vc_synthesis

** Draft outline and process ** There will be 2 outputs. Objective is to present the L&F novel approach for linking research more directly to developing integrated interventions that could transform value chains, working in interdisciplinary teams: what worked and why? Why didn’t and why? And how to improve the approach? Coordinator: An Outline and process:
 * VCTS synthesis writeshop, 10-14 October 2016, Nairobi **
 * 1) **Draft report/ brief on ‘taking stock of Livestock & Fish experience with value chain transformation: an interdisciplinary process’**
 * Description of the approach- as planned: rationale for following the approach; pros and cons
 * From existing documents (proposal, presentations, implementation plans)
 * To be written before the writeshop
 * The approach ‘in practice’- how did the VC team implement and adjust to the context? And why?
 * A facilitated discussion with the VC members present at the writeshop, supplemented with feedbacks from others via email/ skype.
 * First step would be to develop a checklist (eg: VC team composition and structure; linkages with development partners) to be used during the discussion.
 * We also use the outcomes of the discussions at the last FARA meeting
 * Draft version written during the writeshop
 * Synthesis on 1. the elements of the approach that worked well, and reasons; 2. Those that failed and reasons, and how the teams adjusted and 3. Recommendations on a revised approach
 * A 2nd facilitated discussion, to allow the facilitator to synthesize the elements from the 1st discussion. Checklist around the 3 points above
 * Draft version written during the writeshop

Coordinator: Isabelle Outline and process
 * 1) **Draft journal article on ‘institutional arrangements (including multi-stakeholder platforms) in facilitating improved performance of livestock and aquaculture value chains’**
 * Description of the L&F process from situational analysis, VC assessment, identification and testing of institutional arrangements (IA)- note that this excludes technological innovations at farm level
 * From existing documents
 * To be written before the writeshop
 * Analysis of the IAs identified and/or tested for the 6 VCs represented
 * Models of collective action at producers’ level || Models of improved capacity for VC actors (non-producers nodes) || Models of improved overall VC coordination (innovation platforms) ||
 * Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia (?) || Bangladesh (?) || Nicaragua, Tanzania, Uganda, ? ||

The analysis will entail a description of the IA, how and why it was applied to a particular VC
 * The individual IA description can be written before the writeshop, based on existing materials [table below is a start] [e.g. what Tz did in terms of collective action, how it was done and the rationale?]
 * The analysis will bring these together, not by listing individual VCs but by ‘theme’ (that we can’t identify now since we first need to see what, how and why the IAs have been identified and/tested in each VC).
 * For the VCs that piloted or implemented some IAs, impact on VC performance (or other outcome indicators). Since we’ve used similar tools, a comparative analysis should be possible. Note that we won’t start analyzing individual VC data for this paper- we will use existing materials and do the comparative analysis


 * Conclusions and implications for future work

best bets identified, tested, monitored || Innovation platform established on mixed crop-livestock systems. Best bets identified (related to silvopastoral systems, improved forages) and tested, through Farmer Field Schools. Over 500 farmers have applied at least two sustainable livestock practice, leading to the establishment of silvopastoral areas, and increased beef/milk production and quality, and farmers’income. The tools and the study of the VC governance system and its gender dynamics have been developed. || IPs at country and village levels || # For a summary of the work on VC upgrading and IPs: @https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/68870 [] Dairy market hubs in 30 villages. HH level data on ~400 HH: (baseline: [] ) and monitoring data (not yet uploaded) **__)__** @https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/67890 Pig value chain upgrading through a business hub Farmer capacity building in business and enterprise development || (a) Pig multi-stakeholder platforms both regional and national– report and brief available on @https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/75760 and  (b) Summary of the value chain constraints and opportunities on a poster available on: []  (c) Pig value chain upgrading through a business hub [] and proposed centralised slaughter facility [] (d) Farmer capacity building in business and enterprise development reports (several training modules used available but not yet online) and case stories available on  ;  ;  ;  ; ||
 * Supplementary information**
 * **VC** || **Steps achieved, from VC assessment to monitoring ‘best bet’ interventions** || **Details** ||
 * Bangladesh || VCA of producer/farm node completed || Data analysis done, report writing underway. Best bets identified. Two gendered best bets to be piloted/tested this year. ||
 * Egypt || Best bet identified and monitored is fish retailers model ||  ||
 * Ethiopia || Best bet identified and monitored is SR breeding programs; ||  ||
 * Nicaragua || Innovation platforms
 * Tanzania || Best bet identified and monitored is dairy market business hubs
 * 1) For work on understanding farmers demand for hub services:
 * 1) Innovation platform at country and village level- draft paper available, presentation here
 * 1) __ Brief on local innovation platforms: When and how can they be useful? __ []
 * 2) __ Experiences from MilkiT project on local innovation platforms: __
 * 1) __ Feed interventions in IPs example: __@https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/68753 ||
 * Uganda || Pig multi-stakeholder platforms
 * Vietnam ||  || For Vietnam, we have taken advantage of a development project (LIFSAP) to use their intervention (VietGAHP) as a best-bet to improve competitiveness and food safety in the pig value chain. VietGAHP is a set of best practices introduced to groups of pig producers in selected project sites. The design used by LIFSAP was farmer groups (of 10) in selected communes, group training, monitoring of compliance with the end view of having the farmer VietGAHP certified once the set of criteria for certification have been met. We have data from only one project site to evaluate adoption. While the process through which the intervention was introduced to expose target users makes use of farmer groups as a focal unit for training and information exchange, this in itself is not ‘the’ best-bet. As such, am not sure if the Vietnam experience will fit what you have in mind about institutional arrangements as a best-bet. We have previously done a paper on collective action and on contract farming in pigs in Vietnam, but those were pre-CRP work. ||