Summary – Opinions and scenarios

• Yesterday was a very fruitful set of discussions. These have been summarized for you.

  Please find here the summary of yesterday’s (Day 3: 25 March) discussions on the opinion pieces and scenarios.

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

  Download the document, here: Summary 4 – Opinions and Scenarios

  The following text is in the document

  Summary of Global Livestock Review Comments 

   

  Summary of Comments – Day 3

   

  1)    Should Intensification Remain the Driver of Livestock Improvement

  Michael Blummel made a strong and evidence-based case for intensification as the key driver to achieve more ASF for and by the poor. Participants agreed with this proposition, but with qualifications that it should be framed as sustainable intensification, moving it beyond production and on-farm trade-offs to consider social equity and environmental issues.

  Dome discussion focused on what was required to achieve intensification, and proposed capacity building, the application of best management practices, optimal breeding and feeding strategies, and the use of suitable crop residues. These factors must be integrated as no single factor delivers a silver bullet. We also must look into constraints to food access.

  Rising feed costs are a significant constraint to increased production and profitability for farmers. The nutritious pond project in Vietnam was cited for its examination of the use of natural nutrients produced in pond ecosystems. This exemplifies intensification through reduced external feed, relying more on enhancing existing ecosystem functions.

  There was reflection on resultant production systems after intensification. Would this be the demise of traditional smallholder and backyard operations to be replaced by larger, more commercial operations? What would happen to those displaced? On what types of operation would the L&F Program focus? This discussion was complemented by the concept of livestock and fish production system “transformation” that is broader than optimizing production and increased efficiency.

  In a “thought experiment” the implications of hypothetical global ban on feeding grain to livestock was discussed. This would favour developing world producers, reduce emissions and overconsumption of ASFs, but livestock products might become very expensive with livestock keeps in low-income countries becoming rich. Similarly, if intensification were to occur without consideration for sustainability, it might take systems a very long time to auto-correct.

  There are already good and tested ideas to increase production and efficiency that farmers simply do not want to adopt. We need to understand adoption processes better.

  The 2^nd phase of L&F might have to serve extensive pastoral systems that operate under completely different circumstances and in very different ways to traditional smallholder. Here a systems perspective is critical. The nutritious pond project exemplifies extensification. Food from extensive systems might be more nutritious than that from intensive systems. This is an innovative area of research.

  What is the most desirable unit of intensification? Is by animal unit or by land area? There are other factors of production, as well as “socio-economic” units of labour and capital investment to consider.

  From the perspective of human nutrition, focus should be on the poor consumer. Here the program could have the biggest impact on the largest number of people; but with this comes the challenge of measuring that impact.

  2)    Where does Research Stop and Development Start?

  L&F is positioned between research and development. We are on the ground in a perfect situation between pure research and development. We can research issues that are less attractive to the private sector and also find ways to work with them.

  Our perspective within the research community is unique, because we are on the ground. We are suited and are working as intermediaries in the space between pure research and development. Our goal should be to develop partnerships with both pure research and development actors.

  Feedback arrows need to be included in the shown model (slide 6 )from development to research, and research elements need to be incorporated within development programmes. This could be housed in VCTS. High quality, relevant applied research needs to be at the heart of L&F.

  Research and development can be concurrent. We need to generate technologies that have potential to reach scale. While the title of the session assumes that development is waiting for research results, this is not so. Development goes on with or without research. Research can steer it in a certain direction, can accelerate it and can open new directions. The question therefore is “how does research ensure its place in a development process?” There is a shifting role between research and development with synergies between different entities

  Engaging development partners is critical in linking research to development. Value chain frameworks and Innovation Platforms make mainstreaming research findings easier.

  There were several comments on whether there is a research to development continuum and if this is actually part of the problem. Should we stop engaging when an innovation has been tested and needs scaling out or study how scaling out works in different contexts? Alternatively we can work with development partners who are doing scaling work, where we work as researchers and knowledge partners rather than implementers.

  We should not cross the line to become practitioners. Yet action research that uses innovation systems approaches and creating feedback loops perhaps already crosses over. Is the line fluid? Do we need to identify roles? Is this a dual track process? Is it an inquiry oriented development approach, or an action oriented research approach?

  There was difference of opinion as to whether research and development is really separate. Perhaps our role is to develop the overlap, and develop new ways of working (action research) that reflects the realities of the value chains we are working in (complex, rapidly changing). Similarly development models need to become more flexible. We have an opportunity to bridge the gaps and define new ways of working?

  Alternatively, there are research programs that effectively bridge the gap and there are models that can be followed. To do this, we must engage with stakeholders, national programs, and partners (including private sector partners) who have a focus on development.

  What are we accountable for? While sub-IDOs are a small improvement on the IDOs, they remain framed as outcomes in the development realm. Boundaries remain an issue.

  3)    Does the model of testing science in value chains work?

  The nature of future scenarios was not clear to many and comments were affected by this. What would a Global Livestock Agenda look like? Wwould CRPs merge? Will the new CRP have to accommodate ongoing activities? How would this be different from now? Current strategy is to anticipate the most likely scenario and pro-actively shape our mandate. We know that there will be consolidation of systems CRPs and this will influence our emerging mandate. Regardless, we must identify a credible theory of change and impact pathway.

  Three options were described.

  • A hybrid approach involving the current scenario with global animal science agenda
  • Continuing testing science in value chains
  • A global animal science agenda

   

  The hybrid:

  • The value chain approach works in either scenario and should be ring fenced to carry forward come what may. Given that it may not work for some systems (e.g., extensive system), consider frameworks that address environmental risk and ecological scarcity more than production and market efficiency
  • The hybrid could cover the range from resilience to intensification. This consolidates basic research and offers two different impact pathways (in addition to contributing international public goods). Animal health, for example, would consider health constraints from extensive low-input backyard to intensive commercializing systems as a continuum and in many contexts
  • On going work outside the value chains would fit into a hybrid. Forage breeding for adapted Brachiaria cultivars in Latin American could be extended to dairy in East Africa.
  • Delivery is researchable and the comment that it is not was strongly refuted. Such research should continue as part of innovation systems research. On being to involved in development we were challenged “can we research without apparatus?”
  • Improved collaboration between value chain teams and technical flagships will help achieve a better balance between development and research. This will leverage science partnerships with institutions such as WUR and SLU
  • Initial brainstorming by PPMC proposes a hybrid approach (posted here) to continue our value chain focus for sustainable intensification, and to add an agenda on livestock and fish for resilience and livelihoods, including backyard systems, wild catch fisheries and pastoralism. This agenda would be delivered through joint action with systems CRPs.
  • There’s a risk of losing focus in combining value chain and system thinking
  • This approach needs to ensure adequate funding.
  • In transitioning, consider the suggestion from CCEE to “Develop a strategy for transitioning within three to four years from one sector per country in nine countries to a more flexible approach that would include provision of support in other countries and work on multiple species in countries with built up capacity”

   

  Scenario 1

  • CRP’s were designed to be long term stable funding mechanisms to overcome problems associated with short project timelines. We haven’t yet had time to test whether the focused approach is working. If we change goalposts now, we have to start a new experiment without having completed the original one
  • It would be dangerous to reduce the number of value chains because it is difficult to develop credible IPG’s if we only work in few countries. This would reduce the opportunities for bilateral opportunities coinciding with the value chains

   

  Scenario 2

  • Bringing in partners WUR and SLU, we are better placed to address a global animal production agenda than trying to shoehorn them into the existing flagship structures. Providing local solutions to global challenges is difficult but given the research expertise that can be unlocked through such partnerships, the CRP is better placed to address research questions at a slightly higher level than local pilots.

   

   

  4)    The nature of focus for results

   

  Has the focus on nine value chains (VCs) been overly ambitious?

  It is not the number of VCs that is problematic, rather the difficulty of getting securing adequate funds through additional bilateral projects early on. Essential elements including a basic set of activities and skills should be funded through CRP funds to kick-start selected VCs to attract funders, crystallize ideas and formulate proposals. Current progress has depended strongly on bilateral funds. There is a danger that giving such incubation funds are a disincentive to additional funding.

  Reducing the number of value chains to focus on fewer countries might mean less opportunity, especially if donors prefer certain countries.

  It is hard to judge the right number. Current, there may be too many unless more funding and research time can be directed to the objectives of each. After a start-up phase where a set of standard products are produced, a go/no-go decision could be taken.

  Should we measure our success (of focusing) by the impact achieved after 3 years?

  Three years is an unrealistic timeline to achieve impact in a development context. This is supported by experiences with 2 – 3 year projects where it is hard to show impact. Impact may not be measurable before 3 -5 years.

  We must manage expectations in terms of time frames for results/impact, certainly in breeding programs. It takes time to get a new variety to market. For example, seed companies only deal with deal with annual crops. Any potentially successful products that come to market are the result of years of investment and research. It will take time for our current investments to come to fruition.

  Long-term programs such as CRPs are expected to provide long-term perspectives for achieving impact, and to allow aligned short-term bilateral projects to achieve quicker impact.

  More focus versus the scenario of an expanded agenda

  There was support for an expanded agenda. It was argued that too much focused delivers for some, yet L&F has the potential to deliver for many. We should take lessons learned from the focused approaches in phase 1 to determine how to deliver benefits to more people at a global plane. An expanded CRP is attractive as a better platform to leverage resources. The expanded form will have to come with more resources.

  Importance of systems works

  Systems work is under-represented in current research portfolios. This needs to be made more relevant and visible. More budget and the right human capacity should be applied here. SLU/WUR are expected be able to this. Links with elements of other CRPs may also have potential to fill this gap. Technology platforms could be more pro-active in understanding how we can work with SASI.

  Social sciences have not been able to grow their agenda by attracting bilateral funding. This would have funded more people and activities here. Technology flagships have been much more successful. It was questioned as to whether this was a function of leadership in the various social science agendas. Perhaps therefore we need better researcher focus?

   

  Is focus as an effective way to deliver results?

  Increased focus in L&F supports the assumption of the CO and it’s SRF, that focus is needed to achieve reliable results. What the evidence is there for this assumption? We should apply a monitoring framework to measure progress towards a hypothesis that “focus is good” and that we could use this to change the nature and intensity of focus.

   

   

  Summary of Comments made on the PPMC Scenarios Presentation

  Given the volume of comments made on this presentation, this additional summary has been created to reflect this.

  The Scenarios

  The current scenario defines clear goals in ways that everyone can understand. By contrast, the objectives of an expanded scenario are stated. PPMC debated the validity of using intensification across all contexts. While this has worked well for the current program, this would not work for marginal production systems. Other development pathways might offer more potential. The expanded scenario would likely be a hybrid model that would consolidate all CG animal science work, framed to address two main contexts; one where we focus on sustainable intensification for food security; and one where production animals are part of a resilience strategy. For the latter, focus is less on intensification and more on efficient use of animals, reducing their impact on natural resources, such as in pastoral systems and capture fisheries. If our animal science must address the range of contexts, then we can use these two contexts to focus our science better. The value chain model would work for the sustainable intensification end, and we could create a pro-active mechanism to interject our work in system CRPs to address the resilience/livelihoods end.

  The expanded focus would enable the inclusion of capture fisheries that are important for food security, nutrition and income; and dried fish from farmed and captured fish that is volumetrically significant in trade, and is important as an animal source food for the poor in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

  Livestock are not just food producers but fulfil many other functions in smallholder systems. Pulling all livestock work into one CRP might reduce interaction with crop centres and affect quality cross system thinking in CGIAR. Perhaps there is too much focus on ASF for livestock is about more than this.

  A third scenario might focus on human health and the environment in a few value chains, using a systems approach.

  A focus on Health

  A One-Health flagship might effectively address connections between human, animal, food safety and environmental health considerations, and define scenarios to help small farmers to be resilient. Such interconnection would foster cross CRP research. However, we need to avoid duplication with A4NH, and rather demonstrate effective joined-up work, but not run parallel complementary agendas.

  A focus on Interconnection

  In any scenario, L&F should connect with the socio-economic and wider systems visions of agricultural production, markets and NRM. However intensive livestock systems become, they need feed, land, labour and markets to keep functioning sustainably, and are part of larger systems involving crops, fodder, people and institutions. We need to make linkages with systems CRPs and take part in their agendas.

  Expand environmental elements

  There is existing data and tools for natural resource managers to help them manage the balance between NRM and production. Aquaculture has particular experience to offer here. We need to move beyond environmental impact assessments to ways and means of designing solutions that are environmentally sound for intensification and environmental impact are intimately linked

  Livestock and Fish production are the best ways to address and mitigate negative environmental impacts and convert these into positive impacts. Land degradation, water use, pollution, greenhouse gases, are difficult to sustainably address without going into fish and livestock production.

  Being explicit about forages

  Whether the loss of visibility of forages is problematic or not, is questioned. Some felt that so long as they are properly covered, visibility is not critical. Others noted that planted forages use half of all agricultural land use and are the largest crop in tropical agriculture. Subsuming forages within animal nutrition removes justification as to forage’s importance, issues and potential. This is too massive to bury under nutrition, and runs the risk also of marginalising CIAT’s successful forages team.