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
Day 3 Big issues: Does the model of testing science in value chains work?
-
-
Presentation speakers
- Amos Omore, Value Chain Coordinator, Tanzania Country Representative, ILRI
Does the model of testing science in value chains work? Are there better ways in either of the future scenarios? A presentation by Amos Omore (ILRI – Tanzania)
Click on the presentation and make comments below
Related Presentations
Hi Amos
excellent presentation.
Agree with you of support scenario one (Value chain approach) , but there is need to strength feedback linkage to science and do our homework (what work well and what not) to improve VC performance.
Amos, I completely agree with everything you said! I would like to quote from one of the working suggestions made in our CCEE:
"Develop a strategy for transitioning within three to four years from one sector per country in nine countries to a more flexible approach that would include provision of support in other countries and work on multiple species in countries with built up capacity"
To my mind, this strikes the appropriate balance between scenario 1 and 2 and is, I think, inline with your presentation.
Keith, you are spot on. I will go with this middle ground scenario that is founded in scenario 1 and begins to satisfy scenario 2 albeit as a gradual step by step process. I assume that adequate funding and full (multi-disciplinary) VC teams are given in any case.
Let me join Keith logic and add an argument. Already today we are somehow in a balance between scenario 1 and 2. Indeed we have work in some of the value chain at local level, but we also have quite global research for example vaccine development or the work done around zoonosis that is somehow (maybe not yet optimally as some might argue) contribute to the VC work but also to a much more global agenda beyond the selected value chains. The question remains, do we need 9 value chains and what is the balance between VC and global research?
Yes and also note that we are also working on some livestock sub-sectors outside our targeted 9 value chains (typically under bilateral funding), also supporting that today we are somewhere between 1 and 2.
The forage breeding program certainly has a global agenda beyond the nine value chains. Our agenda has been to develop broadly adapted Brachiaria cultivars (principally for the Latin American market) since long before the inception of CRPs. I think it would be a grave mistake to shift our focus too strongly away from Latin America (that is almost certainly the area where we have the most impact in terms of acreage), but there is a good opportunity for us to collaborate more with the VCs - particularly dairy in East Africa - and to try to work with national programs to develop improved forage cultivars targeted for those production systems. Work on variety trials and mapping of stress resistance traits in the target VCs also offers an opportunity for CRP scientists and collaborators focused on VCs to get involved in publishable research to compliment development activities.
My thoughts were that we rely more on ARI partners to do the global research whenever possible. But while we should also do some of that where the're a glaring gap, our comparative advantage and appropriate niche lies in bestriding the spectrum as needed and brokering knowledge for testing and application in the value chains as were doing. The optimal number of value chains is debatable.
a middle ground scenario indeed seems sensible
Another argument for continuing with Scenario 1 is stability - CRP's were meant to be long term stable funding mechanisms to overcome the problems associated with short project timelines. We haven't yet had time to test whether the focused approach is working. If we change the goalposts now, we have to start a new experiment without having completed the original one.
ALan, we can do both and continue the experimentation of phase 1 while be start up the new elements of Phase 2. Two different time tracks as it were
Nice presentation, Amos! I agree with most statement, just question his one "delivery is not researchable".
Excellent analysis and presentation Amos! I agree 95%. Just two comments
- I want to reemphasis the concern that LnF becomes too much development - keep an eye on that
- saying this I still indeed think that delivery is indeed researchable (I thus agree strongly with An's concern here) I dare to say this as I have a background in the lab among proteins and peptides! It is till possible - and very important - to generate research on delivery effectiveness with p-values less then 0.05!!
I was airing a common arguement by those who hold the view that what is needed is simply putting more resources into extension and other delivery mechanisms
I think that improved collaboration between the VC teams and the technical flagships will help us achieve a better balance between development work and research. VC teams would have the opportunity to conduct more upstream research in addition to delivery research. Meanwhile technical flagship staff would be able to set more appropriate research agendas and develop interventions that are more likely to result in impact/uptake.
I find commenting on the best way forward rather difficult without clarify on which CRPs will merge, the extent to which the new CRP will need to accommodate ongoing activities from the various merging CRPs etc. I know this is not yet clear, but I am wondering if there is any information that can currently be shared on this - Tom?
Karen, you may have seen the Meridien report with analysis of different CRP portfolio scenarios. At this point, it seems likely that there will be some type of consolidation of the systems CRPs, but any other changes are anybody's guess--there are just too many players and quirky ways of making decisions to be able to predict! But you're exactly right -- our mandate will be in part defined by how the other CRPs are defined -- so in the end, are we simply given an assignment, or can we pro-actively shape our mandate? Our strategy right now is to anticipate what we think are the two most likely scenarios.
And it's likely, whatever strategy or midway L&F ends up choosing, the important thing is to identify a credible theory of change and impact pathway. This might be full of assumptions if current research does not allow robust impact pathway elaboration. But a clear theory of change and impact pathway will then be strong arguments vis-à-vis donors and other CRPs to build their activities in synergy with L&F's.
Thanks Amos! I also find it unclear how scenario 1 and 2 differ:
-From your presentation I understand scenario 2 will not have a vale chain focus? (because you mention it as a pro of scenario 1)
-Also, why would scenario 2 be better at providing public goods? Many would argue that learning needs to be context specific (blueprint approaches rarely work). rather, we probably need to learn better how and what to generalize and also how to scale out our local interventions.
-Why is delivery not researchable?
-You mention losing credibility: with whom? farmers, partners, funders?
Amos -- great analysis, thanks! We have now posted a more detailed description of our initial brainstorming on the two scenarios -- look for the link just above Michael Peter's video about the two scenarios. I agree with much of what has been said -- and just to assure everyone that for now, we are proposing to essentially continue our current value chain focus for the sustainable intensification agenda -- so keep our current L&F formula in tact and on track -- but add now the agenda on livestock/fish for resilience and livelihoods, e.g. backyard systems, wild catch fisheries, pastoralism, etc. -- with the delivery for this agenda being embedded within the systems CRPs' sites. So it would essentially be a hybrid. And by covering now the full range from resilience to intensification, we can consolidate the more basic research and offer it two different impact pathways (in addition to contributing international public goods). This would mean that animal health, for example, would consider the range of health constraints from extensive low-input backyard to intensive commercializing systems as a continuum and in many contexts, as the expected transition. How does that sound?
I like it!
Tom sounds good but please clarify on the proposed add-on agenda on livestock/fish resilience and livelihoods within the systems CRPs sites. What if there is need for a different livestock/fish species focus (e.g. poultry) within system CRP sites in the countries where the VC work is currently operating. Would L&F then need to be involved in the livestock agenda within the system CRP as well as the specific VC livestock/fish species?
I liked the summary concepts that Tom described in another discussion track of the intensification thread and the resilience thread as descriptors for how an expanded CRP could be articulated. Subject to how these were set up I do not see a mandatory clash between them but an opportunity for scaling and developing partners to help achieve that.
I also like it!
Thanks Amos for the very clear presentation. I would add another argument in favour of scenario 1: the value chain framework has proven very useful to intensify collaboration with development organizations, and has also attracted funding. It has also stimulated integration between the different discovery components (with still a lot of room for improvement). We do need to aim for much more integration with the system CRPs portfolio, which includes also animal production but in practice has been mostly absent.
From Addis Select Committee: it would be dangerous to reduce the number of value chains. Difficult to develop credible IPG's if we only working in 4 or 5 countries. It would also further reduce the opportunities for bilateral opportunities coinciding with where we are working.
Again, the continuty of development work needs longterm funds, while most of our work through shortterm bilateral projects.
From Addis Think Tank: the value chain focus does restrict our scope to do systems research - at the moment everything is focused on commodities and products with limited opportunity to look at the wider role of livestock in smallholder systems. One could argue that this is the job of the Systems CRPs but the question is whether they will survive and whether they have sufficient capacity to research these issues. he
By the way: how come our ideas (of yesterday) on animal welfare coming onto the agenda were ignored - they didn't even make it to the summary - humphhh
Amos, you argue the case for scenario 1 versus scenario 2; I am not sure that this would be a choice that we would have to make, for if CRPs combine, and we have to go for the second scenario, then that is what we must do. This is a reality that we must live with, not a choice that we would make.
The question then is, does a value chain approach work in either scenario. You answer this with a resounding yes, and I agree with your analysis. I like your observation that "farmers can see and believe". My sense is that we must ring fence the value chain approach to carry forward come what may. But I am not convinced that this would work everywhere. For example in extensive systems we might need to consider environmental risk and ecological scarcity more than production and market efficiency. For this, we would need to do different things as well.
You make a couple of statements that I struggle with; as follows
1) Delivery is not researchable. I think it is. It is we who struggle to come up with decent research questions and methods here. I think that this is part of the innovation systems that we seem no longer to
research.
2) Getting involved in development is a risk. Again, that depends upon the angle that you take on this. Can we research without apparatus? Does the construction of apparatus defy the purity of research, or does it in fact enhance it. I see the foray into development is only a risk when we forget to research. But I would argue for deeper engagement into development through development partners so that our research can be more apposite.
Stuart, agree on your 1) -- see my comment above.
We should not significantly change our current approach of 3 years old only. I would go for the hybrid approach suggested by Tom if I get it right (keep on running the current sites and initiate new VC chain such as backyard chicken, etc....
Some good points in support of scenario 1 but my outside perspective favours much more scenario 2.
By bringing in Wageningen University and SLU you are much better placed to address a global animal production agenda than trying to shohorn the new partners into the existing flagship structure. I my reading of the external review it seemed that the focus on local pilot approaches is one way to demonstrate impact but the assessors preferred a wider view?
Providing local solutions to gloabal challenges is very difficult but given the research expertise that can be unlocked byn involving Wageningen and SLU, you are btter placed to address research questions at a slightly higher level than local pilots.
I agree and I think an expanded approach provides a broader base for resourcing, developing partners and increasing impact. the devil, of course, is in the more detailed planning.
marrying VC and system thinking would be needed, especilly if we need to address also resilience. My concern with this hybrid way is loss of focus.
I do like the hybrid approach, but am also concerned about loss of focus particularly if funding is not increased in line with the expanding agenda.