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
My sense is that value chains that have a critical mass of cross-flagship people and bilateral projects are producing various (very different) effects. Many are quite difficult to capture and quantify and make visible, and especially to tell the integrated/whole picture. The 'whole's' are getting to be bigger than the sums of the parts but we have difficulty to see this. Could be due to not enough comms; may also be linked to atomised management and attribution across flagships.
So far, tools and analysis have been efficacious. SASI highlights CLEANED VC, Animal Health highlights studies in Tanzania and Uganda
The second area I think we have an effect (positive) is the overall R4D-VC concept; embedding technological research in and around Value chains (and innovation systems) provides a relatively clear and easy framework or ToC for linking research to development and ultimately outcomes. Of course this does not make implementation any easier.
Agree .. In Nicaragua the VC concept has allowed for a stronger embedding of bilateral projects around the value chain. This also has made a lot easier to see and explain their cohesion. And it makes "us" (the CRP) a more attractive partner for development organizations, donors (we have been able to secure funding at least partly as a result of this) and private sector partners.
There are technology successes. Brachiara grasses are cited as spreading widely from Central and Latin America into Africa; New fish and livestock breeds are now being used and are poised to spread.
From a SASI perspective, effect is there where there has been a close collaboration with VC coordinators and global work could be directly linked to what is going on in the VC (sites selection, cleaned, ...)
We are having most effect where we are able to implement a clear and simple research agenda around ongoing, longer-term development initiatives (implemented by ourselves or, preferably, by others), allowing us to build a credible evidence base based on actual field work. This way of operating allows us to address our key research questions in a pragmatic and cost-effective way.
I agree with this comment. there is a danger in if we think we have to implement every complexity and each aspect of interest in L&F as a whole our work in every project.
I too agree with this, especially where we are now able to better join up the ongoing technology work through the value chain lens or where we can build on good complementary partnerships.
My sense is that our most far-reaching effect so far is in terms of convening power and creation of legitimacy for our target VCs. For example there seems to be quite some energy around the Tz Dairy VC and the Ethiopia SR VC (and possibly others that I know less about). I think the original concept that we need to build critical mass around a VC is beginning to be shown to be correct - the combination of technical work around feeds and health, marketing etc and the creation of communication/action structures such as the Tz Dairy Development Forum looks fairly promising to me in terms of first steps to VC transformation.
Areas where we have had most effect is in value chains where there is cross-CRP collaboration, and presence of bilateral projects supporting value chain research (funding base) and multidisciplinary teams from different L&F flagships work or try to work as a team to address value chain issues as they also engage with development and private sector partners for testing and scaling out of interventions. It may still be too early to assess overall value chain effect but the change(s) or potentials to create positive change int he different nodes of the value chain is evident.
Generic value chain assessment toolkit that has been adapted and applied in the different value chains. Several partners are already applying the value chain assessment toolkit in their work. The site selection process by SASI also provides opportunities for value chain upgrading in different value chain domains - rural-rural, rural-urban and urban-urban.
2014 was a year of “sense-making” and “design” (where > 20 CapDev related missions were conducted, assessment approaches/tools/methodologies were designed and piloted, intervention of activities for the value chain strategic implementation and works plans were formulated). Through these interactions a profound change about capacity development thinking within the CRP, the true understandings and implications of which are yet to unfold, was facilitated. Our value chain countries are now demanding support to achieve change although it is not always clearly articulated what change is envisaged. Good progress has been made to mainstream CapDev elements into the description of the SIPs, and IDOs/activities have been separately described in (most) VC work plans (2015-2017). However, in most cases investments have not yet been made available and it is thus uncertain how outcomes formulated will be achieved. Is the lack of investment because it has not been demand oriented, and therefore does not inspire resource allocation by value chains? Or are stronger incentives needed ? Also by leaving CapDev (and other cross cutting areas) somewhat implicit and merely assuming that all other IDOs and sub-IDOs will somehow effectively incorporate CapDev elements, the CRP potentially takes a big risk and it is hence recommended that “capacity” changes envisioned are made more explicit, including by tracking it against quantitative and qualitative indicators. Good progress on indicator setting is observed in Tanzania, Ethiopia and Uganda (and the recent ToC workshops, approaches are helping a lot in that sense too).
From Addis Select Committee: partnerships are better, both inter-CGIAR plus with national system e.g. in Ethiopia, this is working well. CRPs have also fostered closer cross-discipline working. Whether all this is translating into better outputs and outcomes is still an open question but on balance probably yes.
The concept of using a "value chain approach" to addressing challenges within the livestock sector has been "picked-up" and adopted by industry actors within different countries. Information availed through L&F is used to leverage positions and improve efficiency of businesses.
This sounds really exciting. Any good, concrete examples to illustrate the point?
Another area where we have effect is on trans disciplinary work, and in particular on the increased collaboration between the animal health flagship and the MEL team, as well as gender. The gender mainstreaming workshop led by KIT was the opportunity for me to meet scientists from WF and ICARDA and realising that we have lots of common interests, and challenges!
Think we have very specific cases of success across areas e.g. capacity development, value chains, technology development but still struggle to integrate. Saying that the constructive discussion and some concrete examples indicate that we are on the right track
Agree Michael. Any concrete examples to share at this stage?
The cooperation between different centers and between the different flagships within L&F seems to work quite well but should be further improved to strengthen the CRP. Gender seems to get more attention now but sometimes it feels that gender work is done because it "has to be done".
- Gender is an area where we are having an effect. We are also creating a team of people to discuss and work on the issues and come up with some exciting approaches to be tested/studied on the ground
- The idea of development impact in AR4D is being absorbed more and more although we might not have an effect yet!
Hi Alessandra - the gender team has certainly been successful in bringing gender on the agenda in terms of the need for both GTA, strategic research, and mainstreaming. Any specific, concrete examples of how this is beginning to have an effect?
I am getting the impression that the value chain focus, the evolving Theories of Change and impact pathways, and our need to constantly justify the relevance of our activities to our objectives, is slowly introducing a bit more rigor and focus to our work, getting us to challenge each other across disciplines, Flagships and centres using a standard currency -- how will the activity translate into impact in our value chain. Still perhaps a bit subtle, but I think it is beginning to happen.
Hi to all. Here is Jacobo Arango from CIAT using the account of Stefan as I was not able to register.
I truly believe that we are in a good path in terms of advancing on basic science in terms of genetic, physiological and environmental factors controlling important traits for feed nutrition.
a big chunk of this work is being carried out by bilateral funds, but I'm sure that the affiliation of L&F has been strong foundation to develop the projects
We are effective in addressing the value chain required initiatives, although we face difficulties to do so in some segments of the value chain.
The adoption of Mulato II hybrid brachiariagrass across Latin America has been a very big impact, and uptake is projected to continue increasing in the coming years with participation from our private sector partners who have recently dramatically improved their seed production and distribution capacity. I am very encouraged to see the uptake of Mulato II by African farmers! Imagine the impact that we can have in Africa when we test more advanced hybrids in African environments and select for traits of interest that have been identified by dairy producers in the region. I am thrilled to see the uptake of Mulato II - but I think it is important to keep in mind that this is a hybrid that was released over ten years ago from a cross that was originally made in 1996. So we need to challenge ourselves to make sure that we are selecting for appropriate traits, getting new hybrids to market faster, and partnering with the right actors across value chains (seed producers / private sector) to ensure that we get rapid uptake.
To my opinion the most potential lays within the biosciences type of research. But an effect requires integration of the tools into the value chains. The biggest effect is only achievable if we translate embed research results in the value chain, which requires all of us.
I agree with this comment. VC identifies the problems and research works on the solutions. Then the research results have to come back to VC for test and for broader application. In this way, we have a complete story and having the biggest impact.