Newsletter Special Edition August 2003

At the end of the GFAR 2003 conference, participants were asked to complete a five-page questionnaire consisting of 33 multiple choice or short answer questions. The questionnaire was divided into four parts: (1) general questions on the participant; (2) organization; (3) technical content; and (4) overall appreciation of the conference. The results of the questionnaire will be used to improve future conferences. Unless otherwise specified, all data are derived from the responses of the questionnaire. The non-response outputs will be commented on only in those cases where the number is significant.

Part 1. Participant Information

Regional Distribution

The total of 386 participants from 75 counties came from all GFAR-recognized regions (Table 9). Participants from FARA made up 51% of the total number of participants, although it should be noted that nearly half of the participants from FARA were based in Senegal, which facilitated their participation. The second most represented fora was EFARD with 22%, and the remaining fora were represented at more or less the same level, varying between 4% and 7% (Figure 1).

The percentage of countries represented from APAARI was the lowest at 15%, followed by CEE-CAC and FORAGRO at roughly 30%. Approximately 50% of the countries in EFARD, FARA and AARINENA were represented. Since only two countries comprise NAFAR (Canada and the United States) this forum was fully represented.

Table 9. Regional representation (Data based on list of participants)

Regional Fora	Number of participants	Percent of total	Number of countries represented	Total number of countries in the region	Percent of countries represented
APAARI	17	4%	7	47	15%
CEE-CAC	16	4%	8	26	31%
EFARD	84	22%	10	21	48%
FORAGRO	21	5%	11	40	28%
NAFAR	26	7%	2	2	100%
FARA	195*	51%	26	45	58%
AARINENA	27	7%	11	23	48%
Total	386	100%	75	204	37%

* 87 from Senegal

Figure 1. Distribution of participants by region (Data based on list of participants)

Stakeholder Distribution

Participants from NARS made up the largest represented stakeholder group with 31% of the total (Figure 2). IARCs, donors and NGOs were the next best represented groups, followed by ARIs and FOs. The private sector was the least represented stakeholder group at 3% of the total.

Figure 2. Stakeholder distribution as a percentage of total participants (Data based on list of participants)

Voluntary Return of Completed Questionnaire

A total of 94 questionnaires were returned, or 24% of the total attendance of the conference (Table 10). The majority (79%) of respondents were male and 17% female. Participants from NARS made up 32% of those who responded, and the remaining stakeholders responded in similar numbers ranging from 10% to 17% with the exception of private sector at 1%. The stakeholder distribution of returned questionnaires roughly mirrors the stakeholder distribution of participants at the conference.

Table 10. Stakeholder distribution of returned questionnaires

Stakeholder group	Questionnaires	Percent of total
NARS	30	31.9%
NGOs	16	17.1%
FOs	13	13.8%
IARCs	11	11.7%
ARIs	9	9.5%
Donors	9	9.5%
Private sector	1	1.1%
Other	5	5.4%
Total	94	100.0%

Part 2. Organization of the Conference

General Organization

The majority (72%) of respondents thought that 2.5 days of conference was the right length, 21% thought that it was too short, and 4% thought it too long.

No clear consensus was reached on the question of balance between plenary and working group sessions. Approximately half (47%) felt that the balance was right, 23% said not enough time in the plenary and 26% said not enough time in the working group sessions. From some comments, it became apparent that this question was not asked in a way that was clear to all participants. Ambiguity of the results of this question could have been avoided if another question was asked: whether or not there was sufficient time in plenary and sufficient time in working groups.

A small majority (57%) of the respondents felt that there was enough time between sessions to facilitate informal discussions with fellow participants on matters of mutual interest.

Poster Session

The overall opinion on the poster session was favorable, with 7% of respondents rating them very good, 54% good, 28% average, and only 4% poor. This can be considered as a strong endorsement of the quality of the posters and the concept of having them. However, since a third of all respondents thought them only average or poor, there seems to be considerable room for improvement which is further reflected in the additional comments. Forty respondents chose to comment on issues ranging from ability to participate, presentation and location, presence of authors/designers, timing and language.

Some respondents were not aware of the opportunity for submitting a poster and would have liked to participate. It was suggested that more farmers should have been included, and one asked why they had been denied the ability to participate. Another expressed the opinion that the submissions were too dominated by IARCs. It should be noted that the poster session was advertised to all potential participants and/or their organizations well in advance in solicitation of participation, and all stakeholders, especially farmers' organizations and NGOs, were encouraged to participate.

Several respondents thought the posters could have been more centrally located, preferably by the coffee break area. Some complained that the room was too small, and displays too crowded, which might have been accommodated by making posters smaller as one suggested. Two judges recommended that all posters be portrait orientation rather than landscape in future, which would make it easier to present and compare them, especially when using easels. One respondent commented that better support panels/easels were needed.

Six respondents thought that the posters should have been manned by authors more often in order for them to better explain their posters, and one even suggested that they should be there at all breakout sessions. One suggested that 08:00-09:00 was not an ideal time, and requested an evening time.

One commentator wanted more time to discuss them in plenary, one asked for more posters in Spanish, and another suggested having all of them in three languages: French, English and Spanish, even though it may deter some entrants.

Coordination with Other Events

Nearly 74% of respondents provided comments on the linking of the GFAR 2003 conference with other events. Approximately two-thirds thought that having the GFAR and FARA meetings together was a good idea and attended both of them, and some commented that they would not otherwise have attended both. It was suggested to hold the next triennial meeting in conjunction with another regional conference from a different continent. A third of the respondents said that they were not able to attend both, though some would have liked to. On the negative side, some felt that the events together were too long, that it was difficult to maintain enthusiasm towards the end of the conference, or that it detracts from the focus of each event. Two participants commented that, while they liked the idea, the schedule was too tight. Some participants of the CSO Workshop regretted the overlap of the workshop with the FARA plenary and the Senegalese Day.

Documentation

The respondents were evenly split on the question of whether or not there was sufficient document distribution/availability prior to the conference; however, nearly two-thirds felt that the provision and standard of the documentation at the conference itself was good or very good. Approximately 65% of the respondents chose to comment on the documentation. The majority of the comments related to wanting more information in advance and more sent electronically. Another concern was the need for more translation of documents because they were almost solely in English. A few thought documentation was insufficient, others that documents should be more clearly identified on the cover sheet to avoid confusion, and others said that documents should have been released in a more timely fashionn.

Summary

The overall organization of the conference was rated very good by 28% of respondents, good by 38% and adequate by 24%. A few respondents thought that the organization was poor and one thought that it was very poor. The distribution of ratings and the comments suggest that there is considerable room for improvement in terms of logistical organization. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents made specific complaints or comments. Four issues dominated the responses on the negative side: (1) poor chairmanship; (2) insufficient translation; (3) hotel bookings and accommodation; and (4) changes in timetable. On the positive side, congratulations were given to the organizers.

Ten respondents criticized the chairs, stating that they did not keep to the scheduled time and often left too much time for discussion in plenary. However, some also mentioned that they felt the working group and sub-plenary sessions could have been better organized. Six respondents specifically stated that changes in timetable should not be allowed at such a tightly scheduled conference, particularly when key stakeholder meetings were put off until 1830 hours. Eight respondents said there should have been more translation of documents into French and Spanish, as well as the need for more translators in the sub-plenary sessions. Another eight were upset at hotel arrangements, half of them because of the loss of reservations at the Meridien, the other half because of the very poor standard and comparatively high cost of the Ngor-Diarama hotel.

Some individual complaints included: (1) too few participants from certain groups (farmers, private sector, Lusophone countries); (2) few tourism events; (3) poor general logistical management; (4) lack of a list of participants; (5) no transportation back to the airport; (6) no side events at lunch; (7) no internet availability; (8) ineffective coffee breaks; (9) too ambitious and should have limited the themes; and (10) three years being too long of a gap between GFAR conferences.

Part 3. Technical Substance

Keynote Addresses

The majority of respondents rated the keynote addresses favorably in terms of how well they covered critical ARD issues pertinent to GFAR, i.e. 15% rated the speeches as very well and 55% as well. Only six respondents rated the speeches as poor or very poor.

Three of those who commented felt insufficient attention had been given to marketing and trade issues, and a fourth cited not enough on globalization and its effect on the south. Two more felt inadequate attention had been given to the role of GFAR in supporting farmers' organizations, another that there was not enough on the role of GFAR in capacity-building, while the last specific comment asked for more comparative analysis on the role of GFAR in advocacy. Some additional criticisms were that the speeches lacked real analysis, there was insufficient relationship to GFAR itself, a lack of attention to defining priorities for GFAR, and they were not challenging enough. Two commentators stated that they felt the address on NEPAD was too diffuse and mostly consisted of general knowledge. So while most respondents were happy with both papers, it is clear that issues and priorities for GFAR could have been more clearly defined in the two addresses.

Roundtable Discussions on Keynote Addresses

The roundtable discussions were rated less favorably than the speeches; only 7% rated them as very good and 40% as good, which suggests room for improvement. Two-thirds of respondents provided comments on what they considered the most important issues for GFAR, as raised during the discussions and speeches. Three issues dominated the responses: (1) the role of GFAR (mentioned by 23% of respondents); (2) partnerships (18%); and (3) better ICT and knowledge-sharing (16%). Another five issues ranked highly: forward thinking on strategy and new research paradigm (13%); the advocacy role of GFAR (11%); stakeholder coordination (11%); capacity-building and strengthening of CSOs (10%), with special attention to farmers (10%).

Almost a quarter of all respondents called for a greater clarification and definition of the role of GFAR, especially with respect to RF/SRF, and generally supporting advocacy and facilitation functions related to new research partnerships, capacity-building and information-sharing. Three commentators cautioned on getting involved in operational tasks, or implementing GPPs or other research projects. One respondent called for a clearer distinction to be drawn between the roles of GFAR and of its Secretariat.

Most of the 11 respondents (18% of total) simply mentioned partnerships and partnership mechanisms. Some called for a clearer definition of what a partnership involves, and another said partnerships should be more business-like.

These 10 respondents called for a greater use of ICT coupled with capacity-building of its use; some simply stated the importance of better information and knowledge-sharing.

Three singled out funding as a major issue for GFAR, recommending strong advocacy for this, more support from World Bank in generating funds for research, and more contributions from all governments, again requiring advocacy by policy-makers. Approximately 11% of respondents specifically mentioned the advocacy role, and another 11% suggested stakeholder coordination, with one stressing the need for more legitimate representation. About 10% thought special attention should be given to strengthening CSOs and/or the weaker NARS, and 10% specified farmers and their organizations. Other issues suggested include: (1) biotechnology and genetic resources; (2) environment; (3) poverty; (4) the private sector; (5) linking more strongly to extension, dissemination and development; and (6) more use of participatory approaches in research.

GFAR Business Plan 2004-2006

The presentation on the past achievements, gaps and the way forward was well received with 56% rating it as good or very good. The discussion, however, was not rated quite as high, 46% giving it a score of good or very good. And the average rating of the roundtable discussions by stakeholder group was even lower, with 34% of the respondents regarding the discussions as good, 28% as adequate, and 10% as poor. It should be noted that 20% did not respond, presumably because they did not attend the discussions. Nearly half of the respondents stated that they were able to contribute to the discussions, only 10% said that they were not able to, likely because of language barriers, 13% responded that the question was not applicable meaning that they did not feel the need to intervene, and 29% did not answer the question.

The most common priority areas for the next three years as identified by respondents are: (1) partnerships at national, regional and international levels; (2) more involvement of CSOs (FOs, NGOs and private sector) and their consequent capacity-building; (3) information exchange and communication among stakeholders; (4) sustainable funding strategies; (5) genetic resources and natural resource management; and (6) small and medium-sized rural enterprises and markets.

Case Studies on Successful Partnerships

The two case studies, Milk/Meat Preservation Technologies and the China/Canada Dryland Farming Project, and the following panel discussion were generally graded well. The China/ Canada case was ranked slightly higher, with 58% saying that it was good or very good, whereas 51% said the milk/meat case was good or very good. The panel discussion was not rated quite as favorably. The majority (57%) of respondents thought that the discussion was good or adequate and 11% thought that it was poor. Approximately 20% of respondents did not answer the three questions on the case studies.

Sub-plenary Sessions on GPPs

The sub-plenary session on ARD partnerships was attended by 29 of the respondents, which made it the best attended session. Sessions on small and medium-sized enterprises, innovative policy directions and approaches, and rural knowledge systems were attended by approximately the same number of respondents, whereas the session on agriculture-livestock integration was attended by 6 of the respondents (Table 11 and Figures 3 to 7).

Table 11. Distribution of respondents at sub-plenary sessions (Fig. 3-7)

Stakeholder group	Rural Knowledge Systems	Small & Medium-sized Enterprises	Agriculture-Livestock Integration	ARD Partnerships	Policy
NARS	1	2	3	13	5
ARIs	1	2	0	3	3
IARCs	3	2	1	4	0
FOs	5	3	1	2	4
NGOs	7	1	0	4	3
Private sector	0	1	0	0	0
Donors	0	3	1	3	2
CSOs	0	2	0	0	0
Other	0	2	0	0	1
Total	17	18	6	29	18

Nearly 47% of the respondents rated the sub-plenary on rural knowledge systems as good and 29% as very good. Thirty-five percent rated the presentation the next day as good and 29% as very good. However, the difference in rating may be due to the 12% non-response to the second question on the presentation.

Figure 3. Stakeholder participation in rural knowledge systems

Thirty-nine percent rated the session on small and medium-sized enterprises as good and 22% as very good. Thirty-nine percent rated the presentation as good and 17% as very good.

Figure 4. Stakeholder participation in small and medium-sized enterprises and markets

Thirty-three percent rated the session on agriculture-livestock integration as good, another 33% as adequate, and 17% as poor. Thirty-three percent rated the presentation as very good and 33% also rated it as adequate. One respondent thought it was done very poorly. Given the very small sample (six respondents) the statistical analysis of this sub-plenary session is not necessarily a true reflection of the quality of the session and presentation.

Figure 5. Stakeholder participation in agriculture–livestock integration

Fifty-nine percent of respondents rated the session on ARD partnerships as good and 21% as very good. The presentation the next day was rated slightly lower with only 48% rating it as good, 21% as adequate and 17% as very good. There was a 10% increase in non-response to the question on the presentation compared with the question on the sub-plenary.

Figure 6. Stakeholder participation in ARD partnerships

Forty-four percent rated the session on innovative policy directives and approaches as good, 44% as adequate, and only 6% as very good. Thirty-three percent rated the presentation as good, 28% as adequate and 17% as very good. Again, there was an increase of 11% in non-response to the second question compared with the first.

Figure 7. Stakeholder participation in innovative policy directives and approaches

Summary

Overall, participants felt that the objectives of the conference were achieved. Twenty-eight percent felt that they were achieved very well, 38% well and 24% adequately, which indicates there is margin for improvement. Seven of the respondents felt that the conference did not meet its objectives.

Nearly half of the respondents chose to comment on the major shortcomings in the issues raised during the conference for the consideration in the new GFAR business plan, and half of them stated that they saw no gaps. Of the remaining comments some were related to the preparation of the business plan, suggesting that it needs to be much more detailed and not based on general principles, and that the long-term direction was too vague. A few respondents commented that they felt the business plan to be overambitious.

Comments on the role of GFAR were related to a better definition of its role, that of the Secretariat and the RF/SRF. Some mentioned maintaining the facilitation function of GFAR without getting involved in the organization or implementation of projects. Two respondents felt that more emphasis should be placed on wide dissemination of information using such tools as EGFAR and GLOBAL.RAIS. Three comments were received on the need to secure more funds, including developing a fund-raising strategy. Two wished to emphasize the importance of the advocacy role of GFAR, and two raised the issue of more translations in order to be more inclusive.

Points raised by only one respondent were to put more emphasis on: (1) energy; (2) economics of agriculture; (3) capacity-building at RF/SRF and NARS level; (4) strengthening links between GFAR and education; (5) strengthening links between international and sub-regional organizations; (6) subsidies and food aid; (7) appropriate ARD technology; (8) information systems especially EGFAR and RAIS; and finally (9) strengthening private sector involvement as stakeholders.

The majority of the responses to the final question on how they, as an individual or as an organization, plan to contribute to furthering the goals of GFAR over the next three years fell into four main themes. The most common theme was that of sharing information. Many respondents said that they plan to circulate information on GFAR and the outcomes of the conference to their constituency. Some took it a step further to offer to play the role of regional platform for information exchange and communication improvement.

Pledges associated with increased partnership and networking were also very common. Partnerships with farmers, universities, NARS, scientists and researchers, and partnerships within specific regions were all identified specifically. Increased inter- and intra-stakeholder group networking was also mentioned by a number of respondents. Some even identified specific partners with whom they would like to link, such as other participants interested in rural knowledge systems, agrifood businesses, and EARD-Infosys+ and ZADI.

Increased participation was another aspect which respondents promised to improve upon in the future. They stated their intentions to become more involved in NARS, RF/SRF and GFAR activities, as well actively mobilizing colleagues and partners. One pledged to lead/facilitate the engagement of the North American Forum in GFAR and another offered to play a similar role in EFARD. More concretely, there were promises to become more involved in the development of GPPs, in capacity-building, and in farmer and NGO constituency-building.

Many pledged to support and promote the goals of GFAR by internalizing and integrating the recommendations, strategies and programs of GFAR into the work of their organization. Some suggested that they would try to adjust their strategic research plan to focus on GFAR priorities, and many offered to participate in the implementation of the business plan in whatever capacity available to them.

Some other themes that were mentioned by more than one respondent included the promise to become more actively involved in lobbying and advocacy, capacity-building, organizing workshops and training exercises, and to follow up on the key steps as identified by their stakeholder group.

Print version

GFAR Secretariat
c/o FAO, SDR, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla - 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel. +39.06.5705.3413 Fax +39.06.5705.3898
E-mail: