Recent Comments
- ILRI Virtual Meetings » No travel required » Registration: How do I sign up? on Registration
- jenspeter on S2 – Q4 – Scenario 2, Question 4 (Livestock and Fish with a Global Animal Science Agenda – Theory of Change)
- Mblummel on S1 – Q1 – Scenario 1, Question 1 (Livestock and Fish like now – Key Research Areas)
- Mblummel on S1 – Q1 – Scenario 1, Question 1 (Livestock and Fish like now – Key Research Areas)
- Mblummel on S1 – Q1 – Scenario 1, Question 1 (Livestock and Fish like now – Key Research Areas)
L&F Yammer Group
There is a higher demand for production and productivity; There is also a higher consciousness that this could have a nasty environmental effect. We therefore need to be able to be seen to add value with technologies and innovations that help on either of these, (preferably both at the same time).
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.
With respect to system complexity we will need to recognize that benefit for the poor can, in some cases be achieved indirectly by co-investment in other parts of the economy that can provide sustainable support for technologies which are then available to smallholders, or provide for poor consumers. Simply another example of needing to stay flexible in our approaches and in seeking partners.
I agree with Stuart and this need for a systems approach came up in several contexts yesterday. INthe summaries, several flagship leaders indicated where this could be done too. Scientists on the CRP need to be made aware of the approach so that we can systematically work in this way.
I also agree with this - the trade-offs (between e.g. poverty / food & nutrition security & environment etc., over different time-horizons) associated with livestock technologies is increasingly receiving attention, however we have few tools to evaluate this is in a timely manner.
Great to hear! Yes many tradeoff (modeling) tools are rather time and data intensive. We have some basis to work with from eg CLEANED and other CRPs (CCAFS and HT), and also Mark (v Wijk) is thinking much into that direction. But if such quick tradeoff tool is to be developed, investment is needed...
Especially at "local (value chain)" level there is a lot of scope ofor stronger integration between system CRPs and L&F. On trade-off modelling, but also on approaches to involve the relevant actors (e.g., through innovation platforms). Additionally, during the system CRPs conference this month at IITA the almost absence of livestock related work was noted repeatedly, L&F definitely has a role to play here!
Much of what is happen in the research sphere is more and more technology drive: we have thes enew tools, how can we use them for research. In the L&F context we need to revert to asking what are our needs and what are the technologies we must use to meet those needs.
I.e. ask what are the needs of those we want to serve with our programs and projects and what are the interventions - technological and/or institutional - that can potentially meet those needs.
Perhaps potential solutions are already available. One thing the recent external review of L&F pointed out was our shortcoming in terms of learning from and building on past work...
Mobile technology is enable data collection and monitoring at a scale and level not previously deemed posible. Data collection (in the broadest sense) has always been a bottleneck and current and emerging mobile technology can facilitate tw-way communication int erms of data gathering and knowledge dissemination.
1. Our funding environment! Its obvious that donors want/demand accountability and evidence of impact. Its not enough for us to have world class science products if we do not invest in the kinds of data collection and analysis that can show with persuasive evidence that they are having an effect on the lives of the poor.
2. The conceptual ambiguity between VCTS and SASI. The overlaps are pronounced and difficult to maneuver for most CRP staff, leading to multiple flagship roles and disaggregated budgeting. How this fragmentation works in our favor is a mystery to me. For example, a single, coherent body of activities can start in SASI, but as soon as any field work is involved they transform into VCTS activities (as do the implementing staff). This means that both flagships have a finger on the budget to carry out a single body of activities; and, staff can start the morning in one flagship, step on a plane and end the day as part of another flagship. The potential for bottlenecks, miscommunication and multiple and competing priorities is rife! Not to mention the confusion this can create in terms of budgeting (I have an activity that draws from four different budget sources!).
I am with Keith on no. 1: our funding environment. The entire CRP reform signaled a significant shift in the funding environment. Have we adjusted yet to this change or are we still operating, are our our mindsets still stuck in the more traditional (project-oriented) mode and disciplinary silos...?
The accountability is important and for this, the measurement of impact. We do need to be more effective in this area.
Ambiguities aside, I think putting on three or more hats at different times in a day inter-disciplinarity is about and more reflective of real life situations
From the discussions there seems to be a call for some system thinking (among others : is VC the only way to ToC right?, claims for more innovation system research in SASI, call for better linking fodder into the value chain and production system or better integrating the environment). It brings a smile on my face, as discussion in Humidtropics, a CRP which entry point was the system, tend to focus more on value chains.
It seems that we do not really understand yet how to link systems and value chains (or is it production systems to markets at different scales?) into a functional framework. A framework through which we understand the value chain (or somehow a broader concept of how to bring an animal product to a final consumer) as well as the most critical interactions within the socio-enviromental system at various scales that are not captured by the value chain approach. Without such a framework we risk to loose the overview as in the end everything links to everything.
We started discussing this in the Amsterdam workshop last year. An interesting idea floated there was to look at both “vertical” and a “horizontal” dimensions of a VC. The vertical dimension therein refers to the more traditional VC approach describing VC nodes/actors and the interactions/flows between the nodes, while the horizontal dimension describes the interactions at the different nodes with the “surrounding” systems (society, environment, economy). There was a plan to have a follow-up meeting this year.
I also like this framework, and would be very happy to see more discussion on this. Could be a very useful tool going into phase 2.
An, great to see this resurfacing. I am still very much in favour of such a framework. Would be great if we can have some more in-depth discussion about this. I also agree with Catherine that the systems approach and the VC approach are not necessarily easily connected (although some may argue that the value chain in itself is a system).
When I was (still am…) pondering about the CapDev option paper Tom asked me to draft recently, I feel that I/we have to try to better reveal where the answers to our conundrum lie. Consider for example the questions:
a. 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
b. To what extent does capacity within value chain actors lie within the capability of individuals, of organisation organisations or of networked relationships?
c. 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?
d. 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?
The mobile revolution that influences: 1) ways we can collect data and info; 2) ways people connect up and down and along and around chains; 3) ways we can 'extend' our messages to reach people and influentials; 4) ways we can monitor and make sense of events and happenings; 5) ways we can plug in to others' knowledge and insights. But most of what we do and produce is not mobile-ready (me included); and most m-operations are all about 'pushing' stuff to farmers rather than engaging.
Remaining relevant to shifting focus of donors – for example ASF & nutrition security now high on many donor agendas however we are only just beginning to engage in this area
another change is how we see ' those we want to serve with our programs and projects' (as written by Jens Peter), and that they are not passive but people faced with choices and make decisions. Will agricultural VCs look really the same in the next 10 years, with younger farmers, more able and willing to use technologies? forget about manuals and classroom training!!
From Addis Furry Friends Club: Animal welfare came strongly onto the livestock agenda in Europe and Australia a couple of decades ago - it is beginning to come on the developing world livestock production agenda and we need to be ahead of the curve here. This is especially the case with expanding export markets.
Implementing a more integrated approach among flagship teams would ensure a greater impact on the ground. For instance, there is often a lag in adoption of technologies from an inability to interpret their implications and a lack of the relevant economics involved in their use.
Also there is a need for some flexibility within flagships in order to be able to respond to/ provide some advice and guidance on a broader scale for the very unpredictable changes in the environments (physical, political & economic) used for livestock production.
The most important change is that the CRP has a clear objective of research for development of small holder farmers. Work in close collaboration with the target group. Identify together their main constraints to progress, what is already known about it, what are means accessible to farmers to adopt the already available knowledge, what alterations to existing interventions are needed to make it adoptable to farmers, and what new research is necessary. Participate with private companies and make sure companies take over activities that are not pure research. Accept flexibility in the flagships. Stimulate interdisciplinary research and allow VCTS and SASI to influence the flagships.
What are the most important changes we need to respond to? As incomes rise and middle classes with increasing purchasing powers grow, animal source foods are likely to become less available/affordable to poor consumers. That is a key change we need to anticipate and address proactively. Per capita consumption of fish is predicted to decline in Sub-Saharan Africa unless farmed fish production can be boosted (sustainably) to meet the growing supply-demand gap!
In addition to that we are seeing that the way people are accessing food is changing with urbanization.
Think as stated above by some we need to have a stronger look at trade-offs. But we also should not leave out of sight the possibility of win-wins or even win-win-win. In some cases there is a possibility of combing increased productivity with positive effects on the environment. A critical issue is however social equity (poor-more wealthy; men women; young old, ethnicity etc.) which may be even more complex to achieve. Interesting are the perception of more emphasis on system research which leaves to question is the issues of fish and livestock are sufficiently addressed in the systems research portfolio of the CRP? and if not what does that mean?
Also M&E and Impact assessment comes across frequently and how such research could be financed. We likely need to give this more thought and think about a fund raising strategy in particular under recurring budget constraints
Interest of societies (including private sector) and donors is growing in the interface between climate change, degradation of natural resources and livestock production. Triple win scenarios are currently being tested as a part of for instance the Nicaragua value chain work; this is also represents applying Discovery Flagship results to the value chain (e.g., the use of data on carbon accumulation potential of forages to determine the feasibility of carbon credit schemes as incentive mechanisms for farmers to apply "good practices"). For instance, we are currently engaged in formulating a project proposal with development organizations (Heifer) and a regional bank (BCIE), with strong emphasis on involving private sector actors.
The focus should be put more on business models for the different value chain actors and on linking them with private sector for ensuring self-sustaining value chains. New business model generation should include economically feasible and attractive technology options for the value chain actors.
1- We need to meet the needs of the beneficiaries (improved livelihood, income and nutrition) and in same time the interest of funding organizations,
2- We need also to secure long term/sustainable fund sources for the development research that need long life programs/projects
For me, one of the most important changes we need to respond to is the expectation that our research will translate into impact--and some of it fairly quickly so that we demonstrate we are on the right track (and protect the longer-term stuff). This picks up on a couple of references in the Flagship presentations to the challenge we face in linking better to the private sector since it has become increasingly the main vehicle for uptake and real scale. For this reason, I think it is absolutely imperative that the researchers in our program, whether in the discovery Flagships or in the value chain teams, make more of an effort to learn who is out there, what is driving them, and how we can work with them. And that extends to other development actors, but it is really getting our heads around business models and understanding the real world issues about how our technologies actually get used that is critical!
I agree, and I raised earlier the need (at least for some of us) for additional internal capacity building on business model development. Is there a way we could achieve this?
The changing ICT landscape (for the better) in many of the areas that we work in present a unique opportunity that we should adapt to and leverage, to engage with the farmers, not only for data collection, but also in bridging the information last mile problem. In addition there are unique opportunities that can be used to bring the farmer agenda closer to the research agenda.
That said its an opportune time to start packaging knowledge and information to be able to be delivered using some of these new means without losing value and meaning.
Hi to all. Here is Jacobo Arango from CIAT using the account of Stefan as I was not able to register.
Regarding this question, I would like say that climate change and enviroment is something we really need to take seriously and not only something that look good in our proposal (and I'm not an ecologist or environmentalist at all). The challenge is how to conciliate this fact with the need for food security and if impossible in some cases how to proceed?
For forage breeding - I think the biggest change that we need to adjust to is the expectation that our work will link to the nine specific target value chains that have been chosen by the CRP. Our expertise, infrastructure, and breeding materials are all in the improvement of Brachiaria. I think the focus in Brachiaria is appropriate to maximize global impact over the long term, but I am not sure if this is the right genus for all these value chains. I think that we need to have more dialogue with the value chain folks (especially in Africa where we are not affected by licensing agreements) and find opportunities for how we can mobilize our expertise to meet the specific needs of producers in these targeted systems without spreading ourselves too thin. The new Forages for Africa inititiative that we launched earlier this year should help. And we need to bear in mind that the timetable for producing a new cultivar is over 10 yrs from cross to market - so we need to take a really long term perspective before deciding to commit ourselves to working on vastly different target traits or new species/genera.
To better appreciate that all knowledge is one and even as we cut it into pieces to make didactic reasoning manageable (flagships) we should re-package into one for application in an integrative manner to achieve meaningful change in the value chains.
I think we should have a look at non-resource limited agricultural systems and try to see how this info can feed into our value chains and benefit the poor. I think the most recent change of the revised budget will help us to focus on best bet options to show impact ASAP.