of researchable issues 395.1 Thematic issues 405.2 Cross-cutting issues 42

6. Key-messages and summary 44

7. Evaluation and acknowledgements 46

2

List of abbreviations

AARINENA: Association of Agriculture Research Institutions in the Near East and North

Africa

AR4D: Agricultural Research for Development

ARC: Agricultural Research Centre

CBO: Community-based Organization

CGIAR: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility

FAO: Food and Agricultural Organization

FO: Farmers Organization

GCARD: Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development

GFAR: Global Forum on Agricultural Research

IAASTD: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology

for Development

ICARDA: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas

ICT: Information and Communications Technology

KM: Knowledge Management

LSF: Large Scale Farmers

MOA: Ministry of Agriculture

MP: Mega Programs

NARES: National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems

NRM: Natural Resource Management

NGO: Non-Government Organization

NRM: Natural Resource Management

PA: Participatory Approach

PR: Public Relations

RPF: Resource Poor Farmers

SRF: Strategic Results Framework

WANA: West Asia and North Africa region

WUA: Water Users Association

3

Executive summary

This report documents the discussions and outputs of the Face-2-Face WANA regional workshop in Alexandria, Egypt, held on 10-12 November 2009.

The workshop’s objectives were to identify:• prioritised agricultural researchable issues to achieve development impact at scale• improved research processes and mechanisms and partnerships that will ensure

greater development impact and poverty reduction

The workshop was attended by 54 participants, representing 18 countries in WANA region, including 29 particpants from NARES, 10 participants from NGOs, farmer organizations and the private sector, 15 participants from regional and international organizations and 3 observers from GFAR.

Following a welcome address from Dr. Ahmed Al Bakri, chair of AARINENA and Dr. Adel El Beltagy, chair of GFAR, Dr. Ismael Serageldin, director of the Bibliotheca Alexandria, delivered an inspiring key-note speech. His presentation focused on: a) the impacts of climate change, b) the importance of water resources, and c) the crucial role and reforms required in agriculture and agricultural research systems to respond to current and future crisis.

Dr. Mark Holderness, executive secretary of GFAR, described the global GCARD process and steps towards Montpellier 2010, followed by Dr. Ibrahim Hamdan setting out the regional process in the WANA region. Dr. Samir El Habbab presented the detailed findings of the regional review and Dr. Mohammed Majdalawi summarized the results of the regional e-consultations. These presentations were important to establish a common understanding and starting point for the group work in the workshop. The subsequent plenary discussion was aimed at challenging and clarifying some of the findings of the WANA regional review and the global process towards GCARD.

The discusison gave a good sense of particpants’ expectations of the Face-2-Face meeting. Critical contributions from farmer organizations provided the audience with the necessary reality check and focus on demand-driven research, leading to tangible impacts.

The Face-2-Face meeting was also an excellent oportunity to seek feedback from the audience on the ongoing strategizing exercise of the CGIAR. In the morning of 11 November, Dr. Stephan Hall delivered a clear presentation on the Strategic Results Framework and Mega Programs proposd by CGIAR. This session was very dynamic with table-discussions in small groups, answering the following questions:

1) whether the proposed MPs are in line with regional needs2) what concerns exists regarding the effectiveness and implementation of MPs3) what advice the audience would like to provide to the CGIAR’s Strategy team

4

It was generally felt that the proposed Mega Programs cover all priority needs in the WANA-region. However, the next level of detail (where, how, who, when) would be crucial to judge whether WANA’s priorities are truly reflected in the allocation of research funding and actual implementation of MPs in the region. It was perceived that the MP on climate change and agriculture has a much higher relevance for WANA region due to its high vulnerability to climate change. Concerns and advice are summarized in the table below.

Concerns Advice to CGIAR

• Limited national research capacity• Ownerhsip of the mega programs • Stakeholder involvement• Governance structure of the MPs• Implementation mechanisms• Transparent M&E system• Knowledge sharing and links with

education systems• Integration / linkages among MPs

• Insufficient funding for MPs

• Capacity development is key! Platform need to be functional and well linked to MPs.

• MPs need to build on a strong national system to ensure links with all stakeholders and ownership

• Research management experience neds t be shared with national systems for large MPs

• Ensure equal partnerships• Involve national and regional centres and centres

outside of CGIAR• MPs need to be designed flexibly to allow for

emerging needs• Establish links among MPs

• Establish learning networks

The Face-2-Face meeting allowed two afternoons for working groups, one session with four thematic working groups on 10 November afternoon, and one session with four cross-cutting working groups on 11 November afternoon.

Thematic working groups Cross-cutting working groups

1. Food security and productivity

2. Natural resources management

3. Livestock, rangelands and

fisheries

4. Markets and value chain

development

1. Poverty and socio-economic policy

2. Research management and capacity

development

3. Dissemination and scaling-up

4. Climate change

The working groups were asked to carry out the following three taks:

a. Review and modify the list of key-researchable issues, resulting from the regional review and e-consultationsb. Based on a common understanding, prioritize the issues based on their potential to achieve development impact at scalec. Identify constraints in current research systems, solutions to overcome such constaints and (new) partners to ensure that research will translate in development impact

5

For both working group session, the groups were asked to prepare a presentation for the next day, which was done diligently by all the groups. A reporter of each working group presented the results to the plenary, followed by a lively round of feedback and comments.

In order to allow all particpants to give their opinion on the most important development needs and key-researchable issues for WANA-region, a “voting” exercise was carried out on the final day for all thematic and cross-cutting key-researchable issues. Each participant was given 12 “votes” (by means of stickers) to distribute freely over all the thematic issues and 12 “votes” to distribute freely over all the cross-cutting issues.

For the thematic issues a total of 502 votes were distributed in total, divided over the four thematic groups as indicated in the figure below.

It was felt that fishery issues were not very well addressed due to lack of participants with such a specialization. Of course, there are overlapping issues and clear linkages between the various thematic groups due to the compelxity ad holistic nature of farming systems. Hence, similar key-researchable issues were discussed in more than one thematic group. Although time-consuming, most participants felt it was worthwhile to revisit the outcomes of the regional review and e-consultations and to arrive at a shared understanding of the priorities for key-researchable issues.

For the cross-cutting issues a total of 467 votes were distributed, divided over the four cross-cutting groups as indicated in the figure below.

It was observed that the group on Research management and capacity development had a certain bias towards scientific interests and goals. It was recognized that due to the group’s compositon the focus migth have been quite inward-looking. However, it was clarified that the demands and relevance of research to achieve develoment impact would be center stage.

The results of the working group discussions, and the prioritization of key-researchable issues through the group-ranking and through the plenary voting exercise can be found in

6

30%

28%

21%

21%

Food security and productivityNatural resources managementLivestock, rangelands and fisheriesMarkets and value chain development

29%

29%

23%

19%

Research management and capacity Climate changePoverty and socio-economic policyDissemination and scaling up

the main text. Please note that this exercise aimed to provide a shared sense of direction in terms of priorities, rather than a scientific approach to ranking.

In terms of existing constraints in the research systems, the groups identified similar barriers and hindering factors to achieve develoment impact. Although it was found “easy” to diagnose the obstacles, it appeared to be much harder to think out of the box and come-up with innovative mechanisms and partnerships to reform the way agriculultural research is carried out to ensure development impact at scale. The following constraints and measures were highlighted by the working groups.

Constraints to translate AR in2 D Proposed measures: more than business as usual?

• Mistrust between farmers and extensionist and researchers• Different “languages” and worldviews of stakeholders• Communication is poor, not enough attention is paid to it• Institutional weaknesses of many organizations• Coordination capacity is weak (national, regional, global)• Funding and human resources are not at all sufficient• Lack of infrastructure and logistical capacity on national level• Low public awareness about importance of AR4D• Incentive systems are not geared towards collaboration• Too high focus on scientific publications • Policy makers and politicians are not on board

• Individualism and illiteracy farmers

• Public awareness campaigns are required on all fronts• Make an evidence-based case to politicians and policy makers• Invest in communicating results and impacts and crossing barriers between farmers, researchers, policy makers and others• Redefine extension and find new models including use of new technologies• Attract private sector funds and use Corporate Social Responsibility agenda• Participatory approach to be applied in all AR4D• Capacity development on all levels, tailored to needs of different groups• Building national alliances to convince policy makers• Use (social) networking for scaling-up

• Organize farmers, CBOs, WUAs, producer groups, etc. involve them in all aspects of AR4D

In terms of (new) partnerships and mechanisms the working groups came up with the following (innovative) ideas:

• Really work more with farmers and grass-root organizations• Identify opinion leaders, tribal leaders to facilitate scaling-up and adoption of results• Work more with women and their (in)formal networks• Work together with policy makers, go beyond the Ministry of Agriculture• Tap experience from new-media firms, Public Relations advisors, ICT firms• Explore public-private partnerships and corporations interested in CSR• Use and mobilize public figures and celebrities as champions in public awareness• Revitalize relationships with existing research and extension partners

7

The Face-2-Face meeting was concluded by short round-table discussion to distill key-messages, which would need to be taken forward to GCARD 2010 in Montpellier. The following key-messages were put forward:

• The impact of climate change in WANA region is huge, natural resources are vulnerable, thus adaptation is a key-issue for the region and matching funding for WANA is needed

• The needs and demands of smallholders need to be central in agrcultural research• AR4D needs to be benefitting the resource poor and food insecure in both urban and

rural communities (widen the perspective beyond the smallholder for WANA region)• Water and food security are critical issues for WANA and thus are top-priority• Protection of the regions vulnerable biodiversity is critical for long-term sustainability

of all AR4D efforts• Capacity development needs in WANA region are large and a requirement for

succesful scaling-up of AR4D• AARINENA is an important network in WANA, which needs to be further

strengthened to support the GCARD agenda

At the end of the workshop Mrs. Susanna Smets, facilitator, provided a brief summary presentation, followed by closing remarks and acknowledgements by Dr. Mark Holderness, Dr. Ahmed Al Bakri and Dr. Adel El Beltagy.

A workshop evaluation form was handed out to participants. The feedback from the workshop participants was across the board very positive and constructive comments were provided. Some particpants felt that certain stakeholder groups were poorly represented, such as NGOs and farmer organizations, especially from North-Africa sub-region. Also, policy and decision-makers were missing at this important workshop and more participation from women and young scientists should be encouraged. From the evaluation it is clear that a lot of new learning, exhange and appraciation of different viewpoints took place, as well as a profound realization that change is required in research systems to achieve development impact for the urban and rural poor.

The meeting was perceived as objective-oriented and many partipants felt that the required outputs were achieved and real progress has been made. The facilitation and content of the discussions was perceived as high quality, although some participants felt that the time for the working groups was limited. The organization of the event was found excellent and the special location and tour in the Bibliotheca Alexandria was very much appreciated by all.

The workshop could not have been a success without the active participation of all attendees, the special efforts of the reporters, presenters and facilitators, the valuable presentations, which stimulated our thinking, the excellent organization by AARINENA, the overall guidance by GCARD and GFAR and the support of the Bibliotheca Alexandria.

8

Introduction

This Face-2-Face meeting was the third element of the GCARD initiative in the West Asia and North Africa region, following the regional review, which was completed August 2009, and the e-consultations, which were completed in September 2009.

The objectives of the Face-2-Face meeting are the following:• To identify the development needs and a matching prioritized list of key-researchable

issues in the WANA region• To identify constraints which hinder the translation of agricultural research into

development impact at scale• To identify solutions how to overcome such constraints, such as:

a. new mechanisms for innovation pathwaysb. changes in the enabling (policy) environment and investmentsc. new partners and partnerships

• To support CGIAR in its strategizing exercise by providing constructive feedback on the proposed Strategic Result Framework and outline of Mega Programs

• To formulate key-messages from the WANA region to be taken to the GCARD in Montpellier in March 2010.

The agenda of the meeting was designed to address all of the above objectives. The layout of this report follows the process followed in the workshop.

1. Global and regional perspectiveThis session included four presentations to establish a common ground for the meeting by providing background information on the global and regional GCARD process:

• Dr. Mark Holderness, Executive Secretary of GFAR, summarizing the rationale and approach for the GCARD 2010 process• Dr. Ibrahim Hamdan, Executive Secretary of AARINENA, summarizing the approach followed in WANA region• Dr. Samir El Habbab, consultant, providing the results of the regional review of research priorities, done in Jul/Aug 2009• Dr. Mohammad Madjalawi, consultant, summarizing the results of the first round of e-consultations done in Sept 2009

2. CGIAR strategizing processThis session included a presentation by Dr. Stephan Hall on the proposals by the CGIAR Strategy Team, such as the Strategic Results Framework and an outline of the Mega Programs, as well as plenary feedback on the proposals.

3. Thematic working groupsThis working group session was focused on three tasks:

• Arrive at a shared understanding by revising the list of key-researchable issues• Carry out a qualitative ranking of the importance of the key-researchable issues to achieve development impact

9

• Identify constraints, innovative solution and (new) partners to enhance development impact

The following thematic working groups were formed:1) Food security and productivity2) Natural resources management3) Livestock, rangeland and fisheries4) Markets and value chain development

The results of the working groups were consequently presented and discussed in the plenary.

4. Cross-cutting working groupsThis working group session followed a similar structure as the thematic working group session. The following thematic working groups were formed:

1) Poverty and socio-economic policies2) Research management and capacity development3) Dissemination and scaling up (including ICT)4) Climate change

All the results of the working groups were presented and discussed in the plenary.

5. Prioritizing of researchable issues through votingBased on the results of the working groups, a voting exercise was done to allow each participant to contribute to the prioritization process. These results are compared with the results of the group ranking.

6. Key-messages for GCARD and summaryThe final plenary session focused on distilling key-messages to be taken forward to the GCARD meeting in Montpellier in 2010. Workshop results were summarized.

7. Evaluation and acknowledgementsParticipants were asked to fill in an evaluation form of the meeting, of which the results are summarized. Closing remarks and acknowledgements concluded the workshop.

A detailed agenda can be found in Annex 1. Annex 2 includes the list of participants and Annex 3 includes the evaluation results. All presentations of the workshop can be found at www.aarinena.org and www.gcardblog.wordpress.com

10

Welcome and keynote address

After welcoming all participants in the Bibiliotheca Alexandria, Dr. Adel El Beltagy, chair of GFAR, handed over to Dr. Ahmed Al Bakri, chair of AARINENA, to deliver his opening remarks. Dr. Al Bakri mentioned that this Face-2-face meeting is the last in a series of regional consultations for the preperations of GCARD in 2010. He underlined the importance of the consultation process in order to: a) reshape the future of agricultural research, b) meet the needs of the poor, in particular smallholders, and c) propose changes in the mechanisms and accountability of agricultural research. He mentioned a number of key-questions that this meeting seeks to answer:

• Are the priorities identified in the regional review and e-consultations truly reflecting the development needs of the region?

• What are the mechanism and partnerships required to deliver development impact?

• What changes are needed in agricultural research, innovation and extension to benefit the poor?

In answering those questions he urged the audience to consider the existing barriers and constraints in our research system and possible ways to resolve those barriers in terms of enabling policies, investments and required capacities. He stressed that sustainability at the farmer-level is key to innovation and encouraged everyone to participate actively to set our common goals for the WANA region. He thanked the Bibliotheca Alexandria for hosting us, GFAR, ICARDA, AARINENA and all involved in the preparation of the workshop.

Dr. El Beltagy spoke about the need to reposition and make our research system more effective and focused on the needs of resource-poor farmers. He referred to the compounding challenges posed by globalization, financial crisis, food crisis and climate change. He mentioned the perverse impact of bio-fuels on food prices and the need to shift towards second-generation non-food bio-fuels. He underlined that the food crisis is not yet over; current food prices are still 40% higher as in 2006/2006 and food crops are still being used for bio-fuels. Hence, there is an urgent need to harness against future crisis through diversification and safety nets. He stressed that changes in AR4D will definitely require strengthening of national systems in order to absorb and help generate new knowledge, adapt it to the local context in line with the needs of the end-users. He concluded that all the “seven leaves” of GFAR1 are expected to act collectively to make a difference for the development world.

The Face-2-Face meeting had the honor to receive a keynote presentation by Dr. Ismael Serageldin, director of the Bibliotheca Alexandria. His presentation covered three areas: a) climate change, b) the importance of water resources and c) the “ten commandments” for reshaping tomorrow’s agriculture. He concluded his keynote by introducing the audience to the cutting-edge work of the Bibliotheca Alexandria in computerized translation between all United Nations’ languages.

On Climate change he stressed that it can no longer be denied, the evidence is out there, and depending on global socio-economic development pathways, it will impact our human 1 The seven leaves in the GFAR logo represent various stakeholders: national and regional research institutes, the CGIAR, the private sector, NGOs, the farming community, governments and donors.

11

and natural resources in a profound way. He communicated the urgency to start with both adaptation and mitigation efforts at the same time. He showed evidence on the global decline in food production and the fact that although developing countries have contributed the least to climate change, they will be hit the hardest. He stressed that climate change impacts are closely related to the hydrological cycle, such as water shortages, sea level rise, ecosystem stress, the increase of extreme events as droughts, floods, hurricanes and the risk of irreversal damage, such as bleaching of coral reefs due to higher levels of ocean acidity. He gave some striking examples of potential impacts, such as the Nile delta with 6 million people affected by 1 meter of sea-level rise. He highlighted the importance of collective action at global and regional levels to harness against climate change impacts, for example joined efforts to dam the Mediterranean to regulate the sea level. He also called for global actions in energy policies, illustrated by the special requirements of various non-fossil energies, such as bio-fuels, solar and wind power, as well as nuclear energy. He stressed the devastating impacts climate change will have on the poor: increased vulnerability, shorter growing seasons, extreme events, increased water scarcity and salinity problems. Innovations in faster growing, drought and salt tolerant crops will be required to deal with these challenges. He advocated a strategic approach, based on public education, awareness raising and behavior change to address unsustainable consumption patterns, waste and pollution. He mentioned that more crop per drop of water will need to be produced to ensure global food security and actions are needed to counterbalance the higher volatility in the food markets. He concluded by challenging the existing distortions in our value-systems and the need to engage with our leaders. A powerful illustration were the costs of the Iraq war of around 20 million dollars per hour, the trillions of dollars invested to bail out banks in the financial crisis, and the “marginal” 65 million dollars of total ODA commitments, pledged in Monterrey.

On water resources, Dr. Serageldin highlighted the availability and pollution of waters as the key-issues we are facing. He showed evidence on projected snowmelt in the Himalayas, impacting on the livelihoods of 1.3 billion people, with many environmental refugees as a likely result. Already 50% of the world’s wetlands have been lost and around 10% of global grain production is depending on unsustainable groundwater depletion. He mentioned that results of water resources depletion have contributed significantly to environmental refugees in Somalia, Mauritania and other vulnerable, arid countries. Although it is not likely that more water will be available for irrigation, he stated that ICARDA has done impressive work on supplemental irrigation. He concluded that with increasing water and land scarcity, optimization of water use in terms of value and food produced is one of the top priorities to address the crisis.

Dr. Serageldin advocated Ten Commandments for global agriculture, which served as valuable food for thought for this Face-2-Face meeting:

1) Reform policies and marketsThe importance of fair trade was highlighted and the perverse effects of agricultural subsidies from developed countries on the agricultural competitiveness of developing countries. Globally, the power structure in trade is unbalanced and hence subsidies are benefiting large corporations rather than poor consumers and producers. On the local level, access to markets, rural roads and post harvest losses are key bottlenecks for a level playing field.

12

2) Focus on smallholder farmsEvidence shows that developmental returns on growth are largest if rural communities are targeted. Even with rapid urbanization, rural poverty is still bigger as urban poverty and 92% of the world’s people living on less than 1.25 USD/day are smallholder farmers. Constraints facing smallholders are the effects of globalization, low world market prices, population growth and land fragmentation and the absence of their political voice.

3) Husband natural resourcesTo husband natural resources, Dr. Serageldin called for improvements in managing agriculture, land-use transitions, soil erosion and a reduction in the need to bring more land under cultivation at the expense of forest and wetlands. There will be a tremendous pressure on the amount of arable land per person, requiring us to produce plants with shorter growing season, to optimize water use, reduce pollution and stop the overuse of inputs (pesticides, insecticides, fertilizers).

4) Raise agricultural productivityProductivity increases will need to be faster than declining food prices, so net income benefits are rising. Cheaper food prices will also benefit the urban poor, who spend around 70% of their income of food items. Research to raise the yield ceiling, close the yield gap (between current and experimental ceiling) and sustain current yields from dropping; all three are required to raise overall agricultural productivity. Transgenic pest and drought resistant varieties can help, but are not a single silver bullet. Promising research on rice transformation (from C3 to C4 type) is underway and results would need to be treated as public goods. Biological pest control is also important to raise productivity and close the yield gap.

5) Improve nutritional contentImproving nutrition of women and children has great development impacts. Hence the need to examine people’s diet more closely. Additives to food, fish farming in reservoirs, and improved nutritional feed for livestock are examples that will show a great direct and indirect impact on malnutrition.

6) Address short-term vulnerabilitiesClimate change will lead to increased vulnerabilities and extreme events. An example from the Sahara showed that land-use shifts occur in the range of 20 times the surface of The Netherlands. Thus, resilience building in livelihoods of rural communities is a must. The needs of communities to adapt flexibly to a changing environment have to be reflected in agricultural research priorities.

7) Empower womenWomen have many roles in agriculture: farm production, marketing, food preparation, etc. Evidence shows that empowering women will result in child mortality, school enrollment and declines in child malnutrition. Women also have a better track record in collaboration and sustaining social capital. Based on evidence from micro-finance schemes, investments used by women have shown higher returns as those used by men.

8) Reach out to the ultra poorThe ultra-poor are too far fro markets and will not react to market signals. Therefore, special outreach programs are required to target the ultra-poor. Evidence showed that national GDP

13

growth rates of 8-12% growth are required to affect the ultra-poor through the trickle-down effect. The increasing numbers of refugees not integrated in national economies deserves special attention in this respect.

9) Support ScienceThe developed world is 40 times richer than the developing world, but spend 220 times more on research per capita, which illustrates the importance and value of research. Efforts are need to put agricultural research higher at the political agenda.

10) Translate rhetoric into actionAll MDGs are moving in the right direction except for MDG1: the number of people living on less than 1.25 USD/day. This trend needs to be reversed by taking global action, in line with the other nine commandments.

With his inspiring keynote presentation, Dr. Serageldin encouraged us all to work together and find new solutions in AR4D for the benefit of future generations.

1. Global and regional perspectives

Dr. Mohammed Duwayri chaired the session on global and regional perspectives, which started, which include four short presentations, which can be found on www.aarinena.org.

1.1 Global perspectives

Dr. Mark Holderness, Executive Secretary of GFAR, gave a presentation on the results of global evaluations of AR4D, the role of GFAR, and the objectives & process towards the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development in Montpellier in March 2010. He started by stressing that change in AR4D is undoubtedly required. The FAO 2050 Summit concluded that demand for food, fuel and fiber will be doubling by 2050, while rural populations are declining and investments in agriculture have steadily been falling. The World Development Report of 2008 underlined the urgent need to increase productivity and to apply a systems approach to innovation. The IAASTD concluded that current agricultural practices are unsustainable and research has not successfully benefited the rural poor. Although most people think we have the means to feed the world by 2050, the great majority feels that we will not apply these ideas due to lack of commitment of governments and institutions. From the global evaluations it is clear that a particular focus on small farmers is required and rhetoric needs to be translated into action. He stressed that generating and applying knowledge is critical to meeting the huge global challenges facing agriculture. However, a food crisis was required to put agriculture back on the political agenda. We need to ask ourselves a) why existing knowledge has not better benefited the poor, b) why many apparently effective ideas and technologies have not been adopted at scale and c) why society does not better value agricultural innovation. Dr. Holderness stressed that science is to serve society, but the differences between scientific and local knowledge and trust

14

systems are considerable, e.g. reductionist vs. holistic thinking, trust in science vs. trust in local experience. In order to achieve our goals, it will be required to bring those two systems together and capitalize on both. He mentioned that this is not an easy task as such interactions are constrained by several factors, such as accessibility, complexity, attitudes, belief systems, awareness, institutional barriers, etc. A revolution is needed in the generation and use of agricultural knowledge for development in national & international systems: reorientation, poverty focus, better integration, capacity development, changes in thinking & behavior and stepped-up investments. GFAR is the catalyst to spark such a revolution and its overall goal is to support the fundamental reform processes underway in the global agricultural research system. Dr. Holderness stressed that GFAR is a collective movement for change driven by many stakeholders and implemented by all. The strategic objectives of GFAR are the following:

1) Advocacy for change2) Building institutions for the Future3) Stimulating inter-regional learning for global impact4) Putting knowledge to use

GCARD 2010 will be an important step towards these objectives; it is not just a conference, but a real process for engagement to work towards strategic AR4D systems around the world, bringing together enabling policies and inputs, innovation pathways and an analysis of agricultural development and innovation needs, in order to achieve the desired development impact. GCARD is designed as a learning and feedback process over a 6-year cycle and it is linked with the ongoing CGIAR reforms, hence a session in this Face-2-Face meeting on CGIAR reforms. He mentioned that CGIAR’s role is evolving, its culture is changing and its focus will be on greater impact. He explained the process towards GCARD, which started with the regional reviews, the 1st round of regional e-consultations, the Face-2-Face meetings, followed by a 2nd round of e-consultations before GCARD in 2010. The process has been designed in such a way to maximize stakeholder engagement. He shared some valuable experiences and feedback from the Africa consultations and concluded with the objectives of GCARD as to:

• Align research with development needs of the resource-poor • Advocate for more effective financial support and required capacities in AR4D• Dialogue between stakeholders on innovation pathways - increase speed and scale of impact• Ensure the international agricultural research system adds value to national systems via demand- driven processes• Improve wider accountability of research to intended end-users and beneficiaries• Produce an Action Plan for change in AR4D systems globally and a Declaration of expected norms in AR4D operation

His full presentation can be found at www.aarinena.org.

A brief plenary session followed his presentation. Comments and questions raised by participants were the following:

• How to transform into rhetoric, how can we operationalize all these valuable ideas, for example better linkages between research, extension and farmers?• How do we ensure that new technologies are considered as public goods? For example, these days many farmers are suffering from a monopoly

15

situation for improved seeds. The distribution is restricted and big corporations dominate the market.• The research agenda should consider the importance of making profits for farmers; if farmers are not getting profit from agriculture it will be difficult to engage them in research, More farmer consultation is required to ensure the relevance of research.• Public-private partnerships are necessary in the future, as well as a regional focus• How can we benefit from the indigenous knowledge of farmers, what mechanisms can be used to tap into their experience? • Illiteracy, poverty and other barriers prevent farmers to speak for themselves in certain forums. In fact, they can speak for themselves, but suitable platforms and mechanisms need to be established.• The participatory approach should be applied as standard; too often it is not. We should take an example of businesses, which involve their employees to achieve sustainable business results.• It seems we are getting the right focus now to involve all stakeholders, but we also would need to get the resources now.

Dr. Holderness concluded by saying that GCARD and also this meeting is all about integration and putting farmers at the centre. He recognized that access to knowledge is a key-issue, which needs to be addressed. He encouraged the participants to let their voice be heard and bring forward their ideas and recommendations to Montpellier.

1.2 Regional perspectives

Dr. Ibrahim Hamdan gave a brief presentation on the regional consultations and e-consultations in the WANA region. He explained the mission of AARINENA, which is:

• Contribute to the enhancement of agricultural and rural development in the WANA region through fostering agricultural research and technology development• Promote the exchange of scientific and technical experience and information• Strengthen collaboration within and outside the region to achieve a greater degree of self-reliance in food and agriculture.

He mentioned that the WANA region is very large and diverse and covers five sub-regions:• Maghreb (Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Lybia, Algeria, Malta)• Mashreq (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Cyrus, Palestine)• Nile Valley and Red Sea (Somalia, Djibouti, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan)• Arabian Pensinsula (Oman, Qater, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Saudie Arabia• Western Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran)

Dr. Hamdan stressed that the objectives of GCARD are extremely relevant for the WANA region, since many vital food crops such as barley and lentils originate from here. In ancient times, the region was the breadbasket for many empires. However, nowadays it is a major net importer of food. He underlined the development problems in the region, such as poverty, livelihoods constraints, absolute water scarcity, droughts and desertification, and conflicts. He mentioned that insufficient attention has been paid to agricultural development.

16

A strategic approach is lacking to advocate the role of agriculture and the capacities required in agricultural research in the region.

Dr. Hamdan explained the role of the WANA regional taskforce to guide and support the organization of the regional consultations and the follow-up process towards GCARD 2010. The objectives of the regional review are the following:

• To produce high-level regional development targets and an updated set of high-level regional agricultural research priorities

• To identify areas of specific need in agricultural research to benefit the urban and rural poor

• To develop an action plan for implementing the regional prioritiesThe regional review took place in July-Aug 2009. Dr. Samir Habbab, consultant, lead the review, supported by four regional coordinators for the various sub-regions. The process included:

• A desk study of on past priority setting, lessons learnt and the evolution of agricultural research (including IAASTED 2009 review)

• A survey to understand ongoing research programs (1,411 research projects were reviewed in total) and current collaborative practices of knowledge sharing

• The identification of research topics and key- researchable issues from the sub-regions.

This process resulted in a list of key-researchable issues, which were than discussed during the e-consultations. The e-consultations took place in September 2009 and were facilitated by Dr. Mohammad Majdalawi and Mrs. Taraneh Ebrahimi. The key-issues discussed in the e-consultations were:

• Poor linkages between research, extension and farming communities• Improving and adopting innovative ways of knowledge sharing• Implications of water scarcity and its impact on regional food security• Adopting a strategic approach towards agricultural research• Better integrating policy and institutional issues in research programs

A final summary of both the regional review and e-consultations are posted on GCARD and AARINENA web-pages.

Dr. Hamdan further introduced the objectives of the Face-2-Face meeting and the follow-up actions to be supported by AARINENA:

• Publication and presentation of final WANA review key-researchable issues to GCARD Task Force

• Second round of e-consultations on a global level to discuss global issues for AR4D

• Presentation of WANA priorities and recommendations at GCARD, March 2010

• Continued advocacy for implementation of the Action Plan in the WANA Region.

• Facilitate partnerships and collaboration in the region towards capacity development in AR4D

After this comprehensive overview by Dr. Hamdan, Dr. Samir Habbab continued with a brief presentation on the content of the regional review, followed by Dr. Mohammad Majdalawi,

17

presenting the detailed findings of the e-consultations. All three presentations can be found at www.aarinena.org

Dr. Samir Habbab explained the regional review process in more detail. He mentioned that the survey results ranked livestock research first, followed by food technology research, biotechnology and plant nutrition. He stressed that these results are based on the feedback of 1,411 research titles from only 3 sub-regions and do not take into account the size of ongoing programs (Arabian peninsula, Nile Valley and Red Sea, and Mashreq). He continued by presenting groups of researchable themes, the key-issues under those themes, their drivers and possible ways for research to contribute to these challenges. He concluded with a number of recommendations, such as the prioritization of research programming, farmer-centered research and participatory technology development, stronger voice of NGOs, farmer organizations and women’s interests in setting research priorities, reshaping traditional extension systems, advocacy to policy makers on AR4D, incentives for innovation, knowledge management and reforms in the agricultural education system.

Dr. Mohammad Majdalawi explained the e-consultation process in more detail. Around 200 people participated in the e-consultation process, representing 18 countries in WANA and some “guests” from international organizations. Over 150 messages were posted by 85 participants. Participants had a wide range of professional backgrounds, hence providing a balanced view on the key-issues for AR4D. The figure below illustrates the different stakeholder groups, which participated in the e-consultations. Researchers formed the largest group (44%), followed by international organizations (17%), and universities (14%). Farmer organizations and the private sector only comrpised 9% of all participants. Equally, policy makers (9%) and NGOs were weakly represented (6%), despite great efforts from the

organizers of the e-concsultations to be as inclusive as possible.

18

T h e p a r t i c i p a n t s f r o m d i f f e r e n t S e c t o r s

0 %

5 %

1 0 %

1 5 %

2 0 %

2 5 %

3 0 %

3 5 %

4 0 %

4 5 %

5 0 %

Universities

Research

Centers

Farmers and

Private

sectors

International

Organizations

Non

Government

Onganization

Ministeries

T h e S e c t o r

In terms of the regional representation, Mashreq was the leading sub-region (27%), followed by the Nile Valley and Red Sea (24%), West Asia (19%), Guests (13%), Magreb (11%) and Arabian Peninsula (4%). Maghreb participation could have been weak due to language barriers (French vs. English).

Dr. Majdalawi continued by describing the challenges for WANA region, which featured prominently in the e-consultations. He then explained all the key-researchable issues, which came out of the combined regional review and e-consultations. He highlighted that through the lively e-discussions in the e-consultations, the theme of water scarcity was added as a new theme to the list of researchable themes. The complete list of key-researchable issues can be found in the summary document of the e-consultations. The following nine themes were presented, each heading several key-researchable issues under one theme:

1. Water scarcity 5. Policy and institutional issues2. Food security and poverty 6. Technology, knowledge management, innovation3. Protection of the environment 7. Living standards of farmers4. Special challenges (climate change) 8. Markets and marketing

9. Energy

The presentations were followed by a lively plenary discussion, which was excellently chaired by Dr. Mohammed Duwayri. The discussion captured the following main comments and remarks:

On research and education:• Universities are not well connected to ongoing research; they need to link up closer with emerging research agendas and ways of doing research. Equally, there is a missing link between the research system and the policy and strategies at national level. The overall system needs to be better inter-connected: education-research-policy• Advanced technologies did not come out strongly in the presentations; genetic engineering is a crucial element in achieving salinity, drought and pest-tolerant crops. Others felt that genetic engineering is not a magical solution, especially in the context

19

T h e p a r t i c i p a n t s f r o m d i f f e r e n t S u b -

r e g i o n s

0 %

5 %

1 0 %

1 5 %

2 0 %

2 5 %

3 0 %

A r a b i a n

P e n i n s u l a s u b -

R e g i o n

M a s h r e q s u b -

R e g i o n

N i l e V a l l e y &

R e d S e a s u b -

R e g i o n

W e s t A s i a

S u b - R e g i o n

M a g h r S u b -

R e g i o n

G u e s t s

T h e S e c t o r

of present monopoly issues; However, it is important to deliver new biotechnologies as public goods.• The levels of investment of WANA countries in research need to be increased drastically; there is an under-investment in human resources and an inability of the national research systems to attract and retain promising young scientists; even in basic research disciplines, this region is lacking behind

On farmer focus• Research strategies should be economically driven to be sustainable at the farm-level; rather work on “business plans” than “action plans”. Extensions services are not working properly and access to new technologies at the farm level need to be improved and based on farmers demands• Agricultural research should consider a systems approach; farmers need to get a “package” including options, not just one technical solution• Holistic and inter-disciplinary research is missing, focused on small farmers; it is really challenging to identify the demands, when small farmers are not well represented and organized. Several people advocated for farmers to get better organized. • AR4D should consider much more the reality of farmers, which is heavily influenced by the national policy set-up, e.g. how markets are regulated. Research should be done within a policy context and bring out key-messages to politicians to inform policy development• It was recognized, that when setting priorities, target groups differ by region, sub-region, country, etc.

On expectations of this meeting• It was felt that the presentations focused too much on content/output and not

sufficiently on process: we need to go beyond a list of priorities but think about mechanisms to make AR4D work in practice. Others confirmed that the meeting should focus not only on the “what to do”, but also more on the “who and how”; the working groups should address deficiencies in the current AR4D systems.

• It was also mentioned that the working groups should focus on making the distinction between what are researchable issues and what not: spell out the contents more in detail and be more specific.

• A call was made to think broader than just agricultural policies.

2. CGIAR Strategizing exercise

2.1 Strategic results framework and mega programs

Dr. Stephan Hall, on behalf of the CGIAR, presented the results of work of the CGIAR Strategy Team. He referred to the vision or top goal of the CGIAR, being to:Reduce poverty and hunger, improve human health and nutrition, and enhance ecosystem resilience through high-quality international agricultural research, partnership and leadership

20

Under this overall goal, three strategic objectives have been formulated:1. Create and accelerate sustainable increases in the productivity and production of

healthy food by and for the poor. (“Food for People”)2. Conserve, enhance, and sustainably use natural resources and biodiversity to

improve the livelihoods of the poor in response to climate change and other factors. (“Environment for People”)

3. Promote policy and institutional change that will stimulate agricultural growth and equity to benefit the poor, especially rural women and other disadvantaged groups. (“Policy for People”)

He mentioned that the approach taken by the Strategy Team, is based on analysis and evidence, not on interests, using three methods: trust in models, trust in experts, and trust in wisdom, through consultations with the wider community, which is ongoing.In order to arrive from a vision with sub-goals towards a Strategic Results Framework (SRF), it is necessary to:

• Formulate a results-based strategy that sets directions and outcomes• Take management decisions and decide on resource allocations that align with

strategic outcomes • Program performance indicators that target clients and their beneficiaries and

improvements in the lives of beneficiaries• Develop indicators that are used as signals to motivate staff and to provide a

base for learning and improving

Three investment and policy scenarios were identified to arrive at strategic outcomes: 1. Scenario 1: Increased agricultural research investment (60% increase in crop

yield growth and 30% increase in animals)2. Scenario 2: Enhanced natural resource management with enhanced market

efficiency3. Scenario 3: Scenario 1 + Scenario 2 + more efficient R&D and irrigation

Dr. Stephan Hall summarized the differences those three scenarios would make in terms of development impacts, such as reducing hunger and addressing child malnutrition. The 6 experts of the Strategy team carried out a preliminary assessment on what this would mean for the system focus of the CGIAR, resulting in the following strategic resources allocation:

1. Productivity and poverty: 49%lift annual agricultural productivity by 0.5% points; reduce poverty by 15% by 2020

2. Hunger and nutrition: 26%cut hunger and improve nutrition in line with MDG 1 targets

3. Sustainability and resource efficiency: 25%reduce water scarcity and climate change impacts on agriculture

He underlined that based on the above analysis, substantial increases in investments in AR4D are needed, in the order of tripling investments by 2025! He explained that in order to implement such large sums of R&D, the Strategy team proposed to implement a number of so-called Mega Programs (MPs). The Strategy team proposed a grouping of seven Mega Programs, each with different weights and implemented at a different scales. Each Mega Program should at least address two strategic objectives and would need to have a broad

21

geographic scope and global reach. The Mega Programs and their links with the Strategic Objectives are indicated in the figure below.

An “expert-choice” model was applied by the Strategy team to arrive at a certain weighting in terms of resources allocation for the MPs, as depicted in the figure below.

Dr. Stephan Hall stressed that the grouping of the Mega Programs and the weights attached to them is only expressing the views of 6 key-experts and hence a regional consultations process is carried out to seek feedback on the proposals.He then explained in more details the scope of the different MPs and the analytical evidence behind their concepts.

He explained the shared concerns, which were voiced so far regarding the conceptual design of the Strategic results Framework and the Mega Programs:

• The evidence base and philosophical underpinning of the SRF requires further elaboration (e.g. livestock issues, coastal and aquatic systems)• The logical derivation of a set of MP’s from the SRF needs to be strong and clear – it isn’t yet.• We must ensure that consultation processes are effective and linked with the GCARD process. • The concept of a Mega Program requires clarification (implications for operationalizing the SRF).

22

6%

7%

8%

11%

18%

21%

28%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

MP6: Forests and Trees

MP7: Climate Change and Agriculture

MP4: Agriculture, Nutrition & Health

MP2: Institutional Innovations andMarkets

MP5: Water, Soils and Ecosystems

MP3: Genomics and Global FoodCrop Improvements

MP1: Agric. Systems for the Poor andVulnerable

He underlined the challenges on how to bring the MPs into reality and the need for new structures for implementation. He emphasized that each MP will need to a) have a clear impact pathway, b) addresses one or more strategic objectives, c) has sufficient scale to deliver on results and/or measurable impacts, d) reflects the CGIAR’s comparative advantage in leading/catalyzing research, e) effectively mobilizes resources, capacity, and synergies among partners, f) has an investment time horizon of 6 to 20 years, and g) has a simple and cost-effective management mechanism.

Dr. Stephan hall summarized the next steps to the GC-Alliance business meeting (Dec 2009)

• Final edits to current document and reactions from stakeholders synthesized.• Think piece prepared by the CG-Alliance • Further thinking on data sources and options for strengthening the evidence

base and approach to the SRF

Subject to the approval by the new Consortium Board, the following next steps will be followed towards GCARD and onwards:

• Revision of the SRF and further analysis undertaken to improve it• Face-2-Face meeting to review MPs• MPs to become “communications and consultations domains”• SRF and recommended MPs available at GCARD Mar 2010• Development of Business plans for MPs (after approval)• Identification of Lead Centers • Business plans developed with partners and stakeholders (Apr-Nov 2010) • Phasing in of MPs begins (Jan 2011)

The presentation of Dr. Stephan Hall is available on www.aarinena.org

2.2 Concerns and Advice to Strategy team

In order to allow all particpants to give their feedback on the presentation, a round-table exercise was done, where each table was asked to discuss and answer the following questions:

1) Are the proposed Strategic Results Framework and Mega Programs in line with WANA regional needs?

2) What bottlenecks do you perceive in your context for the Mega Programs to be effective?

3) What advise and suggestions would you like to provide to the CGIAR to include in their Strategy review

It was generally felt that the proposed Mega Programs cover all priority needs in the WANA-region. However, the next level of detail (where, how, who, when) would be crucial to judge whether WANA’s priorities are truly reflected in the allocation of research funding and actual implementation of MPs in the region. Multiple tables indicated that the proposed MP on climate change and agriculture has a much higher relevance for WANA region due to its

23

high vulnerability to climate change. Based on a plenary round of feedback from all tables, the following concerns and recommendatiosn to CGIAR are summarized in the table below.

Are the proposals for mega programs in line with the regions needs?• YES. In general every one agreed, although it will depend on how the MP will be

worked in the next level of detail• YES, but more emphasis on climate change and agriculture is required

What bottlenecks do you perceive in your context for the Mega Programs to be effective?

• insufficient infrastructure and research capacity in the NARS and other local partners

• lack of national ownership of MPs• implementation of an accountable M&E system• linkages and integration between MPs• governance structure for MPs• insufficient donor funding / financial resources to implement MPs• link with other research programs, such as FAO programs• mechanisms to include a wide range of stakeholders, especially at national level• lack of coordination between CG centers• difficulties to get policy makers on board and support MPs• insufficient linkage with farmers and producers • harmonization with programs of NARS and regional centers• not sufficient flexibility in the MPs to address urgent and newly emerging needs

What advice and suggestions would you like to give to the to include in their strategy review?

• emphasis on equal partnership between international centers and national research system

• development of infrastructure and capacity development of human resources for NARS and other local partners is required

• emphasis on building capacity at national level for the management of research programs at such a large scale

• create sufficient inter-linkages between the MPs• strengthen linkages between SRF and the MP (what was the basis for deriving he

MP structure)• elaborate on how dissemination, information management, education and learning

would take place under the new strategy and MPs• the importance of the NARS to bridge and communicate between CG-centers, and

national stakeholders• institutional strengthening and support for national and regional centers• mobilize additional financing sources (not only from donors)• address cooperation with centers outside of CGIAR• importance of establishing effective networks, allowing broad participation• keep flexibility in the system to respond to new priority areas

24

Dr. Stephan Hal concluded the session with a brief response to the useful comments and suggestions from the participants. He recognized the importance of the next level of detail, which will focus on the where, who and when of the MPs. However, it is crucial to first get a consensus on the strategic level. He also valued the numerous comments on capacity building and explained the concept of “platforms”, one for gender issues and one for “capacity building”, which will support all MPs. He valued the comments on building capacity in the management of such large research programs, especially for national research managers. He stressed that the CGIAR only attracts around 4% of global funding for agricultural research. However, CGIAR also has a role in levering other research funding, and advocating other funding sources to be harmonized and aligned with the same strategic objectives. He underlined the role of the CGIAR in brokering relationships, building bridges, and catalyzing change in AR4D. He addressed some concerns vis-à-vis alignment with FAO-funded programs and stressed the importance of MPs to be well embedded in national contexts. He also acknowledges the importance of M&E system to make the MPs accountable, to follow results, to asses the quality and effectiveness of partnerships and the behavior of CG-centers, so that the potential of cooperation is actually realized. He explained that the operationalization of the MPs is “work in progress”. It is recognized that the concept of an MP has a very different meaning for different persons. Thus, more details are required to create a common understanding. He also recognized that information, education and dissemination issues are not yet very well reflected in the Strategy document. Finally, he also commented on the Challenge Programs, as a first little step towards MPs, however, the management structure was not very effective and lessons need to be learned and fed into the design and implementation of MPs.

This session was very dynamic and the quality of the discussion was high. There was a great interest in the SRF and MPs. The underlying document is available at the CG-alliance website.

3. Thematic working groups

In the afternoon of 10 November, participants could join different thematic working groups, based on their individual interests. The thematic working groups were asked to carry out the following three taks:

1. Review and modify the list of key-researchable issues, resulting from the regional review and e-consultations

2. Based on a common understanding, prioritize the issues based on their potential to achieve development impact at scale, considering: a) the contribution to development impact, b) the time-frame to achieve impact and c) the end-user focus, e.g. smallholder, pastoralists, medium-scale, large farmers, etc.

25

3. Identify constraints in current research systems, solutions and mechanisms to overcome such constaints and (new) partners to ensure that research will translate in development impact

The working groups were asked to prepare a presentation for the next day, which was done diligently by all the groups. The reporting is based on the presentations, provided by the working groups.

3.1 Food security and productivity

The working group adopted the definition from the 1996 World Food Summit “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. The group reviewed the issues from the regional review, modified some for the purpose of clarification and also added some new key-researchable issues (see table below).

Modified key-researchable issues New researchable issues

1. Sustainable increase of productivity (plants, animals and fisheries)

5. International trade agreements and policies

2. Better M&E and management for the emerging plant pests and animal diseases

6. Competitiveness and complementarities of WANA agriculture with other world regions

3. Improving productivity of local and introduced varieties adoptable to biotic and abiotic stresses utilizing traditional and high tech methods.

7. Improving nutritional value of food crops

4. Conserve local plant and animal genetic resources (gene banks)

8. Generate alternative sources of income / improve livelihood for poor farmers.

Then the working group carried out a qualitative ranking based on the potential development impact of the key-researchable issues, as illustrated in the table below.

Issue Development impact

Time-frame Farmer focus

Priority rank

Improving productivity of local and introduced varieties

High Long All 1

Sustainable increase of productivity (plants, animals and fisheries)

High Long/medium RPF*) 2

Generate alternative sources of income / improve livelihood for poor farmers.

High Short/medium RPF 3

Better M&E and management for plant pests and animal diseases

High Medium/Long All 4

Conserve local plant and animal genetic resources (gene banks)

Medium Long All 5

Improving nutritional value of food crops

High Medium/long Rural and urban poor

6

Competitiveness and complementarities of WANA agriculture in global context

Low Long LSF** and urban poor

7

26

International trade agreements and policies

Medium Long LSF + consumers

8

*) Resource Poor Farmer**) Large Scale Farmer

Then the group moved on to discuss the barriers in the research systems and proposed the following solutions, measures and partnerships to increase development impact.

27

Constraints Solutions / measures (New) partners

Lack of funding Stimulate commitments of policy makers/politicians

Global: international organizations and financial institutions, bi and multilateral donors

Regional: regional research institutions (e.g. IDB, ACSAD, ICBL, AOAD, AFESD)

National: private sector, governments, NGOs, farmer and women organizations

Human resources Training and capacity development

Low public awareness Programs and campaigns on public awareness

Lack of enabling policies Review national food security policies

Weak links research and extension

Redefine extension systems

Lack of incentivesLack of political support Improve capabilities to

compete internationallyAccess to information Establish information systemsSmall size farms Organize farmersClimate change / env. stress Access to credit

A short plenary feedback round provided the following comments on the groups work:• biotechnology options should also include micro-organisms• medicinal/aromatic and alternative food crops (e.g. algae) are missing (under

productivity)• regional dimensions of food security policy need to be better understood (under

WANA agricultural competitiveness)• importance of gene banks (under conservation of genetic resources)• food security and vulnerability mapping is necessary• bridging the yield gap is very important to ensure food security (under increase in

productivity)• plant breeding in order to adopt to droughts, salinity and other stressors is important

3.2 Natural resources management

The group reviewed the initial list of issues and suggested the following revised list:

Initial list of key-researchable issues Newly proposed key- researchable issues

1. Increase water use efficiency through better crop varieties

1. Preservation, conservation and utilization of biodiversity resources (ex 1, 6 &8).

2. Improve water management and rainwater harvesting

2. Improving water management and productivity (ex 1, 2, 3)

3. Increase on-farm water use efficiency through irrigation scheduling and modern technology

3. Integrating soil, water and plant resources management ( ex 1, 3, 6 and 7 )

4. Improve groundwater management and reduce over-exploitation of shallow aquifers

4. Preservation of land, water, forestry and rangeland for sustainable utilization (ex 2, 4, 5)

5. Protection of water resources form pollution. 5. Eco-system services for environmental protection (ex 5 and 7)

6. Improve drought and salinity tolerance crops.

28

7. Better soil management and reduction of soil degradation8. Protect natural biodiversity

The working group defined natural resources to encompass land, water, forests and biodiversity resources.

Then, the working group carried out a qualitative ranking based on the potential development impact of the key-researchable issues, as illustrated in the table below.

Issue Development impact

Time-frame

Farmer focus

Priority rank

Preservation, conservation and utilization of biodiversity resources

Very high Short All 1

Improving water management and productivity

Very high Medium Smallholder / All

1

Integrating soil, water and plant resources management

High Medium Smallholder / All

2

Eco-system services for environmental protection

High Long All 2

Preservation of land, water, forestry and rangeland for sustainable use

High Long All 3

Then the group moved on to discuss the barriers in the research systems and processes and proposed the following measures and partnerships to increase development impact.

Constraints Solutions / measures (New) partners

Technical, policy, institutional, social, ICT

Capacity building, Awareness raisingWater User AssociationsParticipatory approach

Private, public, international, farmer cooperatives, media and education system (universities) and research centers

A short plenary feedback round provided the following comments on the groups work:• importance of water issue: water resources development e.g. through desalinization;

water saving technologies and importance of crop choice and variety improvements, pollution of water bodies augments the scarcity situation and has high economic costs

• use of marginal lands and treated water needs further research• focus for water management should be on creating more value per drop for various

climatic and physical conditions; optimization of water use to create highest value is a key-issue

• virtual trade of water is important for this region in terms of trade policies for crops• watershed management perspective is crucial (under ecosystems)

Most of the issues mentioned can be grouped under the headings of the main key-researchable issues

3.3 Livestock, rangelands and fisheries

29

The group reviewed the issues from the regional review and reformulated and added new issues, as presented in the table below.

30

List of researchable issues from regional review and e-consultations

Newly proposed and regrouped key- researchable issues

1. Improve local food production in environmentally challenged area (land degradation, water scarcity, desertification)

1. Enhance local feed base

2. Improve livestock potential 2. Improve livestock productivity and production3. Improve potential of fisheries and aquatic production systems

3. Improve productivity and production of fisheries and aquaculture

4. Protection of natural resources and halt rangeland degradation

4. Improve range management for rehabilitation and sustainable utilization

5. Increase indigenous grass species to reduce water use of exotic species

5. Promote and develop the native range species

6. Land degradation and desertification 6. Improve animal health and control diseases7. Reduce over grazing to stop degradation 7. Utilization and conservation of animal genetic

resource8. Animal nutrition9. Land property rights10. Value addition (to be covered by markets group)

Then, the working group carried out a qualitative ranking based on the potential development impact of the key-researchable issues, as illustrated in the table below.

Key researchable issue Developmentimpact

Time-frame Farmer focus

Priority rank

Enhance local feed base Very high Short/medium All 1Improve animal health and control diseases

High Short/medium All 1

Value addition High Short/medium All 1Animal nutrition Very high Short/medium AllImprove livestock productivity and production

Very High Medium/long All 2

Improve productivity and production of fisheries and aquaculture

Medium Short/medium Fishermen 2

Improve range management for rehabilitation and sustainable utilization

High Medium/long Medium/large farmers

3

Promote and develop the native range species

Medium Long Medium/large farmers

4

Utilization and conservation of animal genetic resource

Medium Long All 4

Land property rights Medium Long Medium/large 5

The group mentioned that within certain themes it is important to make a distinction between intensive and extensive livestock and rangeland systems.

31

Then the group moved on to discuss the barriers in the research systems and proposed the following solutions, measures and partnerships to increase development impact.

Constraints Solutions / measures (New) partners

Lack of institutions for livestock industry

Establish organizations and structures for producers

Policy makers, legislators, local govt., communities & NGOs

Lack of efficient extension services and exchange of information

Capacity development & early warning system

Specialized media, FOs, ARC, Universities, Regional and international organizations

Lack of capacity for animal disease diagnosis

Capacity development International/national organizations, private and public institutions

Lack of National research strategy and priority setting

Establish proper methodologies for identification and prioritization of researchable themes

Policy makers, NARCs, communities, etc.

A short plenary feedback round provided the following comments on the groups work:• Missing key-issue is the integrated crop-livestock system in arid and semi-arid area• Aquatic production systems do not come through in the priorities, including inland

and marine fisheries (due to composition and lack of expertise of the group)• Technologies for processing of dairy/poultry and fisheries products are important (are

included in issue “value addition”)• Institutions and community based organizations are critical to deal with most of the

key-issues, should be included as a separate key-issues• A general concern that this thematic group is neglected and under-represented in

agricultural research

3.4 Markets and value chain development

The group reviewed the initial list of key-issues and suggested a revised list with new key-researchable issues (see table below). Initial list of key-researchable issues Revised list of key-researchable issues1. Link small farmers to markets including supermarkets and retailers

1. Link small farmers to markets - Supermarkets -Retailers

2. Enhance socially-based agro-enterprises, farmer cooperatives and their economic and marketing practices

2. Enhance agro-enterprises and cooperatives

3. Develop long-term relationships, planning, transparency and cooperation in the supply chain

3. Develop long term relationships in supply chains

4. Develop GIS for agri-food businesses to protect IPR and analyze comparative advantages of regional products

4. Develop indicator system for agri-food businesses- protect IPR

5. Database with genetic resources for crops/fruits customized to preferences of WANA consumers

5. Analyzing comparative-competitive advantage for regional products6. Developing market info systems7. Developing post-harvest systems8. Rationalize agricultural marketing policy

32

9. Activate marketing extension services

Then the group carried out a qualitative ranking, based on development impact, time-frame and farmer focus, for which the results are presented in the table below.

Issue Development impact

Time-frame Farmer focus

Priority rank

Analyzing comparative-competitive advantage for products

Very High Short Small 1

Activate marketing extension services Very High Medium Small 2

Link small farmers to markets - Supermarkets –Retailers

Very High Long Small 3

Developing Post-harvest systems Very High Medium Small 4

Rationalize agricultural marketing policy

Very High Long All 5

Developing market info systems Very High Long All 6

Enhance agro enterprises, Cooperatives

Very High Medium Small 7

Develop long term relationships in supply chains

High Long All 8

Develop indicator system for agri-food businesses- protect IPR

Medium Short Large Medium

9

Due to time-constraints the group did a quick brainstorm on barriers in the research systems and process and provided the following solutions, measures and partnerships to increase development impact

Constraints Solutions / measures (New) partners

Farmers (organizations) are not included in the process

Include farmers in the research Farmer organizations

Lack of technical and management capacity among researchers

Training researchers and partners

Extension service providers & universities

Weak funding allocation Convince policy makers on the importance of practical research

Private/public sector partnership

Research projects are not demand driven

Improve methodology of research projects

Discuss methodology and results with stakeholders

A short plenary feedback round provided the following comments on the groups work:• transparency on market information is a key-issue; more than just price information is

required; potential of ICT technologies needs to be used• constraints in market access need to be better understood• post-harvest systems should research cold-chain issues and development of storage

facilities

33

• adding value on-farm is another key-issue, e.g. through packaging• food safety and hygiene improvement, as well as tracing systems need to be

researched• potential of traditional food products needs to be investigated

4. Cross cutting working groups

In the afternoon of 11 November, participants could join different cross-cutting working groups, based on their individual interests. The cross-cutting working groups were asked to carry out similar three tasks as on the previous day for the thematic working groups. The groups were asked to pay special attention to innovative mechanism and partnerships, and skipe the taks of prioritizing key-researchable issues if time was limited. The working groups each prepared a presentation for the next day. The reporting is based on the presentations, provided by the working groups.

4.1 Poverty and socio-economic policies

The working group first reviewed the poverty situation in the WANA region. Poverty incidence is very diverse in the WANA region and ranges between 5-45%, as illustrated in the figure below. The figure also illustrates that many people are living just between the 2 USD/day level and hence are vulnerable to become poor (POVNET, 2009 data).

The working group also discussed that poverty can be reduced by agricultural and non-agricultural means and hence broadened the scope of their discussion to go beyond pure agricultural policies.

34

The group modified the list of key-researchable issues and added new issues, detailing “research questions” for each of the issues (see table below).

35

Modified key-researchable issues

1. Risk and vulnerability mapping and mitigation strategies

Who are the most vulnerable to riskHow can the poor insure against risks

2. Social policies and safety nets How to protect the ultra poor with safety net programsHow to improve income disparities and wealth distributionHow to better target subsidies to the poorWhat are the most efficient health and education interventions

3. Food security and trade strategies What is the impact of trade liberalization on the poorWhat was/is the impact of the food, fuel, financial crises on WANA countriesWhich tools can be used to manage future food and global crisesWhat are the options to improving food security

4. The role of women for development How can women be better integrated in decision makingHow can nutrition of children be improved

Newly added researchable key-issues

5. Promoting agricultural growth How can market access be improved for the poorWhat are returns to investments in agriculture and rural development? How can the rural landless laborers benefit from agricultural growth

6. Conflict and post-conflict resolution and reconstruction after emergencies

How can impacts of war be mitigatedWhat are priorities for rebuilding agricultural systems in post conflicts What is the impact of floods and draughts and the poor be supported most efficiently

7. Local governance targeting the poor How can institutions be improved to serve the poorWhat is the role and quality of service provision and how can it be improved

8. Opportunities and challenges for poverty reduction (farm and non-farm)

How can the poor working in the informal sector be better integratedWhat role can new communication tools play for supporting the poor

The group then carried out a qualitative ranking of all the key-researchable issues identified, based on development impact, time frame and target group focus.

36

Key-researchable issue Development impact

Time frame Farmer focus

Priority rank

Risk and vulnerability mapping and mitigation strategies

High Short/medium All 1

Social policies and safety nets High Short Ultra poor 2

Food security and trade strategies High Short All 3

The role of women for development High Long All 4

Promoting agricultural growth High Medium All 5

Conflict and post-conflict resolution and reconstruction after emergencies

High Long All 6

Local governance targeting the poor High Short All 7

Opportunities and challenges for poverty reduction (farm and non-farm)

High Short Poor 8

Then the group discussed the barriers in the existing research systems and processes and proposed the following solutions, measures and partnerships to increase development impact.

Constraints Proposed measures New actors and partnerships

Lack of functioning institutions Make research policy more relevant;Work with community-based organizations

Researchers and NGOs, CBOs

Data sharing and accessibility Legislation to make information accessible

All stakeholder

Weak agricultural technology transfer and adoption

Create centers of excellence Researchers, farmer organizations, reshaped extension services

Insufficient funding Social Corporate responsibility fundingIncrease government budgets for research on poverty

Government and private sector

In the short plenary discussion that followed the following feedback was given:• Debate on the issue of land fragmentation and the huge social costs of land

consolidation; research in South Asia and Latin America shows that smallholders achieve similar levels of productivity as large landholdings, however research has mostly been directed to the larger farmers

• Generally, smaller farmers are quite efficient in production, however not so in post-harvest and marketing. Improvements in post-harvest and marketing will have positive spin-offs for non-farm income and employment. Although farmers do get their produce to the market, problems exist because of market “invasion” from large international producers, which relates to trade policies

37

• Debate on existing attitudes and bias of directing research towards larger, educated farmers, rather than smallholder focus; even larger farmers felt that research is not reaching them easily

• The need of researching social capital and related indicators is not well addressed in the priority issues

• Regional collaboration is crucial; we should take an example from CAADP in Africa and how FARA is actively supporting this agenda; WANA region could strengthen its existing research organizations AARINENA; a plea was made to further build on the important work of AARINENA in reaching out to farmers; suggestions for AARINENA’s future direction were made, such as focusing not only on farmers, but also redirecting its attention to the poor and food-insecure. WANA region, unlike Africa has many poor, which are NOT smallholders; AARINENA’s scope could be broadened to rural development, food security and non-farm income issues.

4.2 Research management and capacity development

The group first reviewed the list of initial key-issues coming out of the regional review, discussed, modified and then agreed on a revised set of key-issues (see table below).

Initial key-issues from regional review Revised list of key-issues

1. Align research with national needs and restructure research system

1. Align research with national agricultural developmental needs and restructure research system

2. Support R&D at local, regional and global level with more funds

2. Support R&D at local, regional and global level with more funds

3. Better linkage with development programs, especially for NRM

3. Enhance awareness of decision makers for the importance of agricultural research and innovation for national development

4. Identify new research policies and improve awareness of decision maker of importance of agricultural research and innovation

4. Develop a scheme of Impact Assessment Research System

5. Develop an impact-oriented research, knowledge and development system

5. Improve agricultural education system to meet agricultural development strategy, including on-job training programs

6. Improve agricultural education and career prospects of agricultural scientists

6. Develop an incentive system for NARS to be attractive and creative centers

7. Human capacity development 7. Promote a network of specialized regional centers of excellence

The group then carried out a qualitative ranking based on development impact and timeframe, as illustrated below.

Key-issue Impact Time frame Priority rank

Align research with national agricultural developmental needs and restructure research system

High Medium/long 1

Support R&D at all levels with more funds High Short/medium 1Enhance awareness of decision maker of importance of agricultural R&D for national development

Medium/High

Short/medium 2

Develop an Impact Assessment Research System High Medium/long 2

38

Improve agricultural education system to meet agricultural development strategy, including on-job training programs

High Medium/long 2

Develop an incentive system for NARS to be attractive and creative centers

Medium Short/medium 2

Promote a network of specialized regional centers of excellence

High Long 2

The group then discussed existing constraints, measures to increase development impact and (new) partnerships required.

Constraints Proposed measures (New) actors and partnerships

Lack of funds Avail funds and support Funding agenciesShortage of qualified experts Recruitment, post-graduate and

on-job trainingsNational, Regional and international organizations and universities

Insufficient motivation Provide moral and financial incentives

Research leaders, national organizations

Poor linkage with policy makers

Improve communication and awareness

Research leaders, ministry of agriculture, policy makers

Fragile infrastructure Upgrade infrastructure (labs, equipments..)

Research leaders, ministry of agriculture, policy makers

Lack of accredited labs Establish accreditation system International organizations and Research leaders

Inadequate national developmental strategy

Develop/Improve national strategy

Research leaders, ministry of agriculture, universities

Weak monitoring and evaluation system

Strengthen monitoring and evaluation system

Research leaders

Weak linkage between education and research system

Improve linkage between education - research centers

Research leaders, Universities, Stakeholders

In the short plenary discussion that followed the following comments and suggestions were made:

• More attention should be given to young scientist; many of them are marginalized and not given appropriate career perspectives; CGIAR should set example and focus on young scientists for training programs, they are the future for research

• It was felt that publishing of research results (in scientific journals but also in other ways) did not feature clearly in the prioritized list; it is very important to revive scientific societies and create incentives for higher quality scientific outputs;

• Partners for agricultural research should not just be the ministry of Agriculture but also spread out to other ministries, such as ministry of science and technology

• More funds are required; even basic fees to publish or to attend conferences are often not available, this leads to scientific isolation with poor results

• Participants from the non-research community felt that the focus of the group was to inward-looking; where is the wider stakeholder perspective and what proposals are made to involve stakeholders, farmers and extension system in setting research priorities, so that results will be adopted; difficulties to satisfy both interests of scientific and farmer communities were discussed

4.3 Dissemination, knowledge management and scaling-up

39

The group discussed and revised the initial list of key-researchable issues and reframed them into five key-issues.

40

Initial list of key-issues Revised list of key-issues

1. Improve Monitoring and Evaluation for better learning

1. Monitoring and evaluation to ensure better knowledge sharing.

2. Improve regional learning and communication between R&D centers, developing existing networks

2. Enhancing national and regional collaboration on knowledge sharing and exchange

3. Better links between NARS and R&D centers, NARS and extension services, and extension service and farmers

3. Engage farmers and other stakeholders in the development of efficient approaches for better dissemination and scaling out technologies

4. Improve extension service to facilitate technology transfer to farmers and connect farmers with civil society and R&D centers

4. Strengthen knowledge management, availability and accessibility of information at national and regional levels including networking.

5. Apply participatory approaches in order to transfer technology

5. Develop advocacy approaches to ensure policy support for appreciated understanding of science and technology transfer

6. Develop methods for dissemination and scaling out technologies7. Include knowledge management experts to deliver on research for development

The group did not have sufficient time to carry out a prioritization and decided to move on to discuss constraints, proposed measures and new partnerships to achieve greater development impact of agricultural research.

Constraints Proposed measures (New) actors and partnerships

Farmers illiteracy Literacy campaignsCultural problems (e.g. individualism of farmers)

EducationDisseminate success stories and good practices

media, experienced farmers, INGOs, policy makers, private sector, CBOs,, NGOs

Credibility gap and mistrust Education and targeted campaigns; bottom-up approachStrengthen linkages between farmers and researchers

Extension agents, researchers, opinion leaders, key-farmers, CBOs

Aging Focus new generationsIncentives

Policy makers, private sector, financial institutions

Lack of support fro policy makers

AdvocacyAwareness risingMeetings and conferences

PR advisors, media, public figures and champions, all stakeholders

Lack of cooperation, coordination and commitment

Establishing farmers' OrgProvide clear TORs,Develop networks/tools,Social networking,Strengthen participation

Policy makers, INGOs, CBOs

Lack of infrastructure and logistical support

Targeted projects Operations specialists, private/public partners, Funding Org, Intl Org

Lack of funds Convince politicians of top priority of agricultural research for development

Financial institutions

41

The working group also presented a research/extension model in order to achieve greater benefits for farmers.

The plenary discussion for this working group captured the following comments and suggestions:

• The role of extension did not came through very strongly in the prioritized list, while this is actually the weakest point in the chain towards scaling-up

• It was mentioned that the extension system has not well understood the issues around using opinion leaders to facilitate quick adoption of new technologies and the role of ICT to support the scaling-up of innovations; the role of the private sector and of farmer organizations in scaling-up needs to be more appreciated

• Recognizing that organizing farmers is crucial, we should also look at the legislation and laws that are necessary to make this happen

• Research is needed to understand the incentive systems for farmers to adopt new technologies

• Adoption of new practices and technologies will only work if extension and research community is able to communicate in a language that farmers understand and triggers behavior change; field days and simple farmer-to-farmer meetings were suggested

4.4 Climate Change

42

EAs: Extension AgenciesPS: Private Sector UNVs: Universities FOs: Farmers OrganizationsNARs: Researching InstitutionsTEUs: Traders & Exporters UnionsROs: Regional OrganizationsNGOs: Non Governmental OrganizationsCSOs: Civil Society OrganizationFP: Food Processors

ProposedResearch/Extension Systemfor the Benefits of Farmers

NARsNARs

ROsROs

TEUsTEUsFPFP

NGOsNGOsCSOsCSOs

NGOsNGOsCSOsCSOs

The working group revised a rather short list of key-researchable issues, which resulted from the regional review and e-consultations. They had an extensive discussion and modified and added a number of key-researchable issues for climate change.

Initial key-researchable issues Modified and new key-researchable issues

1. Adaptation for and mitigation of climate change

1. Capacity building and strengthening the data collection capability, analysis and modeling

2. Develop bio-energy as complement and not at the cost of food security

2. Impact assessment of climate change

3. Enhance energy security 3. Climate change projections, early warning system, landuse plan and hazard zonation

4. Use renewable energy for agricultural practices and reduce pollution

4. Dissemination, awareness and advocacy about CC among decision makers and Politicians5. Utilization of indigenous knowledge in CC adaptation6. Risk management and handling options7. Feasibility and opportunity of bio-fuels in areas outside crop producing zones.8. Enhance efficiency in agricultural system and to secure innovative alternate energy sources in rural area9. Promote carbon sequestration10. Develop climate change policy and sectoral action plans11. Climate adaptation, e.g. breeding for climatic stresses, improve water efficiency, precision agriculture, disease surveillance and monitoring, etc.

Due to time limitations no priority ranking was carried out and the group moved on to discuss barriers, proposed measures and partnerships to achieve greater development impact.

Constraints Proposed measures (new) partnerships

Lack of appreciation/ awareness of magnitude of Climate Change Impact among policy and decision makers

Awareness campaigns through high level regional conferences, seminars

Policy makers, legislators, regional and international organizations

Lack of institutions for climate change research and national and regional information sharing

Designate the relevant data collecting and research institutions for coordinating Climate Change research

Relevant institutions and ministries

Lack of climate change research capacity

Development of research capacity at national and regional level

Relevant international/national organizations

Lack of/low funding allocations Allocation of more funds from internal resources and mobilization of justified share of UNFCC adaptation fund and from other donor agencies

Governments, UNFCC adaptation fund through GEF and international donors

Lack of appropriate recognition Participation of high level FAO, relevant ministries,

43

of agriculture at international forum

national delegates and international organizations/NGOs in international communications

ICARDA, etc.

In the plenary that followed the following comments and suggestions were made:• research system is designed around separate disciplines and the capacity of CG-

centers to work inter-disciplinary needs to be enhanced. There was a concern weather climate change issues could be covered well enough by all the separate CG-centers. A suggestion was made if a separate Climate Change center under CGIAR would be an appropriate solution to ensure linkages and inter-disciplinary research

• Capacity development on climate change issues is very important. There are not yet many education programs in the WANA region that offer inter-disciplinary graduate programs on climate change; linking existing departments in a center could be a possible way rather than creating new departments, for example as is being done by Imperial College in UK

• The agricultural dimensions of climate change (both adaptation and mitigation) need to be covered well in the future MPs. For WANA region this issue would deserve more than 7% of total research funding due to its high vulnerability

• Adaptation should have priority over mitigation, since WANA region is a low per capita emitter of GHG

• Debate over the need to prioritize climate modeling and data-collection for the region; although it might not be an immediate need, it is crucial to start with building capacity for modeling; regional climate models are required to carry out impact assessments, which form a basis for planned adaptation

• Farmer and producer organizations are not sufficiently involved in the emerging climate debate in the region. At global level IFAP is lobbying for more involvement

• Virtual climate centers and networks were proposed to stimulate learning and exchange on climate change issues

• Example of collective action is the upcoming Copenhagen summit; however, unlike forestry, agriculture is not featuring strongly, especially on the mitigation side. There is huge potential for agriculture to contribute to GHG emissions, e.g. through conservation farming and soil management techniques. However it would require around 250,000 smallholders to cooperate to achieve a relevant scale and to the benefit from carbon credits. How to organize and implement such collective action needs to be a key-researchable issue.

5 Prioritizing of key-researchable issues

In order to allow all particpants to give their opinion on the most important development needs and key-researchable issues for WANA-region, a “voting” exercise was carried out

44

on the final day for all thematic and cross-cutting key-researchable issues. Each participant was given 12 “votes” (by means of stickers) to distribute freely over all the thematic issues and 12 “votes” to distribute freely over all the cross-cutting issues2. Issues that came out strongly in the plenary feedback rounds were added to list.

The tables below summarize the results of the prioritization through the group-ranking and through the plenary voting exercise. Key researchable issues are colored green if there was a close match between the priority assigned by the group and by the plenary voting; yellow for medium differences and red in case the two prioritization methods yielded quite different results3. Please note that this exercise aims to provide a clear sense of direction in terms of priorities, rather than a scientific approach to ranking.

5.1 Thematic issues

For the thematic issues a total of 502 votes were distributed in total, divided over the four thematic groups as indicated in the figure below.

It was felt that fishery issues were not very well addressed due to lack of participants with such a specialization. Of course, there are overlapping issues and clear linkages between the various thematic groups due to the complexity ad holistic nature of farming systems. Hence, similar key-researchable issues were discussed in more than one thematic group. Although time-consuming, most participants felt it was worthwhile to revisit the outcomes of the regional review and e-consultations and to arrive at a shared understanding of the priorities for key-researchable issues.

Food security and productivity:

150 out of 502 thematic votes, representing 30%

no. votes

group rank

Improve varieties to increase yield & cope with stress (breeding techn.) 37 1

Increase productivity for plant, animal and fisheries systems 23 2

Monitoring and management of plant and animal diseases 19 4

Conserve plant and animal genetics (gene banks) 16 5

Generation of alternative income for small farmers 15 3

Improve nutritonal value of crop 13 6

International trade agreements and policies 11 8

2 An attempt was made to distinguish between votes of different stakeholder groups (e.g. researchers, regional organizations, farmers, NGOs, etc.), but it proved difficult to interpret the results.

33 Such differences can be attributed to real differences between the groups view and the plenary view on priorities. However, other factors might alos be responsible, such as time-constrainits in the group work, different understanding of key-headings in the plenary voting, composition and size of the group.

45

30%

28%

21%

21%

Food security and productivityNatural resources managementLivestock, rangelands and fisheriesMarkets and value chain development

Food security and vulnerability mapping 10 plenary*)

Position of agriculture in WANA region within the global context 6 7*) This issues was added in the plenary feedback round

46

Natural resources management:

143 out of 502 thematic votes, representing 29%

no. votes

group rank

Preservation, conservation and utilization of biodiversity 45 1

Water management and optimization of water productivity 35 2

Preservation and use of soil, water, forestry and rangeland 24 4

Integrated management of plant-soil-water resources 21 3

Ecosystem services for environmental protection 18 5

Livestock, rangeland and fisheries:

105 out of 502 thematic votes, representing 21%

no. votes

group rank

Animal health and disease control 12 1

Conservation and utilization of animal genetic resources 11 9

Land property rights 11 10

Enhance feed base for livestock 9 2

Value addition (processing of dairy/poultry/fish) 9 3

Integrated crop and livestock systems 9 plenary*)

Range management and sustainable utilization 8 7

Improve productivity and production of fisheries 8 6

Development of native rangeland species (grass, shrub, trees) 8 8

Develop farmer and producer organizations 8 plenary*)

Animal nutrition 6 4

Improve productivity and production of livestock 6 5*) This issue was added in the plenary feedback round

Markets and value chain development

104 out of 502 thematic votes, representing 21%

no. votes

group rank

Geographic indicator system for (traditional) agri-food businesses 17 9

Comparative and competitive advantage analysis of regional products 16 1

Developing better post-harvest systems 14 4

Food safety and tracing system 13 plenary*)

Innovation in marketing extension services 12 2

Market information systems and ICT 11 6

Agricultural market policies and regulation 7 5

Adding value processes on-farm 6 plenary*)

Improving access to markets for small farmers 5 3

Agro-enterprises and cooperatives 3 7

Establishing long-term relationships in supply-chain 0 8*) This issue was added in the plenary feedback round

47

5.2 Cross-cutting issues

For the cross-cutting issues a total of 467 votes were distributed, divided over the four cross-cutting groups as indicated in the figure below.

It was observed that the group on Research management and capacity development had a certain bias towards scientific interests and goals. It was recognized that due to the group’s compositon the focus might have been quite inward-looking. However, it was clarified that the demands and relevance of research to achieve develoment impact would be center stage.

Research management and capacity development

135 out of 467 cross-cutting votes, representing 29%

no. votes

group rank

Align research with development needs and restructure research system 28 1

Support R&D at local, regional, global level with increased funding 28 2

Set-up incentive system for NARS to be attractive and creative centers 22 6

Awareness on value of AR4D and innovation 16 3

Farmer engagement in setting agricultural research priorities 12 plenary*)

System for impact assessments of agriculture research 10 4

Network for regional centers of excellence 10 7

Improve agricultural education system 9 5*) This issue was added in the plenary feedback round

Poverty and socio-economic policy

109 out of 467 cross-cutting votes, representing 23%

no. votes

group rank

Risk and vulnerability mapping and risk mitigation strategies 25 1

Food security and trade-policies 25 3

Role of women in agriculture 14 4

Social policies and safety nets 12 2

Opportunities and challenges for poverty reduction 11 8

Local governance and institutions targeting the poor 10 7

Promotion of agricultural growth 8 5

Conflict / post conflict resolution and reconstruction after emergencies 4 6

48

29%

29%

23%

19%

Research management and capacity Climate changePoverty and socio-economic policyDissemination and scaling up

Climate change

134 out of 467 cross-cutting votes, representing 29%

no. votes

group rank**)

Adaptation: salinity & drought tolerant crops, conservation agriculture, etc. 28

Data management capabilities, analysis and climate modeling 25

Impact assessments of climate change 17

Climate forecasts, early warning, land use planning and hazard zoning 15

Advocacy on importance of CC to policy makers and politicians 12

Use of local community-based knowledge in adaptation 10

Develop climate change policies and sector action plans 10

Energy efficiency in agricultural production and use of renewable energy 6

Risk management and developing options for increased resilience 4

Promote carbon sequestration 4

Feasibility and opportunities for non-food bio-fuels 2

Collective action of farmers to achieve scale to access carbon credits 1**) This group did not have sufficient time to do a ranking exercise. They moved on to discuss the next task.

Dissemination, knowledge management and scaling-up

89 out of 467 cross-cutting votes, representing 19%

no. votes

group rank**)

National/regional collaboration/networks on knowledge sharing& exchange 20

Improve availability & accessibility of information (incl. publications) 19

M&E to ensure learning and better knowledge sharing 15

Use farmers, opinion leaders, private sector, etc. in scaling-up 15

Advocacy for policy support for technology transfer and dissemination 13

Revitalize and develop new models for extension service 7**) This group did not have sufficient time to do a ranking exercise. They moved on to discuss the next task.

49

6 Key messages and summary

The Face-2-Face meeting was concluded by short round-table discussion to distill key-messages, which would need to be taken forward to GCARD 2010 in Montpellier. The following key-messages were put forward:

Key messages from F2F to take to Montpellier

• Due to the high impact of climate change and vulnerable natural resources, WANA region should be given due importance and adequate funding for research and development

• Emphasis on the resource poor people in both urban and rural communities• More cooperation is required between developed countries and WANA region

for capacity development in research and extension• Scaling up funding for applied research• Focus on the poor and small farmers• Integrate agriculture and poverty in national development strategies and policies• Climate change is crucial for WANA region; WANA needs a larger share of the

resources compared with the global average of 7% allocated to the global MP on climate change and agriculture

• Support and strengthen AARINENA and intensify links with GFAR process• Implementation of Mega Programs need support in WANA region; keep

ICARDA as a strong focal point of CGIAR for WANA region• Smallholders need increased support as they are the key-player for

sustainability• Focus not merely on farmers in WANA region, but also on the resource-poor in

rural and urban areas in WANA• Concentrate efforts on small farmers and rural development• Management of national resources should be a key-focus for the WANA region• Priority towards research on water and food security• Research should embrace the participatory approach fully (all stakeholders)• Support to small farmers is key to development, e.g. through credits• Increased funding for research is required; national institutions need to compete

to attract funding• Water saving and water use efficiency are key-priorities in WANA• Emphasis on natural resources management and conservation of biodiversity• Technology transfer is necessary for adaptation to climate change impacts

A lot of work had been done to review, modify, elaborate and agree on priority issues for agricultural research for development in the region. During the group discussion, participants occasionally felt “lost in translation” due to differing perspectives, but also different “languages” of scientific and non-scientific communities. In the group work, the complexity

50

and multi-faceted nature of AR4D was experienced first hand, for example the “artificial grouping” of issues under certain thematic or cross-cutting areas.

In terms of existing constraints in the research systems and processes, the groups identified similar barriers and hindering factors to achieve develoment impact. Although it was found “easy” to diagnose the constraints, it appeared to be much harder to think out of the box and come-up with innovative mechanisms and partnerships to reform the way agricultural research is carried out to ensure development impact at scale. The following similar constraints and measures were highlighted by the working groups.

Constraints to translate AR in2 D Proposed measures: more than business as usual?

• Mistrust between farmers and extensionist and researchers• Different “languages” and worldviews of stakeholders• Communication is poor, not enough attention is paid to it• Institutional weaknesses of many organizations• Coordination capacity is weak (national, regional, global)• Funding and human resources are not at all sufficient• Lack of infrastructure and logistical capacity on national level• Low public awareness about importance of AR4D• Incentive systems are not geared towards collaboration• Too high focus on scientific publications • Policy makers and politicians are not on board

• Individualism and illiteracy farmers

• Public awareness campaigns are required on all fronts• Make an evidence-based case to politicians and policy makers• Invest in communicating results and impacts and crossing barriers between farmers, researchers, policy makers and others• Redefine extension and find new models including use of new technologies• Attract private sector funds and use Corporate Social Responsibility agenda• Participatory approach to be applied in all AR4D• Capacity development on all levels, tailored to needs of different groups• Building national alliances to convince policy makers• Use (social) networking for scaling-up

• Organize farmers, CBOs, WUAs, producer groups, etc. involve them in all aspects of AR4D

In terms of (new) partnerships and mechanisms the working groups came up with the following (innovative) ideas:

• Really work more with farmers and grass-root organizations• Identify opinion leaders, tribal leaders to facilitate scaling-up and adoption of results• Work more with women and their (in)formal networks• Work together with policy makers, go beyond the Ministry of Agriculture• Tap experience from new-media firms, Public Relations advisors, ICT firms• Explore public-private partnerships and corporations interested in CSR• Use and mobilize public figures and celebrities as champions in public awareness• Revitalize relationships with existing research and extension partners

51

At the end of the workshop Mrs. Susanna Smets, facilitator, provided a brief summary presentation, followed by closing remarks and acknowledgements by Dr. Mark Holderness, Dr. Ahmed Al Bakri and Dr. Adel El Beltagy.

7 Evaluation and acknowledgements

A workshop evaluation form was handed out to participants. The feedback from the workshop participants was across the board very positive and many constructive comments were provided. Some particpants felt that certain stakeholder groups were poorly represented, such as NGOs and farmer organizations, especially from North-Africa sub-region. Also, policy and decision-makers were missing at this important workshop and more participation from women and young scientists should be encouraged. From the evaluation it is clear that a lot of new learning, exhange and appraciation of different viewpoints took place, as well as a profound realization that change is required in research systems to achieve development impact for the urban and rural poor.

The meeting was perceived as objective-oriented and many partipants felt that the required outputs were achieved and real progress has been made. The facilitation and content of the discussions was perceived as high quality, although some participants felt that the time for the working groups was limited. The organization of the event was found excellent and the special location and tour in the Bibliotheca Alexandria was very much appreciated by all.

The detailed results of the evaluation can be found in Annex 3.

The workshop was a truly collective effort! Thanks go especially to Dr. Ibrahim Hamdan and AARINENA staff for the excellent organization of the event and to Dr. Ajit Maru for sharing his experience of other regional consultations, which helped to inform the workshop approach. Special thanks are expressed to Dr. Ahmed Al Bakri and Dr. Adel El Beltagy for their guidance, encouragement and support and equally to Dr. Ismael Seralgeldin for hosting us in the Bibliotheca Alexandria and delivering an inspiring key-note presentation. The detailed output that has been produced by the working groups would not have seen the light without the excellent facilitation of Dr. Saleem Nadaf, Dr. Salah Arafa, Dr. Mohammad Madjalawi and Mrs. Taraneh Ebrahimi. Finally, this workshop report was only possible thanks to the diligent work of the all the eight working group documenters and presenters!

AnnexesAnnex 1: Workshop agenda

Annex 2: List of participants

Annex 3: Evaluation results

52

Annex 1 Workshop agenda (as distributed)

WANA’s Face to Face Regional Consultation -GCARD-2010-November 10-12, 2009

Bibliotheca AlexandrinaAlexandria, Egypt

Tuesday, November 10 (Day 1)

08:00- 9:30 Registration of participants

Opening/Inaugural SessionChairperson: Dr. A. El-Beltagy

09:30 – 10:00 Welcome addressOn behalf of AARINENA Dr. A. Al-BakriOn behalf of GFAR Dr. A. El BeltagyOn behalf of Bibliotheca Alexandrina Dr. I. Serageldin

10:00 – 11:00 Invited lecture Dr. I. Serageldin

11:00 – 11:30 Coffee Break (Group Photo)

Session I: Plenary,Global and Regional Perspective Chairperson: Dr. M. Duwayri11:30 – 12:00 Progress on GCARD: The Global Scenario Dr. M.Holdernes

/Dr. A. Maru

12:00 – 12:15 GCARD: AARINENA Perspective till date Dr. I.Hamdan12:15—12:40 Progress on the WANA Regional Review: Dr. M. S. Habbab Synthesis of the Regional Report 12:40--- 13:00 Key researchable issues in the region Dr. M. Majadalwi

on the E-consultations 13:00-13:30 Question and Answer Session on the Regional Review and E-consultation findings

13:30 – 14:30 Lunch

53

14:30 – 15:00 Setting the stage for the WANA Regional Group Discussions, Facilitator: Mrs. Susanna Smets

15:00---16:00 Work Group Session A : Thematic Issues:

1-Food Security, Productivity and Post Harvest2-Natural Resources Management 3-Livestock, Range lands and Fisheries4-Marketing

16:00 – 16:30 Coffee Break

16:30--- 17:30 Work Group Session B Thematic Issues Continue

19:00 – 22:00 Reception Dinner

Wednesday, November 11 (Day 2)

Session II: PlenaryChairperson: Dr. Ahmed Al-BakriReporter: Mrs. S. Smets

9:30-11:00 Plenary Session to discuss the Outputs from Group Discussions in Day 1

11:00 – 11:30 Coffee Break

Chairperson: Dr.Majd Jamal

11:30 -12:30 CGIAR Strategic and Results Framework and Dr. Stephen HallMega Programs

12:30 – 1:30 Group Session C: To discuss Cross Cutting Issues:facilitator: Mrs. S. Smets

1- Poverty and Socioeconomic Policy 2-Dissimination and Scaling out (including GIS)3-Research Management and Capacity Development4. Climate Change

13:30 -14:30 Lunch

14:30-16:00 Group Session D on cross cutting Continued (Susanna and 4 facilitators)

54

16:00 – 16:30 Coffee break

16:30- 17:30 Facilitators report preparations (Susanna and 4 facilitators)

Thursday ,November 12 (Day 3)

Session III: Plenary: Chairperson: Dr. A. Abu-Hadid

9: 30- 11:00 Plenary Session : Presentation of Group Session on day 2 (Cross Cutting outcomes and discussion )

11:00 – 11:30Coffee Break

Final Session : Chairperson: Dr. Mark Holderness Reporter Mrs. S. Smets

11:30 – 12:45 Plenary Session

1. What and which are the priorities among the research needs identified for the region from Working Group that can have the most development impact benefiting the poor? 2. What are the needed actions at the Regional and Global levels?3. Concluding comments and closing of Consultations.

12:45-13:00 Wrap up and Closing

13:00 -14:00 Lunch

14:00-15:00 Visit to Bibliotheca Alexandrina

XXX

15:00-17:00 AARINENA Executive Committee Meeting (closed Meeting).

55

Annex 2 List of Participants

List of Participants to AARINENA’s Face 2 Face Consultation -GCARD 2010-

Alexandria, Egypt10-12 November 2009

Institutions

Cyprus

1. George AdamidesAgricultural Research Officer A'Tel. 00357-22403133Fax. 00357-22316770E-mail: adamides@arinet.ari.gov.cyWeb: http://www.ari.gov.cyNicosia-Cyprus

Egypt

2. Prof. Dr. Ayman Abou HadidPresident of ARC,9 Gamaa st.,12619 Giz, Cairo-EgyptTel: +202-35722609Fax: +202-35722069E-mail: ruafah@rusys.eg.net, abouhadid@arc.sci.eg

3. Prof. Dr. M. Said A. SafwatChairman of the Board Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Network (MAPN- AARINENA)79, Sh. 105, El-Maadi, Cairo, EgyptE-mail: Said.Safwat@gmail.com

4. Dr. Ahmed Abd-Alla GlalaAssociate Prof. Center of Excellence for Advanced Sciences (CEAS) Horticultural crop Technology Dept. National Research Center Dokki- Cairo- Egypt. Tel. (202)333 71499 (2429-2249). Mobile: :(2012) 2963894Fax: (202)37601877 & 33370931E-mail: aaa_glala@yahoo.com

5. Dr. Salah Arafa ARC

9 Gamaa st.,12619 Giz, Cairo-EgyptTel: +202-35722609

E-mail: smahmoudegy@yahoo.com

6. Dr. Diaa El Quosy Water Resource Advisor Mobile: + (20) 12 314 8215 Egypt-Cairo Email: limewp@menanet.net

7. Prof. Dr. Nagi M/. Abou. ZeidAgricultural Research Center

56

Plant Pathology Research InstituteIdentification of Microorganisms & Biological Control Uint(BRCS)Tel: 35698200Fax: 35698200E-mail: nagiabouzeid@link.net

Iran

8. Dr. Mohammad H. RoozitalabAdvisor, AREOYemen Ave, EvinP. O. Box 19835-111, Tehran, IranTel: +98 21 24024483 , 2402987Mobile: + 989122181624Fax: +98 21 2402547, 2400568E-mail: areeo@dpimail.net

9. Mrs. Taraneh EbrahimiAARINENA-RAIS Secretary Web ManagerAgricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO)Yemen Ave, Chamran Highway, Agric Research, Education and ExtensionP.O. Box: 19395-1113Tel: 0098 21 22413931Fax: 0098 21 22413931Email: t-ebrahimi@aarinena.org ;

taraneh25@yahoo.com

10. Dr. Hamid SiadatICARDA Tehran OfficeAgricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO)Yemen Avenue, EvinP.O.Box 19395-111Tehran-IranTel Office: +98-21-22400094Fax: +98-21-22401855Email: h.siadat@cgiar.org

Iraq

11. Prof. Dr. Hussain Ali AlrubeaiD.G Agricultural Research and Food Technology Directorate Ministry of Science and TechnologyP. O. Box 765,Baghdad, IraqPhone: +964 1 7781959Mobil: + 964 1 7901979149 : +964 1 7801964516E-mail: halrubeai@yahoo.com

Jordan

12. Dr. Esmat Al-KaradshehResearcher, Water Soil and Environment DirectorateNCAREP. O. Box 639 Baqa' 19381 Tel. (Work) +962 6 4725071 Ext 357Fax. (Work) +962 6 4726099 Mobile +962 777713935E-mail: esmatk@yahoo.com Skype: eskaradsheh

13. Dr. Abdelnabi FardousDirector of Environmental Claims UnitAmman, JordanTelfax: +962-6-5563277Mobile:+962-777500136E-mail: a.fardous@yahoo.com

14. Prof. Ahmad Al-Rimawi Acting Dean, Faculty of Agriculture University of JordanAmman-JordanTel: +962-6-5355000 Fax: +962-6-5355577E-Mail: ashrim@ju.edu.jo

Kuwait

15. Dr. Yousif Al-ShayjiManager/Biotechnology DepartmentKuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR)P. O. Box: 24885Safat 13109 KuwaitTel: +965 – 4836100/5500-5501Direct: + 965-4836100 Fax: +9654834670

57

E-mail: maamri@safat.kisr.edu.kw

Lebanon

16. Dr. Christo HilanLebanese Agricultural Research Institute (LARI)Tal Amara, Rayak, P. O. Box Zahle 287 LebanonTel: +961-8-900037147Fax: +961-8-900037177Email: fanarlab@lari.gov.lb

Libya

17. Dr. Ibrahim Abdelhadi BalallDirector General, Agricultural Research Center, ARC

P.O.Box 2480, Tripoli, Libya Tel:+218 21 3616866

Fax: + 218 21 361 4993

18. Mr. Adnan GibrielAgricultural Research Center, ARC P.O.Box 2480, Tripoli, Libya Tel +218 21 3616866 Fax +218 21 3614993 adnangibriel@yahoo.com E-mail

Morocco 19. Yasmina El Bahloul

PH.D Amélioration Génétique et Biotechnologies VégétalesUnité d'Amélioration des Plantes Conservation et Valorisation des Ressources PhytogénétiqueINRA-MarocB.P 6570 Rabat-Instituts 10101Téléphone: +212 37774109E-mail: yas_ba@yahoo.fr

Oman

20.Dr. Ahmed Nasser Al-BakriDirector General of Agriculture & Live stock Research CenterMinistry of AgricultureP. O. Box 50, P C. 121

Seeb - Sultanate of OmanTel: +968-26893131/855Fax: +268-26893097E-mail: research@omantel.net.com:

21. Dr. Saleem NadafFocal PointArabian Peninsula Directorate General of Agriculture & Livestock ResearchMinistry of Agriculture,E-mail: saleem_nada@hotmail.com

Pakistan

22. Dr. Rakhshan RoohiPrinciple Scientific Officer / Program HeadNational Agricultural Reserch CenterPark STATION ROAD,Islamabad-45500 PakistanTelephone: +92519255074E-mail: drroohi_gis@yahoo.com

Qatar

23.Mr. Abdullah Al-BuainainHead of Agricultural Research DepartmentTel: 009745511500Office: 009774412598P.O. Box. 2955E-mail: Qajmb2006@hotmail.com

Saudi Arabia 24. Mr. Meshal Almitari

KACST P. O. Box 6086Riyadh 11442 Fax: +96614813611 Email: ameshalmen@gmail.com

Syria

25. Dr. Moead AlMeselmaniGeneral Commission for Scientific Research (GCSAR)Minstry of Agriculture and Agrarian ReformP.O.Box: 113 Douma- DamascusTel. +963 11 5741940

58

Fax: +963 11 5757992E-mail: moaedalmeselmani@yahoo.com

Sudan

26. Prof. Elsadig Suliman MohamedDeputy Director General, Agricultural Research CorporationP. O. Box 126, Wad Medani, SudanEmail: el.sadigmohamed@yahoo.com

Tunisia

27. Dr. Habib AmamouDirector GeneralInstitution de la Recherche et de l’Enseignement Superieur Agricoles IRESA)30 rue Alain Savary1002 Tunis, TunisiaFax: ++ 216 71 796 170E-mail: amamou.habib@iresa.agrinet.tn

Yemen

28. Dr. Mohamed Noaman Sallam Director of Extension Programs

& Projects Agricultural Research & Extension Authority (AREA)- Yemen Tel: Mobile: +967-777301426 Fax: +967-6-423919 or 423950 E-mail: ; Sallam1958@gmail.com

29. Dr. Khalil M. AlshargabiDG, Technology DisseminationAREADhamar-YemenP. O. Box 87148Mobile: 00967 777 16 22 99Telefax: 00967 6 423919 or 423914E-mail: khalil60amal@yahoo.com

NGO's, Farmers & Private SectorTurkey

30. Mr. Selahattin Mermer / IFAP

Deputy Secretary GeneralUnion of Turkish Chambers of Agriculture (TZOB)GMK Bulvari No. 25 06440 Demirtepe-ANKARA, TURKEYPhone:+90.312 231 63 00Fax: +90.312 231 76 27E-mail: selahattinmermer@tzob.org. tr

31. Dr. Ali DarwishYamout Bldg.,3rd FloorSpears St.,174Beirut , LebanonTelfax: +961.1.746215Mobile; +961.3.372660Email: ali@greenline.org.lb Website: http:\\www.greenline.org.lb

32. Dr. Mahmud DuwayriPresidentAjloun National Private UniversityMember of the Steering Committee of the Jordanian Alliance Against Hunger (JAAH)Amman-JordanTel: +962-7-77805080E-mail: duwayri@ju.edu.jo

33. Dr. Salah GalalNGO/Rare Breed International (RBI)Professor, Animal production DepartmentFaculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams UniversityP.O.Box 68, Hadaeq Shubra 11241 Cario, EgyptTel: +202 4444 1176Fax: +202 4444 4460E-mail: sgalal@tedata.net.eg

34. Eng. Mohamed El-Kholy Egyptian Association for Supporting Olive Growers (EASOG),10 Mohamed Tawfik Diab Street6th District - Nasr City, Cairo Egypt E-mail: elkholy49@yahoo.com

35. Dr. Jad Isaac Director General The Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem (ARIJ) Caritas St. Bethlehem, Palestine

59

Tel: +972-2-2741889 Fax: +972-2-2776966 E-mail :jad@arij.org; pmaster@arij.org

36. Dr. Kelly Harrison Agricultural Economist Private Sector E-Mail: kellyhrrsn@yahoo.com U.S.A

37. Mr. Zubeir Ibrahim Mohamed.P O Box 3949 Khartoum, Sudan.Phone : + 249- 1 83798816Fax : + 249- 1 83767448E-mail: nilesun@hotmail.com

38. Mr. Abbas Radhi RazooqiPrivate SectorBaghdad, IraqE-mail: alawrad.abbas@gmail.com

AARINENA

39. Dr. Ibrahim Hamdan AARINENA Executive Secretary Tel:-+ 962-6-5525750 Fax: +962-6-5525930 P. O. Box 950764 Amman 11195 Jordan E-mail: I.hamdan@cgiar.org; ihamdan@link.net

40. Dr. Mohamad Samir HabbabAARINENA ConsultantUniversity of JordanFaculty of AgricultureAmman, JordanTel: =962-79-5657017E-mail: samirhabbab@gmail.com

41. Dr. Mohammad Majdalawi Coordinator E-Consultation

Mobile; 962-79-9397009 Tel: +962-6-5693550 Jarrash University , Amman-Jordan E-mail: mohammadmj@yahoo.com

42. Susanna Smets

Facilitatorc/o Thomas PritzkatGTZ Urban Development ProjectPO box 12955 Aleppo, Syria Email: susannasmets@yahoo.com

ORGANIZATIONS

ACSAD

43. Dr. Ali Zidan Vice Director of Sustainable Land & WaterThe Arab Center for Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands (ACSAD)P. O. Box 2440 Damascus, SyriaTel +963-11-5743087/39Fax +963-11-5743063

Email: ali_zidan@hotmail.com

BI

44. Dr. Jozef TurokRegional DirectorRegional Office for Europe Biovesity International (BI)Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a00057 Maccarese, Rome, Italy Tel.: (39) 066118250Fax: (39) 0661979661Email: J.TUORK@CGIAR.ORG

CEDARE

45. Dr. Omar Elbadawy Regional Land Resources Program ManagerCentre for Environment & Development for the Arab Region & Europe (CEDARE)2 ElHegaz Street, Heliopolis, Cairo, Egypt P. O. Box 1057 Heliopolis BaharyPhone: (202) 2 451-3921 /2/3/4 Ext. 664 Fax: (202) 2 451-3918 E-Mail: elbadawy@cedare.int Web Site: www.cedare.int

60

CIRAD

46. Dr. Michel TrebelCirad Delegate for Mediterranean and Middle East countriesParis, FranceE-mail: michel.trebel@cirad.fr

DFID

47. Dr Jonathan WadsworthSenior Agriculture Research AdviserDepartment for International Development1, Palace Street, London SW1E 5HEUnited KingdomTel: +44 (0) 207023 0872Fax: +44 (0) 207023 0105Mob: 07920534326Email: J.Wadsworth@dfid.gov.uk

FAO/RNE

48. Mr. Magdi LatifFAO Regional Information Management officer11 Al Eslah El Zerai st.

Dokki, Cairo, EgyptMobile ::00 20 10 1772187Email: magdi.latif@fao.org

49. Dr. Ghassan Hamdallah Consultant11 Al Eslah El Zerai st. P. O. Box: 2223

Dokki, Cairo, EgyptTel : 00 20 333 16000 (ext. 2903)Mobile: 00 20 10 772197Email: ghassan.hamdallah@gmail.com

GFAR

50 .Prof. Dr. Adel El-BeltagyGFAR ChairC/O Agricultural Research Center (ARC),

ARC, 9 Gamaa st., 12619 Giza, Egypt Tel 202-35722609Fax 202-35722069E-mail elbeltagy@optomatica.com

51. Dr. Mark HoldernessGFAR Executive SecretaryFAO c/o SDRViale delle Term di CaracallaRome,Italy 00100 Tel. +39 06 5705 3413Fax +39 06 5705 3898 E-mail mark.Holderness@fao.org

52. Dr. Ajit MaruAgricultural Research Officer GFAR Secretariat C/O FAO/NRR Viale delle Terme Di Caracalla 00153 Rome, Italy Ph. No. : 39.06.5705.4022 Fax.No.: 39.06.5705.3898 Email: ajit.maru@fao.org;

53. Dr. Eugene Terry Global Consultant Chair of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation E-Mail: E.ERRY@CGIAR.ORG

61

Face-2-Face Workshop, Regional Consultations for West Asia and North Africa10-12 Nov 2009, Alexandria, Egypt

ICARDA

54. Dr. Mohammed El Mourid RC NAP ICARDA Tunis Tel: Office: ++ 21671752099/71752134Fax: ++21671753170Cellular: ++21698464104 or ++ 21623464104E-mail: m.elmourid@cgiar.org and melmourid@yahoo.frAddress:ICARDA, 1, Rue des Oliviers, Menzah V 2037 Tunis TunisiaPost Office BOX: ICARDA BP 435Menzah 1, 1004 Tunis, Tunisia

55. Dr. Majd Jamal Assistant Director General, Government LiaisonICARDA P. O. Box: 5466Aleppo, SyriaTel: +963-21-2213433Fax: +963-212225105E-mail: m.jamal@cgiar.org

IFPRI

56. Dr. Clemens BreisingerDevelopment Strategy and Governance International Food Policy Research Institute2033 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006Phone: +1 (202) 862-4638

WORLD FISH CENTER

57. Dr. Stephen J. HallDirector General The worldfish Center,Panang MALAYSIATel: +684 626-1606 (201) GMT + 8

http: www.worldfishcenter.otg

62

Face-2-Face Workshop, Regional Consultations for West Asia and North Africa10-12 Nov 2009, Alexandria, Egypt

Annex 3

In total a number of 18 evaluations forms were handed in after the meeting. The results are summarized as follows.

What are the most important learning points from face-2-face meeting for you?

• I learned many things• There is enthusiasm towards cooperation in the region• Farmers role should be highlighted (especially poor farmers)• Climate change should be given due importance in agricultural research• Consensus on future of AARINENA is required before GCARD 2010• Keep up the morale to reduce poverty and for poor people and farmers• Regional and international organizations fully support to change focus towards poor and

smallholders• Solutions are within reach now problem analysis is done• The target group: poor farmers• Importance of climate change• Importance of funding for research• Importance of cooperation• Commitment and involvement of the participants, diversity of vies and open minds• The consultation process itself • Democracy/transparency in expressing one’s view• The added value from sharing ideas and knowledge• Good preparation, good organization and good way of sharing views• Overview of problems the region is facing• The “unreachable” megaprograms; hope that one of the programs will be implemented in the

region• Importance of exchange within the region• Importance of young scientist and their career perspectives• Great meeting• Important role of international organizations in driving the new AR4D agenda• Value of participatory meeting and regional output-oriented workshops• Greater appreciation of water problems in the region• New contacts with interesting people• Learn more about AARINENA• Learn more about the problems in the region• Exchange my ideas with international partners• Value team work spirit and the way the meeting was organized• Adopt practical and feasible approach to problem solving• Accept and be frank about the current situation and past failures

Did the meeting fulfill your expectations?• 17 times YES• 1 time: to some extent

63

Face-2-Face Workshop, Regional Consultations for West Asia and North Africa10-12 Nov 2009, Alexandria, Egypt

What was good about the meeting?A) Agenda and content

What was less good about the meeting? How could this have been improved?A) Agenda and content

• efficient• agenda was comprehensive• agenda was followed on time• all was ok • everything in line with objectives• all subjects were covered• objective-oriented agenda• the session on recommendations

for Montpellier was good• the session on CGIAR SRF and

MPs was interesting

• limited time for group discussions• GIS sector could not be covered due to time constraints• more efforts to be paid to the method of prioritization• more participation in setting the agenda• start “thinking process” earlier by distributing the detailed

agenda and activities beforehand• start morning session at 8:30 • send agenda to participants well before workshop• limited time for group and plenary discussions• late start in the morning

What was good about the meeting?B) Process, facilitation and participation

What was less good about the meeting? How could this have been improved?B) Process, facilitation and content

• well represented and facilitated• good and to the best ability of the

organizers• excellent facilitation (3 times)• active participants• fruitful discussions• good participation, well driven by

facilitator• lead facilitator was excellent• well managed and facilitated

• N-Africa was not represented by NGOs, farmer organizations, private sector• ICBA, AOAD were absent• The group could have been larger with more institutes being invited• Lack of representation from CBOs, farmer organizations and North Africa region• Participation of farmers was weak; regional farmer organizations could have been invited• Specialization of people in the groups to be better divided• Difficulties to keep discussion on track in the group work• Co-facilitators should be well-prepared • We need more participation from target group: resource poor • Inadequate participation of urban poor• Use national events, such as “week of agriculture” to trace key-farmers in each country and invite them with proper translation facilities• Limited time in some of the plenary feedback sessions; not everyone could contribute with comments• Some participants were not so comfortable with English; translation would have helped• co-facilitators were not all up to the task, which resulted that in some cases consensus could not be reached on relevant issues• Policy makers were not represented• More participation of women farmers• Barriers to communicate between farmers and researchers• Lack of young age participants

64

Face-2-Face Workshop, Regional Consultations for West Asia and North Africa10-12 Nov 2009, Alexandria, Egypt

What was good about the meeting?C) Organization, logistics, venue

What was less good about the meeting? How could this have been improved?C) Organization, logistics, venue

• well done• very well organized and followed up

minute by minute• very good in every aspect• all was OK• excellent (3 times)• affordable and good value hotel• working group rooms were convenient• Bibiliotheca Alexandria visit much

appreciated• all fine

• open up choice for participants to stay at other venues (at their own expenses)• no time in program to see historic sights in Alexandria (apart from Bibliotheca Alexandria)• Alex-Cairo was quite far, although transport was organized well; meeting could have been organized in Cairo• Although venue was great, it was not practical to get to Alex• Time-slot for visit of city would be appreciated

What are your recommendations?• Invite farmer organizations and social institutions from the region• Invite policy makers to convince them about the needs and impact of for agricultural research • use facilitator (like Susanna) for next meetings• directly invite stakeholders, regional farmer organizations• get experienced group-facilitators in addition to the lead facilitator• achieve better representation in the different groups• AARINENA should enlarge its member base with other organizations in the region• Ensure government and extension service participation• More NGOs and young scientist in AR4D• Separate forum for young scientists in Montpellier• Make video (DVD) of meeting for future reference• Include a session of the participants OWN contributions to overcome constraints• Encourage evidence-based argumentations and presentations

Interest in follow-up eventsAlmost all respondents indicated that they are interested in follow-up events, regional and well as GCARD in Montpellier

Suggestions for other organizations to be involved• all parties are already involved• global change impact study centre (GCISC)• Involvement of ministries (agriculture, environment)• Key-farmers (opinion leaders) and female farmers• Turkish research institute and universities• Tunisian research institute on cereals and legumes• Tunisian ministry of Agriculture• ICBA (Dubai)• AOAD (Khartoum)• Include policy makers• Regional farmer organizations• More NGOs to be involved in the future

65

Face-2-Face Workshop, Regional Consultations for West Asia and North Africa10-12 Nov 2009, Alexandria, Egypt

66