apr2013_notes

=1st Annual Review and Planning Meeting= =Addis Ababa, 20-23 May 2013=

Event home page, agenda et c.

toc =MONDAY MORNING=

Welcome and Introduction

Jimmy welcomed the participants........

Participants are a diverse group working in dairy, pigs and small ruminants value chain, breeders and farmers from different corners of the world from West, East, North and West Africa, UK, USA, central America, Latin America, South East Asia and others. They are presenting the four centers (ILRI, ICARDA, World Fish and CIAT)

**Director's presentation**

 * Some notes from Tom's presentation**
 * In the CG reform it was said that we need to have a better impact and ILRI asked to lead the Livestock and Fish program. This program was different from what ILRI has been doing in the past.
 * ILRI’s work was focused in poor livestock keeper and livelihoods but we thought there is a gap in smallholder sectors. There is the issue of strategic role that animal source food can play on increasing productivity of small-scale production and marketing systems, this is where we proposed the program,
 * The first feature of the program: A team of researchers focused to look through value chain
 * Second feature: right from the begging putting ourselves to practice for 6 to 7 years for intervention.
 * Third feature: right from the beginning we are working with development partners, they are helping us to understand and test things we didn't do before, by doing that the development partners are empowered to taste it out and scale up.
 * Fourth feature: development partners are testing good research. Focusing on 8 value chains, all our research is focused to transform these value chains. We need to demonstrate and offer each one of this value chain.
 * Lots of our work needs to be concentrated there, a simple story we have been selling to donor is a very linear story of research to impact.
 * We have to stimulate the essence of value chain. We go to from research to fundamental question, adapted technologies, evidence based, and attracting development partners to scale and also developing pipe line of research to ensure the growth of productivity.
 * We need to address the big constraints. We have a time line it is an impact pathway in 10 years we need to deploy and scale it up.
 * We are doing the research but we are working with development partners to focus on interventions
 * We have four CG centers (ICARDA, CIAT, ILRI and World Fish) we are partnering with to take this forward
 * We are identifying the strategic partners, who are interested in achieving this with us and invest with us,
 * As part of the transition, we are orienting them, so far we just finished our first research pipe line and technologies.
 * We are really creating momentum in three of our value chains, Tanzanian, Egypt and Uganda. We put together to innovate gender strategy b/n ILRI and world fish.
 * We have good news on funding, the donors like this idea. From now on we are fully funded for three years. We have been allowed to increase the celling of window 1 and 2.
 * Still we have some challenges on how to fund all our ideas we are working on. It has been confusing for one year the consortium and the CRPs need how this to be implemented
 * The centers are practicing the new funding of uncertainty and planning and reporting requirement.
 * Still we have many critical gaps in our strategy in terms of human sources, we are spending time on implementation plan but we are half way through
 * How can we make this program together?
 * As a group of scientist we are not yet internalized the interventions …..we are not seeing what we are getting to …we are still in our classic mode of developing a proposal
 * We need new methods and technologies, how do we get the engagement and how do we record, test and prove it
 * How do we connect the field work to our lab work
 * How do we design our hypothesis and assumption and test and record, this is an approach we are experimenting with scientist
 * How do we best package this?
 * It is an impact pathway to deliver this agenda, we are selling this intervention that is what we are promising
 * I need your help, what is the best you need to get control and ownership to grow your agenda, it depends on you to take it over
 * This is really offering an opportunity for individuals, this is the chance to really engage to dig in to research questions
 * We have agenda for 15 years to dig in and we have the time to really articulate the agenda this requires really good research, it requires new methods in an innovate way
 * This is research for a reason we have an obligation to transfer research for development
 * It is really to create culture in this value chain approach, it makes and allow us to have a great partnership, get to know the program, …help us to figure out how we can do it better…how do we make this change come together , critical constructive

Question and Answer for Tom's presentation
 * ** Q: ** we said we have luck the Concept, we are saying you didn’t mentioned the readiness of the partners and the donor
 * ** A: ** We have very initial buy-in in terms of idea, we are promising impact, we are promising, intermediate outcomes, how are we going to convince donors and our partners, to convince, we have to develop by donors interest, how well will this will be bought by the donors, will other donors buying to this
 * ** Q: ** Partnerships. We heard about development partners but we didn’t hear about private sector and their involvement we have farmers with us.
 * ** A: ** when we said by Development partners we meant with NGO, development practitioners and private sectors
 * ** Q: ** with related to the big value chains, how we can build the evidence and communicate the evidence and competitiveness of the value chains
 * ** A: ** The purpose of the program is to generate evidence to stakeholder and create engagement with policy issues. The first year was very challenging on defining the scope, how do we influence, should it be giving evidence to influencing groups or bought in the government…were so challenging defining these ideas.
 * ** Q. ** very good things about long duration but we felt the impact assessment is quite difficult for this duration?
 * ** A: T ** here is a lot of confusion about the impact assessment in 10 years experiment…what we are trying to do is doing impact assessment for specific country and selected sites and characterize we can’t do the whole program impact assessment that at is stage. We are experimenting different things, for our large value chins intervention, we get an evidence and possibility of the benefits we are straggling with this now but this is how we could prove for large scale interventions
 * ** Q: ** for value chains we have, weather we selected the right owner or should we reviewed, what is the danger and the benefit of this?
 * **A:** did we choose the right value chain, we choose one in Uganda, we were not sure with what we did, we set criteria, why we selected those value chains, we were targeting to validate those choices, why are those value chains do have potentials to spread out to other parts of the value chain, we need this to be evidence based
 * **Q:** how far can we go and be responsible in implementation?
 * **A:** this all the CG is struggling with implementation. …it depends with other partners, we are not committing to delivering the outcomes as development agents…, what we are committing with this program is to outline the outcome pathways and evaluating what we are achieving to that development outcome. If we don’t have an intervention whether we delivered or not, we are lost
 * **Q:** we really like commitment and engage with development partners, we are not clear in the how we are going to do that?
 * Partnership how do we do it? One of the critical gaps is we don’t have innovation specialist thinking through the program, innovating and estimating and how to create the right partnership….. we are going to fail if we don’t know how we could work with development partners,Getting a common objective and that is the way to get the effective partnerships
 * **Q:** question to all, are we ready to change our mindset?
 * **Q:** given that we are working with partners….how can we make sure to harmonize with our partners and how far could we really go together?
 * **Q:** what is new or different partnership mode from what we did before?

Comments:
 * Key issue: willingness, time allocation and transform our contradiction to complement, we have to involve farmers from the beginning

=MONDAY AFTERNOON=

__**Visiting the Ethiopia value chain**__
News story

A marketplace was set p next to the main tent. This comprised stands from each of the 8 VC sites in Ethiopia as well as related stands/activities representing other actors in the VC.

Who's here?
 * 8 ‘production’ sites with their initial VC assessments
 * Feed processors and forage seed producers
 * Vet and input suppliers
 * Transporter
 * Abattoir
 * Butcher (and food stand / meat shop)
 * Meat inspection, food safety and health
 * Leather products shop
 * Research and evidence
 * FAO and policy
 * Consumer

Process
 * Form groups of ‘collectors’
 * Each with a specific role/perspective
 * Visit all the marketplace stands
 * ‘Collect’ insights, knowledge and ideas that could help transform VCs
 * Report findings to plenary
 * From YOUR perspective:
 * What issues/constraints/challenges did you find?
 * What promising approaches/innovations and best bets can already be put to use?
 * What big researchable ideas did you come across?

8 groups
 * Healers
 * Breeders
 * Feeders
 * Consumers
 * Researchers
 * Gender transformers
 * Capacitors
 * Traders


 * FEEDBACK FROM COLLECTORS**

key issues
 * CONSUMERS**
 * food safety / health of the animal
 * price
 * stability of price / supply
 * taste and quality issues

Research-able issues
 * does formalization help us? - Do we like formalize market or not? There is an issue of trade men, how do they affect the end user prices?
 * what is the role of the middlemen?
 * can we link feed/meat quality?
 * Is meat from backyard slaughtering riskier? How can it be more hygiene?
 * link animal health and leather waste and the quality which translate to what we consumers pay
 * Cultural issues in meat and milk consumption

Best bets
 * knowing and understanding what consumers demand (Is anybody thinking about the consumers)
 * educate the consumers (quality, food safety, nutrition)
 * understanding the formal and informal research

Constraints (mostly common)
 * RESEARCHERS**
 * inbreeding
 * feed issues in quality and quantity and sustainability
 * market issues because of brokers,
 * animal health (predispose related to lack of feed)
 * land pressure that lead to poor quality feed and transmission of disease,
 * knowledge transfer interns of packing knowledge and use

Approaches
 * Community rotational and breeding program (carefully designed)
 * Collective action – markets, source of credits and improving market supply
 * focusing on improving feed/supplies
 * branding can improve market participation and niches
 * generate evidence (measurements, experiments, hypothesis)

Big ideas Over a 12 year period given usd 120million: Understand present and future consumer needs to enable small ruminant value chains to meet market demand in sustainable, equitable and scalable way

common properties as feed resources? combine efforts to select and access high-quality feed-food varieties ex-ante assessment feed/seed (estimate the success of the value chain using feed resources, what is the production value of my value chain, what are the gaps and demands side of the feeds) institutional setup-cooperatives producer organisations - innovations, networks? (What is your choice of institutional arrangement for selling the value chain – look at other organizations economy of feeding?) (de) centralisation feed processing
 * FEEDERS**
 * identify goal (demand)
 * identify demand-supply gap

issues/constraints/challenges
 * BREEDERS**
 * Negative selection for growth
 * Current breeding practice/inadequate
 * Lack/low capacity on breeding issues

Promising Approaches
 * Improved forages
 * Improved animal health
 * Market demand /Whole system’s approach/

Researchable Topics
 * How do we develop breeding management systems
 * Disease and climate resilience
 * Assessment of available AnGR/for current and future

Constraints
 * HEALERS**
 * disease was the major issue – pasteurellosis (menz-tolerant), sheep and goat pox, anthrax, endoparasites, PPR in goats, other respiratory diseases
 * high abortion and mortality of kids, poor nutrition and management, endoparasites,
 * poor veterinary services (although there are many vet schools)
 * lack of good quality vaccines and drugs, vaccines only available in public sector
 * zoonotic and food safety issues (cause of TB)

Promising approaches
 * awareness campaigns on e.g. vaccines (novel communication tools)
 * DAT - guaranteed quality therapeutics
 * more drug campaigns,
 * government vaccination programs – mandatory vaccines for pasteurellois, PPR, sheep and goat pox

Researchable issues
 * resistance in endo-parasites (poor quality drugs)
 * breeding programmes with menze, tolerance to pasteurellois, few drug issues that being used which have developed resistance new research for resistance
 * veterinary infrastructure to be increased
 * zoonoses
 * therapeutic evaluation of new drugs

Constraints Best bets
 * GENDER TRANSFORMERS**
 * Cultural belief
 * Female professionals and stere-types – women were hardly represented in the stand
 * It is not in everybody’s interest to include gender
 * Its important to look at interactions among the different value chain
 * Audio materials need to include some gender aspects
 * Language – make sure to address the female accordingly
 * Start gender sensitization as soon as possible
 * Include gender in the value chains
 * Look for incentives to include gender in the value chains
 * Look for innovative ways to build capacity for gender
 * Campaigns to change the behavior of opinion leaders

Researchable issues
 * Look into the consequences of the beliefs
 * Research into the incentives of including gender in the value chains
 * Understand the intra household communication and control
 * Test packages of intervention and assess impact
 * Understand the gender dimensions of the intervention as not all interventions are good for men and women


 * CAPACITORS**
 * Key issues in the value chain**
 * Health safety
 * Meat production and hygiene
 * Meat inspection
 * Meat consumption
 * Consumption of raw meat intervention

Production:
 * Best bets**
 * Strengthening informal markets by working with policy makers
 * capacity of farmers in forage production
 * support training of trainers methods
 * mobilize communities on disease threatening awareness creation
 * vaccine production
 * harmonize for more rationale entry point across value chain development
 * Support on training methods (formats, processes, etc.)
 * feed utilization
 * improved sheep and goat management
 * extension services
 * business training

Awareness creation and mobilization Impact assessment where the intervention is a capacity development intervention Researchable issues
 * availability of drugs
 * Monitoring and evaluation and impact assessment of the capacity development interventions

Issues
 * TRADERS**
 * low and inconsistent supply and quality of animals
 * lack of market information
 * Informal, illegal livestock trade corridors
 * lack of horizontal and vertical linkages – what happened in Ethiopia not the same in India

Promising approaches
 * Improved production capacity at farm level for good animals (feeding, animal health)
 * improved market information systems (ICT) for better selling
 * institutional model to address the input, services and knowledge constraint
 * training and certification of traders (market requirement, quality assurance, business, food safety)
 * traders association for better bargaining

Researchable ideas
 * research on trans boundary diseases (how to better deliver animal health services to better control transboundary diseases)
 * which institutional model would be effective and sustainable
 * role of women in sheep and goat trading

=TUESDAY MORNING=

**Open space on critical success factors **
1. SHOULD SCIENCE DRIVE DEVELOPMENT OR SHOULD DEVELOPMENT DRIVE SCIENCE > 2. WHEN A CRITICAL VALUE CHAIN ISSUE IS NOT SCIENTIFIC, HOW SHOULD WE RESPOND //Are there VC issues which are not scientific? If yes what are they?// > 3. HOW DO YOU ASSURE TEAM PERFORMANCE ACROSS ORGANIZATIONS
 * Discussion points**
 * Identification of problems
 * Identification of tools/processes (context)
 * Result oriented development
 * Reorganization through dialogues
 * Lessons for development with science failure and success
 * Science having no short term gain should not be disappeared. It should be revalidated/justified for long term goal
 * Science should influence policy and policy should influence science
 * Action and Recommendations**
 * It is both way channel
 * Science in development for both development
 * Mechanism for feed back or development
 * Short, intermediate and long term gains to be assessed
 * Interaction with partners should be clear
 * There should be demand driven science for development
 * Discussion points**
 * What do we mean by what is not scientific
 * Development questions may not be scientific questions
 * Infrastructure development
 * Policy issues
 * Equity, value for money
 * Gender issues
 * VC actors interaction and behavior
 * Action and Recommendations**
 * Get partners who have the capacity to deal with these issues
 * Provide the evidence how much the issue is affecting the VCD
 * Facilitate the process (organize, discuss, forums on the issues)
 * Discussion points**
 * What makes a team? (performance appraisal system, incentives, composition of TL, shared vision, team skills, law of two feet, right attitude)
 * How do we set goals? (goal clarity, clear deliverable, roles and responsibility defined)
 * Skills building
 * Enhancing effectiveness
 * Performing across situations
 * Availability of resources
 * Effective monitoring and review schedule
 * Effective communication
 * Action and Recommendations**
 * Setting goals – clarity, achievable, shared vision
 * Right team – self-selection, composition, leadership
 * Team building
 * Work scheduling and communication
 * Monitoring and midterm reviews

4. WHAT INSPIRES SHARED VISION? HOW CAN WE ASSURE THIS AT ALL LEVELS

> 5. WHAT MINDSET/SKILLS DO WE NEED TO HAVE ACHIEVE IMPACT > > 6. ENSURING BUY-IN FROM STAKEHOLDERS WITH DIFFERENT AGENDA’S AND APPROACHES > 7. COUNTER ARGUMENTS THAT LIVESTOCK AND FISH ARE BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENY >
 * Discussion points**
 * Working around the right incentives
 * Mutual respect, right attitudes
 * Clear roles and responsibilities
 * Effective communicative
 * Assignment of objectives / transparency
 * Appreciate strengths and weaknesses
 * Clarity of vision and goals at all levels / Branding and passion e.g. Maziwa zaidi
 * How do you arrive at a common vision / championing the cause
 * Contribution rather than attribution
 * Timing of engagement
 * Actions speak louder than words
 * Sustaining team spirit
 * Effective delegation management style
 * Action and Recommendations**
 * Involve partners from the beginning
 * Clear roles and responsibility
 * Identify issues jointly
 * Recognize dynamisms over time
 * Regular reviews
 * Effective facilitation
 * Identify areas of complementarity
 * Build trust to create vibrancy
 * Walk the talk
 * Work towards critical mass
 * Recognize and celebrate individual contribution
 * Clarify indicators of the shared vision
 * Discussion points**
 * Flexibility at all levels
 * Focus on IDO’s – needs to be crystal clarity
 * All partners need to be aligned – clear direction
 * Team work – interdisciplinary teams
 * Integrated ‘conceptualization’ around ToC
 * Entrepreneurship – flexibility
 * Need to believe in the CRP/team/other science already happening
 * Must believe in the transformation
 * How do we deal with shifts to research for development
 * Communication skills
 * Partnership skills – facilitation from ground level
 * Accountability at all levels
 * Need facilitated learning opportunities around successes/failures
 * Need to understand contexts of value chains
 * What is our ‘niche’ in the value chains
 * Action and Recommendations**
 * Research for development partners need to understand each other’s contribution
 * Need a clear definition for R4D or R+D? RinD (mutual agreed with partners)
 * Need to recognize learning from partners
 * Recognize partners research contributions
 * Become a learning organization – learn from failures,
 * Challenge accepted beliefs i.e. bads of livestock
 * Culture shift – stop blaming and learn
 * Publish data that is accessible – get ‘best bets’
 * Outquicker- be more flexible in changing research that isn’t working
 * Get more social science into overall research
 * Must have accountability
 * Internal skillset assessment
 * Limited hierarchy to achieve outcome
 * Build leadership/management skills
 * Concentrate people time on projects/CRPs
 * Leave space for creative ideas/pursuits – include physical space
 * Partners mapping skills
 * Discussion points**
 * Donor and stakeholders – need to buy in to ASF
 * VC stakeholders: actors, enablers
 * Government: policies
 * Development partners
 * Private sector
 * Research partners – partnerships often unequal
 * Influencing society’s view on LS production
 * Role of advocacy
 * Which partners could buy-in? what are their interests
 * Action and Recommendations**
 * Problem identification – consultative
 * Understanding agendas, expectations, strengths, interests, needs, gender aspects
 * Vision (shared)
 * Defined roles (complementary)
 * Show impact? Learn and adapt
 * Documents lessons + disseminate
 * Leadership driven by major stakeholders but balanced towards smaller ones
 * Capacity building
 * Awareness creation
 * Attend trip for a and actively enagage
 * Be open to listen to other opinions and have discussion
 * Within VCs: through platform etc (see p.1)
 * Engage with communication people and media
 * Discussion points**
 * IDOs-deal with each of these; may need to compromise across these within agreed boundaries of acceptability
 * Natural resource the efficiency should be a prime concern (not just productivity)
 * Pastoral communities – what are their objectives
 * Pilot study for dairy East Africa should be advances to other value chains
 * Nutrition arguments. Vegetarian verses meat – food safety discussion
 * Nutrients
 * Development arguments
 * Comparisons of small holder verses industrial systems has been discussed
 * Action and Recommendations**
 * Need a theory of change for each IDO – need to be prioritized
 * Need an impact pathway to bring the story (that says livestock and fish is good) to the relevant people
 * Need to stress our mandate – poor producers and consumers therefore need to address over-consumption in wealthier contexts
 * Need to mainstream the environmental assessment of the value chains and develop tools to do so
 * Develop a thorough and standardized impact assessment approach for implementation with the value chain
 * Develop and disseminate the evidence for nutritional benefits of animal source foods
 * Set-up the economic and policy analysis to evaluate and develop main opportunities of the value chains (e.g. marketing opportunities)
 * Generate evidence on the extent to which the poor provide food for the poor

8. RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING RESULTS IN THE VALUE CHAINS? WHAT DO THEY NEED TO DO THIS? > 9 HOW CAN WE ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION TO INVITE US TO BE PART OF THEIR INITIATIVE
 * Discussion points**
 * Lack of coordination between value chains and themes
 * Poor understanding of each other roles, needs and constraints
 * Lots of frustration
 * Action and Recommendations**
 * Empowerment and encouragement of value chain leaders to communicate and coordinate their priorities
 * Lead engagement between value chain and theme to validate and agree needs/priorities
 * Establish formal process to validate and prioritize value chains thematic needs with clear and accountable roles and priorities
 * Discussion points**
 * Understanding of views/ objectives self-assessment + external person collecting views
 * Defining the problem properly and understanding the context is
 * Us = researchers, dev.org = NGO’s , gov’t private sector, VC actors
 * Farmers reverse question, how to get researchers to work with farmers
 * Modeling for technology discernment as simple as possible
 * Get experiences from those working with specific technologies
 * NGO’s understanding each other and manage perceptions
 * As researchers how can we be effective
 * Show that research adds value to what other do benefits to outweigh costs
 * Make an effort to understand what they need and look for opportunities
 * Show that objectives are aligned
 * Show long term benefits they can get from working together
 * What are the benefits?
 * Seeking to gain knowledge
 * Technology improvement
 * Capacity building
 * Assessment and analysis of farmers innovation
 * Up scaling (standardize, validate)

>>
 * Debunk mis-conceptions about technologies
 * Bring out the truth
 * Being a natural participant
 * Influence policy
 * Actions & Recommendations**
 * Start from yourself “see the solution in your own behavior
 * Engage from the start to guarantee ownership and usefulness of research outputs
 * Always consider local context
 * Develop long term sustainable partnership
 * Engage with sector working groups to understand the challenges and offer appropriate activities
 * Consider the incentives (knowledge, tools etc….what is the added value
 * Be sure to provide the right tools
 * Provide initial incentives to use/ test products developed by research
 * What is the win approaches for both partners involved
 * Focus on technologies not pure science
 * Only science that provides economic value
 * Building trust
 * Do design technologies and disseminate (expanding definition of research)
 * Include feedback in process where required (both ways)
 * Show that research adds value
 * Communicate clearly without technical jargon and know who to communicate with and keep in regular contact
 * Develop structures to spread messages at different levels
 * Allocate enough time to resources to communicate and listen

10. WHAT IS RIGHT: BALANCE BETWEEN DRIVING FORWARD THE AGENDA AND FLOWING WITH THE EMERGING EVIDENCE? >> 11. WHAT KIND OF PARTNERS (TIPS) DO WE NEED TO HAVE IMPACTS AT SCALE? > 12. HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN WE ARE SUCCESSFULLY INFLUENCING CHANGE? >> 13. HOW CAN WE DEVELOP/CHANGE /CAPACITY >>>>
 * Discussion points**
 * Concerns of target of a people to be clearly understand
 * The empirical evidence is the situational issue to be adjusted
 * Agenda setting with specific local understanding
 * Change the regions staff to be flexible
 * Different with times paces that process for change + flexibility is different
 * Actions and Recommendations**
 * Agenda setting in consultation clear understanding of target people
 * Flexibility of agenda itself
 * What has worked elsewhere to be discussed
 * Agenda setting interventions to be worked out
 * Methods process on
 * Design funding /implementation
 * Documentation and dissemination
 * Structures to enable flexibility of action
 * Discussion points**
 * Partners that complement our desired outcomes (facilitate )
 * Policy makers
 * Research-national, institutional, etc
 * NGOs, CSO’s (Development)
 * Knowledge partners, universities, farmers and organizations
 * Private sector (industry can assist with service delivery
 * Extension service govt’
 * Partners may lack capacity – develop assessment process
 * Need to develop long term relationship with partners
 * Need to recognize paramount of management need for partnership-different skills
 * CRP becomes a “broker/facilitator” for partnership if trust developed
 * What is ILRI’s role in “going to scale”?
 * Managing (CRPS ) partnership when partners leave?
 * What are we taking to scale? Need consensus across CRP, what does this mean?
 * Actions and recommendations**
 * What is the impact desired?
 * Define early with all partners – need M & E framework
 * We need a process that helps define impact
 * Need to be confident that technologies we develop are used will be paid for
 * Previous x-ante studies to set priorities in ILRI what –happed?
 * Need integrated impact- partners should be able to commit $-not many of these need to align our objectives to their objectives
 * We must change our mindset to encourage alignment…find ways to engage national systems-build trust
 * Choosing right adopters
 * Identify right partners
 * Align objective from onset
 * Link knowledge management to partnership
 * CRP’s role in partnership is catalytic
 * Mindset shift “working for partners”
 * CRP’s need to “sell” their “products better demonstrate, change in mindset, “don’t say it – do it”
 * Partner with institutes not individuals if possible
 * Skill sets to working development partners and vice versa
 * Identify other organization that have achieved “scale” could be outside agriculture (health)
 * Need to influence international partners regional organization
 * Discussion points**
 * What do we mean by influencing change?
 * Define the change? (ASF, build capacity, evidence of performance intervention + scale, define contributors acknowledge, need to accept failure “gaps”
 * Build the change pathway
 * Define the means
 * Define measureable indicators
 * Iterative measure the change monitors the change?
 * Who are we influencing
 * How do we approach evaluation
 * Focus, how? Need for external review
 * Actions and recommendations**
 * Clear definition of influence ,
 * Set indicators (clear) f the change
 * Clear and acceptable measure of change
 * Iterative monitoring and learning, documentation and communication
 * Define, quantify the change
 * Go beyond the traditional approaches to monitoring change + multiple approaches
 * Participating M & E of the change
 * How do we know that we are successful?
 * If we can trace our contribution to the change but being aware of the frame needed (internal and external)
 * Set target and monitor project + achievement towards these at different levels, within the value chain
 * Discussion point**
 * Demand driven
 * All VC actors?
 * Internal client?
 * Clarify inter operational modalities
 * Regular meeting /institutional platforms
 * Is the demand aware of all options?
 * How best to assess the demand
 * What roles for CapDev unit?
 * Think about our researchers
 * Capacity to engage with partners
 * Do we have the right mindset to engage in R4D? or are we still “R4R”
 * Communicate scientific findings better than we currently do. How?
 * In VCD/markets, can be leverage existing knowledge?
 * Already happening in our CRP?
 * Need to prioritize (focus on the “critical weak links”) partners and look at the systematic value added created

=TUESDAY AFTERNOON =

Group work on IDOs in relation to themes and value chain

 * Discussion notes on the indicators and IDOs**

=WEDNESDAY MORNING =

**Buzz groups session reporting on our IDOs and the CRP architecture **
1. Are you comfortable with our IDOs? - Generally OK - Some reservations - Yes, but … - Accountability is ‘scary’ - Gender a bit lost? - IDO 3 too complex? - Some are heavily loaded, with mixed interpretations possible - Please have them convey exact messages - Need to be shorter and catchy - How to quantify and weight them - Agree, but complex wording and variables - Need gender disaggregated for all - Need to be measurable - How to assess? - Need to have baselines - Need digesting, and process to provide feedback - Not yet in love; need tweaking and tidying up - Need separate policy indicator … or is policy in all? - __For__ and __by__ the poor – how to handle in the IDOs – different groups

2. Does the L&F CRP architecture need to change? If so, how?

- We don’t know what the architecture is – need more info on it - Where do resources go? Not very transparent - What is the value added to our partners - Few links to other CRPs? - How best to link VCs with themes? - VC concept perhaps misses bigger picture? - How does the coordination of the centres work? - How to link themes and chains? Connecting persons needed? More theme visits to VCs? - Are themes responding to VC demands? - VC-Theme coordination needs to be clearer – re-examine roles and functions - Lack of communication across the CRP - Make budget and decision processes more transparent - Need time for framework to ‘take shape’ - People are often following donor project priorities rather than CRP agenda? - Funds not at right level for chains to take off - No resources for testing ideas beyond the VC countries - Comms/partnerships/capdev need to be more explicit/intentional. They are now outside current structures and reporting - How to cross-fertilize across countries and regions? - More interacting and learning (and documentation) needed across chains - Theme v VCs – disconnect - Improve ways that R4D agendas of themes are informed from VCs

- Better communication needed between VCs and themes – and architecture to enable this

**Fishbowl synthesis session: What do you take away from this meeting? **

 * People are actually quit committed to this program, it is encouraging to see this. We have been complaining that this was not working quiet well.
 * We need to move quickly to get our partners get moving. We need to think about how do we engage our partners – something we need to speed up on.
 * Groups that called themselves – outsiders – we need to make them feel that they are part of the program
 * What does the program bring to the partner and what partner will bring to the program
 * Learning on how to speak in zero notice J
 * IDO’s framed from a different perspective of the science – challenge within the given the timelines is it possible to achieve the different things you are promising – make sure the outcomes becomes something practical at the end
 * My first surprise was that I thought the people were going to a different meeting – it is good to know we have a lot of people involved and getting to know them.
 * The importance of meetings like this. We need to build trust. We need to start talking to the partners. But we need to have that in-house first among ourselves within the group to be able to reach others. Obviously it is an evolving process but this shows that we are willing to do it.
 * I’m talking as an outsider – for me this was a good opportunity to learn about the program value chains which is attractive
 * More research needs to be done
 * We are here to support the farmers – to step back from being a scientist and do it in such a way that will bring in the partners … not them coming to serve our agenda
 * First time for me to have an open session. I’ll take this up with my organization – CARE.I see the program give value for the partnership – this is good indication to move forward – this will strengthen and make is sustainable in our strategy.
 * We are a couple of years into this – but we need to get moving – across the themes we need to do that better. What is our paradigm? How do we really move forward? It is critical that we understand how to take this forward sooner than later. We really need to get moving forward.
 * Link research and science and development. Moving from research towards development. Not sitting around but giving thoughts and contributions and making sure the contributions are taken up. Fish value chain might be small but we were happy to meet the other value chains.
 * We appreciate the facilitation skills that really brought in all the group of people. Bringing in all the development partners and other partners It really takes time – so we really need to remember to budget for that time? Unanswered question. What is research in a R4D context? We might need to redefine that.
 * I feel more comfortable going to Nicaragua because now I understand more about the PROGRAM. We need to be flexible in our reporting.
 * Having come from the university I really appreciate being involved. I appreciate that you really know the value and the place of the partners within the value chains. Soikoine university – I no more have an outsider status, now I will be an insider.
 * Thank you for organizing for us to better understand the Ethiopian SRVC. Lack of infrastructure – we need to think about better innovations.
 * I come from an organization with three mandates: Development, higher education and research. When we come to an organizations that focuses on research like ILRI – How can I uptake that? my question is what is it that the real scientific fundamental question that we can do. We are really focusing on the early stages the genetics, feed … it is not clear on what kind of research to do on the value chain itself. I am a plant ecologist – we are talking about goats and sheep and there is no talk of dry fodder maybe we need to work with ICRAF working on this
 * The importance of Value chain has been highlighted very much …. But more research need to be done. We need to work on a holistic view from producer up to consumer
 * I have been wondering as a Gender scientist I was wondering on how to really integrate that … I was really very much excited about the feedback from the gender dinner … so I will be taking that up.
 * Better understanding about the Livestock and Fish program and also the approach to work with Value Chains. I have better understanding. I will better support the work we are doing in Nicaragua. I have learnt about the gender approach.
 * The more knowledge in the fish industry the more aware the people become and the more supportive they will become, so thank you for this opportunity
 * My organizations has viewed the program’s as vehicles to deliver. Vehicle – the engine, the wheels,/ The Vehicle has really taken some time to really come together and work together. WE are beginning to achieve this with our partners.I commit here personally to see this program work better
 * The major impact for me is the collaboration and the partnership – in terms of centers and universities – I have been hearing with the program’s work with the genebank and work with forage and I am happy to work with Edwardo (agroforest) great achievement getting more partners on board and look forward to working with them more.
 * We need to have different levels of partnership to be able to work together. One of the most important partnerships is our sister CRP’s.
 * I kept being a bit confused we heard a good thing about partners … we are feeling that we are moving away from contribution and towards attribution. Partnerships are moving away and I see this as a niche.
 * Having been in WorldFish for few weeks it has been a great experience. Question: Are we going to make research that is communicable? How involved will our partners be?
 * I like the atmosphere and the way we interacted. Trust. Walking the Talk. And Work. What I have also learned through this process in the collective wisdom we have what it takes. We realized how common on how some of the issues are even if the species are different.
 * We have a shared responsibility for the IDO’s we have to deliver. We don’t know the proper channels to communicate that. We need to have more individual responsibility. I commit to doing that and I hope you will be willing to do that with me.
 * I found out that the India Dairy Value chain to be a bit broken and it needs to be fixed. I got to learn to learn that I have got a product a phone I can SMS with it. What can I use, how can I be useful? It is clear as mud.

CLOSING REMARKS

 * Tom Randolph director Livestock and Fish**

> Special thanks to:
 * Glad and appreciate that there was good intent to make the program more meaningful and work even better
 * Greatly appreciate the buy in from all the teams represented at the meeting
 * Recognize that the presentation at the meeting was just the tip of the iceberg – there are lots of stakeholders we were not able to bring in
 * 1) everyone for the great participation, critical thinking and constructive
 * 2) the Ethiopia team for setting up the value chain exhibit
 * 3) the organizing committee


 * Henry Njakoi from Heifer Tanzania**


 * Appreciate the invitation to attend the meeting
 * There was great effort to articulate IDOs which the development partners appreciate
 * There was a feeling that we need to do things differently and that the CG is willing to work with partners
 * From the partner’s side we now understand a lot more what the CG is working toward and share in the vision and mission
 * More research value by sharing a coming value
 * There are many more partners who also need to understand the CG’s agenda and thus many more should be invited to such events, communicate this to them etc.
 * The challenge for now is to maintain this momentum that we need to do things differently


 * Max Rothschild from** **Science and Partnership Advisory Committee (SPAC)**


 * Our role as SPAC is to listen and offer advisory support
 * We have been particularly encouraged with your openness
 * Most important form of trust is listening to each other, which we hope that the participants at the meeting have done. We have listened to the conversations and are open to listening to you and advise the program accordingly.


 * Michael Peters, Livestock and Fish center representative from CIAT**


 * Livestock and fish is all of us!! Thanks to ILRI and ICARDA for the organizations
 * I was particularly impressed by the sheep and goat value chain
 * All of us are already on the livestock and fish bus and we have started the journey. And the journey is going to have some breakdowns but our target is to reach where we have changed the lives of people