PMT2 2016

ACGG first year review and second year planning

SG Northern Adventure and Resort, Arusha, Tanzania 27-28 January 2016

---

Objectives of the project List the overall project objective(s) here if it helps reinforce the logic.

Meeting outputs

• Read a summary about this meeting (upcoming)
• View presentations from this meeting (upcoming)
• View the pictures of this meeting
• Read notes from this meeting (below)

PMT meeting objectives

1. Come together for the second time as a full program team and further align around the shared ACGG vision and objectives;
2. Review and reflect upon ACGG year one activities;
3. Collaboratively refine the ACGG implementation plan for the coming year; and
4. Receive approval and feedback on the plans for ACGG from the program’s Scientific and Industry Advisory Committee (SIAC).

Background information Add any file or any other information that helps understand the context of the event

Agenda

Day 1

• 08.00 Registration
• 08.30 Welcome and introductions
• 09.00 Overall review of 2015: project-wide (Closed fishbowl)
• 09.20 Break
• 09.45 Overall review of 2015: in-country (3 x 30')

Ethiopia: Picture gallery tour (15') and Q&As - See the Ethiopia presentation given at the SIAC meeting. Nigeria: Presentation (15') and Q&A - See the Nigeria presentation given at the SIAC meeting. Tanzania: Interview with PI and co-PI (20') and Q&As - See the Tanzania presentation given at the SIAC meeting.

• 11.15 Debrief: What, so what, now what?
• 11.45 Review of the themes and what worked well or not in 2015 around: a) baseline data and data management, b) on farm breeding / on station breeding, c) long term breeding plans and genetic gains and d) innovation platforms.
• 12.45 Lunch
• 13.45 Reviewing our program partnership: What worked and what didn't work, partnership principles, improvables and how we need each other
• 15.15 Break
• 15.45 Reviewing what we've learned so far
• 16.15 Long term breeding plans and genetic gains: design, interactions with country plans, reporting back on Wageningen/Koepon, upcoming activities.

See the presentation by Hans Komen See the presentation by Raphael Mrode

• 17.00 Close

Day 2

• 08.15 Check-in, recap and agenda day 2
• 08.30 Planning our thematic work in 2016: Baseline and data management

See the presentation by Absolomon Kihara

• 09.30 Planning our thematic work in 2016: On-station and on-farm breeding plans

See the presentation by Fasil Getachew

• 10.30 Break
• 11.00 Planning our thematic work in 2016: Innovation platforms

See the presentation by Denis Mujibi and Ed Rege See the overview of PICO activities for 2015

• 12.00 Lunch
• 13.00 Introducing plans for year 2
• 15.00 Break
• 15.20 Communication - See the presentation by Tsehay Gashaw
• 16.00 Loose ends / Open floor
• 16.30 Next steps, closing remarks and evaluation
• 17.00 Close

---

Meeting notes

Welcome Goromela

I am happy to welcome you to Tanzania as a member of the ACGG family. I would like to particularly thank Tadelle Dessie and Jasmine Bruno for hosting this 2nd PMT meeting in Tanzania. All of them have been working with us on the program since early planning. Together with the other country teams (Ethiopia and Nigeria) the Tanzania team is happy to work with you here. I also would like to thank the BMGF for their financial support. I hope everyone will take the results of this meeting to take the activities to the second year to ensure the program is going well. I welcome you again here and in Tanzania. Asante Sana.

Welcome Tadelle

Thank you Goromela and the team. I don’t want to take much of your time. I want to cover the objectives of the meeting: to discuss the vision and objectives of ACGG, review year 1 activities (what happened, what didn’t, why and how), refine year plans for 2016 and of course receive feedback and approval on plans from the SIAC members who will convene here too. Some of you will attend this. We have a detailed agenda. You have a printed agenda here and you can read it there. That’s all I have to say.

Fishbowl on the general overview of year 1

• TD: We had the first PMT meeting and a lot happened in ACGG. In 2015 we have more partners and we are building a vibrant ACGG community. By now we have a well-functioning country office and a well-functioning team in our regional (PICO-EA) and international partner offices (WUR etc.). We will continue building more partnerships at national, international and regional level. Just to mention a few at pipeline level: ATONU (BMGF-funded) focusing on ag and nutrition, Kahema Foundation (working with AU-IBAR, EU, PANVAC), with CTA in areas of communication and capacity building, with Aarhus Uni in DK on Capacity Building. We are setting up the vision of ACGG and to refresh our memory, our vision is to catalyze PPP to mobilise SH’s to work on chicken production as a pathway out of poverty. We are closer to achieve our vision. We are getting closer and closer. National IPs are formed and launched successfully. They even identified constraints in their respective countries and started co-creating solutions and are progressing very well with this. We all know the project is launched in all 3 countries in the presence of country officials. As you know, this program is about tropically adapted strains. The ACGG team managed to identify those strains, started partnering with those institutes (public, research and all the way to small/medium sized farmers). E.g Embrapa, ENA from France, ChickMaster from Uganda (who owns and provides supplies of Kuroiler chickens). We managed to establish partnerships and soon we’ll manage to import chicken strains in all 3 countries. In the area of CB we managed to successfully conduct the first training on design and implementation of chicken breeding programs in the tropics (attended by 35 international participants including from the 3 program countries). We identified MSc and PhD students and soon we’ll start engaging them. The present changes the past. In ACGG a lot of change has happened. Just to mention a few: Jasmine became 6 years younger, I became a chief of Abeokuta. Funso, Goromela and Solomon you are fierceless leaders in ACGG. Soon this leadership will be taken over by Co-PIs and national coordinators. Johan handed over the leadership to Hans, Ed celebrated his 16th anniversary this year. Thank you very much.

• EG: I’m Ezekiel the PI for TZ. First of all I would like to give you a summary of what’s been achieved in TZ. We had the first national IP meeting in June 2015 in Dar-es-Salaam. The meeting was facilitated by the PICO team led by Ed and assisted by his staff. We invited many officers, processors, producers, technologists and other people, government officials from the Ministry of livestock development. We invited our colleagues from Nigeria and Ethiopia (Funso, Solomon). We diagnosed the poultry value chain in TZ. It was their best time to participate in such kind of meetings. Thank you very much Ed and your team to organize and facilitate the IP meeting. Thereafter, the next day, we had the ACGG launch. It was a nice day and some of the participants who attended the IP also participated to the launch. We also invited people from the Ministry. He gave a very good speech. We invited people from the livestock research department. During the launch we had a poultry fair. We invited some companies who could demonstrate their products. Other people were also interested to see the fair. We did a group interview to send a message to Tanzanians to inform them what the project is about. After that we had a training of enumerators. We selected villages from the 5 zones. We conducted a training on ODK tools and baseline surveys. The training was about 10 days and was conducted in Dar and Morogoro. After pre-testing we had 1 week to prepare ourselves for the baseline survey in all 8 villages (interviewed 1200 hh’s from the 5 zones). The baseline went well and we saw some of the results. We appreciated the team from ILRI led by Jane and her staff. The training was very nice and everyone appreciated your training. From the survey we had a sub-national IP meeting. In our program we decided to conduct 5 IPs (one for each zone). We requested support from PICO and they requested a Tanzanian working with PICO to facilitate the IP. We did it and everything went well. We are in the process of finalizing reports. After having the IP meeting we are in the process of finding the participatory farmers. The way we discussed yesterday will help us make that selection smoothly. We hope we’ll pick the best farmers. We have been working with our colleagues in preparation of the PMT. Thank you very much for your support, for your coming etc.

• SA: Our first action was to have an informal communication with the regions which have been selected based on certain criteria. We worked with heads of research institutes and urban agriculture office in Addis Ababa. We have tried to recruit the SNCs with the collaboration of heads of regions. After recruiting them, we had a meeting where we tried to create awareness of SNCs and we started preparations for the first PMT. We tried to present our first draft plan and get some inputs from our partners. Based on that plan, the next thing we did was in collaboration with PICO on the IPs. Before that we had facilitation training by PICO. Along with SNCs we participated that training. The IP meetings had very fruitful discussions there and we had many stakeholders but we missed some who couldn’t attend (e.g. microfinance institute, catering industry etc.). We missed the supermarkets too. Otherwise all stakeholders were there and we identified important activities. After 2 days of IP meetings we had the launch and the privilege of seeing the state minister attend it and the head of the agricultural office, the chair of the animal production society of the country etc. We continued with the baseline survey, we recruited enumerators. We arranged for the training. We conducted a 10-day training workshop and that involved the role play etc. pre-testing in groups. We planned to start the baseline by beginning of October. We have booked some of the money in the first trench to purchase some items. That process was going on. We’ve been struggling to get the 2nd trench and in addition we didn’t have national coordinators until October and even then they were not 100% so we are a bit behind on the baseline but we managed. We obtained the funds and we managed to communicate with SNCs. We have completed the baseline survey. There was unrest in some of the regions and we thus failed to finalise the baseline in one zone. Also in AA with communication problems we had there we started the baseline late and hope to finalise it soon. Out of 1260 Hhs’ we have completed 1170 HHs and will finish the rest by 22 of this month. We are preparing for the on-farm/station testing. We have identified testing sites and are in the process of including facilities for the regions.

• FS: The story of ACGG in Nigeria is a story about people. I’m impressed by the caliber of people that the project managed to attract in Nigeria. We have attracted 2 of the most astounding animal breeders in Nigeria (Adebambo and Adeyinka working on the only registered breed which is not for SH’s). We also hired great SNCs. It’s a pleasure for me to work with them and the results in Nigeria are thanks to these people in the zones. PICO was very far from Nigeria but they were able to train the 40 field officers (not enumerators). For the baseline survey, some had to leave and we worked with 30 of them. We’ve had a good experience in the baseline survey. The most astounding is the partnerships that are developing for ACGG Nigeria with the Federal Ministry of Ag and Rural Dev’t. The project was sponsored by the Ministry and it’s the first project that the new department of animal health is supporting. These public partners are concerned that we do well. We have been approached by the private sector (a bank officially wrote to us), by private companies in various aspects we are interested in. Just before we came here we were approached by an NGO who is interested. So we see ACGG Nigeria as harvesting good will from very significant people. All the other activities that are mandated were held as scheduled. This is the story of ACGG Nigeria.

Overall review of 2015: in-country

Q&N for Nigeria:

• Q: Do you have a plan to work at the national and subnational level, and connecting the community to the national level and either way?
• A: we are working at national and subnational level even at the community level. The stakeholders are already identified at the grassroots level, we are not stopping at the subnational, the question we have is how effective it will be if we work at the sub national level only. In Nigeria we have community level IPs in the model.
• Q: would it be possible to give training at the lower level, to the communities? How did you manage to select the PHd student and is this training planned at the local level too?
• A: Initially we selected the PHd students by recommendation, we asked our partners, people working with COPIs, SNCs to select the candidates and give us names. In addition to this we developed criteria’s in consultation with SNCs. In partnering with others we have been developing training for the field officers. We have relationship with agri-development extension officers, we are partnering this people to have a continuous plan on training.
• Q: In your slide there were two closer national zones, is there a reason why they are selected and which shows how they are linked
• A: Even if they seems closer they are different geographically, they are in different agro ecological zones and they have socio - economic differences. If we expand the scale you can see those sites are not that much closer there is a big gap.
• Q: following up from PHd students, you mentioned 2 of them are closely linked and four are not, is there a possibilities to include all
• A: yes there is a possibilities, those selected now are directly or indirectly linked to the breeding program design, the level of involvement is the question, that I don’t have the answer right now
• Comments:

Give this students access to data to get the quality publication If they are staff they might not be available fully for the project, if they are student we can use them If this staff leave we might lose them but if we train student might help a lot to work with the project If we train people let’s make sure that we can use their capacity for the project >> Q&N for Tanzania:

• Q: how is the project is received by different sectors?
• A: the project is received at all level, at national, subnational and community level, this happened after we explaining the objective and the purpose of the project
• here is the project acceptance in the region and we believe the sprit will grow. The most significant one is private sector, currently they are engaging with us in attending and participating in hatching, brooding and delivery.
• Q: What is your magic this private sector to deliver?
• A: Everybody has to see WINF, there is a business opportunity and the farmers has to see the benefit and the money in it.
• Q: How do we ensure women are fully participating?
• A: The project is women focused. Our main target is to involve at least 70% women in all our activities. We are also try to get the youth, there are lots of opportunity.

There are challenges on sociocultural issues and we are preparing to handle that

• Q: How do you ensure 70% women are involved?
• A: We have to make sure this happen in the recruitment, our job is to make sure we recruited enough women.

We have to see how we can improve the entrepreneurs skills, if we get such skills in the production of these preferred chicks this will give us a good business.

• Q: Deo : Are you involved in the innovation platforms?
• A: We have the national IP which goes down to sub national and five zones, we have three levels of IPs.
• The first one is national, sub-national and we are planning to have community level IP which we haven’t done yet. We are planning to have community level IP after we finish this session. We are also planning to the second sub national meeting in February.
• Making the IPs delivering what they have to deliver is a challenge we are addressing them in time.
• There are some challenges in terms of the capacities for member to come up with innovation solutions and to address their needs.
• Through IPs we need to create a solutions, find solutions in collaboration with other teams.
• At the end of the day with this IPs we need to make sure the equitability of the platforms to make sure women are centered for this project. Together with other team we can make a difference.
• Q: One of the ambitions is to reach 700 house hold, what is the approach towards this plan?
• A: At the national level we have 6 sub national coordinators each of them supervising this different activities, they will train the enumerator to supervise the villages. We have the COPIs and PIS to oversee the project implementation at all level. And we have zonal committees where we have different expertise in the teams, this includes women too to make sure gender equitability
• Q: This issue came out from last meeting, how do you plan to introduce the new chicks with locally adapted ones
• A: Right now we are not sure, but once the farmers selected, we might have some answer but we don’t have the right answer right now. We need to have lots of production, once the chicks are adopted I don’t think we will have issues. But the production is the challenge.
• Q: what do you see is the major challenge for 2016 and how do you connect this with other teams?
• A: one of the challenge we have is the delivery of the chicks, especially from brooding mother unit, since it is complicated, we have tried to select some of the mother units in those particular zones but still the logistics are main problem. We are going to see how we are going to tackle this problems. We are located in five places, these are 3 weeks old chicks. We need to have a good transportation facilities. We have 5 zones and we see it as a challenge and we are working on it. Another challenge is market access, currently the market issue is unorganized, and we have to see how we can link the farmer with other development agencies on training and getting market prices.
• The other challenge we see is ownership of the project with farmers. For example, when we see a farmer has to invest on something, they will become more serious about it, I don’t know how this will be done for farmers to be really committed.
• We have communicated to Tanzanian science and commission . We are requesting if we extend their support even with infrastructure. A couple of months ago we communicated with them still we are dependent in terms of resources from the government side.
• The capacity of Msc students and , we have been having one breeding department we are engaging student one way in the other. We are getting some challenges on getting right people that is the big challenge we need to improve in the coming years.
• To make the IPs more practical, we have to share our experiences among the different countries and we want the PICO team to assist as on how we go about it.

The IP is just a tool, if this tools has to work the country team has to commute. The industry committed to develop the policy that will guide the sector including the policy guide working of smallholder As per the manual for smallholder , they don’t have the information they need

• The poultry day will happen in October 7 or 8 this year with all stakeholders. Immediately after Tanzanian poultry day we are planning to host the poultry and egg day and the mister is going to participate as well.

Q&N for Ethiopia:

• Q: The questions on booklet, who is the intended use of the guideline, are these guidelines are meeting the intended users criteria?
• A: The manuals are developed by the institute, these is for vet personnel and we are planning to develop for farmers and users as well.
• Q: The project document clearly state that the ACGG project is women centered. Why are we getting that figure in your presentation, if we want the project is women centered?
• A: Women are highly involved in the household. When we go to the real farm, we are hoping to involve women. We have tried to maximize the size of the women and we are hoping to get what we have planned.
• Towards champions, in terms of purposefulness, let’s leave women and farmers not to become a problem.
• Let is be clear at what level we bring who.
• With regards to the task team developed in countries, let’s get champions than volunteers. All countries to make sure that somebody from project team is in the task teams.
• With regards to IP, let’s not be random when we are inviting them let us be purposeful. Let’s bring people who are really passionate about it.
• When we send invitation to institutions, the people they sent some times are not appropriate.
• We need to have the right people at the national and subnational level, the number is not what matters the quality and the right person is what matters most.

> > What worked well:

• ODK real time data collection
• ODK improves data quality

Lessons:

• ODK was efficient
• Locating enumerators (no mischief)
• Real time reporting

What worked well:

• ODK worked
• Training SNCs together with enumerators
• Pre-testing helped
• ILRI team support was helpful
• Protocol for baseline and longitudinal are useful

Improvables

• Ensure faster finance transfer to countries

Lessons: Nigeria:

• Risk of disease for imported birds, labour, feed
• Preparations not done. Finance sought from ACGG Nigeria. Only 1,000 birds can be accommodated
• Tanzania: on station sites ready for on farm engagements with private sector on progress: hatching, brooding and vaccination
• Nigeria: brooding for 42 days
• Tanzania: Brooding for 21 days
• Tanzania and Nigeria: identified needs for vaccination against: NCD, Fowl pox, Marek’s, Gumbora for on farm
• How do we benefit from graduate students

What worked well:

• Localization of tools
• Use of tablets and ODK
• Prompt implementation in field
• Including SNC fully in training (TOT)

Improvables:

• Data collection too short
• Payment of enumerators
• Language challenges (if single respondents)
• Cultural issues to interview the ‘right person’
• Political environment challenge e.g elections in Nigeria south militia
• Getting the data for analysis. Also in field review

Improvables:

• Data access-timeliness for field analysis
• Money release to Nigeria
• Tablets network (on farm thinking for villages)
• Tablet touch insensitivity

Improvables

• Pre-sensitization
• Logistics (transport,accommodation)
• Uploading/sending data (network issues)
• Tablet touch sensitivity for on farm

What worked:

• Questionnaire tool
• ODK tool
• Tablet use and battery life
• Training
• Surplus trained enumerators

What worked:

• Trainng on tool questionnaire and ODK
• Tablets
• Pre-testing and training in the field team support
• Transportation/mobilization of enumerators and farmers
• Surplus enumerators

Improvables:

• Monthly monitoring system
• Data collection team can monitor/feedback loop

Improvables:

• Network issues in no of villages
• Issue sending data (poor connectivity)
• Technical issues with % of tablets (battery, GPS)

What worked well:

• GPS works well
• Use of tablets efficient, exciting,easier compared to paper
• Battery worked well
• High quality training (timing)
• SNC prepared to train after training

What worked well:

• ODK translated well

What worked well:

• Device worked well
• Data entry smooth
• SNC/NPC able to resolve training tech issues
• With power bank, battery worked well
• Liked phasing/organization of training
• Language issue managed well in training

What worked well:

• Tablets
• Tablet allows for closer monitoring
• Improved connectivity enables monitoring
• GPS monitoring
• Length of training is good
• Tablet on station is welcome
• SNC and NPC well trained

What worked well:

• ODK design
• Monitoring: no time lag with versions
• Surplus tablets
• Personal training
• Friendly trainers
• Good tech support
• ILRI clean data/national teams monitor
• NPC and SNC well trained

Improvables:

• Follow up on issues/tasks
• Pending DSAs reduced momentum
• Ensuring adequate women representation
• Poor response from financial institutions-TZ and Ethiopia
• Project perceived to be moving too slowly –Nigeria
• Duration of sub national IP wasn’t enough-Tz
• Identification of participants needs to be more inclusive-bring in more stakeholders

What worked well:

• Identification of task team leaders done well
• Active stakeholders participation at IP
• Leaders of subnational IPs are real champions-inspired and ready to ensure sustainability of platform. TZ
• Good support from government in Tanzania
• Innovative communication at the national and sub national level (whatsapp group for IP members in Tz

Improvables:

• Pretest language barriers
• Locating HHs with GPS
• Delay in baseline
• Question: when and how and who is the baseline to be analysed

Improvables:

• Devices had sensitivity issues
• Electricity issue
• Connectivity issue
• Tablets can be distracting

Improvables:

• Daily monitoring feedback
• GPS improvements
• New staff need full training
• Improve system or country to have servers

Improvables

• Improve/update tablets, GPS
• Choose network providers with large coverage and efficient
• Refine protocol for onfarm and onstation (design, replication in different stages of bird growth
• Timely disbursement of funds/payment of enumerators
• Language, political and cultural challenges
• Ensure adequate women representation
• Project perceived to be moving too slowly in Nigeria
• Duration of sub national IPs wasn’t enough in Tz
• Poor response from financial institutions in TZ and Ethiopia
• Pending DSAs reduced momentum
• Amharic forms need to be cross checked with English
• Communication on plans
• Monthly monitoring system.

What worked well:

• ODK Real time data collection translated well, which increases data quality
• ILRI team support was helpful
• Protocols for baselining and longitudinal are helpful
• Pre testing was helpful
• Personal training of SNCs and enumerators
• Transport of trained enumerators and farmers
• Tablets battery life and allow closer monitoring
• Length of training was good
• Surplus enumerators
• Localization of tools
• Identification of task team leaders done well
• Active stakeholder participation
• Good support from government
• Excellent participation of platforms
• Innovation communication at the sub national level: whatsapp group

Preparation on station: Ethiopia

• Hatching facility is ready
• Partners identified for brooding

Tanzania:

• Hatching and delivery is ready
• Brooding on progress

Lessons:

• ODK was efficient
• Locating enumerators (no mischief)
• Real time reporting
• Nigeria:
• Risk of diseases on imported birds, labour, feed
• Preparations not done- finance sought from ACGG Nigeria (FUUNAB) only 1,000 birds can be accommodated.
• Tanzania:
• On station sites ready for on farm engagement with private sector on progress of hatching, brooding and vaccination. Brooding will be for 42 days
• Tanzania: Brooding will be 21 days
• Tanzania and Nigeria identified needs for: vaccination, NCD, Fowl pox, Marek’s and Gumbora for on farm.

Preparation (OFT/OST)

• Tz, Nigeria and Ethiopia: need for sensitization (household heads, village leaders, experts, religious leaders.
• Nigeria: preparations to start after the PMT:
• Hatching. Brooding, vaccination and sensitization

Reflection:

• Ethiopian team: make the program a viable proposition to the private sector and engage the public sector with contextualized approach by scoping visit, sharing experience from elsewhere

Long Term Genetic Gains presentations

• Q: What are some of the long-term aspects that need another 5-10 years?
• A: What we try to achieve is to determine where people are going. (…) The PPP component means that the private sector needs to adopt some of this. These are some of the challenges we are dealing with. We are considering if it’s economically viable for the private sector to invest.

That means that the sector-wide changes at country level… (…) The design of the breeding program has to take into account the market potential. We are also working to find additional funding to continue this. If we get that funding we’ll continue providing backstopping. IPs need to be on board and run this as their own show.

Partnership session

What could possibly go wrong: Group a: - Communication breakdown - Failure to get funding timely - Blame games - Problem-focused orientation Group b: - Community level (IP) - Finances - Overlapping of meetings - Delay in the receipt of eggs - Private partnerships (IP) - With persons who were to provision - Lack of prompt payment What are we doing that resembles this? Group a: - Lack of responsiveness - Delayed financial transfer - E-communication failures like Skype

What should we do to stop doing bad stuff: Group a: - To be consistently and consciously thinking how your action/inaction affects others - Be proactive and taking initiative - Being a problem-solver, do not complain

WINFY (What I need from you) LTGG: - From countries we need:

• Data (performance)
• Close collaboration and interactions

- From IP group:

• Feedback on needs
• Facilitate adoption

- From Research method group:

• Training (support)
• Methods development (support)

- From Gender group:

• Feedback on needs
• Facilitation on adoption

Gender group: - From Ethiopia, Nigeria groups we need:

• Gender expert
• National PMT on gender

- From Tanzania group:

• Develop training for community facilitators
• Develop gender IP strategy

- From IPs:

• Gender strategy committee in all 3 countries
• Gender sensitization seminar

- From RMG:

• Female enumerators
• Gender indicators / tracking womens’ empowerment:

- From LTGG:

• Female MSc and PhD students / capacity development with female students
•  ???

- From gender (ourselves):

• 3-country meeting of gender experts
• ACGG gender strategy

Long term genetic gains session

Feedback from Nigeria:

• Let the farmers make their own choice and work

Feedback from Ethiopia:

• Make the program a viable proposal for the private sector and engage the public sector – contextual approach. Scoping visit.
• The situation is very different in the 3 countries and the private sector could have a different role e.g. in Ethiopia it’s not very strong. The private sector can be attracted in the multiplication/brooding/dissemination of chicks but the public sector has to be there to keep parent stock. By mixing the 2 approaches we can have a sustainable result. The approach has to be contextualized in that way. Over the next 2 months we’ll design a scoping trip for each of the project countries to meet with the government, private sector etc.
• Feedback from Tanzania:
• Opportunities:

International support support > 80? Diverse populations of chickens Population going up and urbanization Positive engagement - Challenges

• Low prioritization of local chickens by government
• Lack of manpower and facilities
• Long term sustainability of funding?

Catching up reflections: Olivier Hanotte

You are all alive and it’s telling us something. After a very long day you have an incredible team spirit and it’s very important and the most important thing that we need to think about after sitting here for a day. I can sense a feeling of community. Looking at the cartoon, the environment we are facing for exotic breeds is difficult. The new breeds we are importing will be bullied. We have these foreign guys coming into the environment. But we also have the farmers on one side, and on the other side we have the country teams, ILRI, BMGF etc. and the farmers are not going to be happy. We are here to feed the needs of the farmers but we will be judged by the farmers at the beginning and at the end of the project. I don’t want that to be forgotten.

Day 2

Baseline / Data collection session

Introducing the ODK parser site to access the

Q: Do we need any system to see if anything needs to be checked (quality control)? Will it be a clean data set mentioning ‘this could be an issue, please check’ A: We’ll give you a raw data set – but we are not yet planning to flag these issues… Apart from giving access to the raw dataset, we’ll also provide access to an easy dashboard. We have a data cleaning protocol and it will be distributed to the country teams, including some analysis and we’ll show the problems (outliers etc.) so that country teams can make corrections. The data has not been cleaned.

What do we do with the data when it’s in raw form? We create a friendly format based on the sections in the questionnaire. For that we also upload it to the country servers. We have set up a system and we have imported the friendly format into the server.

Q: Why don’t we have the labels in the system instead of figures? A: We are working on this. When we extracted the data set we did that in a data analysis-friendly way.

< End of demo… >

2016 roadmap We want to provide a good dashboard

Session on on farm/station testing

Tanzania team:

• Setting up functional country level servers and systems
• Given the remaining period, is it possible to design and develop and test in 2 months?
• Who is going to be trained? (statisticians, social economists?)

Auto system:

• Do you throw away raw data?
• What happens to outliers?
• Three data sets: raw data, raw data-flagged, cleaned data
• Servers: physical-cloud
• Trainings timeline

Nigeria:

• Farmers to be incentivized to help in the identification of breed preferences, including phenotypic characteristics e.g. colour
• Animate farmers to see themselves as researchers, contributing towards evaluation of options (genetics/strains) in community research networks.

Plenary:

• What do you mean by meat quality? Is it traits, palatability, body size
• Consider openness in the questionnaire
• Resist from using the word disease resistant birds; instead say survival.
• Consider your audience when communicating
• Take into account individual farmer preference, traders preference and consumer preference

Top 7 traits + improvements on the definition of likability

• Body size (3)
• Growth rate (3)
• Egg number (3)
• Egg size [not weight] (3)
• Survivability (3) – which may need to be preferred over ‘disease tolerance’
• Broodiness (2)
• Feed requirement (2)
• Scavenging ability [not activity] (2)
• Disease tolerance (2)
• Temperament (2)
• Plumage colour (2)
• Meat quality (to re[de]fine) (2)
• Need for supplementation (1) – to combine with ‘feed rqeuirement’?
• Egg shell colour (1)
• Comb type/shape (to be combined?) (1)

Group 4:

• Definition accepted
• Egg yolk colour
• Change egg weight with egg size (include small, medium and large)
• Likability disaggregate by sex: for male early in the study for female late in the study
• Modification of the likability: which breed do you prefer? Local/exotic; why? Looks, behaviour, eggs production, disease

Egg yolk colour could have to be abandoned ‘Marketability’ could be addressed What about ‘processability’? Isn’t this a trait to include?

ð By mid-February, Fasil, Tadelle, Jasmine, Jane, Jeremiah to come back to the whole group with some refined work on this.

Innovation platform session

Given the challenges identified to date, what specific actions should be taken to enhance the likelihood of success? And by whom?

COUNTRY	CHALLENGES	SPECIFIC ACTIONS	WHOM
TANZANIA	# How do we include champion farmers without disrupting the current design and arrangements # How do we involve women in the IPs and CIU’s # How do we deal with lack of ownership	# Create more awareness on the need # RMG to provide a way forward	# Country teams # RMG
ETHIOPIA	# Lack of accountability – Task follow-up wanting # Limited field mobility – inability to purchase vehicle # Delayed disbursement of funds from ILRI to country team; delayed processing of submitted documentation	# Better selection of IP actors/participants; Continuous engagement # Negotiate with donor to allow vehicle purchase; find alternatives to increase field mobility # Country teams to follow-up with ILRI closely, expect dedicated accoutants; ILRI to streamline internal finance processes	# Country teams & PICO # ACGG-ILRI team # Country teams; ILRI ACGG
NIGERIA	# Inadequate stakeholder representation # Lack of commitment from Task Teams # Inadequate resources for community level IPs	# Devise appropriate mechanisms for invitations and follow-up # Communicate the WIII-FM factor clearly # Conduct IP at local government level/senatorial districts level	# Country teams # Country teams # Country teams

Planning session

Tanzania group

Achievements so far:

1. Attended training in Addis in June
2. 1st PMT meeting in June
3. Project launch successfully done
4. Village scoping/selection of research sites
5. Recruit training animators
6. Zonal innovation platforms established
7. Has done community sensitization
8. Rehabilitated houses at Sokoine and Narienda completed
9. Engagements with private sector to share information
10. Finalizing drafting of contracts with local service providers
11. 5 researchers attended course in breeding and genetics
12. Advertised PHD programmes; received applications and only one woman applied.

Plans are in place to have one enumerator for every 2 villages. The project will buy motorcycles for easy transport. Plans are underway to develop MOU with the DEO to involve extension officers who will sign to commit their time to the project and will be reporting daily. Advise: factor frequency of data collection and ratio of enumerators to households, enumerators to be trained on gender sensitization in both extensive and intensive areas. Remember to be specific on who is responsible and indicate the dates. Opportunity for the project: 10 hatching, 8 brooding and 2 transporting companies interested in working with the project. Not yet done: farmer selection

Comms session

Tsehay Gashaw introducing the comms presentation, covering: key audiences, objectives of ACGG comms, principles of comms, platforms we use etc.

Comms country liaison person

Tanzania

• contact person: Deogratias Shayo, Email: deogratias@gmail.com

Stories to be published

• Innovation for increasing number of chicks at low cost
• New innovation to reduce chicks moralities : The bamboo Cage

Nigeria

• Contact person: Oladeji Bamidele (bamideledeji@gmail.com)

Stories to publish

• contact person: Fikayo Oyewale, evankayo@gmail.com
• Development of Shika brown
• Devlopment of Funaaba
• Identification of Fulani Ecotype as a viable candidate for breed development
• The fish bowl a story of team work

Ethiopia

• contact person: Slomon Abegaz

Story to publish

• A tale of small dose vaccines in Ethiopia

Some ideas about possible Yam Jam topics

• Gender in ACGG / Tracking womens' empowerment (selected for our Yam Jam try-out)
• Increasing visibility of ACGG (nationally and internationally)
• Attracting youths to ACGG
• Planning of IPs
• Recruiting on-farm enumerators
• Specific aspects of on-farm protocol
• Establishing a sustainable mechanism to finance CIV activities
• Strengthening entrepreneurship skills among smallholder farmers

Next steps

These were the next steps provided by Jasmine Bruno and Tadelle Dessie at the end of the PMT meeting:

Next Steps	Timeline	Who is Responsible?
On-Farm Protocol Update	* First Rewrite: February 29th, 2016 * Feedback: 1st Week of March	* First Rewrite: ACGG ILRI * Feedback: All
Likability Sheet Rework	* February 15th, 2016	* ACGG Likability Committee (Fasil)
Longterm Genetic Gains* Contextualizing Longterm Genetic Gains Plan	* March, 2016	* Olivier, Raphael
Gender Work* 1. Starting the Discussion * 2. Gender Training in National Innovation Platforms * 3. Select National Gender Experts	* Communication: Emailing ACGG Gender Working Group * IP Component: Training to be Completed During 2nd IP Meetings (schedule here) * National Gender Experts: PIs to Select Gender Experts	* Communication: Tesfahun and Rahema * IP Component: Denis/Ed * National Gender Experts: PIs
Improve ACGG Communication* YamJam * ACGG Rules for Response	* YamJam: February 2nd, 2016 * Rules for Response: Next Week (1st Week Feb)	* YamJam: All * Rules for Response: Jasmine
Financial Management Training	* Set Dates for Financial Management Training: February 29th, 2016	* Jasmine, NPCs
Data Management* Country Team Baseline Data Access * Next Steps Regarding Country Servers * On-Station Data Collection System	* Country Team Baseline Data Access: Completed * Next Steps on Country Servers: February 15th, 2015 * On-Station Data Collection System: Last Week of February	* Kihara, Hezekias
On-farm Data Collection	* System: As above (end of Feb)	* Kihara, Hezekias

Organizers' agenda

Wageningen/Koepon reporting back and looking forward on the training activities, the MOOC and the PhD of Maria Jaramillo.