Compilation of feedback from the AGA 2012, The Hague

Scores
1. Overall assessment of the Annual General Assembly (AGA) Excellent Good Average Poor % score AGA The Hague Score 1 What is your overall assessment of the AGA? 4 15 3 22 2 3 1 0 83 89 82

% score AGA Berlin

% score AGA Tunis

2. To what extent were the objectives of the AGA met? Our objectives Met Mostly met Score 1. Did the AGA give you the opportunity to exchange experiences with other Platform members/guests on key areas in supporting food, farmers and markets? 2. Did the AGA help identify options for linking smallholders to markets and the role of the international community in supporting this? 3. Did the AGA help identify options for tackling food security problems and better understanding the role of donors, private sector & NGOs? 4. Did the AGA help you to better understand Platform members different initiatives and work programmes in agriculture and rural development (ARD)? 5. Did the AGA help to identify potential key themes of work for the Platform in moving forward in supporting ARD?
1

Partly met 2 4

Not met 1 0

4 20

3 17

% score AGA The Hague 87

17

14

69

21

14

66

22

10

69

11

16

10

73

Note: Percentage scores are calculated by adding up all the scores and expressing these as a percentage of the maximum possible score (i.e. if everybody has scored the question 4 i.e. Excellent or Met)

1/6

6. To members of the Platform: Did the

AGA offer sufficient opportunity to meet other members and discuss the work and role of the Platform? 3. How did you rate the... Excellent

10

79

Good

Average

Poor

% score AGA The Hague 94 95 95 94

% score AGA Berlin

% score AGA Tunis 84 93 n/a 93

Score Venues? Organisation of the AGA? Logistical support for the AGA? Facilitation?

4 31 32 34 32

3 9 9 6 7

2 0 0 1 1

1 0 0 0 0

99 100 99 99

Comments
Comments on overall assessment of the AGA: Mixture of some provocative questions and sometimes a bit business-as-usual The keynote addresses were stimulating Good to very good Impressively well put together! Comments on objective 1: Not enough time for informal exchange; not enough detail of what donors are doing and how they are coordinating Good networking, but would have liked more time for discussion after both keynote addresses Excellent opportunities provided for bilateral and multilateral networking among donors and guests (NGOs, private sector) Comments on objective 2: Not clear what priorities are for group or members No expectation of the sort More specific examples would have been helpful Perhaps greater clarity on role of donors especially in Private Sector Development needed Experiences like NASFAM are enormously helpful. We need more of these Options identified, less specific on the role of international community Good at identifying problems and constraints less effective in identifying possible solutions

2/6

Comments on objective 3: Private sector guests very absent; NGOs and other guests not really engaged in this discussion Too vast to do in 2 days Would have benefitted from discussion of donor experiences in implementing private sector solutions and challenge Not much about NGOs very limited participation by them Debate on food security a bit narrow either agriculture or nutrition We did not discuss sufficiently the respective roles. The hows/whens among stakeholders Would have liked to see greater clarity at the end of the meeting on next steps, a clear program of actions... Comments on objective 4: Generic picture yes. Individual emphasis no Could be better I saw very interesting bits in the world cafes but have no overview Not enough time Yes but could be more of an overview? To some extent, but more interaction was needed I think the emphasis was on big picture topics and learning from outside GDPRD Comments on objective 5: A pity no discussion on bringing together discussion on the outcome/input of messages Keep on the same priority In very broad terms yes, concerned that gender is losing momentum Yes, as summarised by Brian at the end (i.e. MDGs after 2015) Possibly too little time to do this and have ownership among members Comments on objective 6: Follow-up at Board meeting Could be more discussion of future trends/opportunities/events; forward-looking planning Comments on the venues: Some room setups too large for numbers Great location, Wi-Fi Comments on organisation of the AGA: Poor presentation of materials; not clearly communicated Congratulations, superb job, great timekeeping Comments on facilitation: Nice moderator, but Day 2 left too little space for discussion and the sequence of the sessions was not logical I loved the visual harvesting What was the most useful session for you in terms of issues explored, relevance and what you learned? Please say why. Keynote addresses they were provocative and insightful

3/6

Keynote and panel session on day 1; provided good overview of the issue of food, farmers and markets from different perspectives i.e. academia, government, farmers, private sector, donors Key presentations Keynotes very good, interesting new points to discuss; unfortunately they were not always taken up (e.g. in the panel discussion afterwards); break out groups very good! Both of the keynote speakers Tim Lang The first key note speaker thought provoking, new approach; World Cafes taste of many issues Gordon Conway keynote very clear messages with strong evidence base I really enjoyed the keynote speakers Tim Lang new ideas, more broad view Tim Lang because it was an interesting and provocative talk that made one think and brought up new issues Tim Langs input I did not attend on Thursday; on Wednesday I liked the rather provocative presentation of Tim Lang Excellent keynote speakers convinced me to reprioritise the nutrition issue, gave some good ideas for implementation The two keynotes that added substance into the debate; otherwise a risk that we all reassure our opinions, only The second day breakout session; I was not present for the first day World cafe session because of the many interactions The unknowns regarding how the public and private sector works, especially regarding value chains and financial systems Overview by Prof Lang World cafe session, gives us the opportunity for exchange; but too many different sessions Keynotes were thought provoking; panel session on regional trade was excellent The first session with Prof Tim Lang and his focus on the challenge of rethinking the global food system/ food transition; highlight the need to be more present in the ongoing discussion on post 2015 development goals Agricultural finance Keynote speeches of Prof Lang provocative and wake up; breakout session on climate change more in-depth session on CC and agriculture and possibility to discuss strategic actions by GPRD members Keynote sessions both; world cafe sessions on womens collective action and on land Keynote speaker (Prof Tim Lang) presentation; bring fresh and new reflections on the food system debate; and his conclusions! Really good that he could stay during the 2 days Prof Tim Lang and Prof Gordon Conways presentations The two keynote addresses were stimulating; more direct/longer discussion on the big themes/paradigms would have been useful Tough competition! Liked several sessions tremendously and both keynote speakers Final wrap-up was excellent Keynote speakers

4/6

What worked well overall in the AGA? Logistics and facilitation was excellent; very good combination of keynote speakers very complementary Time management and networking Mix of plenary and group discussions Facilitation and networking Informal atmosphere World cafes Good time keeping! The World Cafe is very worthwhile Meetings World Cafes Good organisation; networking among members It was a good and pleasant atmosphere; this informal setting contributes to good exchange of views, policies and practice Networking; the visual harvesting is to be commended Arrangements; timekeeping excellent; connection back from world cafes and breakout meetings into the plenary Forum for discussion and exchange of ideas Excellent preparation, very efficient, helpful and understanding Secretariat Formulation of emerging solutions for new topics, learning from each other, provision of feedback for unfinished business, formulation of member priorities Overall discussion and interpretation Rather straight to the theme Love the drawings Exchanges, networking Great organisation, timekeeping, world cafes Excellent performance by Platform Secretariat!; getting members to talk in breakout sessions; retaining peoples attention and commitment through a range of tools. Well done! (great illustration!) Very good balance; high quality presentations and sessions Do you have any suggestions for improvement or follow-up? Maybe fewer number of breakout sessions but more time to dialogue more in depth on the topics Clients must be represented better! If each donor partner invited a smallholder farmer representative you would get a better feel of what is actually happening on the ground. Each breakout session would also have one or two of the clients in it Less world cafes, more balance in priority; more clarity on the mandate of the AGA World cafe too many world cafes? Better more input from the session holder for the discussion; not only discussion along some questions among participants (did not always work) The World Cafes should be moderated by someone familiar with this process; instead of a specialist sharing views and asking for feedback Private sector just beginning! Have a separate session only for members (donors) Tell us if cocktails are enough to fill up on (= supper) or are just light bites and drinks

5/6

Have a day with guests and a full day with member organisations only! Leave more room for discussion of direction of GDPRD Some presentations of experts from Sub Sahara Africa will be interesting; eg from AERC in Nairobi, from farmers organisations; there are also very inspiring speakers from Nigeria around Breakout working groups were too short for serious discussion; is there really so little fundamental disagreement on key approaches among donors? It may be useful to pick up one or two of the critical philosophical disagreements and discuss them openly Working groups may connect closely to the outcome of the AGA None Better planning of world cafe sessions topics could be better prepared and presented by using PowerPoint Please reduce sessions with insufficient attendance and offer more popular ones e.g. value chains and smallholders farmers and rural finance; send documents for review prior to the meeting and some time in the sessions, need for more Q&A time; spell out acronyms in all documents! ; love fruit to be available in addition to the cookies and coffee after lunch Pay more attention on how to spread/exchange information and views outside with institutional partners; BRICS involvement Less world cafe sessions and better structuring and facilitation in these sessions; more time for exchange World cafes could benefit from 2 or 3 presenters in a panel discussion, to balance ideas off each other and to stimulate discussion Invite a wider group NGOs, non-traditional donors Food during receptions so that guests do not have to go to hotel or home hungry and intoxicated at 2030 World cafe sessions could be more rotative, i.e. ability to get to more sessions Tunis AGA approach; need more discussion of Platform work/deliverables Reduce the AGA participation focus on less topics more in-depth discussion and concrete examples Noticed much weaker presence of Southern partners this year vs. last year a loss More discussion on big themes and more experience-sharing among members Next AGA to drill down deeper on a lower number of agreed common priorities for decision, support and action An impossible one make it possible to go to more of the breakout sessions... More time for informal discussions; to organise impromptu meetings More scope for discussion at summing up and clarity on next steps

6/6