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
Better capture the aspect of sustainability / climate smart agriculture
Strengthen flagship TOCs, or re-assess if individual flagship TOCs are needed
The comment on climate smart has just reminded me that environmental issues are not solely climate ones and Matt made mention of this. Many more acute and rapid acting process that affect biodiversity are related to other issues.
Would say that TOC sometimes gets a bad rap when imposed on people, but that developing maps using programme theory is an extremely useful tool when used correctly.
All VC's should have firmly grounded TOC's, mapped out all the way to the time the food goes into the mouths of different types of consumers; mapping out potential positive and negative pathways (including food safety), mapping out assumptions, mapping out critical points in need of monitoring and hypothesis testing. This process forces us to think about gender issues, about intra-household sharing, about potential packaging/portion size issues, about producer/consumers and non producer/consumers, about food preferences, about which VC's we should be working on to benefit the poor, and ultimately forces us to make decisions that can help improve nutritional benefits among poor consumers. Without programme theory, important considerations such as these may be missed.
In other words, the big picture theory of change (which is probably what is meant by 'fundamental TOC' above) might be a useful and compelling narrative for messaging, but my point is that we need to do much more work to map out the programme theory in specific VC's. Without understanding who is consuming the food being produced, how can we maximize the benefits for the poor or for those who need milk, fish, meat the most (young children, pregnant and lactating women)? Is that beyond our control or something that can be influenced? (I'd argue the latter)
Keep our basic and, I think, compelling two-track ToC focused on 'by and for the poor', but somehow qualify it so that it is clear that (I) value chains can involve various types of actors at different nodes, including commercial business; and (ii) markets offer opportunities to be segmented, i.e. some products going to the rich for income, but allowing lower-value products to supply the poor.
I support those two basic strands - mainly because for many system I see, that these represent the main pathways for benefit. We should, of course, make sure we document and test that for the individuals VC cases we work upon to validate the approach and identify if we need to change it.
Suggest we open up our by and for the poor from a 'closed loop', i.e. from looking at poor farmers producing for poor consumers, to looking at more open, complex systems of poor producers producing for poor and rich consumers as well as poor consuming products produced by commercial (non-poor) farmers. As long as the poor are increasingly involved/included and benefiting (equitably) then we are making progress.
Posting on behalf of Malcolm Dickson:
We need to define more clearly what we do and what we are expecting from others.
If we expect ‘partners’ to bear the main burden of scaling we need to ‘stand in their shoes’ and work out how that will happen.
Do they need incentives? If not, why should they bother?
If we can’t figure this out we have a major problem and will need a plan b.
The fundamental ToC as it is currently laid out is still compelling, in my view; where more work needs to be done is to improve on VC-commodity and flagship ToCs so the impact pathways are much clearer and resonate better with our varied audience and stakeholders
Current ToC mostly done with limited contribution from scientists, there is a need for wider participation in ToC from active members through the chain.
ToC is based on assumption and based only on logical implementation of activities so official should be involved in ToC development.