Activities

• National Stakeholder workshop is being held in June this year.
• Progress on the Commercialisations and Social Protection methodology.
• Working to raise the visibility level of FAC at the national level.
• People are interested and knowledgeable and many places (e.g. institutions, universities) are working on agriculture.
• FAC has good institutional members (i.e. KIPPRA, Tegemeo) that are solid. As well, FAC has links with other partners (CIAT, ICRAF, etc.)
  
• The success of the Fertiliser Workshop proves commitment and interest; even the private sector attended the workshop, which is a good sign.
• FAC Kenya produces credible material (e.g. reporting to Dfid)
• Cross-country work is very promising.
• Work continues to be carried over from Phase I and work on fertiliser subsidies (Gem, Colin + Karuti + Rosemary) will be finished soon
• Setting up the advisory group proved difficult. FAC had names last year – senior fellows in Ministries which were floated with other members but it was felt there was too much government. More names from CSOs – no names are not forthcoming. Committee was never constituted, as nominations could not be decided upon.
• FAC is looking to Tegemeo to include as partner.
• But these are informal collections – no formal mechanism to control membership. Things are being incrementally institutionalised but we’re a network with unclear formula for non-compliance.
• This is a critical stage for us. In Kenya, July meeting was our attempt to come up with solutions – we sought names “advisors on future agricultures” but may be too strong. “advisory” is sensitive to government.
• FAC should think about what it needs first – advocacy, advice, authority. Accountability – it’s a loose and organise organisation (FAC) growing organically – a typical network. Think carefully FAC needs the Ministry – otherwise FAC will end up so it can’t advise etc.
• The “advisory group” is not really advocacy but a ‘critical friend’ that comments on our work.

Discussion

• Setting up the advisory group proved difficult. FAC had names last year – senior fellows in Ministries which were floated with other members but it was felt there was too much government. More names from CSOs – no names are not forthcoming. Committee was never constituted, as nominations could not be decided upon.
• FAC is looking to Tegemeo to include as partner.
• But these are informal collections – no formal mechanism to control membership. Things are being incrementally institutionalised but we’re a network with unclear formula for non-compliance.
• This is a critical stage for us. In Kenya, July meeting was our attempt to come up with solutions – we sought names “advisors on future agricultures” but may be too strong. “advisory” is sensitive to government.
• FAC should think about what it needs first – advocacy, advice, authority. Accountability – it’s a loose and organise organisation (FAC) growing organically – a typical network. Think carefully FAC needs the Ministry – otherwise FAC will end up so it can’t advise etc.
• The “advisory group” is not really advocacy but a ‘critical friend’ that comments on our work.