plm_feb2014

Program Leadership Meeting ILRI, Nairobi 3-5 February 2014


 * Contributing to the CRP planning process 2014**

toc =Presentations=

Intro - Tom Randolph

Planning 1 - Pat Rainey

Planning 2 - Pat Rainey

Resource Mobilisation - Stuart Worsley

=Agenda= - Setting the objectives - Defining the results we would like to achieve - Identifying a volunteer to recap day 1 || //Stuart Worsley// || - What has gone really well? - What has not gone so well? - Why has given rise to these? || //Tom Randolph//
 * **Monday 3rd February** ||
 * Time || Description || //Facilitator// and Method ||
 * 08:30 || Introduction to the Workshop Flow
 * 09:00 || Introductory presentation (State of the Union Address)

Presentation and questions (Change Management Exercise) ||
 * 10:00 || Review progress in deploying the program in countries

What were expectations about how the approach would be deployed? - Ranking progress according to the initial key elements of the approach
 * Site Selection
 * Partner and actors landscape scoping
 * Stakeholder engagement
 * Impact pathway/ToC/OM development
 * Methods/tools for VC Assessment
 * Rapid VC Assessment
 * In depth VC Assessment
 * Reviews
 * Situational analysis
 * Best-bet interventions
 * Resource Mobilisation
 * Comms, knowledge sharing, advocacy
 * Capacity assessment and capacity development strategy
 * Integrating technology platform work and multidisciplinarity || //Peter Ballantyne//

Plenary Discussion

Small Group Discussion ||
 * Break ||
 * || Review progress in deploying the program in countries (continued)

- Analysis of factors contributing to good/poor progress - Actions for improving - Value Chain Learning – How did things go with respect to
 * Resource Mobilisation
 * Partnership formation
 * Value Chain Assessment
 * Integrating technology platform work || //Peter Ballantyne//

Small Group Discussion ||
 * 12:00 || Synthesis of Key Issues to address

From the above findings, what are the most critical issues to address - Have we captured the right issues? - What issues demand urgent attention? - What issues can we most effectively deal with in the short, medium and long term? - What is missing? (What have we not spoken about that need our attention?) || //Stuart Worsley//
 * What ones make sense?
 * What ones do not make sense?
 * What is missing?

Plenary Discussion ||
 * **Lunch** ||
 * 14:00 || Imaging: Review of the VCC and TL roles:

Capturing what it is like to be a VCC and a TL? (An image that describes the relationship between our science, stakeholder demands for solutions, and program actors (TL, VCC, X-cutters, Mgmt.) || //Stuart Worsley//

Individual exercise

Plenary Synthesis ||
 * **15:15** || **Parallel Session 1**


 * Value Chain Coordinator Terms of Reference**

Review of the revised Terms of Reference for the VCCs. - Are they reasonable? - What changes are required? - What is needed to make these doable? (changes, resources, skills, power) || //Stuart Worsley//

Plenary Discussion ||
 * **16:00** || **Value Chain Leadership**

What is the ideal profile of the VCC - Skills, capabilities, experience, networks - Position and power

What support system needs to be in place to enable VCC’s to “fly” - Delegation arrangements and space to act? - Administrative and financial support - Coordination with Themes and centres - Building science and development partnerships || //Stuart Worsley//

Small Groups Plenary synthesis

Plenary ||
 * **15:15** || **Parallel Session 2**

Review of the Terms of Reference for the TLs. - Are they reasonable? - What changes are required? - What is needed to make these doable? (changes, resources, skills, power) || //Peter Ballantyne//
 * Theme Leader Terms of Reference**

Plenary Discussion || What is the ideal profile of the TL - Skills, capabilities, experience, networks - Position and power
 * **16:00** || **Theme Leadership**

What support system needs to be in place to enable TLs to “fly” - Delegation arrangements and space to act? - Administrative and financial support - Coordination with Themes and centres - Building science and development partnerships || //Peter Ballantyne//

Small Groups Plenary synthesis

Plenary ||
 * **Close – Day 1** ||


 * **Tuesday 4th February** ||
 * 08:30 || Recap on Day 1 ||  ||
 * 09:00 || **Preparing to Plan**

Overview of planning needs and process taking place in 2014 - Strategy and proposal for the interim period - Strategy and proposal for phase 2 - CCEE and IEE preparations - POWBs || //Tom Randolph//

Plenary Presentation || - A framework that generates plans - Why we are doing this || //Pat Rainey//
 * 09:20 || Outline proposal for the process of planning

Plenary || followed by plenary synthesis - Does the planning process proposal make sense? - What changes should we make? || //Peter Ballantyne//
 * 09:50 || Defining strategy development and implementation plans for themes and value chains, including staffing going forward

Small Groups Plenary synthesis ||
 * **Break** ||
 * 11:00 || **Training for Planning – POWB**

Defining clear processes for creating detailed plans for the extension phase

- Reviewing and adjusting thematic log frames - Defining milestones - Setting budgets - Deliverables and timelines - Review Processes - Present and agree on critical templates used to support the planning || //Pat Rainey//
 * Getting the right processes (who should be included)
 * Defining targeted thematic results globally and in VCs
 * Globally
 * In VCs
 * Globally
 * In VCs
 * Formats

Plenary and small groups ||
 * **Lunch** ||
 * 14:00 || **Training for Resource Mobilisation**

- Defining RM approaches - Creating proposals
 * Globally
 * By theme
 * By VC
 * Winning ideas
 * Concept notes
 * Preparing proposals
 * Submitting proposals || //Stuart Worsley//

Plenary and small groups ||
 * 15:30 || **Next Steps -** Preparing a Gantt Chart for 2014

- Actions between now and March Workshop - Actions from March onwards

Note: Timelines will vary between Theme Submissions and Value Chain submissions || //Peter Ballantyne// ||
 * 16:30 || **Review and Close** || //Stuart Worsley// ||

- Arranging for key inputs into theme and VC planning phase - Negotiation to secure involvement in theme and VC planning processes || Open ||
 * **Wednesday 5th February** ||
 * 08:30 || Theme and Value Chain Groups meet in open session to prepare for their planning phase
 * Lunch ||
 * Depart ||

=**Day 1**=

Jimmy Smith welcome remarks Phase 2; 2015-2016; Engagements and discussion are going on
 * The team represents a very important group in the Livestock and Fish program with lots of attention to agriculture and dependence on science to feed the nation
 * CGIAR reform promised that the whole CGIAR would deliver much greater than the sum of it's part. CRPs represents the way to bind centres, to fund agriculture research and to deliver good science to transform agriculture. We need to demonstrate how our science will realize impact, through engaging with the necessary partners.
 * ILRI as the led centre is fully committed to the Livestock and Fish program and the committed that the CRP will transform agriculture.

**Areas of change and what it means to the group**
-What methodologies and tools will we use - Moving away from comfort zone, addressing demand-driven problems in a holistic manner - Addressing all components of the value chains - Identifying needs of value-chain actor - provide/research solutions - Mobilize theme scientists to focus in an integrated and inter disciplinary manner on one value chain - More focus on ultimate results of our work - Substantial investments in CapDev alongside research to succeed (as in having impact) - Widening of vision from thematic to more holistic value chain approach || -More relevant and significant -Focus and focus, clearer articulation, greater clarity -More impact -Easy and coordinated action -Understanding the research differences -Satisfaction of seeing research into action -Research for action applicability -Interaction with other disciplines || -Scientific research autonomy -Limited resources in-terms of scientists, how do we **prioritize** value chain - Loss of flexibility and opportunity to do 'curiosity-driven' research -No reward structure -Focus on 'earlier' discipline - Missed opportunities - Less production in our own area of expertise - Less cutting edge research - Interdependence || Hard How to mobilize team scientists to focus in one value chain Hard - language 50/50 || -Responsibility in engaging with other partners - Facilitation and coordination of people - Working through others - Move beyond linear to complex thinking - Listen and learn -More challenging communication -Investment in time and space to create resource groups || -Relevant research, broaden scope of interaction -Broader group of people in engagement -Satisfaction that our science work - Knowledge to improve the value chains || -Loss of freedom i.e. to include/do other projects -Speed at which people move - ‘Artificial gains’ dilution of other disciplines to other broader field involvement in the group -Control of research - Single-handed attribution of success, if that happened. - Time efficiency || Hard || **Suggestion solution** Have a focus on understanding the needs of the value chain that will bring about a focus on
 * Results of the exercise:**
 * **Change** || **What it means for us as individuals** || **What will we gain** || **What will we lose** || **Easy or hard?** ||
 * **Extended focus to transform specific value chains** || -Clear impact to our research
 * **More real-time multi-disciplinarity** || -Time spent on interacting with other groups (transaction cost)
 * Capacity development, what are the teams and partner needs ||  ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Working through others to deliver impact ||  ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Partnerships || Need to develop / strengthen new capabilities || Better contribution to development ||  || Hard ||

**Exercise 1 - Ranking progress of the different country VCD elements**

 * Ranking Exercise for Uganda and Vietnam, Ethiopia, Egypt and Bangladesh and Nicaragua**



Maybe too much scientific rigour || funding ||  || Main actors identified Partners we did not know exist were identified || 5 - Get to know who is there and check chemistry Assess their weaknesses and strengths Check their views on the VC dev || Our experience in East Africa ||  || DDF cemented partnerships || 5 - We focus on policy shifts and people need to buy in from the onset otherwise they will not engage || Long-term ad hoc engagement in the past. We just gathered them around the VC approach ||  ||
 * 'Tanzania Group'**
 * Key elements || Ranking of progress || Usefulness (Considering effort needed) || Contributing factors || Action to address weaknesses ||
 * 1.Site selection process || 5 - Down to village level || 5 – needed to be done
 * 2.Partners and actors scoping || 4 - Ongoing effort with topical partners being scoped for
 * 3.Stakeholder engagement || 4 - Ongoing effort with various stakeholders engaged at different stages
 * 4.Methods/tools development for VC assessment || 5 || 3 - They were too late (we already had tools) and the added value was not much || Pressure to get it done for implementing the bilaterals || The process was too late. Bilateral funding put process to get this done and the CRP work was slow ||
 * 5.Rapid VC assessments || 5 || 4 - It helped crystallize the interventions e.g. we were looking at adaptation of hubs approach in TZ. It became clear the Indian approach would not work for the critical mass of producers was missing and we focused on inputs

Not clear difference with in-depth assessment || Resources || Tools produced in time would have made our work more efficient || Maybe it could have been done differently || resources || Lack of agreement on what it should entail (extent, coverage etc) Vague and broad application: direct application was not clear. It was good to do it anyway for justification reasons but did not influence moving forward || We did it in some fields (e.g. institutional interventions but not feeds) || 4 || Previous experience in East Africa Good projection of demand to stimulate uptake of interventions Resources for stakeholder consultation || It is ongoing and difficult to judge it now || We are still working to integrate our work across disciplines Plus partnerships make things more complex || 5 - Progress is slow and learning is ongoing ||  || Work in progress. Linkages are not clear yet even though intentions are good + resource constraints (funding and people), critical mass for full interaction is missing || 0 for VC || 5 || Resources || How will it link to broader L&F M&E ||
 * 6.In-depth VC assessments (benchmarking) || 5 || 4 || funding || Tools produced in-time would have helped- we produced our own ||
 * 7.Literature, experience etc reviews of all existing knowledge || 5 || 3 - Getting people to agree on what is success and failure is already difficult || Funding, partnerships || Hard to pin down what is success and failure ||
 * 8.Situational analysis || 4 - Will be completed this month || 3 - It was useful in some cases e.g. when we realized the country-level situation with access to credit
 * 9.Best-bet interventions || 4 - Ongoing process
 * 10.Resource mobilisation || 4 - Major funding from IrishAid || 5 || Tanzania is attractive to donors || We need to address gaps e.g. nutrition ||
 * 11.Integrate tech platform work and multi-disciplinary teams || 3 - In some cases it is challenging to relate scientific work to interventions in the short term
 * 12.Comms, KS and advocacy || 3 - We have no specific acts yet || 4 - It is key, we need to work more on it ||  || Late allocation of human resources ||
 * 13.Impact pathways, ToC/OM development || 5 || 4 - Useful to create a longer term vision || Early engagement from M&E team ||  ||
 * 14.capacity assessment and cap dev || 3 - Strategy yet to be done and still unclear what the final product will be || 3 - Ongoing ||  || Late allocation of human resources ||
 * 15.M&E baselines || 5 for projects

**Exercise 2: Critical factors contributing to the progress result**
Program is responding to real perceived demands Good project leader, knows technical, managerial, sector Good flexible donor Problems: Government instability; few research resources - people & money
 * Egypt**

Action Increase the resource mobilization efforts Clearly define the research agenda and funding

Not enough time and resources at the beginning Growing need for harmonized communication around the value chain and program to convey message to donors and stakeholders Positive involvement/support from ILRI Seen as a good collaboration between CIAT and the program Others: Up-scaling
 * Nicaragua (Rein)**

Governance - Enabling environment to roll out program (Mali -ve, Ethiopia +ve) Resources: High transaction costs for engaging with partners, staff time Capacity development needs for key partners e.g. extension organizations, research institutions
 * Ethiopia and Mali**

Good Vietnam: Addressing relevant topics/priorities; Build on previous research and partners Uganda: Project with value chain approach (aligned with the program process) Slow Vietnam: Lack of certain expertise; Lack of project that covers entire value chain component Uganda: Value chain focus research is a new concept for team.partners; pigs not a priority; Strengthen capacity of value chain partners
 * Vietnam and Uganda**

Action needed Vietnam: Build up/explore additional capacity on feeds/breeding; Resource mobilization Uganda: Provide evidence in role of pigs in poverty alleviation; Strengthen capacity of value chain partners

Funding, should be sufficient previous work and knowledge in East Africa Good projection of the demands for potential demand enhanced uptake Weakness
 * Tanzania (Alessandra)**
 * Tools produced late, less efficiency
 * Specific key issues not clear is some areas
 * Unclear linkages in multi-disciplinary approach
 * Resource constraints within funding and people

Things that were combined Monitoring & Evaluation, Review and Baseline and in-depth data analysis Value chain assessment and situation analysis - clarity on who is doing what?

**Exercise 3: What did we learn?**
•Resource mobilisation •Partnership formation •Value Chain Assessment •Integrating Technology Platform with VC activities

Partners intelligence || Common interest and trust; Credibility and committment || common interest, trust, commitment ||  || bottom up approach || Keep it light and do it early ||
 * || Tanzania (Alessandra) || Ethiopia (Acho) || Vietnam and Uganda || Nicaragua (Pat) || Egypt (Jens Peter) ||
 * Resource mobilization || Critical prerequisite; take into account donors’ geographical interest; do more work in influencing donors decisions; flexible funding was great and get the donors buy in the VC/CRP program || Better timing, better strategy, business oriented || Requires time commitment; Identify correct donor || Time commitment, priorities || Keep the research agenda, ensure that there is w1/2 funding secure ||
 * Partner engagement || involve them from the beginning; listen to partners’ expectations and clarify common visions and objective and continually engage in partnership building processes. Right partners on the right topic at the right time (find the right balance between research and dev partners and where they fit). In some cases donors affect partnership with their demands of collaboration || Targeted for different partners
 * Value chain assessment || tools assessment were a continuum and it is hard to distinguish them. Cross-cutting issues integrated later (e.g. gender) and the evidence (on gender) is missing now. || Be clear on what we aim for from the beginning || Baseline, in-depth assessment to be done early || Multi-disciplinary teams
 * Integrating technology platform with value chain activities || Have people from technology platform dedicated to value chains for better traction ||  || Having the right people and in the right numbers; Joint design around the technology issues; bottom up approach ||   || Based on local issues; Agenda intergrated across themes ||
 * Things to do differently || Better time partnership engagement, timing of methods development vs activities and donors requirements ||  ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Things to do better || Clarify from the beginning our mandate in terms of research and development etc -however difficult it might be – because they create confusion and affect our current choices of sites and methods etc || Value chain development efforts should be pegged on availability of resources before engagement; Development of M&E framework is too slow ||  || Resource mobilization; Partner engagement; Better links with other CRPs || Don't get to hang up on the protocols ||
 * Things not to do ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||

**Issues Arising - Stuart Worsley**


Adaptation (change) of project with time (mechanism) VC tools relevant? (too broad, driven by theme) VC study verses doing Best bets (doing research Getting the right human capacity Monitoring & Evaluation - for what, timing of baselines Define the niche products Skills to engage the private sector Getting a project, but keep your research agenda Getting a team together to address all components (time available) Keep analysis process light Get to action quickly

Roles and Responsibilities session - Stuart Worsley
As the program evolves, the roles of different people also evolve. This session looked at the TOR of two key types of people: Value chain coordinators (VCC) and Theme leaders (TL).

The exercise began with participants drawing pictures of the relations between and among TLs, VCCs, poor people and value chain actors. These were the basis for two group discussions to revise existing TOR for VCCs and TLs.

Here are the key points:

TOR of Value chain Coordinators
The group reviewed several pictures to gain an insight into current perceptions of roles. Key points emerging:
 * Connection between the poor and value chain exists within or without us
 * The poor do not dialogue out
 * The poor are miserable
 * Value chain coordinators are in a spider web of how to make things happen
 * Value chain analysis in it for the money
 * The poor are bewildered
 * The work of theme leaders is easier done than that of value chain coordinators
 * Value chain coordinators and theme leaders are anchoring the chain
 * It is our prerogative to understand the chain
 * We are not value chain actors but facilitators
 * Value actors should work together if we are to see impact
 * We are focused on the lower chain not much action at the upper chain
 * Value chain coordinators and theme leaders push together value chain but are small players
 * We push (stimulate) the poor because they have no capacity, investment and energy
 * No real interaction between theme leaders and value chain coordinators, some theme leaders are closer than others, some are far, some are near
 * Theme leaders struggle to translate ideas into reality
 * Value chain coordinators spend too much time writing reports leaving no time for bright ideas
 * No one asking farmers, one-way traffic of information

Thereafter, the group reviewed the existing TOR:

1. Mobilizing resources – not only the responsibility of value chain coordinators; direction of process 2. Stronger emphasis on science
 * Working with theme leaders – bringing together in content
 * Contextual science leadership
 * Supply and demand of technology and innovation
 * Defining value chain research agenda

Idea skills includes:
 * Negotiation, facilitation, networking
 * Management
 * Sector competence – generalists
 * Science credentials (publication record, resource credibility)
 * Understanding across disciplines
 * Power – be a budget holder

Necessary support includes:
 * Timeliness of response to requests
 * Communications, capacity development, partnership supporting and backstopping

TOR of Theme leaders
The group reviewed several pictures to gain an insight into current perceptions of roles. Key points emerging:
 * The poor - are rather anonymous; not portrayed as value chain actors
 * VCC - central in most pictures; seen as having many tasks, connectors, navigators
 * TLs - a bit detached (from the ground); seen as 'generators' carrying or delivering 'products'
 * Scientists - where portrayed, are doing 'the' work.

Thereafter, the group reviewed the existing TOR:
 * They were generally felt to be fine, provided that some of the potential confusions in the overarching paragraph (2) were not significant negative drivers. The conversation focus was especially around the competing reporting lines with a TL having clear internal center supervisors but very undefined 'interactive' links with the CRP. And no links between a center supervisor and the CRP. In some situations this might give rise to problems and die-empowerment of the TL.
 * There was also some discussion as to the extent a TL can 'lead' strategy or coordinate budget information where they are not also having center 'leadership' roles. The issue is really about different CRP and center roles/expectations and the extent that a TL has the actual 'power' within a center to carry out center roles - and what happens when center supervisors, for instance, perhaps dont prioritize what the CRP wants.
 * In some bullets the term 'CRP coordinator' need to be updated to be VCC.
 * There was a sense that 20% time allocation is hardly sufficient for the tasks to be undertaken.

The 'ideal' profile of a TL includes:
 * is a scientist (with good understanding of impact areas and orientation)
 * has managerial capacities

Necessary support includes:
 * admin support
 * supportive supervisor for the CRP roles
 * dedicated $ resources
 * more meetings about the 'science'
 * reduced transaction costs

=**DAY 2**= Planning

any notes?

Resource Mobilisation session - Stuart Worsley
any notes?

=**DAY 3**=

9-10 February: Ethiopia Innovation Platform meeting 16-18 February: theory of change February – project implementation meeting report by Government of (India state) (MBlummel) 24th February: FEAST capacity development workshop in Botswana (Iddo) End of February: Uganda writeshop (Iddo) 19-20 February: Innovation platform workshop, Cairo, Egypt Early march: Tanzania policy field visitingtou 2-6 March: Bangladesh planning meeting (Jens Peter) 14 –18 April: Training of trainers in Uganda (Danilo)
 * Short term program meetings**

Theme and cross-cutting world cafe discussion on: 1. What can i do for you between now and March 2. How do we prepare for the meeting 3. What are the themes priorities
 * Planning for the 24-28 March theme meeting**

1. Vietnam: check site selection progress; keep in mind environmental issues, trade-offs; long term out-scaling 2. Partnership: Stuart to update "big ideals" and country-level for preparation of 1/2 pager on what do you want partnerships for? 3. Prepare 2-3 messages on the communication needs ahead of the 24-28 March theme meeting 4. Prepare the list of key people to have in the theme session of the March theme meeting 5. Request for data for situation analysis 6. Gender concept note development 'adaptability' 7. Plan for site selection in India 8. Uganda: plan for criteria for new project; provide information on additional site selection criteria
 * Worldcafe reporting**
 * Targeting Sustainable Interventions priority items**

Short term (One month) Theme leaders 1. Develop a one pager to partnerships for the smallholder pig value chain enterprise (2 weeks) 2. March meeting – develop priorities for the meeting and prioritization for Biosciences theme 3. Review of the flagship programs before the march meeting 4. Stuart and CapDev to develop a partnership concept around Feed and Forages enterprises in Tanzania, skype meeting scheduled within 2 weeks – have ameeting with them Longer term 5. Develop a Feeds and Forages storages for Burkina Faso and Vietnam 6. Develop a NIPs platform for Uganda 7. Develop tools for Vietnam value chain
 * Feeds and forages**

1. Flagship reviews 2. Log frame review 3. Value chain position of technologies 4. List of cool applications for partners (tog with Stuart) 5. Pig genetics in Vietnam, develop ½ page of possibilities 6. Burkina Faso value chain 2nd phase concept note and breeding process for small ruminants (tog with Barbara) 7. Develop a smallholder community breeding program concept note for pigs value chain in Uganda with Karen Marshal 8. Develop a list of regional workshop recommendation priority lists with others in the team 9. Genetics leadership program – prepare a note on status and future on how we work with Africa union / ASEAN/BRACS/Capacity building
 * Genetics**

1. Work on a revised gender budget and revised gender staff allocation 2. Recruitment; hire some a gender post-doc for the India dairy value chain 3. Develop the M&E and gender position TORs for the Uganda pig value chain 4. Revise/refine/specific recommendations for gender pig value chain consultancy report 5. Work with CRP2 for funds for the gender position in Uganda 6. Send contact for gender consultant for the Burkina Faso value chain to Abdou
 * Gender**

1. Developing a framework for updating the Burkina Faso value chain 2. Provide current logframe to India 3. Together with the targeting theme develop a business case for VCD, revisiting the original proposal, evaluating best bets scenarios and enterprise development 4a. Develop a think piece paper that shows the movement from discovery to delivery research with ILRI 4b. Broaden the think piece to the whole program 4c. Initiate global partnership discussion that will facilitate the discovery - delivery research process
 * Value chain development**

1. Develop the list of rapid tests for porcine diseases, and costs 2. Contact Malcolm Dickson and Malcolm Beveridge of WorldFish to ascertain which Animal Health issues should be included in the S&IP. 3. Prepare the list of partners in the animal health theme.
 * Animal Health**


 * Things to do before the March meeting**
 * All themes to send their agenda and plans for the March theme meeting one week before the meeting.
 * Themes to prepare the list of participants to be invited for the meeting

=Participants=
 * # Tom Randolph
 * 1) Patricia Rainey
 * 2) Jens Peter Dalsgaard
 * 3) Vamsidhar Reddy
 * 4) Fall Abdou
 * 5) Lucy Lapar
 * 6) Van der Hoek, Rein
 * 7) Blummel Michael
 * 8) Okike, Iheanacho
 * 9) Ballantyne Peter
 * 10) Kathleen Colverson
 * 11) Galie Alessandra
 * 12) Iddo Dror
 * 13) Phil Toye
 * 14) Barbara Rischkowsky
 * 15) Fred Unger
 * 16) An Notenbaert
 * 17) Shirley Tarawali
 * 18) John Benzie
 * 19) Danilo Pezo
 * 20) Stuart Worsley
 * 21) Diana Brandes
 * 22) Keith Child
 * 23) Amos Omore
 * 24) Suzanne Bertrand
 * 25) Jimmy Smith
 * 26) Evelyn Katingi
 * 27) Esther Ndung’u ||