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
More focus on the larger L&F research agenda – quality of deliverables more important than quantity;
More on-ground resources for partnerships, platforms, monitored VC transformation initiatives etc.
A general aspect is how pragmatic one should be, and how idealistic (i.e. aiming for quality delivery and beeing innovative and having impact). I fear that S2 is favoured by CO/donors, whereas Si is the"best". This is a poliitical issue…
Anyway, quality is better than quantity - focus on fewer VCs.
More focus on/resources to the VCs and holistic (animal health, feed and genetics) for Sust intens
It is an interesting question as to how it has proved difficult to get the finds to operate on specific value chains - no matter haw attractive the initial concept. When it comes to pragmatism it may that an larger scope (Scenario 2) may be better able to leverage funds that would allow one to study the issues identified as important under Scenario 1.
Strenghtening the social sciences, incl. explicit and well-resourced innovation systems research;
Continued improved interactions between all flagships;
Scientists based/working in specific VCs consider themselves full member of their resp. (technical or SASI) flagship;
Better linkages with the system and NRM CRPs.
If we continue a VC focus, more emphasis on development partnerships in countries, to ensure we have the resources and (joint) capacity to scale out our research.
Fish VCs in sub-Saharan are also essential, given the continent is globally the only place where fish supply is projected to decline in the future, with potentially serious implications for human nutrition.
There is an added advantage to this approach in that we have technologies ready and available to scale. That means we can potentially get out and test different delivery models, impacts and response to differering VC need.
Africa is the only continent in which fish consumption is projected to decline by 2030. There is heavy reliance on natural fish resources at the moment and dried fish---a very important source of ASFs for the poor, even far away from lakes-- are rapidly rising in price in some countries, and being depleted. Drawing lessons from "faltering fisheries" in Asia, what are the possibilities to work on sustainable aquaculture models to help to fill these gaps? Or value chains that can help improve the safety and reduce wastage of dried small fish from fisheries?
Get better at identifying partners and projects already doing/engaged in the kind of vc development we would like to see and then offer to complement their activities with our research. I.e. we 'wrap' our research around ongoing work (without suffocating it) in order to help generate solid data and evidence that is shared with those we collaborate with. This can - if done well (and humbly) - provide quality assurance, generate research outputs, promote learning, and allow us to use precious research funds to complement development better executed by others. We do not need to do it all ourselves. We need to make ourselves a sought after partner.
We have allowed each centre partner to propose the work they want to do, and as the result have perhaps too broad a range of small investments in smaller activities. So, consider pulling in on the leash and only allow investment in a few major activities/value chains, so that we are more certain to get the critical momentum needed and we don't have the excuse that it was underfunded. Very painful, but is it the only way to get real progress within the resources available?
I'm torn about this because I do think that the CGIAR as a whole (Livestock and Fish and CIAT included) does try to do too many things and ends up not being focused enough to achieve impact. So in theory the idea of 'tightening the leash' is appealing. However, we in CIAT forages have spent 25 years building a Brachiaria breeding program that fits more of a 'global agenda' than any of these specific value chains. If we shift our activities just toward work on a specific value chain, are we going to limit our global impact? For instance - do I shut down our spittlebug screening program because spittlebugs aren't important pests in East Africa? What happens if we change our whole program to fit in one of these specific VCs and then the CGIAR totally reorganizes and the decision is made to change focus to a totally different area in another 5 yrs? Focus is important, but so is continuity and stability. We have the potential to deliver really important and useful products to market but only if we have some stable funding to maintain our normal day to day activities and complement bilateral funds for specific new research objectives.
Posting on behalf of Malcolm Dickson:
The model is OK but we need to practice what we preach, and learn from and engage more with research and development communities of practice
a) Deliberate interactions between the flagships and scientists from the flagships devoted to working in the value chains (assuming sufficient financial resources to do so).
b) Stronger focus on policy analyses to assess demand and supply trajectories and structural changes in the value chains of focus.
1-more focus on genetic improvement of nile tilapia in Egypt as a mean of sustainable intensification , this should be combined with better use of feed and forgers , the two combined efforts should result in more sustainable production without having to load the environment
more emphasis on cross-value chain learning, for instance taking advantage of different experiences with development organizations and private sector partners
1. stronger and more concrete commitment by the technology flagships to work with or be part of the VC teams, possibly by linking technology flagship outcomes with VC outcomes, including resource mobilization
2. to deliver on 1, possibly a stronger role for VCTS to bridge the current divide across the technology flagships through joint identification and validation of complementary best practices to address VC constraints
3. more cross-country VC learning for the same commodity/species
1- Current L&F approach focus on improving yield and income of producers and active members all over chain nodes. little effort done on end users interest or needs also there is need for focus on study on minimizing environmental impact of the activities.
2- More emphasis on VCTS and use of Innovation platform approach to overcome sector constraints
1. We need a "space" to reflect and learn : under which condition does unlocking markets for smallholder really works (ASF by the poor) and what does it mean more AFS for the poor. Somehow we might want to have the space to question the question before downsizing the number of value chains or selecting priorities within the VC.
2. we need a stronger focus on true system thinking, looking into smallholder pathways from todays situation into the future of the value chain we invest in ( i guess this is somehow connected to point 1)