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
Innovation platforms can still be key tools for research to development. We need to however come up with a flexible framework for IPs so that they can be easily adapted and implemented under various technological and socioeconomic circumstances. The ways IPs are being conceptualized and implemented in some countries by CG centers don't seem to be helping so much so far.
I think it would be worthwhile to captalize on our recent experiences with nested stakeholder platforms, for example in the MilkIT project. I think this should be mainstreamed as a key L&F mechanism for bringing about livelihood transformation. Use of IP's has been patchy within the mainstream of L&F so far. If the CRP moves more towards thinking about livestock as components of overall livelihood systems then the use of IP's would be even more useful.
Indeed, IPs can be very useful tools for research and development. However, too often they are being used instrumentally as a way to disseminate technologies - essentially a new ToT model. When used to engage with stakeholders, get input on research priorities, respond to bottlenecks in the sector etc., then they are much more dynamic. Interesting also to reflect on other mechanisms/tools for stimulating innovation.
Of course there is also a lot to say about the power dynamics and gender issues involved in IP facilitation as well....
Establish a research-development pilot project by choosing one value chain and all the flagships working on it: VC (needs) - Research (solutions) - VC & SASI & VCTS (scaling up)
Innovation Platforms or other stakeholders platforms could still be powerful mechanisms for AR4D suitable for the L&F CRP. However, there is a need to reflect on key issues related to: IP scales; target domains (VC or environment); target commodities (single or mix) and the role of CG centres and of other stakeholders.
Developing approaches to increase consumption of ASF's specifically by poor consumers including food processing/packaging, production strategies aimed at smaller portions/smaller fish, exploring possibilities for non-traditional feeds and extensive production models to improve nutritional content at lower cost.
Piloting high risk/high reward approaches that others are not willing to take on to provide proof of concept.
The innovation platforms findings could be used as a guide for the the VCs areas of development research needed. Thus, these research areas addressed by the stakeholders. And the research then should be conducted in cooperation of the CRP and stakeholders.
Promising R to D approaches:
1) more participatory (action) research to ensure we identify and address and research the right issues form the outset. This includes applying existing solutions where these may exist, which presumes we know our stuff and have reviewed past literature, experiences and lessons learnt. We have a tendency to think we always need to invent something new...
2) dynamic innovation platforms where we build on local energy and enthusiasm (Stuart). We need local ownership of processes and products. Please put an end to the endless range of workshops we too often find ourselves talking to/arguing with ourselves and waling away less enlightened and less clear and less motivated...
From Addis: there is a lack of capitalizing on opportunities for cross-country research. SASI and VCTS seem to be thin on the ground - we need to commission some specific cross-value chain studies. Example of cross-country learning on innovation platforms as part of MilkIT (IFAD bilateral grant). Technology platforms need a stronger emphasis on cross-country learning.
Give more attention to the ambitions we have always had, but now realize we need to give more attention and support to:
(1) Promoting engagement with stakeholders at all levels, esp. development actors and private sector, for which innovation platforms is one mechanism -- perhaps a looser version of Alan's nested platforms
(2) Strengthening our value chain teams so that they interact more actively in assessing and analyzing constraints and opportunities, and in testing candidate solutions. How do we create a more day-to-day dynamic that results in getting beyond descriptive analyses by discipline and gets into more holistic, thoughtful analysis and challenging what is appropriate?
I think we have the capacity here, just insufficient resources. It would be useful to see a summary of humans resources to each value chain.
I think that the Forages for Africa project that we discussed in Aberystwyth fits perfectly within this topic. We develop a proposal for a long term project that will involve extensive testing of breeding lines and genetic resources, participatory evaluation of promising materials, and more 'academic' grad school projects in parallel for training of African scientists. And in parallel do social science research and outreach to continue defining new research topics and develop collaborations with development actors and national country partners who can take new products and practices to market. I think building teams that include technical flagship scientists, value chain experts and social scientists, and partners from outside the CGIAR working on specific topics together will be key to taking innovations from research to development.
Forming coalitions that focus on specific themes within the innovation platforms could be another approach. The coalitions may focus on specific aspects of the value chains and promote practices that seem to be promising. For instance in the innovation platforms under Africa RISING, we selected champions to lead specific issues e.g. gender, communication, nutrition and M&E among others. A reasonable number of champions organized around a certain theme within the value chain can form a coalition and promote certain approaches, practices or technologies.
Posting on behalf of Malcolm Dickson:
Gender transformative approach
Innovation systems
Making Markets Work for the Poor Approach
Build our work around existing initiatives, including private sector (and not only the big companies) that work on building inclusive value chain (including a small level). Understand what is being tried by development partners and be ready to learn with them, instead of starting from scratch and thinking we have the solution.
Innovation platforms to generate ideas and pilot projects as a testing and demonstration tool , in countries where learning by doing is dominant pilot projects are critical.
establishing stakeholder alliances and multi-stakeholder platforms that will bring in a diverse range of stakeholders with different interests and motivations but coalesce around a common goal (more milk, meat, fish by and for the poor, as an example) + strong, robust science as a pre-requisite for building the evidence base for prioritized actions, and complemented by an innovation systems perspective that grounds the research outputs to the local context and ensures fit.
this is very similar to the CRP Humidtropics approach, one more reason to put more emphasis on cross-CRP collaboration / integration . Will not immediately possible in all "value-chain countries", but surely where value chains and Humidtropics action sites coincide.
Participatory Innovation Platform approach could lead development of sectors.
Wider contribution of different stakeholders should be their to make participants representing industry through all nodes.