Developing a Research Program on Sustainable Intensification and Climate Change
Consultative Workshop, ILRI Infocentre, Addis Ababa, 28–30 January 2014
Read the original concept note / Read additional background information about agriculture and climate change in Ethiopia.

  • Define what this program is going to be about (overall focus and boundaries)
  • Define what it will entail and how it will be developed (components)
  • Flesh out the proposal on day 3 and identify ways to make this proposal attractive to various donors

See the draft set of ideas in this document: (as well as at the bottom of this page)


TUESDAY – Scene Setting

John McIntire, ILRI
Opening Remarks
H E Wondirad Mandefro, State Minister for Agricultural Development, Ministry of Agriculture (TBC)
Purpose of the meeting
Introduction to the basic concepts
Iain Wright, ILRI
Peter Ballantyne, ILRI
Setting the scene: Implications of future climate change on sustainable intensification of agriculture
Polly Ericksen, ILRI
Plenary: Q&A
Peter Ballantyne
Plenary interaction: Food, feed, intensification and climate change - perspectives

Agroforestry intensification for climate resilience and climate change adaptation in Ethiopian farming systems
Emiru Birhane, ICRAF - See presentation
Evolving demand for NRM research for sustainable intensification of agriculture
Alamseget Haile, IWMI - See presentation


Evolving demand for food crops research for sustainable intensification of agriculture
Peter Crauford, CIMMYT - See presentation
Evolving demand for animal feed research for sustainable intensification of agriculture
Michael Blummel (ILRI) and Michael Peters (CIAT) - See presentation
Food, feed, climate change research – Ethiopian perspectives
Girma Mamo, EIAR - See presentation
Plenary: Q&A

Wrap up and planning for day 2



WEDNESDAY – Program scoping and components
Recap and agenda for the day

Draft concept note for a collaborative program in Ethiopia and Africa
Iain Wright
Plenary: Q&A

Plenary interaction: Exploring boundaries of a program: Geographic, scientific, system, components

Groups: Defining research agenda and approaches for research on primary food/feed production
1. Targeting
2. Biophysical research
3. Socio-economic research (including e.g. markets, policies, impact pathways)
3 groups


Groups: Defining research agenda and approaches for research on primary food/feed production


Groups: Defining research agenda and approaches for research on primary food/feed production


Groups: Report back

Synthesis of Program Outline and Elements

Wrap up and planning for day 3


THURSDAY – Concept/Proposal Development by smaller group

Meeting notes


  • Promote agricultural intensification through integrating woody plans for food and feed in the existing system
  • Prospects from more livestock feed in mixed systems
  • Achieve greater critical mass for the Sustainable Intensification (SI) agenda across CG/other partnerships
  • How the program will tie in with other programs such as Africa RISING and the CRPs?
  • Options to combine diverse ongoing activities on SI
  • Ethiopian vision to agriculture next decade
  • Find a very specific 'niche' while connecting clearly with other ongoing programs
  • Establish a forum on which we can interact frequently and develop (expand) SI & CSA technologies
  • Realistically determine what are the components of the systems we are targeting
  • Best applicable technology platforms that can transform Ethiopian agriculture
  • Research findings may be presented & experiences gained from discussions and presentations
  • Commitment from partners to take the proposal forward
  • Identify needs to respond with relevant ideas
  • Robust agenda for SI with clear aims & responsibilities
  • Good and feasible ideas to work across CG centers and EIAR
  • A sound project idea for SI of small scale agriculture
  • More ideas to enrich the project
  • Looking forward to a long-term plan with achievable and clear milestones
  • Clear framework in which we can contribute to SI and shared vision of the program outcomes
  • Clear conceptual framework with agreed components
  • Concrete concept note / proposal
  • Agreement on the key elements of a programme
  • Clear focus for the program & specific, well-defined 'next steps'
  • Research agenda which will contribute to a diversified agriculture for the future

Presentation on climate change (Polly)

  • Many large scale changes happening (e.g. demographics).
  • Q: How do you estimate influence of regional integration etc. on production? A: We used expert opinions and historical data to establish this.
  • We shouldn't wait for models to predict exactly to take action - we have to use modeling to think about possible issues we may have to face in the future. What are possible responses we will see in the future.

Group synthesis as take-homes for the design of this program:
  • New or changing incentives pose !?? for SI --> tradeoffs
  • Options that are robust across scenarios
  • Demand for more options and knowledge
  • Key uncertainties to focus on
  • Widening the genetic base of crops
  • Pests and diseases - research and new varieties needed
  • Research on low (P) but high (EV) topics
  • Tradeoffs from SI
  • Strengthening biotechnology & new tools (ICT) for R4D in this project
  • Integrated approaches (diversity)
  • Diversification vs. intensification offering alternatives for food and feed, especially for small scale farmers
  • Systems research on SI components
  • Effect of CC on bio- ? stress / uncertainty of models / policy vs. biology (trees!) (improvement) pests & diseases / drivers of change
  • Short vs. long term
  • Links to modelling activities
  • What are the limits of adaptation?
  • Do we need to define them?
  • Need for wide range of "options" (new and existing)
  • Options for mitigation
  • Risk management and adaptive capacities
  • Gene mining
  • Reduction of vegetation cover at landscape scale
  • Need for overall landscape restoration - vs. population growth
  • Climate robust landscapes
  • Impact of CC / biological processes

Presentations on Trees and water

Group work synthesis about presentations:
  • Adaptation X mitigation - co-benefits
  • Different stakeholders may have different agendas
  • Tradeoffs and incentives?
  • + synergies. Access these
  • Target planted trees X natural trees ??
  • Enhancing adoption of agroforestry practices through high value tree crops
  • Traditional agroforestry practices are strong and should be scaled up
  • Agroforestry: incentive: rights to trees (benefits). "Farmers managed natural regenration: - Policies - Issue: grazing (controlled / 0 grazing)
  • What AF system can be adopted for the future CASH??
  • Technology is an issue? On farm, in-situ for direct profit - IF landscape only, no buy-in )more complicated)
  • Where, how and what irrigation can be developed?
  • Water use efficiency / irrigation system
  • Research-development integration (action-oriented)
  • Shallow ground water mapping
  • Research-driven utlization of water resources
  • Lack of knowledge: ground water resources, value of water is disregarded (free good = wastage), application of existing knowledge/options
  • Lack of: capacity at farm level to manage water / capacity at landscape watershed level.
  • (Added later) Erosion?

Presentations on sustainable intensification and Ethiopian agriculture

Conversation from presentations:
  • Q: Ethiopia has the largest cattle population but quality remains an issue. The biggest issue is livestock. What technologies can we pick to address livestock challenges?
    • A: Subsistence farmers are removed from sustainable intensification. You have to become market-oriented to get more out of these animals. The other issue is risk avoidance etc. Feed is not the key constraint for changing the system. It's not a key constraint at this point. Feeds are currently used to just maintain animals.
    • The difference in the composition of feeds is important! Crop by-products are not fully utilized.
    • Animals are not kept productive. The services that the farmers have access to are not adequate (e.g. access to resources for crop production, children education etc.) and until this is not addressed there will not be more productive animals.
    • It's about getting the (inputs and outputs) market right.
    • Farmers take a long time to bring their cattle to their markets.
  • Intensification is not just about 'more', it's about the whole system with crops, animals etc. but the whole.
  • The idea of trajectories is important - in some places, SI is not possible. In others it is, based on what's happening now.
    • You can intensify individual components but there will be consequences (and trade-offs) on other components.
    • Management change (around breeding and at other levels) is important - and is an opportunity in this.
  • Q: Is integration meant at farm level? For dairy farms, you become specialized and there's no real integration with crops etc. We shouldn't give the impression we can only do SI at the level of a farm, we can do it at a wider level/scale.
  • How we talk about SI in terms of time (what time table) and space (farm / landscape) matters here - related to trajectories.
  • We are all going in the same direction: it will take long, it will include farms and other levels and there will be different trajectories. The next generations of farmers will probably go through different farming practices. It will be messy at the beginning.

Conversation on 'what did we learn for the focus of this program?' (group work) from NARS presentation
Group 1:
  • Strengthen linkages with existing policy
  • Understand the added value of the project with the other initiatives with respect to climate change adaptation / mitigation
  • Scale & time frame: At what level should the intervention be?
  • Need to go beyond biophysical research e.g. social, economic aspects
Group 2:
  • Short term vs. long term goals!
  • Selecting boundaries: hierarchical? household level? Pilot area (systems) landscape-farm
  • Government's commitment to support 'this' research
  • Integrating mechanisms: sectors, research centres
  • Scaling up government: ways and methods?
Group 3:
  • How can this project help Ethiopian long term plans? Livestock is very important
  • Reminder: Highland ecologies: Livestock more integrated systems anyway; more opportunities to link with by-products; CONTEXT
  • What is the trajectory for meat / dairy products in the future? Meat in highlands mainly
  • Need for feed research inventory / database. really don't know how much bio-mass is there; linked to livestock (all types) data base

Final thoughts for day 1:
  • How do we add value to existing programs?
  • It's about feed/food/livestock/NRM/CC/SI
  • These components come in different ways in different systems - is the boundary the Highlands etc.? And then you have other boundaries within that e.g. climate change etc. there are specific challenges.
  • Our short term approach is that we have a nested approach with basic scientific research on modeled outcomes and do downstream work where there are market and information failures... The downstream work will be done to test pilots and address donors' needs for 'results by tomorrow'.
  • We know we have many existing technologies, information etc. but how to get that information into use? In a longer-term approach, how do we move the production frontier with the next challenges we'll face?

Day 2

Recap from Polly

  • Importance of trade-offs
  • Climate change: narrow down on key uncertainties
  • More centre-specific presentations by ICRAF and IWMI and using an NRM approach
  • What is the real challenge? Not feeds per se but farming systems generally

What we have discussed
Targeting analysis, upstream-biotech, field research on technologies, farming systems pilots, policy and institutional issues, capacity development.

What is missing in the concept note?
  • Adaptation - mitigation
  • Tradeoffs (time, scale, climate smart agriculture (CSA) objectives)
  • NRM (trees and water)
  • Approach uncertainty

Iain's presentation of the concept note

This program - which will comprise different projects - is not about the whole of sustainable intensification. It is focusing on increasing primary productivity (how to use biomass). Is it an acceptable boundary?
We probably have to work on targeting, on developing new technologies to increase productivity.
We need more biological 'upstream' research that might use a whole new suit of technologies to produce e.g. new forage varieties etc.

Another component is about field testing of new ideas at scale
Another component is about farming systems research looking at tradeoffs
A fifth component is socio-economic research / the enabling environment e.g. policies, socio-economic issues (equity in the community, gender at household level), institutional arrangements, impact of introducing technologies on labour...
The final component is capacity development.

Q&A / conversation:
  • The first question should not be about increasing production, it should be about 'how can we identify more efficient systems' - we should aim at a narrower focus - make better use of biomass
  • Q: On 'enabling capability', are you including the facilitating role? There are various issues mentioned addressed by ongoing CRPs. Perhaps we can pull those synergies together. Is that part of your enabling environment work?
    • A: It's not yet clear how it relates to CRPs... How do we make sure that this program - focused on Ethiopia - relates to CRP structure... It was partly deliberate because we didn't want to restrict ourselves to CRPs.
  • Short vs. long term... What can we target for short and long run? A lot of the short run research is addressed by Africa RISING etc.
  • When we look at demographic development etc. we are targeting farming systems... Ultimately we are talking about livestock issues influenced by climate. If climate is a major driver
    • A: An advantage of this program is to bring existing programs together...
    • Comment: I don't think we can sell primary production as sustainable intensification... We are talking about the whole farming system and livestock is there as secondary production. If we talk about sustainable production of bio-mass, it is different to SI.
    • If we talk about bio-mass etc. we talk about profitability etc.
  • The upstream component has to be thought about...
  • We're now increasing biomass but that's a means. We have to go further: do we want to increase productivity in a livestock-based system?
  • What makes this different from what we normally do is the multiple CG centres and EIAR. Variability in Ethiopia is huge. A lot of issues are coming together. If we focus on livestock, do we focus on meat, dairy etc. Do we focus on feeds, food, mechanization, NRM etc.? We can't find a single bullet solution for this. If we focus on e.g. dairy in one place we look at the different components of dairy.
  • If we want to emphasize productivity / efficiency, this is very nice but if we follow the SI path, we have to explain how different this will be from SI...
  • Data: if we provide a solid data set that we can use that will be an important contribution.
  • One of the questions is to look at CRPs. We are focusing on systems research. All CRPs are mixed systems with more emphasis on crops than on livestock.
What is the major challenge we face? Produce 70% more food globally and in Ethiopia. This is why we were focusing on primary productivity...
This program is good and provocative.
  • We can include schools and health sector, education etc. there are issues of family planning, food security etc. We can link and reach communities and give some scholarships in agriculture, health, nutrition etc.
  • Humidtropics is all about SI, CCAFS is about CC - we have to refine our objectives carefully. To put a time frame to it, is 2050 the temporal scope? We can fill in the gaps.
  • What about the sustainability of this? I hear intensification but not sustainable. What are the indicators to reach SI? How do we stop being biased by short term needs?
  • In relation to all the programs - what are we doing? Are we looking at integrating these CRPs and addressing their anticipated gaps?
    • A: over the next 2 years there's an opportunity to influence those discussions in a way that we ensure the CRPs meet the needs of Ethiopians...
  • The focus is to increase production by 70% - here we need to look at areas with maximum potential and at other areas where there's a desperate need to improve it in a small way... Once we define

Boundary discussion

  • It's a 50-million USD program for a duration of 5 years.
  • FOCUS: 'How to sustainably increase biomass, crop and livestock production through increasing (primary) (system) productivity and better utilizing resources, while adapting to climate change'?
  • Genetics and animal health could be included but only with a very compelling argumentation...
  • Long term focus (not just short term benefits)
  • Highlands focus (at least 70%, perhaps later some activities in lowlands areas)
  • Adaptation focus (though paying attention to mitigation potential, tradeoffs and benefits of mitigation and supporting the Ethiopian government in its efforts to limit GHG emissions

Group work presentations

(The participants were split in three working groups focusing on a) targeting, b) bio-physical research and c) socio-economic research and they had to answer a series of questions and present briefly the key components and research questions, who should be involved and how their work would be integrated with other groups' work and with other ongoing initiatives).

Questions asked:
Targeting research
  • Where (systems) food and feed should be produced through sustainable intensification in view of climate change, food and nutrition security, increased urbanization market development and other drivers?
  • What targeting research is required to answer this question, taking account of research approaches, data and models available?
  • Who is presently involved in Africa/Ethiopia in such targeting research?
Socio- economic research
  • What and by whom food and feed should be produced through sustainable intensification in view of climate change, food security and increased urbanization?
  • What socio economic research is required to answer this question?
  • Who is presently involved in Africa/Ethiopia in such socio economic research?
Biophysical Research:
  • What food and feed varieties, sustainable intensification systems are available to meet demand in view of climate change, food security and urbanization?
  • What biotech, filed testing and farming systems research is required to answer this question?
  • Who is presently involved in Africa/Ethiopia in such biophysical research?

Targeting group

Characterization - ex-ante assessments - Priority setting with informing researchers and on-the-ground activities.
Iterative work. And indicative timeline that responds to these iterations... modelling informing research and the other way around.
We listed important partners - among others to get data (CCAFS, PIM, WLE, Humidtropics), national med service, EIAR, regional ARIs, CSA, Ministry of Ag etc. Also looking at technical/modeling communities e.g. AgMit. Working with MoEnvironment/Forestry.

  • Good to start with characterization.
  • One way to start characterization for site selection is to look at Polly's data with 17 different climate models showing quite high variability. Maize, wheat, sorghum etc. could be good entry points, then pick high variant areas where you need more long term research. And start with targeted interventions from e.g. Livestock and Fish, National programs etc. and select groups of farmers in these areas on what you think might be ways to raise farm income. Some negotiations will have to take place.
  • To keep the focus, let's focus on areas where climate has some significant impact and I would also superimpose socio-economic factors on that. In Ethiopia there is a division of food-secure and non food-secure districts. Perhaps we could group some of these climate spots... The urban areas are also going provide market opportunities / as opposed to hinterland areas...
  • Q: How does this relate to Africa RISING work?
    • A: In terms of site characterization and diagnosis etc. we've done a lot of work... We have got more qualitative data.
    • This work should be driven by research hypotheses.

Full group work notes

Ann, Randal, Michael, Peter, Andualam
Initial discussion covered area – the highlands – and that it was mixed crop livestock systems that the project would focus on. within mixed systems these could include more specialized livestock systems, and the fact that this might be one trajectory of change.
There was discussion about what targeting should do or include; help with identifying what/where, potential impacts of drivers (e.g. climate), trade-offs, scenarios; trajectories and ex-ante analysis of interventions
It was agreed the domain was to 2050 and modelling should be to this data. There was also discussion of livelihood and other data that could not so easily be modelled, and the need to invest in bio-economic models and trade-off models to link these data.
There was a long discussion about criteria, models, activities, what was missing. Were we looking at livelihoods or food security for example. Concluded that it was livelihoods or HH as the basic unit.
We then went back to the question and started with the targeting needs (Q2) and started to put these into components or work packages.
· Dynamics – climate change, population, livelihoods, food security (?).
· Criteria: production system (enterprise within crop-livestock) , HH livelihood, NRM (soils, degradation etc), market access? Plus drivers such as labour,
· Higher level components: site selection, ex-ante analysis, trade-offs and impacts
Where to produce food & feed (in view drivers such as CC, Food security, urbanization and…)
1. Characterization of crop livestock systems/typologies and livelihoods
Feed and food security
Other key drivers/hypotheses to be tested
2. Modelling
Production & potential food and feed, incl. rangelands
3. Ex-ante of scenarios such as effect of proposed technology under CC
Research need for integrated models to link crop to livestock, how farmer livelihoods affected (TOA) , regional impacts (IMPACT)
Linkages /partners
· Commodity CRPs
· CCAFS/PIM/HTropics (HH modeling)
· EIAR – inventory of technologies
1. Characterization
· Current & future
· Bio-physical, livelihood & institutional (who is doing what and planned work) CONTEXT
· Technologies available or proposed
o 1a data collation existing databases; who is doing what
o 1b data gap filling
o 1c typologies and trajectories of change
2. Ex-ante assessments
· Short-term use expert opinion (existing technologies under test); longer term modelling to inform project decisions
· Scenarios (BAU, existing technologies, new technologies) and (climate change, socio-economic cf CCAFS)
· Different dimensions & trade-offs (production, productivity, food security, GHG, water, …)
· Different temporal and spatial scales
o 2a model development & integration of biophysical & socioeconomic
o 2b scenario development (future priorities)
o 2c model runs
3. Priority setting
· With stakeholders
· New technologies/research priorities; e.g comparative advantages of partners, development priorities. Use expert opinion initially till model runs available
2a 2b 2c

1b 1c
2a 2b 2c








· For data, scenarios, priority setting
· CSA (HH, markets & production data)
· CRPs (baseline data, characterization data, model outputs)
· EIAR (federal) and Reg. ARIs (technologies)
· Nat. Met Service (climate)
· Agri. Trans. Agency
· WLRC (hydrological, soils, land use)
· AgMIP, CCAFS, IRI (climate, integrated assessment tools)
· Min Forest & Environment (climate change strategy; climate resilient green economy)
· Min water resource (groundwater)
· Private sector
· Farmer coops
Databases available: land use, climate, soils, population, poverty, climate change

Biophysical research group

See group work results:
Farming systems research: needs assessment (linked with targeting group).
Upstream research on forage breeding, options for waterlogging, defining feed supply demand, pest/diseases vs. climate change, gene mining.
Presently involved / who should be involved: Different partners depending on components e.g. breeding, NRM, irrigation, systems, pest/diseases, post harvest, identifying gaps for new partners, link with development partners, link to key government policies etc.
Short term vs. long term: Connect (ST) with ongoing initiatives and in the long term focus on more difficult issues.
Other issues (not discussed): capacity development, scaling, communications, seed systems...

  • Forage breeding, selection, improvement etc. is there but breeding is not a top priority. We don't have skilled people - we focus on food crops for now.
    • Comments: Breeding is probably needed for longer term options. NARS have very strong breeding program but in the future forage breeding could be useful.
    • Animal health and breeding will be long term.
  • Comment: Can you really talk about feed demand for long term research? It's a sensitive issue.
  • Comment: What is the value added of this program? It doesn't sound like any of what we heard is very specific.
    • We discussed this in the BP group but when we discuss the contrasting environment there are challenges in each area. If you add CC on top of this, it will increase the stress that is already there. We want to look at what will be the options we need in the longer term. Right now we deal with more immediate challenges.
    • There's some feeling that big gains in cereals are stagnating. Why can't we get back up to 3% increase, producing more nitrogen etc.
    • The big selling point is the climate focus. Hot spots: what can be done in farming systems research can be done? That's a new approach. Which areas do we target? In areas we will select there are elements to do with CC.
    • We talk about action research - with IPMS/LIVES we have budget for action but we don't need that, we can also do this via partners.
    • On genetic gains etc. there's a combination between improved variety and management. We need to look at the wider management of improved crops.
    • It's not just about SI, it's also about CC, bringing these together; starting to try and address how people get empowered to respond to variability and uncertainty... and bringing options with SI together with high end research. This is going to help people to be responsive, access the right options...
    • It would be possible to look at livestock economy and that would be a major transformation...
    • Supplementary irrigation, supporting bio-tech. Urban agriculture etc. with vegetables... this program can add more value on these issues.
    • In AR we had quite a long period of reflection. Trying to formulate some very clear principles for SI and seeing how they relate to action; Spending a lot of time on the details on options and opportunities is important. Low-hanging fruits are important but they usually don't taste as good as they should... And the partnership building on consensus cannot be rushed... We can summarize some lessons from AR and other programs...

Full group work notes

Michael Peters

Chairman and secretary selected and discussion resumed …

The first issue raised was about the ‘boundary’ both commodity and geography?
We will focus on livestock productivity with feed utilization component and not on health, breeding. Livestock comes through the feed.
Which animal species depends on what the ‘targeting group’ will recommend?
In terms of geography, we will focus exclusively on highlands in the first phase with possibility of working on few locations in the lowlands in the second phase. We hope that ‘targeting group’ will define the boundary for highlands (where are the highlands and where in the highlands we should focus). This is useful since it also determines which crops, livestock, and trees to consider.
Generally better to work on different/contrasting subsystems with diverse challenges within the highlands - not too much homogeneous.

Should we focus on rainfed or irrigated systems? There is water surplus on specific periods, so irrigation will be necessary. But we should focus on small-scale irrigation involving rainwater harvesting, small dams, ponds, as well as relevant conservation practices– supplemental irrigation component will be better.
(So, the focus will be on rainfed system with supplementary irrigation)

Generally, entry point will also be defined based on needs assessment including markets: what commodity to consider maybe on need
Ex-ante analysis, alternative scenarios can also be done to decide on what to choose and define options
Modelling will also be used especially to evaluate basket of options at different scales for different locations.

Focus related to specific crops and animal, tree species – depends on the ‘targeting group’.
Site-specific research considering contrasting environment with diverse challenges– including natural resources management challenges such as land degradation, soil erosion, nutrient mining/leaching, flood, long-drought period, soil fertility, acidity, waterlogging effects etc. due to climate change
Land degradation and relevant conservation activities should be in place to improve productivity (both food and feed). Land degradation is a serious as climate change, so needs emphasis. Define hotspots and develop ‘climate-smart’ management plans’, so that conservation practices can be targeted at steep slope and other vulnerable areas.
[Sustainable land management options (efficient land use and management practices to sequester carbon and reduce future GHG emission risk)] which can contribute to the ‘mitigation’ side of CC
(Develop packages considering landscape in different biophysical conditions).
Improving water productivity is also another important component
Environmental assessment should be done considering GHG emission, carbon storage, nitrogen fixation, salinization, soil fertility). Nitrogen fixation influenced by climate change.
Identify and develop options that can adapt to high vulnerable conditions: drought tolerance, disease resistant, water logging effect. We can work with teff on water logging conditions
Environmental assessment of intensification and climate change on different environmental parameters (these also affect mitigation effort) (nitrogen fixation, carbon storage, GHG, soil fertility, salinization)
Should we include biodiversity such as earthworms – they improve soils but may have impact on GHG emission
Diversification may be important component as well? Example irrigation and fruits/vegetables
Short-maturing crops and other aspects of cropping pattern will be included (including the limiting factors such as soil fertility, water stress, ….)

Farming systems approach will be the basis of the program.
Entry point will be: Yield gap analysis for both crops and livestock
Yield gap analysis will also be important to understand constraints and the required management options.
Yield gap analysis on ‘livestock side’ will consider how much of the livestock is covered by the feed available to them at the national scale. Including quantity, quality, seasonal variability
We can also do feed demand and supply analysis – national to regional instead of a particular site.

Agronomy, gene bank (gene mining) are also important aspects to consider. Maybe these are upstream research?

Do we consider new pathogens – climate change affects this plus hosts also affect the same. Issues of paste/diseases in relation to climate change (scenarios)
Map what is knows about diseases, new challenges and develop information systems

Postharvest loss is important problem that should be considered, both on the food and feed side. Reducing wastage can feed the people
Management, storage, capacity, transport, issues
Harvesting mechanization causes significant loss.
Where do we do the loss? Measure and test in field sites as there are no good data available
Climate change may cause more disease and storage facilities will be needed

For short-term wins, connect with existing projects and programs to add value and make synergies – we will keep the long-term perspective

Scaling-up, communication is needs to be considered. Not assigned to any group?

Capacity building
This can mainly be in the upstream research components – where there will be no adequate capacity and a need for training.

Example components of upstream research
New gene banks (gene mining) that can adapt to changing climate conditions
Forage breeding and selection. Limited breeding program for different environment in Ethiopia, so train to strengthen. But breeding is long-term program, while feed selection can be done in short term. So, we may not need to include breeding component
Pests and diseases versus climate change, options for water logging
Feed supply and demand analysis (maybe this is not upstream but an overarching issue?)
Postharvest – on farming systems
Fruit trees – (selection and breeding) as thy have erosion control, mitigation options. Especially work on the adoption side?

Who is involved in Ethiopia not Africa as it will be too huge
Breeding = NARS, EIAR, Regional Agricultural Research Institute (RARIs),
NRM = SLM (GIZ, World Bank, ICRAF), LIVES irrigation+ new irrigation program), WLE (e.g., IWMI, CIAT, …)
Systems plus short-term solutions= Africa RISING, SIMLIESA, N2Africa,
GIS-experts= pests and disease versus climate change, CIMMYT, ICARDA, ICIPE,
Link to key government policies and initiatives to increase adoption
Seed systems: Feed seeds project and ATA
Trees project

Who (institutions)
Those involved in the workshop should be there
Plus identify gaps and bring on relevant partners
Development partners are key
ATA for scaling out

Short-term versus long-term
Focus on long-term
Collaborate for the short-term goals

Socio-economic research group

Several research questions (and we didn't have all the expertise required):
  • How can technology and management practices be taken to scale in the light of climate change / what influences adoption, what incentives are we looking at, how to manage risks etc. How do value chains work? What are market demands?
  • What can the project do to influence the factors that influence adoption? Overlap with the targeting group. More policy research, gender and youth work, capacity development work. This group would do evaluation of our interventions, ex-ante and as we start piloting these different interventions to lead to an ex-post/tradeoff analysis.
  • Possible partners: EIAR's socio-economic directorate; EFDERI; IFPRI; ATA.
  • Scaling up this beyond Ethiopia via ASARECA etc.
  • We have to add value as these questions are quite generic.
  • We have to implement this but we're not the lead implementers. The whole process of engagement with development partners is crucial otherwise we keep on talking amongst researchers.
  • Q: Do we have to scale up?
    • A: Yes, considering the budget.

Synthesis of this proposal and road map / next steps

(Polly) Where can we facilitate transformative action?
Partnership building is a challenge but hopefully this program can also improve this very much.
The writing group tomorrow could flesh out these research questions and ponder more about where this program is different to 'business as usual'.
In the BP group there's been good verification of basic areas but we need to work more on what this program looks like and how different it is. We need to articulate sexy research questions about the unique added value of this program. Identifying key partners in more details would be good.

(Iain) We have a good basis. There is broad alignment. We are entering an iterative process. We've got a strong start.

Next steps:
  • Tomorrow we have about 6 people to help write this;
  • We will then produce a first collective draft by late March;
  • All of you should share this with your colleagues to target specific people to flesh out specific bits - feedback by late April;
  • We will then share a reasonably polished draft in May;
  • We will need a wider meeting with stakeholders with e.g. ATA, donors etc. in May.

Who will own this proposal? We will appoint someone to lead this program. We don't want the Consortium to lead this. Given transaction costs in CRPs, the GoE should take this over. Part of this should be done by the National system. This has to be Ethiopia's contribution to the agricultural sector in the world on these domains. For now let's have indicative costing, the nested approach, the suggested structure of the program, what is AR4D? What are our contributions for the future?

The MoA is fully behind this.

Closing words by Ato Adugna

Good brainstorming for current and future agricultural development in Ethiopia. We expect, with this pace, that when we go back and see the past 40 years that the impetus to work with universities, research systems etc. there have been a lot of positive developments. What we are doing today is adding value to the future. We can expect some good developments for our small farmers. We have worked positively with CIP, CIMMYT, ILRI etc. The partnership with the international community has helped us progress well and in this program we see a lot of contributions. You witness developments and such programs will add more energy and value to our bio technology, capacitating our agricultural system etc. Young Ethiopians are organized in small enterprises and reducing agriculture. There are positive developments due to the cooperation with international development. We look forward to great impact for the Ethiopian Government and people. We are working with commitment.

Draft concept note (see attached document top of the page)

On 30 January a small group met to develop concrete ideas for components of the program. Different people contributed to different parts of the day, including:

Iain Wright
Michael Blummel
Jean Hanson
An Notenbaert
Randall Ritzema
Peter Thorne
Peter Craufurd
Alan Duncan
Simon Langan

The discussion centred around developing a series of packages that are stand alone but contribute to the overall objectives.

  1. 1. Feed supply/demand scenarios
Feed availability
Feed usage
Water requirements
Livestock population and production levels
Land requirements

CC Scanarios
Demand scenarios
Technological change, feed quality quantity
Potential Futures (uncertainty)

Key partnets - Crop Centres, ILRI, AgMIP, CSIRO, CSA, EIAR

2-3 page concept note to be developed led by Michael Blummel with An and EIAR

  1. 2. Risk and resilience on hotspots? Long Term Plot trials
Network of trials in sites with high uncertainty
Include Crops. Forages
Can historic remote sensing data be useful?
Key partners - Africa Network for Soil Biology and Fertility (Koala – An to follow up?)
2-3 page concept note to be developed led by Peter C with Michael P, Jean, Barbara, KPC Rao and EIAR

  1. 3. Food Feed crops
Selection and breeding for nutritive value
Michael to follow up with Barbara, Peter C. Concept note building on existing programmes

  1. 4. Gene mining
OK for crops. Could be part of food feed crops
EIAR was not keen on developing forage breeding program. How do we breed forages? Link to CIAT?.
Peter C, An and Jean to develop ideas, and see if gene mining of forages can be included in long term trials.

  1. 5. Supporting intensification though NRM/ SLM
Water Productivity
*Institutional Issues* are key

Simon and Alan to lead development on concept note on the intersection of NRM, sustainable intenstification and climate change.

  1. 6. Do we need a package on farming systems for the future?
There was a short discussion on whether there was a need for a package on farming systems for the future. The feeling was that this was needed but no conclusion on what this might look like. It probabaly needed a longer term focus than some of the on-going work.

The lead teams to produce a 2-3 page concept note on each package by 15 March.