Ethiopia CGIAR country collaboration and site integration national consultation meeting

11 December 2015
Lalibela Auditorium ILRI-Addis, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Read the official meeting report

There have been significant developments in the agriculture sector in Ethiopia recently, and the CGIAR is in the process of developing a second phase of its Research Programs. It is therefore important for the CGIAR to come together with its national partners and key stakeholders to discuss the national priorities and goals for the strategic agenda for agricultural research and development, and related nutrition and health linkages. Furthermore we seek to explore what the opportunities are for partnership, alignment and working together towards these goals. We would like to better understand what the various stakeholders and partners will be doing to meet these priorities and goals? To that end we are organising a national consultation on 11th December, 2015. This consultation will also contribute to the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD3) process.

Participants of the national consultation meeting

Meeting Objectives
  • Better understand the national priorities and goals for agricultural and related nutrition and health research for development
  • Present CGIAR work in Ethiopia (major thematic areas, partnerships and geographic location)
  • Identify major opportunities to align activities across actors around specific themes, including reviewing modalities for country collaboration

  • 08.00 Registration
  • 08.30 Welcome and introductions
  • 09.00 Opening speech - (Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)
  • 09.15 Introducing the national agricultural and related nutrition and health priorities
    • Presentation by the Agricultural Transformation Agency - Growth and Transformation Plan I and GTP II - See the presentation
    • Presentation by the Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research (EIAR) on its agricultural research strategy - See the presentation
    • Presentation by the Rural Economic Development and Food Security (RED&FS) sector working group about their activities and priorities - See the presentation
    • Q&As
  • 11.00 Break
  • 11.20 Introducing the CGIAR research activities in Ethiopia
    • Overall presentation of CGIAR activities (Strategy and Results Framework) globally and in Ethiopia - See the presentation
    • Presentation of CGIAR research programs (major achievements, lessons learnt and ways forward)
  • 12.20 Making sense of key opportunities for collaboration (intervention areas: WHAT to work together on)
  • 13.00 Lunch
  • 14.00 Reviewing modalities of country collaboration
    • Cases and examples of good and improvable practices
    • What we need to do to avoid bottlenecks about national-CGIAR country collaboration
  • 15.00 Break
  • 15.20 Reviewing effective options and modalities for collaboration (HOW to work together)
  • 16.30 Final recommendations and next steps towards better cooperation
  • 17.00 Close

Background information
See background reading on site integration/country collaboration:

See list of participants

Outputs of the meeting

Notes of the meeting

Welcome and introduction

Welcoming words

Boni Moyo welcomed everyone and intro
duced the objectives and agenda of the consultation meeting. She proceeded by introducing CGIAR to all participants.
See the video 'CGIAR agriculture research for a food-secure future'.

Opening speech by the State Minister for Livestock

HE Dr. Gebregziabher Gebreyohannes, Ethiopia State Minister for Livestock, introduced the meeting.

Distinguished guests
Representatives of CGIAR centers
Ladies and gentlemen

It is my pleasure and an honor to make an opening remark at this important joint meeting aiming at discussing on priority research agendas relevant to Ethiopia.

Distinguished participants,
Agriculture sector has been the main driver of Ethiopian Economy and is expected to contribute to poverty reduction, food and nutrition security, raw material for industries, and export earnings. Ethiopia has registered a 10.9% annual growth in the economy for the last ten years mainly attributed by the fast agricultural growth. However, the fast growth registered so far did not brought fast transformation in the agricultural sector and in the overall structure of the economy, and needs to sustain for the years to come.

Despite the high potential of agriculture in the country, agricultural production and productivity remained very low mainly attributed to low or incomplete technological uptakes of our farmers. The average household productivity is far below potential with high individual farmer's variability indicating the high potential and opportunity to improve if technological packages are properly adopted by farmers and technologies appropriate for the smallholder farmers are continuously developed from national and global research institutions.

Agriculture in Ethiopia is being challenged by climate change. Climate change has resulted in drought, and high incidences of diseases and pests. Thus, reducing vulnerability of our farmers to shocks through developing climate change resilient agriculture is a priority for Ethiopia to cope up with the challenges being faced by our farmers and pastoralists.

Distinguished participants,

An increase in production and productivity and developing a drought resilient agriculture cannot be sought without a strong research support. Thus, national and global research institutions are expected to fill the technological gaps and must position themselves to respond to emerging challenges.

Ethiopia, has started implementing the second growth and transformation plan. We are targeting to continue the momentum of the fast economic growth registered during the last ten years. The importance of research to back up the agricultural extension is boldly underlined. Thus, research institutions are expected to respond to the growing demands for technologies that will fasten the agricultural growth and its contribution to the national economies.

The CGIAR centers, presence in Ethiopia, I believe is an opportunity for both the hosting country and the CGIAR centers. Considering the diverse agro-ecology, production system and challenges facing the agriculture sector in Ethiopia, technologies generated in Ethiopia could easily be adopted by other countries thus helping you to address global interests. Besides, if your efforts are aligned with the Government's priority agendas, our smallholder farmers will benefit from your work to transform their livelihood through agriculture.

However, the contribution of some of the CGIAR centers is not visible probably linked to lack of harmonization of your research with Government priorities. Today's meeting, with an agendas of discussing Government plans and trying to align your research agendas with Government priority, is what we expect from our side and what I belive should be. I appreciate the organizers for organizing such a timely agenda that brought all CGIAR centers, representatives from Government institutions and our development partners.

I will also like to pass my appreciation to our development partners, for their support to research that solves the problems of the smallholder farmers. My Government is looking forward to work with all CGIAR centers, and will continue to support to realize a strong collaborative research that will bring a sustainable development in the agriculture sector.

I would also like to express my appreciation to ILRI for organizing and hosting the workshop.
Finally, I wish you a fruitful discussion.
Thank you

Introducing the national agricultural and related nutrition and health priorities

Three presentations were given to show what are the national priorities on agriculture, nutrition and health.

  • Presentation by the Agricultural Transformation Agency - Growth and Transformation Plan I and GTP II - See the presentation
  • Presentation by the Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research (EIAR) on its agricultural research strategy - See the presentation
  • Presentation by the Rural Economic Development and Food Security (RED&FS) sector working group about their activities and priorities - See the presentation

The ATA presentation in particular set the framework for all agricultural research activities in Ethiopia. Hereby the presentation:

Questions and answers about the three presentations

Dereje Biruk (ATA)

- Q: You indicated in your presentation that you’re still working on how to incorporate nutrition in the global process – how far has this process gone, who’s involved, are there ways to participate in this and find out what’s coming up.
- A: We are working on deliverables etc. very soon. We will share our plans.
- Q: Thank you very much for your detailed presentation. When you talk about seeds etc. what is your seed dissemination approach?
- A: Strategic crops are cereals for food security (e.g. teff, wheat, maize, sorghum and malt barley). We also work on pulses (faba beans) and oil crops (sesame), coffee etc. When talking about seeds we talk about cereals and pule/oil crops. As ATA we’re not breeding, we’re addressing systemic issues in the seed sector and how to transform the sector.
- Q: Are you working on potatoes etc.?
- A: We are not there yet but the seed sector should engage on this.
- Q: I appreciated the presentation and the details of the document. What I didn’t see in terms of areas of collaboration between ATA and CGIAR is the offer of ATA to CGIAR e.g. how to pull CGIAR for certain resources to contribute to GTP2. There are areas of collaboration but no formally expressed request for collaboration
- A: In developing the GTP2 we had different sessions for dev’t partners, CG centres etc. We first had a session chaired by the state minister and another one at our office for anyone interested in the work. Then everyone could come. The max ATA can do is to show what is there and what the plan has. ATA is not a funding agency, it’s a government agency that gets its resources from donors and government. The document has much more details there.
- Q: If there is a bilateral agreement with a specific country e.g. Canada – how much do you make funding accessible to the CG system – how do you consider our involvement in bilateral agreements?
- A: E.g. IFPRI are our technical backstopping agency and request funds for whatever we ask them to do. Funding comes from the donors. Tell us what your areas of interest are and let’s sit and discuss.
- Q: What’s the modality of your engagement with the MoA? Some of it seems to be run by the ministry?
- A: There’s a transformation council led by the Prime Minister and ATA is the secretary to that and the MoA is deputy chairman. We are under MoA and at times we work with the PM through the Council. If you see the detailed plans, it’s much more exhaustive than this. ATA is focusing only (selectively) on transformation issues. We tend to focus with the MoA on transformational issues.
- Q: Policies. You mentioned the policies for biotechnology, bio-safety etc. How soon will we see strong governmental policies on these issues as currently they are weak etc. When might we have those?
- A: It depends on the specifics. E.g. in August, we had a declaration by the Gov’t on bio-safety. Still it doesn’t address everything but we understand it’s a big breakthrough for us. We have to address biosafety issues. CGIAR is well positioned to deal with policy issues and to suggest to government what needs to be done etc. We can discuss policy issues etc. and there are ways to approach government and policy issues e.g. policy advice through many ministries etc. We engage IFPRI to advise gov’t on domestic management of imported seeds etc. We have an early generation dialogue etc. It depends on specific issues…
- Q: My issue is the reference to seeds – what is the major focus? Does it include fodder seeds?
- A: Before we focused only on cereals but now Workneh works on the livestock program, we have a seed program and we try to incorporate foreign seeds etc. ATA focus is on law, regulations
- Q: How ATA give information on enactment of new laws? Where to go?
- A: These issues are dealt with by different actors and department? Need to go to the specific program department. ATA supports the various departments and ministries.

Garry Robins (RED & FS)

-Q: What is the focus of RED&FS?
-A: The main focus is coordination and making sure that we work together. RED&FS is a platform that brings together donors and governments; it is a forum to have discussions. We are working with the Ministry of Agriculture.
- Q: CIFOR – used to work with the Ministry of Agriculture. Now it is linked with the Ministry of Environment and Forest. I have not seen this ministry represented in your presentation. Don’t you think RED& FS need to consider this move and look for ways to incorporate this ministry as a working group? Especially given the fact that forestry rehabilitation affecting livestock production irrigation.
-A: Off my mind I cannot recall such a discussion. It is indeed important to involve this ministry and the technical group as well will need to be considered. But at the same time there should be a dialogue on this between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment & Science to be able to see the way forward.
-Q: CAADP initiative gets crosschecked with the GTP II priorities. Is there any process within the RED&FS that does the same?
- A: Yes, and it is done through the Policy and Investment Framework (PIF) – currently we are looking into alternatives or better mechanisms.
-Q: How often does the larger group meet?
-A: It is supposed to be every 3 months but haven’t met more than twice in a year now. But the understanding is that the Technical Committees (TC) will need to meet between these meetings.
-Q: How is the Research and Technology Task Forces aligned against the research?
-A:This task force is chaired by Dr. Fentahun of EIAR and key people from EIAR are involved in that. We are thinking of involving key representatives from the Federal ministries and State ministries. And also the development committee. We are currently allocated 3 positions. Potentially FAO is being considered. And the CGIAR can also be potentially considered form the research angel. The task is time demanding and the involvement needs willingness and commitment. A commitment to contribute and make a difference.
As we looking into the future, we think that our engagement strategy will need to take a new form. It should aim at building on partnership and share some of the work and experiences for better results.

Dr. Fentahun Mengistu (Director General, EIAR)

-Q: What would be the best mechanisms to make alignment and MoU possible with EAIR?-Bioversity-A: It will possible to have MoU, however we need to have further discussion on modalities-Q: Are you ready to address all those research agenda proposed by ATA? And really if that is the case are you going to introduce new ways of working? Or more likely to maintain the existing structures? - ATA-A: Most the activities listed by the ATA are in our mandate in which we will be working on that, but those activities out of our mandate will be dealt by regional systems and institutions affiliated with NARS will dealing with that.
-Q: What do you think if IITA can open office here in Ethiopia to work with you? - IITA
-A: you are welcome to have office here, but we want to know about how the modalities for operation, including the relationship with the government, because we will be asked by the government who are you and what you are doing in the country?
-Q:There are European funded research programs formed by researchers from Europe and over the world including few Ethiopians but happen directly without the partnership of government or any agencies. How do you get this projects are better known? Do you have mechanisms to know about the performance and status of these projects?
-A: we have National Research Council, but it doesn’t go for implementation agency rather its mandate is to coordinate and provide framework for all agricultural and related research. So, I think in the future it is going to happen that anybody/any institutions or funding coming be it universities or research systems will notify its presence and activities to this council.
-Q: We would like to link our next phase program towards the directions of national priorities. So, how nutrition is structured in your institution? - IFPRI
-A: Formerly we had nutrition research department in some of our research centers, now we converged nutrition on chemistry and quality aspects within once laboratory appeared at EAIAR. So you welcome to visit and communicate with contact person.
-Q: You talked about GMO crops. Do you have any list or priorities what type of crops you are interested in? -icipe
-A: For a while we will bring bit cattle. In addition, we have plan to work with IITA on Enset, mainly on bacteria transformation issues in the future.
-Q: the research council is apex for all research activities in Ethiopia?
-A: Yes it has its role but doesn’t implement. We have National Research Council at higher level, but it doesn’t go for implementation agency rather its mandate is to coordinate and provide framework for all agricultural and related research.
-Q: who should be the counter part of all CGCs?
-A: We propose that any communication with the CGCs or what so ever should be the liberty of NARS, but the council should provide only the general framework.

Introducing the CGIAR research activities in Ethiopia

Dr. Boni Moyo introduced the presence of CGIAR in Ethiopia through a presentation - See the presentation.
After this, the participants were invited to move around a 'marketplace' with stations from nearly all CGIAR research programs (CRPs) involved in Ethiopia, and adjacently some stations of CGIAR centers who are working on these CRPs.

The following stations were available:
  1. Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) next to IFPRI
  2. Policy Institutions and Markets (PIM) next to IFPRI
  3. Livestock and Fish (L&F) next to ICARDA and ILRI
  4. Water Land and Ecosystems (WLE) next to IWMI
  5. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) next to CIAT and Bioversity
  6. Root Tubers and Bananas (RTB) next to CIP and IITA
  7. Maize and Wheat next to CIMMYT
  8. Forest Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) next to CIFOR and ICRAF
  9. Genebank CRP
  10. Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agrifood Systems (DCLAS) next to ICRISAT

Making sense of key opportunities for collaboration

The participants then worked around an exercise (called 'what so what now what' - though compressed to 'what / so what now') whereby in small groups they reflected on what they heard and then on what they see as potential areas of collaboration.
Here are the ideas that emerged from that session:
  • Common platform to share research between CG Centers and NARS
  • Updating/Mapping the partnerships
  • Joint planning of research/development of proposals together from the beginning
  • Resource mobilization
  • Focus on emerging agenda, like climate change
  • Alignment with GTPII
  • Policy platform for alignment and guiding principles for all actors
  • Focus on research taskforce or RED&FS
  • One CG representative/focal person to deal with the national system
  • CG Vs NARS platform to discuss on priorities
  • Climate smart agriculture
  • Identifying shared priorities
  • Capacity building
  • Identify (use) existing platforms- information and data platforms, such as RED&FS
  • Management plans for NRM

In fact only three real 'opportunities for collaboration' were identified, as in potential thematic areas of work. The other ideas put forward revolved around 'modalities of collaboration' (how to make this collaboration work).
  • Seed systems
  • Commercialization and agribusiness
  • Focus on bio-technology

Reviewing modalities of country collaboration

In the early afternoon, participants reflected further on how to make country collaboration work by focusing on:
a) Stories of collaboration success and what makes them successful.
b) Nightmare scenarios for collaboration and how to stop it

In the first exercise, participants were organised in groups of 8 and shared some stories of successful collaboration between CGIAR and other actors (or other examples) to tease out what led to these successes. Some of these reflections were captured.
  • Capacity development even in training of farmers
  • Information and Knowledge sharing
  • Variety releases
  • Quality protein maize
  • Africa RISING
  • Timely delivery of quality seed to farmers
  • More income generation
  • Diversified food consumption
  • Disease managment
  • Proving resources in capacity building
  • Community based breeding program

Why it worked
  • Alignment with government policy
  • Explicit dedicated efforts
  • Coordination + Structure
  • Resources - people, facilities etc.
  • Agreement / demand driven, MoUs
  • Joint Planning meeting and partners
  • M&E
  • Explicit and dedicated efforts
  • Cascading - wide dissemination of technology
  • Technological backstopping
  • Timely delivery of quality seed to farmers
  • Infrastructure development and support
  • Defined roles and responsibilities
  • Demand driven and engagement

In the second exercise, the participants ran through an exercise (called TRIZ) where they a) identified all the ingredients to arrive at the worst possible scenario on collaboration, b) identify which of these ingredients are currently happening strongly or remotely in the CGIAR-national collaboration and c) concrete first steps to stop these. Lots of good ideas emerged here.

  • Miss - appreciation for germ plasm for indigenous crops
  • Lack of alignment with system (Within CG, Within NARS, With Government Policy)
  • Unaligned objectives (Within and Between partners)
  • CG - Donor responsibility misunderstanding
  • Failure to obtain a concrete result - not meeting the farmers interest
  • Disregard partners during implementation
  • Research custom and donor interest
  • Resource allocation / reallocation between CG and partners
  • Lack of trust, transparency and accountrability
  • Shift of donors priority / policy shift (major donors)
  • Buy-in from the beginning / Having wrong partners from the start
  • Government lack of confidence on CG Centers / Programs. Solution: seek better alignment (eg. GTP II), consider involvement during planning, joint priority setting.
  • Lack of joint planning + periodic interaciton
  • Lack of guiding principles
  • Lack of inclusive planning and demand driven approaches
  • Lack of joint fund raising as service provider
  • Different vested interest
  • Lack of effective coordinating unit (eg. EIAR and RARIS and Minstry dont have effective linkage). Solution: this is one entry point for CG
  • Too focused and not broad
  • Lack of resources
  • Failure to honor commitments
  • Frequent staff turnover
  • Funding disappears
  • Lack of basic structure the project cannot cover
  • Mismatch of technology and target beneficiary (not demand driven). Solution: make them demand driven
  • Feeling of competition
  • Absence of ownership
  • Communication gaps (2 ways)
  • Unrealistic expectation
  • Over commitment / time
  • Lack of programmatic approach and not theory of change

Solution / Steps
  • Coordination, communication, awareness of options and consequences, and shared objectives
  • Identify stakeholders / task force empowered to lead process
  • Shared objectives - Alignment with GTP II
  • Review stakeholders to ensure all are included
  • Identify specific areas and research questions
  • Agree coordination function and mechanism
  • Joint work planning (financial, reviews and investment, scalability, etc.)
  • Joint fund raising and implementation
  • M&E
  • Engagement from the beginning, broad consultation and transparency
  • Enhance dialogue between donors, CGs and national government
  • MoUs
  • Review best center CGIAR wide experiences of collaboration
  • Identify workable modalities and institutionalize for mutual accountability (agriculture, livestock, forestry, water)
  • Assign staff time, budget and facilities

Reviewing effective options and modalities for collaboration

In the last group work session of the day, the participants came back to some of the ideas forwarded at the end of the morning, to flesh out a work program. They were asked to document the key insights of their conversation and some concrete next steps (ideally with who does what when etc.) or recommendations to go forward.
6 topics were identified, which also drew upon the collaboration principles put forward in the site integration guidelines provided by the Consortium Office:
  • A sustained mechanism for collaboration
  • Developing joint proposals and research (fund-raising)
  • Shared CGIAR-EARS resources and equipment
  • Streamlining policy engagement
  • Opportunities and modalities of capacity development

1) Sustained mechanisms for communication / collaboration
a) Secretariat
  • Use NARC as entry point for research
  • Establishment of dedicated secretariat with authority at CG level (CG-NARC) coordinating office
  • NARC secretariat – Dr. Mekuria
  • ILRI on behalf of CGIAR – Dr. Boni
  • Consult/Adapt the experience of RED&FS, contact Garry & Dejene

b) Regular consultation meeting
  • 2 times a year

  • Planning
  • Review/sharing results
  • M&E
  • Who? The secretariat
  • Continuous communication- by the secretariat
  • ToR for the secretariat

2) Capacity Building Opportunities and Modalities
What and How

Human Resources Capacity
  • Formal training / higher education
  • On-site training (joint research)
  • Short term training
  • Capacity of extension system (scaling-up and technology multiply)
  • Research leadership + management

Research Infrastructure
  • Laboratory Facilities
  • Facilitating access
  • Advanced service provision
  • Capacity enhancing genetic gain of crops and live stocks (cold store, farm machinery, green houses, filed vehicles

  • Joint project
  • Joint implementation
  • Linkage with international universities and research institutes
  • CGIAR + NARS (supervise + co-supervise)
  • Joint publication
  • Staff exchange
  • Resource centers at region

3) Joint Proposal Development & Research
  • Systems focus
  • Common objectives linked to national goals
  • Value chains for key interventions
  • Water and nutrition as cross cutting issues
  • Key partners
Eg. Improved livelihoods and nutrition through agriculture in Ethiopia

  • Initiating group/individual invite relevant/potential stakeholders
  • Consultation for decisions on area of research
  • Additional stakeholders if needed to fill gaps
  • Work program with roles/responsibilities
  • Proposal development process

4) Shared Facilities and Equipment
  • Lab
  • Field
Shared - use each others facilities / equipment / germ plasm
  • Equal access
  • Equal basis
  • Win-Win
Principles / modalities - Recommendations
a) Understand lab and field capacity in CG and NARS in Ethiopia
  • Equipment
  • Land area, soil type, environment
  • Irrigation capacity
  • Labor / consumables
  • Cost

b) Guide for use (from own institute)
  • Health / safety
  • Access control
  • Training in use of equipment
  • Trainining in biosafety
  • MTAs, Confidentiality Agreement, CRAs

c) Training component
  • On the job
  • Short term
  • Techniques / equipment
  • Equipment maintneance

Who, What, When
Feb - Taskforce - Key institutuions
August - Inventory of opportunities, verification of equipment
November - Guidelines for sharing (appraised by DGs of the institutions)
December - Announce what is available and how to access (DGs policy)

5) Streamlining Policy Engagement
Key Insights
  • Engaging in existing platform
  • CG internal co-ordination
  • Visibility of CG activities
  • Map CG programs / projects (to) aligning to GTP II program areas (abstracts)
  • Identify gaps - future potential research areas
  • Explore opportunities for engagement as identified
Evidence Generation
  • TCs - RED&FS (ILRI)
  • TCs - NNP (A4NH) (3) sub-committee
National Research Council
  • NARC - A4NH

CG - Internal Coordination
  • CG-center - representatives
  • CRP representatives - To increase visibility + how to present to policy makers

Next steps and closing

In the very last session of the consultation meeting, Frank Place (IFPRI/PIM) was invited to enumerate a series of next steps that will help implement some of the ideas and recommendations put forward by the participants.
  • Country plan mid-February (SHAPE) in CRPs (31/03)
  • Review/input to documents
  • Proceedings for review (next)
  • Empower country working group to move this agenda forward
  • Who to involve next? Ask the task force (eg. Regional organizations, like IGAD, FAO, UN, etc.)
  • Discuss our common language?
  • This process is an input to the GCARD3

After this, two participants were also invited to reflect on the day and on the way forward: Workneh Ayalew (ATA/ILRI) and Mekuria Tadesse (National Agricultural Research Council).
  • What we are grappling with is really complex to navigate through the different issues.
  • But there are ample opportunities to work together.
  • It is all about relevance with realities on the ground
  • From the Government side it is all about research contributing towards bringing change at the house hold level
  • The issue is achieving impact at scale
  • Challenges still remain but let us emphasize on the opportunities to demonstrate that Agriculture is still crucial for livelihoods.
  • The development partners are very much willing to work with us hence let us also capitalize on that
  • The Ethiopian Agricultural Research Council is currently looking into workable modalities as indicated by the road map which is hoped to engage the various stakeholders.
  • Ethiopian government believes that CGIAR centers have contributed a lot for the agricultural research in development.

Finally, Boni Moyo closed the consultation meeting by thanking everyone for their hard work, engagement and good inputs and invited to work further on this in the new year.

Common platform to share research between CG Centers and NARS
Updating/Mapping the partnerships
Joint planning of research/development of proposals together from the beginning
Resource mobilization
Focus on emerging agenda, like climate change
Alignment with GTPII
Policy platform for alignment and guiding principles for all actors
Focus on research taskforce or RED&FS
One CG representative/focal person to deal with the national system
CG Vs NARS platform to discuss on priorities
Climate smart agriculture
Identifying shared priorities
Capacity building
Identify (use) existing platforms- information and data platforms, such as RED&FS
Seed systems
Commercialization and agribusiness
Focus on bio-technology
Management plans for NRM