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
We should keep a strong element of VC system approach & continue working in (some of) the current VCs. Rigourous MEL to be applied and innovation systems research strenghtened so that we test the "focus hypothesis" & also learn about/do reseach on delivery.
Develop a robust approach to engaging with change. This is beyond Theory of change, that to me still smacks of prescriptive log frame driven predictability. It is more about approaches to dealing with complexity - that dynamic and unpredictable system where surprise events are a matter of course. Our research must link to development through an understanding of "how change is happening" in ways that explore this question by offering solutions and seeing what happens. This means we need
- an armoury of quick wins that are likely to be useful to livestock and fish system actors
- assessment approaches that are rapid and robust, that can pick up opportunities
- an research approach that combines action research with classic research; I would call this systemic action research.
- build alliances with development actors and value chain system actors for them to be part of research, and for us to be part of their development. (Be clear on roles here)
More effort on building the alliances that will put technologies we have to the test; provide opportunity for take up, integration within a VC and assessment of impact. Then you have some delivery to research.
This comment applies to both Scenarios though.
An important research t odevelopment question is how to 'package' and deliver the proposed improvements within a value chain. How can we create 'early adopters'?
Plus echo many of the comments from Stuart. However, I am very uncertain if we should/can develop approaches to deal with uncertainty. If we are too worried about this you end up inhibiting true innovation. Of course resilience and robustness should be at the centre of many proposed interventions if we are working on a more global scale.
To work with and through stakeholders and producers organizations will help in achieve the required impact and/or change.
Marketing and markets development are important areas of work for benefiting both producers and consumers.
Promising R to D approaches:
1) more participatory (action) research to ensure we identify 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; i.e. we have done our homework). Simply inventing something new is not a solution...
2) dynamic innovation platforms where we build on local energy and enthusiasm (= Stuart). We need local ownership of processes and products to sustain momentum. At the same token minimize the number of workshops/events where we largely talk/argue among ourselves...
RE.2) ... and research the processes that work and don't work so we learn and improve along the way.
An expanded agenda could mean that the value chain approach as now is the one used for intensifying systems, but another construct could be developed/considered for more extensive systems on a different trajectory
Consider focusing the expanded agenda on sustainable livelihood approach especially for extensive systems where issues of resilience and natural resource management may be key.