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
1) Focus Capacity Development on enabling demand orientation for capability enhancement: In my observation many VCs have not yet understood “for development“ approaches, and have not developed a strategy to develop capacity. My sense is that this would change if demand was clear in each value chain. Value chains are changing, and new possibilities are opening up in each value chain; we seek to engage with value chain actors and systems to help them better understand change around them, and to adapt and use new technologies to address important constraints. Capacity development services could seek to support value chain actors to evolve, learn and grow into new functions.
2) From single to multiple organizations: We focus our tools predominately on working with a single organization. But with sustainable (livestock, agricultural) development we are de facto more looking at working across sectors, with multiple stakeholders and interlinked interventions at the institutional, organization and individual level, that all in one way or the other contribute. We should be able to implement capacity assessments in such a system, and find out where the levers are for CapDev action taking into account the multitude of organizations and by collecting and finding ways of disseminating knowledge across government and private sector layers. We need to be stronger in getting to terms with what this then actually means; in terms of organizational capacities, institutional issues like legislation, decision-making processes, and of course individual level capacities.
How to, more strategically, engage the outside for solutions: We make – not everywhere yet though - a CapDev response based on the assessments, but at the same time we need to be able to more proactively solicit (capacity) development solutions from the environment in which we are working and deploy them productively. This likewise entails ensuring that the organizations we are (and will be) formally (!) working with are able to develop the level of comfort and openness to accept suggestions and solutions from “outside”, including other ministries, sectors, agencies in the country. I am not satisfied with the current partnerships across flagship and VCs as we do not engage with national/logical CapDev/gender/other service providers and the private sector to co-deliver CapDev related services/products.
I think we should see each flagship and each value chain country as an 'innovation system' or network and manage/facilitate it with much more emphasis on the key interests, actors, capacities and and knowledges of the multiple actors. Make this intentional and deliberate (to borrow some 'Tom' words), recognize and allow for and manage the tensions and complexities, and innovate in HOW we do all this as a program. Let us not just see innovation as something we 'give' to others.
spot on....
But is this something that we should expect our value chain scientists to develop as a generic skill, or do we expect it to be the domain of a specific skill set, i.e. however you want to define innovation systems research? And if the latter, then should it be embedded in each value chain, or a cross-cutting methodology-focused effort in SASI?
I think we have to maintain our value chain focus, it has proven useful for many reasons mentioned elsewhere although there is still a lot to improve upon. The innovation system focus mentioned by Peter (and others) makes a lot of sense, and should somehow be embedded in each value chain. Especially in this regard we would need to put much more emphasis cross-CRP collaboration, especially with the system CRP(s) .. not sure how many will be left in the second phase :)
I think you need to seriously reveiw the role of SASI and VCTS as separate flagships. It seems they could work towards the common goal better if they were amalgamated. Possibly the same could be argued for the three 'technical' flagships.
An interesting mind experiment would be to envisage a phase two where you abandon the FS structure from phase 1! (I can hear the admin people groaning already).
You could consider a new structure where you have integrated research theme on the different focus areas (I trust you will come up with cathcy acronyms for these). For instance, you have a research theme on 'Fish'. One on 'small ruminants' , One on 'Pigs' etc. Within each team you have expertise from breeding, nutrition, health , systems and value chains. Of course people can be in multiple themes.
Always glad to sitr the pot :-)
Hi Dirk: interesting proposition. But also important to realize that L & F 2 should not be a silo but probably be structured to interact with and support a range of other CRPs
This just makes me smile :-). Somehow, we will always change structures, but the problems will remain the same. In the end, it is about communication and having the right people at the right place. So maybe we could focus on the latter?
Where is the like button? :D I thought Catherine and I belong to the younger CGIAR folks...but we've still been around long enough to know that however you change the structure people will find their way around these and just keep on doing things the same old way if they want so! Yet another reform and the same old problems!
Let's not create species silos - one can slice the pie many ways and be left with the same integration problems. I would advocate for some stability in the current structure but for closer links between SASI and VCTS
The species were just an example. It probably cover a 'production system'. You cannot get the right people in the right place without changing the strucutre quite a bit. Agreed that the L&F should also interact with other CRP but let's first make optimal use of the competence within L&F
Yes I also support more cross-CRP interaction ... I am involved in a project with three CRPs and this is working well. Unfortunate that with the budget cuts there may not be a cross-CRP call from L&F this year, but I think this was an excellent initiative.
I agree with Alan. Dirk’s proposal is one that Mats, An and I toyed with when trying to imagine a range of options for combining SASI and VCTS. While I think it is a creative solution, it may be just too disruptive. A compromise solution might be to appoint someone in SASI to become a species ‘master’ so that cross VC learning could be better coordinated. If we could do this in a way that avoided the creation of a new layer of management then it might be just what the doctor ordered.
I think that a flagship without defined upstream research has no place in a research program. So, merging SASI/VCTS might make sense. If, however, we decide to have 5 flagships in phase 2 then flagship 5: "enabling innovations for VCTS" should be responsible for upstream research in 3 core areas; innovation, economics and business development which it applies downstream in the VCs.
Re-think and re-present the 5 flagships more as overlapping circles based around roles/outcomes or something. Where some people work on 'innovation discovery'; some on 'innovation scaling and uptake'; some on system intelligence and decision making; some on products and solutions ... and all brought together in cross-cutting multi-disciplinary rather informal technology innovation and learning networks or clusters focused around things like genetics, feeding, health, small ruminants, dairying, pigs, gender, ethiopia, tanzania, etc. It would probably be a bit complex and chaotic (in the positive sense) an difficult to pen into logframes...
Develop ways, means and practices that routinely engage with livestock and fish system actors to shape our research, to test ideas and potential innovations, to learn and adapt new testing phases, to initiate new work, to evaluate current work, to champion different important elements of the change process, and to address system constraints that block transformation. This means we need to practice participatory research, engage in experiential learning and foster the use of local networks.
again ... spot on Stuart. This is precisely what we did well through a set of innovation platforms in the MilkIT project in Uttarakhand, India. IP's catalysed some fairly simple innovations around better marketing and reduction in feed wastage (and hence labour demands). The changes attracted a lot of interest from local actors especially (to our surprise) the banks. There is now talk of approaches being mainstreamed in our target development partner: IFAD's Integrated Livelihood Support Programme that now has another 10 years to run. I think more attention to the facilitation of IP's across L&F could pay dividends. We've learned a lot of lessons on this from MilkIT and various other (non-L&F) projects and we could now usefully apply those.
Yes I also agree, and feel that our biggest constraint to achieving this is lack of resources (not lack of awareness or will)
Work on quick wins. A lot of our innovation work requires decades to deliver, and although this is important, our stakeholders lose heart and interest. We need to be able to deliver solutions to immediate problems. Animal health, genetics and feed & forages recognize this in their summary, and push towards research into why great ideas are not deployed (in order that they might show how they can be).
Strategic rethink of the role of SASI and how it can contribute better to the other flagships is needed. This is not only related to VCTS, but also to the other ones. At the moment it seems SASI is operating in isolation, and not providing the right info to the other flagships. Would be interesting to hear from the other flagships what sasi should deliver in order to be useful to them. Is it productivity assessment (longer term, for different farmers), is it outreach potential, is it quantifying the gender equity balance, is it for fodder farm level assessment of the comparative (dis)advantage of enlarged fodder production areas, etc, etc.? SASI needs to be more than just the environmental tag on.
Seeing the lists of yesterday of what SASI should do I think also there should be some prioritization going on within SASI as well. It is easy to make wish lists of what should happen but what would be the key items?
Hi Mark: from the Feed and Forage perspective there is quite need for input from SASI for example feed demand - supply scenarios, trade-off analysis, yield gaps analysis etc, and in fact quiet a bit of this going and/or planned
Sure Michael, the ongoing thing is project-linked (which is great, so there are clear things that need to happen), but on the more fundamental side I would personally like to see some strategic choices that make L&F more coherent for the inside and outside world. Or the choice that it all will be driven by the projects that come in, but then at least it would be good to make specific where we can easily deliver
Let me not create an additional point. I fully agree with Mark.
In addition, i think SASI should also be leading the conceptual though on how to link more system thinking to value chains or how to link producer and consumers and its impact across scales (see my comment to the first question)
We have been and remain very good at talking to and among ourselves! We are now into year 4 and conducting an annual review and planning event where our partners remain noticeably absent. I really like this virtual platform as a way of engaging, just a shame we missed out on getting more partners on-board. Appreciate the time and funding constraints etc. - and a big thanks to the team that has made this virtual event possible - but to all of us: let’s put more, intentional effort into getting the partners in on all these (good) conversations from now on. Without them truly engaged and owning a good chunk of the meat/fish pie we will not succeed.
Great comment Jens Peter! Spot on...
The platform is virtual. And you're taking the time to churn ideas. Why not invite the wider group of partners to join right now?
I've been invited to join on day 2 although not directly involved in L&F. You could invite other partners to join on Day 3. Stuart's excellent summaries give enough ideas of what's happening, and a browse through the comments provides lots of opportunities for anybody to make 2 relevant comments per discussion thread.
Fully agree with you. We do need our partners in the room for these conversations.
Also thanks to the team behind this virtual meeting.
Enable cross-cutting between VCs and experience sharing
Whilst we have a heavy research focus on increasing livestock productivity (feeds, breeds, health) I feel we have too few people who really understand livestock science (rather than just one component of it). I will like to see increased capacity in this area, or better partnering with those (particularly at the national level), who do have this capacity.
From Addis Select Committee: we've done a lot of value chain analysis/benchmarking etc but to what extent is this really informing interventions. How many people have actually read and reflected on all these reports? We've done well at documenting but not so well at synthesizing and focusing on the key findings. Maybe we need to develop a more effective synthesis product e.g. instead of 120 page report how about a 15-slide powerpoint with decent info graphics.
Yes - this is an excellent suggestion!
We talk about lack of concrete action - what are strong use cases of research in one VC that could be rolled out into other VCs? If we are serious about demand-driven research (instead of Center-supply-driven), then shouldn't the demand come from the VCs (doing their participatory processes to define priorities)? And to make this more than a theoretical exercise, shouldn't more $$ go to the VC which can then 'commission' research from the FS? That would also put some more 'pressure' on FS to make their work visible, sell our approaches/methods/outputs and show their usefulness in at least one and potentially more VCs.
Thanks
only agree partly. As a) a lot of the flagship work is addressing demand domains bigger than the specific value chains and b) a lot of flagship work is very long term and would in my view be a mistake to give up this long term technical research as a potential response to future challenges. E.g. breeding could not be a response to immediate demands of the selected value chains only.
Saying that agree that we need to give much more attention to the demands from the value chains and also have a close look on integration. As in the value chains is where technology flagships and innovation systems come together.
I support the comment (a) and (b). If the work on these value chains is to assist scaling we do not want to lose work on technologies with broad applications.
From Addis Power House: We need to think about funding. Somehow we are not impressing the donors. New donors need to brought on stream? e.g. China. Maybe the CGIAR system was too open with self criticism in the last couple of years rather than selling our achievements. There is a tendency to deliver strongly oh bilateral projects but to be less rigorous on delivery for W1/W2 funds - we need to change that culture.
We need to catalyze scaling-out of our proven interventions through productive partnership engagements which may also involve capacity development of NARS and private sector players.
think more carefully at who are our partners and the difference with stakeholders. We enter in a partnership because each side sees more benefit than cost to that relationship. This applies to both research and dev partners
As mentioned by the report from the external evaluators on the program's value chain approach, I have a feeling L&F has been good at analysing the supply side and the demand side of value chains. However, little investigation has gone on the business and organizational models that allow the value chains to function (or hinder their functioning). I believe SASI will try to bridge that gap in the coming years, but I see this as crucial to involve more partners from the NGO and private sectors in L&F research and field activities, and not just in VC research but also in the more technical fields of breeding, feeds and animal health.
I totally agree with your comment Jo. Private sector and NGOs should be involved stronger and our focus should be the development of new business model approaches that focus on economically feasible technology options.
I agree. This will however, mean we have a more flexible approach than I see at present to what might be VCs or components of these that are pro-poor focused. I would emphasize here the importance of helping poor consumers. Private sector involvement and VC functioning do reply on having activities along the value chain that are profitable for each of the actors.
- Throughout the comments from yesterday policy seemed to be an important issue that we are not tackling enough.
- I find that some key components of our work e.g. research versus development are not clear yet. This has implications on partnerships, impact assessment, establishment of priorities etc.
- We need to keep in mind the bigger and systemic picture of our work and address key challenges such as the trade-offs between commodities or components (equity and efficiency, livelihoods livestock and environment etc)
- Need to clarify whether the value chain approach is the most suitable for our work (I am not saying it is not) and whether the VCs we have identified are indeed the best ones.
-Need to use the systemic approach and assess complementarities/interactions between same commodities across VCs, and between different commodities within a VC for wider learning
1. Many comments refer to how the value-chains which have links with other CRP's and bilateral project activities seem to be making the most progress. I think there needs to be an analysis of each value chain about identifying priorities for resource mobilization from bilateral projects or linkages with other CRP's to give traction on areas identified as being important. I think we will see that the more activities the more new activities as it becomes a bit of a domino effect both with donors and researchers building related knowledge.
2. Related to 1. is that we have limited cross value-chain learning (an area i know the CRP wants to focus in for Phase 2) in terms of methodologies, technologies etc. I'm not sure how we achieve this currently without relying on individuals who link across value-chains.
3. I know....it says 2. but i won't put any anywhere else ;-). Several positive comments on the VC assessment tools developed under PIM and utilised for L&F. The current resource is a good start but we've learnt from (trying to) use, particularly the producer level tool, that we need to take some time to actually develop this as a toolkit - which would include 'how to select what questions to ask / data you need' and also 'some basic analyses of these data'. Volunteers for this much appreciated - please contact Isabelle Baltenweck!
4. I do not have bad spelling...it is just that this wordpress insists on American spelling for ENGLISH :-)
Some suggestions are being made for future work in the CRP, as new emerging trends. From a gender integration perspective, it will be useful and good use of resources to integrate gender into these trends and initiatives from the start.
These trends and key entry points for integrating gender include:
- cross-flagship ex ante assessments (esp. cross-technological FSs); and the concrete suggestion to build on FEAST/TechFit.
- delivery systems and business hubs as key mechanisms/strategies
- ICT and use of mobile phone technology
- collaborations between FSs and between SASI/VCTS
- cross VC learning: also here integrating of gender will be smart work.
(see also Rhiannon's observations on this; to come)
Interesting discussions above as to what the CRP needs to do differently. To reiterate and add to this:
- better define, sharpen and elaborate SASI and VCTS links to the technical flagships and between the technical flagships - in practice as well as on paper. And build up the cross-learning, whether cross-value chain, cross-flagship or between SASI/VCTS and the technical flagships. This includes, but is not limited to gender integration in the flagships and strategic gender research.
-some more conceptual reflection and articulation on the the common ground and contradictions between a systems thinking approach (complex livestock systems, dealing with uncertainty... ) and a value chain approach. CRP L&F is well-positioned to break new ground here, especially if the reflection extends into gender dimensions and social relations within the value chains and socio-ecological systems.