Summary – Flagship Reflection and Discussion (A Response to 5 Questions)

• Please find here the summary of yesterday’s comments in response to the 5 questions.

  Download the file below, and read this before you proceed to the next session. We hope it is clear.

  Download the document, here: Summary document 2 – Flagship Reflection and Discussion (The 5 Questions)

  The following text is in the document (less pretty!!!)

   

  Summary of Reflections Livestock and Fish Phase 2 Planning Workshop – Day 2 – The 5 Questions

   

  1)    What are the most important changes we need to respond to – Summary of comments made by 9.25pm 24/03/15

  Innovation / Trade-offs / Systems approach

  More comments were made on this sub-theme than on any other. Clearly this is an area that many within the different parts of the CRP feel is a critical one to address / change going forward.  This topic was addressed from various angles, including:

  • The need to be able to be seen to add value with technologies and innovations.
  • The development world and the research world are increasingly thinking systemically. There is a demand that we understand issues within a wider context of interconnections, both technical, social, economic and political. Yet there is a persistence of linear approaches and meta planning processes that belies system complexity. This is a conceptual change that we need to get our research to address, and requires better thinking with respect to dealing with unpredictability and emergence.
  • Better tools to address trade-offs (e.g. between e.g. poverty / food & nutrition security & environment etc., over different time-horizons) associated with livestock technologies. Many trade-off (modelling) tools are rather time and data intensive – need quicker, simpler tools for real time decision support.
  • Especially at “local (value chain)” level there is a lot of scope for stronger integration between system CRPs and L&F.
  • We do not really understand how to link systems and value chains (production systems to markets at different scales) into a functional framework. Systems and VC approaches are not easily connected (though some argue that the value chain in itself is a system).
  • More emphasis on system research leads to question whether the issues of fish and livestock are sufficiently addressed in the systems research portfolio of the CRP. If not what does that mean?
  • Take a stronger look at trade-offs. Do not lose sight of possible win-wins. In some cases there is a possibility of combing increased productivity with positive effects on the environment.
  • Interest of society, private sector and donors is growing in the interface between climate change, degradation of natural resources and livestock production.

  Better matching our offer with demand (and capacities)

  • Tailor interventions to the needs of those we want to serve with our programs and projects.
  • Perhaps potential solutions are already available. The recent external review pointed to shortcoming in learning and building on past work.
  • To what extent do capacities vary within value chains? To what extend can capacity shortcomings in one segment or area be well matched well with competency in another?

  Leveraging ICT4Ag (focus on mobiles)

  Mobile technology can enable a real disruption to many aspects of our work, including:

  1. Enable data collection and monitoring at a scale and level not previously deemed possible.
  2. Facilitate two-way communication in terms of data gathering and knowledge dissemination.
  3. Ways people connect up and down and along and around chains
  4. Ways we can ‘extend’ our messages to reach people and influentials;
  5. Ways we can monitor and make sense of events and happenings
  6. Ways we can plug in to others’ knowledge and insights.

  BUT… most of what we do and produce is not mobile-ready; and most m-operations are all about ‘pushing’ stuff to farmers rather than engaging.

  Better M&E for resource mobilization

  • Have we adapted to the interdisciplinary CRP world? Are we working in silos?
  • Accountability is important and this requires measurement of impact. We must be more effective.
  • Remaining relevant to shifting donor focus – for example ASF & nutrition security now high on many donor agendas however we are only just beginning to engage in this area
  • M&E and Impact assessment – how could such research could be financed? We need more thought on this and a fund raising strategy that works under recurring budget constraints.

  New business models for translating research into impact

  • We need to respond to the expectation that our research will translate into impact, some of this fairly quickly to demonstrate we are on the right track (and protect longer-term stuff).
  • We must link better to the private sector. It has become the main vehicle for uptake and scale. Researchers in Flagships and value chain teams must learn who is out there, what is driving them, and how to work with them. This applies also to development actors, understanding of business models and real world issues, and how technologies get used.
  • More focus on business models for value chain actors, linking them with the private sector for sustainable value chains. Business models should include economically feasible and attractive technology options for value chain actors.
  • Additional internal capacity building on business model development required.

   

  2)    In what area are we having most effect?

   

  The discussion highlighted four inter-related areas:

  Basic Science / Technology Flagships and Tools (IPGs)

  (Global) tools have been efficacious, e.g. CLEANED VC, site selection procedure, and the generic VC Assessment toolkit adapted and applied in the different VCs.

  Technology successes, e.g. Brachiara grass (such as the adoption of Mulato II hybrid across Latin America) is spreading widely from Central and Latin America into Africa; new fish and livestock breeds now being used and poised to spread; basic science in terms of genetic, physiological, and environmental factors controlling important traits for feed nutrition.

  Critical mass of resources (including through bilateral projects) and partnerships

  Value chains with a critical mass of cross-flagship people and bilateral projects are producing various different effects. Most is where there is a clear and simple research agenda around ongoing, longer-term development initiatives, implemented by ourselves by others. This builds a credible evidence base. Good effect happens where we effectively connect ongoing technology work to the value chain, and where we build complementary partnerships. There is a danger in thinking we have to tackle every complex issue or interest in every project.

  Most effect happens where there are bilateral projects supporting VC research and where multidisciplinary teams from different flagships work as a team. Here they engage with development and private sector partners for testing and scaling interventions.

  Building critical mass around a value chain is beginning to show effect. Combining technical work around feeds and health, marketing etc . and creating sturctures that enable communication and action (eg the Tz Dairy Development Forum) look promising as a step towards VC transformation.

   

  Cross-cutting, cross-disciplinary, cross-flagship, cross-CRP

  There is greatest effect where there is cross-CRP collaboration. This happens through bilateral projects. Partnerships are better, both within CGIAR and with national system as in Ethiopia. CRPs have fostered cross-disciplinary work. Cooperation between centres and between flagships works quite well but need improvement.

  Good effects happen where there is close collaboration with VC coordinators.

  Cross disciplinary work is happening between animal health, MEL and gender. The gender mainstreaming workshop enabled a cross meeting of scientists across centres and a realisation of common interest and challenge. Gender is creating a team to work on issues and define approaches for testing on the ground. While gender gets attention now, it feels that this is because it “has to be done”.

  Last year saw profound change in capacity development thinking, the true implications of which are yet to unfold. Progress to mainstream CapDev elements is in the SIPs and IDOs of most VC work plans. Investment is not yet available and it is uncertain how formulated outcomes will be achieved.

   

  R4D, whole VC approach/concept, TOC

  The overall concept of doing research for development in a value chain that embeds technological research in such chains is a clear ToC that links research to development outcomes. In Nicaragua, this has allowed for strong embedding of bilateral projects around the VC. ToCs,  impact pathways, and the requirement to justify activities as contributing to objectives, has introduced rigor and focus to our work, enabling us to challenge each other across disciplines, flagships and centres using a standard currency.

  The VC approach to addressing challenges within the livestock sector has been picked-up and adopted by industry actors within different countries. We are effective in addressing VC required initiatives, though not in all chain segments. Our most far-reaching effect so far is convening and fostering legitimacy in VCs.

  3)    What we’re doing well?

  APPROACH / STRATEGY / VISION

  • Achieving a shared vision
  • Achieving a mature understanding of what we ought to be doing
  • Taking an impressively broad approach—topically and geographically
  • Reflecting on the strengths and weakness of our strategy, and adjusting it as needed

   

  SCIENCE

  • Doing applied rather than blue sky research
  • Doing increasing cross-disciplinary work, with increasing cross-disciplinary understanding
  • Modifying the upstream research priorities of the technical flagships to meet value chain needs

   

  INNOVATION

  • Experimenting with many initiatives and new ways of working

   

  COMMUNICATIONS

  • Maintaining good communications among teams and between centres
  • Communicating the ‘livestock and fish by and for the poor’ ethos

   

  COLLABORATION

  • Engaging more and better across centres and with more diverse partners
  • Developing frontline partnerships with development organizations
  • Creating closer links with national agricultural research systems
  • Achieving good collaboration between the flagships and value chains
  • Building superb and close collaboration between CRP4 and 3.7 in Uganda

   

  GENDER

  • Getting gender, and gender transformative approaches, on the L&F ‘map’
  • Making a start to integrate gender in the flagships
  • Developing methods and tools for gendered value chain analyses

   

  BREEDING

  • Breeding fish and forage grass
  • Using modern tools to accelerate genetic gain in Brachiaria
  • Making major advances in understanding Brachiaria genetics
  • Creating an enabling environment for long-term breeding work

   

  VALUE CHAINS

  • Getting the value chain actors talking to each other
  • Getting scientists of different disciplines talking to each
  • Identifying value chain constraints
  • Identifying priorities based on evidence
  • Developing useful tools for grounding work in value chain realities
  • Developing a value chain toolkit of practical use by local partners

   

  4. What are we not doing well?

   

  • Interaction across flagship and VC-tech flagship linkages

  Cross flagship interaction and VC-tech flagship linkages are poor, but improving slowly. Some feel interactions are there but rarely highlighted, articulated or emphasized, and we need to pay more attention to this.

  • Participation of value chain actors/engagement with decision makers

  In all flagships, the involvement of value chain actors – especially the poor ones – is questioned. We talk participation but seem to lack capability to smartly engage value chain actors – from farmers to consumers. We consult, but in most cases they do not participate.

  In some VCs, the inability to regularly interact with key decision makers affects success. We need to think through ways for better engagement.  Lessons could be drawn from Tanzania Dairy VC.

   

   

  • Research focus

  L&F lags on its broader research agenda on social, economic and institutional research. Interesting, disconnected pieces of research are being carried in individual value chains, but there is no clear research agenda that guides this work across the value chains and provides a coherent framework for cross-VC comparisons and learning, and preparation of high quality global science products. We are not good at defining sharp, relevant and easily testable research questions to guide our work.

  • Documentation of lessons/successes

  There is a lot happening in various VCs and flagships. We have not distilled our successes in articulate and compelling ways to show to the world and donors. This has led to poor credibility with potential donors and development partners. Many recognize that some interventions are long term and require longer time frames to show success. This might explain why we are not so successful at attracting funding.

  Documentation of what others have done, what worked/didn’t work should have been the starting point for our VC work. L&F tried to institute this as ‘successes/failures reviews’ in each subject area, indeed some reviews are published, but we did not follow through to make sure it happened for all.

  • MEL

  Two issues were emphasized:

  1. We need a stringent M&E system to capture and document non-tangible success and change. This partly stems from lack of a clear strategy or research agenda to understand change processes and our influence on them
  2. MEL expenses are not regarded as essential to attract donor support. There is no budget for MEL. This should be in all our product lines, and MEL should be conceived as a research activity and a management service.

   

  • Capacity development

  With Strategic, national and regional partners, we need to be intentional and systematic in supporting, developing and funding Capacity Development initiatives. We must articulate Capacity development needs in specific value chain programs by responding to basic questions such as

  1. To what extent is change in value chain function being constrained by the current capability of value chain actors? Do we have a “proper” baseline of the current ‘capabilities?’
  2. To what extent does capacity within value chain actors lie within the capability of individuals, of organization or of networked relationships?
  3. To what extent do different types of capacity (and capability) effect overall value chain function? Are there some capabilities that are significantly more influential than others?
  4. To what extent do capacities vary within value chains? To what extent can capacity shortcomings in one segment or area be well matched with competency in another?

   

   5)    What do we need to do differently – Synthesis of the comments

  Capacity Development and engagement with partners:

   

  Value Chains have not yet developed strategies to develop capacity. Better engagement with value chain actors could help them better understand, react and be capable to scale out interventions. Assessment of actors could detect where capacity development would help.

  Flagships and value chains are innovation systems and emphasis should be on actor interests, capacities and knowledge. We should use participatory research, experiential learning and local networks. National partner capacity can strengthen research. A positive example is the innovation platforms of the MilkIT project in India which catalysed innovations and attracted interest from local actors. We should focus on partner contribution to research and private partner support for business model approaches.

  Demand-driven research is more important that centre-supply-driven research. Demand from value chains is mainly for immediate solutions. However technology flagship work addresses long-term demand.

  This workshop should include partners from Day 3 onwards to provide syntheses of the first 2 days.

  CRP structure – Flagship restructuring – Collaboration among Flagships:

   

  Many comments concerned the roles of SASI and VCTS flagships. A combination of both for Phase 2 was suggested but criticised. Closer linkage between them is preferred, as is closer linkage between these and the technology flagships. A `species master` was suggested in the SASI flagship to coordinate cross VC learning on the different species. The VCTS flagship should be responsible for upstream research in 3 core areas: innovation, economics and business development which it applies downstream in the various VCs.

  SASI operates in isolation and does not providing the right information to other flagships. Other flagships should therefore articulate what they would like from SASI. This might include feed demand-supply scenarios, trade-off-analyses, or yield gaps analyses. SASI should lead conceptual system thinking within chains and this should leads to inquiry into business and organizational models that enable or hinder good business function.

  Research focus, research outputs:

   

  There is a tension between demand-driven research and centre-supply-driven research. More attention is required on demand from the VCs, especially for short-term solutions. Most (technology) flagships work addresses long-term demand that is a bigger agenda than that of specific VCs.  Therefore not everything can be driven only by VC demand.

  `Quick win` solutions to immediate problems are needed to maintain the interest of the stakeholders and their commitment. We should be more coherent to our audiences and we should focus on easy delivery. However, we must also keep the bigger picture in mind to address key challenges such as e.g. trade-offs between commodities or components.

  More research is needed on business model approaches for economically feasible technology options that are profitable for the VC actors and that allow self-sustaining VCs.

  We need to better share and learn between VCs, including experiences, methodologies, technologies, and tools.

  We need to understand and address partner capacities in core livestock research (e.g. at national level). There are few `real livestock specialists` in L&F.

  Our research outputs (e.g. value chain analysis/benchmarking) should be synthesized to short reports to highlight key findings. So far, reports are too long and not everybody reads them.

  Our focus is sometimes unclear: Are we for research or for development. This might have implications on partnerships or the establishment of priorities among others.

  Gender:

  Ways to integrate gender include through cross-flagship ex-ante assessments (e.g. building on FEAST/TechFit), delivery systems and business hubs as key mechanisms/strategies, ICT and use of mobile phone technology, collaboration between all flagships and between SASI/VCTS, cross-VC learning.

  Fund raising:

  For future fund raising, conduct analyses of each value chains priorities for resource mobilization. Think of new donors (e.g. China) and selling ourselves. We are too critical of ourselves in the CGIAR system. We have delivered well on bilateral projects, but less well on W1/2 funds. This needs to change.

  Synergies with other CRPs should be intensified.