Virtual+Planning+Meeting+-+March+2015

=Virtual Planning Meeting - March 2015=

=Introduction=

The L&F phase 2 planning workshop was conducted through a two part process. Initially conceived as a single event, it was rendered into an online format that operated across wide ranging time zones. This report covers part 1 of the process. As of the time of writing, we anticipate that part 2 will occur after the Consortium Office release of guidelines for Phase 2 planning for all CRPs. Part 1 deals with a review of L&F work, of the context within which it operates, of opinions relating to key design features, and offers recommendations for research questions, program approaches, model changes and modifications to the theories of change. It worked around two scenario possibilities, namely that L&F would continue in much the same form as phase 1, or that it would expand to assume a global animal science agenda. It is anticipated that Part 2 will generate first stage ideas for Phase 2 CRP L&F, and make specific plans for the completion of the proposal preparation and submission. Delegates engaged for a few hours on each of 4 days, and the virtual platform recorded all responses from all delegates.

Review of Findings
Following presentations on L&F work in phase 1, a review of global development livestock trends and an examination of some key questions, the following observations about the L&F program were made.

__Participation__: For interventions to be effective, they must be relevant and resonate well with the people L&F are trying to work for and with. Opinion differs as to who should be involved in shaping technology given that not all important agendas emanate from value chain issues. Be that as it may, it is apparent that L&F is not adequately engaging value chain actors or the poor and does need to work better with the poor to understand their demands. The poor are very diverse, where men, women and youth have different agendas and ideas, and where gender inequities inhibit participation of women. L&F must better engage with issues of power, inclusivity and governance; use participatory research approaches that build on experiential learning, and engage with relationship networks.

__Impact__: There is not much impact data so far and it is not clear whether L&F is having any impact. We are not documenting lessons or successes, and must do better to measure progress and results. This is important for accountability and for proving investment potential. A decent monitoring, evaluation and learning framework is imperative, bearing in mind that it takes considerable time to generate interventions, let alone assess them.

__Capacity__: For any change intervention to persist, the value chain system must be capable of sustaining such change. At the start of any intervention process, it is important to assess the capacity that is present, where it lies in the system, and the extent to which change is thus enabled or constrained. Capacity to operate as a business is especially important. To find out what capacity is there, engagement with partners is essential.

__Collaboration__: Our flagships and value chains operate too independently of one another. In assessing value chain constraints and solutions, SASI is much too isolated. Future program design must structure closer linkages between flagships, and between flagships and value chains. Some excellent results have been seen through collaboration with other CRPs, and this needs to be expanded particularly with system CRPs. In value chains, private sector actors play important roles and L&F should be deliberate in seeking common agendas and synergy with them. So far, there has been good progress in working with development partners and NARS. This should continue for it strengthens research capability and action. The recent inclusion of SLU and WUR into the core partnership is welcomed especially in the light of expanding the program to address the global animal science agenda.

__Holistic Approaches__: Research needs to more holistic. Starting from analysis and foresight, our practice must cut across disciplines across flagships. Examples to consider include the one health agenda that combine human and animal health, food safety, nutrition and resilience; linkages between animal health and breeding around reproductive health; and the integration of gender and social equity analysis. There is no silver bullet. Success comes from being joined up.

__Technology__: There is an imperative to produce more food and biomass. The program is well positioned to support this. Good examples of our technological success so far include //B. Humidicola, O. Niloticus L. Abassa//, CLEANED and a range of tools. It is in its application that science gives results, as opposed to blue sky work. We must not only seek to invent new technology but research ways to improve access to existing technology. We need to be conscious that technologies affect social groups differently. In all of our research, systems work is under represented.

__Policy__: Research must better engage with policy processes. Currently, this is not happening.

__Nutrition__: The nutritional impact of L&F research should be better understood and more deliberately addressed. Work to understand nutrition should use demographic and consumption data, and explore how ASFs are prepared in homes. Poor consumers are the largest group of poor, and we should focus here with a nutrition strategy that explores access to ASFs and a healthy diet and food safety. L&F should consider focusing more on dairy and poultry for better access by poor consumers, and build alliances with other crop research centres to include ASFs as part of a complete diet.

__Scale__: L&F has not though through how scale will happen. Systems transformation is much more than optimizing production and efficiency. The program needs to think about scale from the beginning of the technology generation process, look for scaling potential early on, and build knowledge alliances with development partners to foster scale.

__Value Chains – A Systems Approach__: Research through value chains has been effective, and should continue. However L&F research has not sufficiently explored system wide issues. Development organizations work with whole systems and deal with technology, production, economics, markets, social, political and environmental issues. While especially true for extensive livestock systems, systems understanding and research is critical everywhere, and is much wider in scope than value chain thinking. Work started with the gender transformative approach has recognized that empowerment is not a linear process. L&F should build on this. __Theories of Change__: L&F will need different change pathways for intensification and resilience. However there is concern that such pathways assume predictability and linearity. This gives rise to clashes between universal and contextual indicators of complex issues such as gender and empowerment. Planned pathways may be somewhat counter entrepreneurial, by limiting necessary agility.

__Comparative Analysis__: The way that VCTS and SASI are structured does not enable comparison and learning across value chains, and this is not happening. A coherent agenda should be defined. L&F also needs to do better and more rapid analysis of trade-offs between options and outcomes.

__Demand Orientation__: L&F research needs to be more demand driven. There is considerable demand for quick solutions, yet our centre supply driven focus is mainly on long term solutions. While both are important, we need to find a better balance. One way to better meet demand is to research ways of quickly using existing solutions for quick wins. Demand is variable and changes from place to place, and is not always “good” demand. Some purely economic demand can potentially threaten the interests of the poor.

__Knowledge and Data__: ICT offers great opportunity to get better real time data, build two-way communication between data sources and users, and access the insight of other people. The importance of different data sets varies between women and men, for they have different perspectives, agendas and knowledge. This needs to be better captured. Better use needs to be made of existing data rather than continuous collection of new data.

__Business Models__: L&F research needs to be better embedded within business models if it is to be sustainable. Business cases are needed to to show how impact is achieved, to better sell research work to donors and to engage private sector interest. In all value chains, L&F should research and promote business-based approaches

__Critical Mass__: L&F has achieved it best results in value chains where it has leveraged bilateral resources. It some places, it has been difficult to secure bilateral funds.

__Research versus Development__: The boundary between development and our research is not as clear as it should be, and this has had implications on the way in which we have related and set priorities. There is overlap in areas such as extension and farmer participatory research. L&F should not become a development practitioner but collaborate for impact. Action oriented research is required, and L&F is well positioned to do this. Development goes on despite our research, and we should position ourselves to influence this. Partnership and engagement with development organisations can critically link research and development, with innovation platforms and value chains being good instruments for this. We have an opportunity now to define new inquiry based ways of working to bridge this gap, and should look at existing models. Development programs are our laboratory apparatus without which we cannot effectively research. To do this, we require better collaboration between our flagships and value chains.

__By the poor; for the poor__: While L&F intends to principally benefit the poor, systems are complex and involve other than the poor in both consumption and production. It is important to keep a wider perspective. When considering the poor, we must include value chain actors who are not producers, recognise the considerable diversity between poor groups, and that men and women have very different needs. While smallholders remain important, benefits vary across both access to better food and income.

__The Bigger Agenda__: There is more that L&F can do beyond value chain development. It needs to consider work to improve resilience, minimize loss, improve the environment and promote social equity. For resilience programming, L&F will need different frameworks beyond value chains that encompass environmental risk and ecological scarcity. Such expansion is possible with the recent inclusion of SLU and WUR. There is some concern that expansion now is the start of a new experiment before completion of the first one.

__Power__: Entrenched norms that constrain change are difficult to shift, and socially constructed norms vary between places. Dialogue processes for change happen through existing structures and power relationships, and power holders sanction those that break norms. There is much that can be done. CARE’s agency model is a framework to understand power and enable empowerment. L&F should research ways of changing power relationships so that development interventions intervene with a consciousness of power, and be empowering. To this end, L&F should seek to build relations with CARE.

__The Environment__: L&F needs a robust response to criticism that livestock has a bad effect on environment. The program needs to set clear goals such as halving the amount of GHGs from ASF production. While a livestock revolution might not improve absolute environmental change, it can make for relative improvement. L&F can engage as an honest broker without being negative or defensive, and frame discussion around planetary boundaries. Its work should address and mitigate negative environmental impacts and convert these into positive impacts. There is particular need to address waste, land degradation, water use, pollution, GHG and losses. There is potential to explore better ways of managing the balance between NRM and production through practices that enhance existing ecosystem function. Forages have great potential for environmental benefit. Feed practices that develop non-human-edible biomass for animal feeds reduce competition with people. With such potential for environmental contribution through livestock systems, feeds and forages should be explicitly championed here.

__Intensification__ has been a good driver for L&F, and the value chain approach has been a good way to do this; but this needs to be better balanced with improved environmental sustainability. What is the right measurement for intensification – by land area, by livestock unit or by the unit of other input?

__Focus__: The nature and level focus and its contribution to results is an assumption that needs to be researched. This will take time. In this regard, L&F should consider focusing on several species in some countries. There is argument to reduce levels of focus, for too much focus could lead to delivery of results for only a few people. Rather than limiting the number of countries, L&F could engage on the basis of ability to work in them, perhaps indicated by the availability of bilateral funding. Fewer countries might mean less opportunity.

Recommendations
Two scenarios were considered for phase 2. For the first scenario, L&F would continue in much the same form as it has done in phase 1, with a strong focus on smallholder intensification in a limited number of value chains. For the second scenario, L&F would expand to assume a global animal science agenda. For each scenario, four sets of recommendations were made for
 * Key research areas
 * Promising research to development approaches
 * Proposed changes to the research program model, and
 * Adjustments to the theory of change.

These recommendations are summarised by scenario below. They are fully amplified in Summary 5.

__Scenario 1 – Recommendations__
**Description:** L&F continues in much the same form as it has done in phase 1, with a strong focus on smallholder intensification in a limited number of value chains

1) Do more research on environmental sustainability and livestock intensification, looking at both consequence mitigation and enhancement of net environmental value; 2) Research ways in which smallholder systems transform through intensification; 3) Research sustainable feeds and forage systems; 4) Research ways in which poverty affects ASF consumption and nutritional effect; 5) Drive research by demand. This is more complex than supply and entails greater understanding of consumption dynamics, social systems and markets; 6) Research how innovations become adapted, delivered, used and spread across smallholder systems; 7) Increase research focus into the nature of integration between flagship technology areas where these mutually overlap with one another; 8) Increase research into social sciences; 9) Research market systems potentially accessed by smallholder producers and / or poor consumers; 10) Research the effects of policy on animal productivity; 11) Re-assess whether L&F is positioned properly; 12) Examine the validity of opening up research work on poultry value chains; 13) Research the trade-off between different technologies and intervention packages;
 * Key research areas for the new CRP L&F**

14) Mainstream the use of innovation platforms as a means to bringing together stakeholders, engaging them, innovating with them, harnessing their energy, learning with them and together developing value chains and sectors; 15) Build means and mechanisms for cross disciplinary interaction and integration, setting agendas that run across academic and institutional silos for comprehensive research; 16) Build research agendas with those that exist in value chain systems. Always remain relevant to their needs; 17) Work across whole systems, within the complexity inherent in these. Explore approaches that do this; 18) Focus on improving consumption, and constraints to this; 19) Pilot work that others will not do, if it is really work doing; 20) There is a lot going on and others are doing this. Work with these initiatives;
 * Promising research to development approaches for the new CRP L&F**

21) In order to understand the bigger picture, consider work beyond the current value chain focus; 22) Invest and act close to the ground. This means resources and partnership are most critical closer to where action happens; 23) Focus is not always right in itself, for the wrong focus may be worse than poor focus. We need to be reflective on the focus that we use, and continually test this; 24) We need to develop new lines of work around innovation systems, social sciences, and policy. We need to be more responsive to changes within complex systems; 25) We needed holistic joined up action between flagships, between levels, between value chains and between other CRPs; 26) Develop aquaculture work in sub Saharan Africa;
 * Proposed changes to the current model**

27) L&F Theories of Change need to describe a much wider picture, to incorporate wider issues of environmental sustainability; 28) Strengthen flagship Theories of Change; 29) Not every Theory of Change is a good one. L&F ones should map out a wide range of dynamics and roles, and should capture the hearts and minds of others. Imposed Theories of Change will not work. 30) The current mantra “by and for the poor” and its track approach works. Keep these Theories of Change separate and clear, and defined with stakeholders;
 * Adjustments to our fundamental theory of change**

__Scenario 2 – Recommendations__

**Description:** L&F expands to assume a global animal science agenda.

1) Strengthen research focus on the environment and climate change agenda; 2) Expand the animal health research focus in all countries to address emergent global diseases. Behind this, flagships need to strengthen forecast modelling, early detection and trade linked epidemiology; 3) Establish a research agenda into innovation within complex systems, and install mechanisms that connect knowledge between and within levels. The focus of such research should be on what influences uptake, to cover social, economic and organisational factors; 4) Expand coverage of fish research work in sub Saharan Africa; 5) Link research agendas to the work of other CRPs and partner organisations both in terms of technology development; 6) Conduct research work on the integration of technology, production and market systems through system CRPs. Do some of this to encompass dynamics at global levels. Use this to develop understanding of the effects of science on key outcomes; 7) Open a new line of research into livestock production with vulnerable fragile ecosystems; 8) Open a new line of research into conservation and use of genetic resources; 9) Clarify the scope of research; does this cover food production, or more? 10) Expand the research agenda to cover South America; 11) Capture the research agenda in easy to understand taglines; 12) Conduct foresight research on livestock transitions;
 * Key research areas for the new CRP L&F**

13) The value chain research agenda is good, and should remain for intensification agendas. Consider a different resilience and NRM construct for work in extensive systems, and focus here on sustainable livelihoods; 14) Measure your work carefully, and learn from it; 15) Innovation and system research methods can iteratively test what is working. These methods should be participatory, and work to question the results of actions by local players as well as researchers; 16) L&F Research approaches must involve others. Build strong alliances around overlapping interest, and research with and through stakeholders; 17) It is important to be relevant now. Have ready to use packages that work for quick deployment;
 * Promising research to development approaches for the new CRP L&F**

18) Evolve the model to encompass climate smart agriculture and resilience over a wider geography; 19) Change systems to ease bilateral fundraising and all reporting. Invest more in ASF research; 20) Develop and use a different approach for extensive systems and where livelihoods are critical; 21) Include poultry; 22) Be stronger in the way we build partnerships. For development partners, our research should be geared around their work. We need to develop knowledge products that are useful for development processes. With system CRPs, commit to supporting livestock elements of their research; 23) Focus on developing proof-of-concept public goods that can spread and scale;
 * Proposed changes to the current model**

24) Expand Theories of Change to cover climate change and work in fragile ecosystems 25) Develop Theories of Change on innovation adaptation and sustainable scale. These need to encompass unpredictability, means of navigating uncertainty and assuring food for the poor 26) Retain the focus on the poor, but make sure that scope for action is not limited just to the poor. Remove any sense that there is a closed loop where it is only the poor that can supply the poor. 27) Don’t get too obsessed with Theories of Change to the extent that it becomes a goal in its own right. 28) Ensure that Theory of Change indicators are measurable in a practical sense.
 * Adjustments to our fundamental theory of change**

=The Process=

Over 4 days, a series of presentations were made and discussed by participants using a comment feature. These comments were summarized and made available to participants as a contribution to the next days’ discussions. As such then, positions made were discussed and used to seed subsequent conversations. The figure below shows the flow that moves through


 * Review of work done so far in Phase 1, structured around the five flagships (animal health, animal breeding, animal feed and forages, systems analysis for sustainable intensification (SASI), and value chain transformation and scaling (VCTS).
 * Review of global trends in livestock, structured around five elements
 * Review of important issues and assumptions underlying work so far
 * Formulation of broad recommendations on research areas, research for development approaches, changes to the current model and adjustments to the theory of change. These were made across two scenarios, namely continuation as the program is now, or expansion of L&F to cover a global animal science agenda.



The following documents are available for download

Workshop Report: The whole report including Findings, Recommendations, Narrative. Links and Summaries 1 to 5



- Comments on flag ship performance, efficacy and dynamics

- Summary of discussions around 5 key questions about the flagships in general
 * What are the most important changes we need to respond to?
 * In what areas are we having the most effect?
 * What are we doing well?
 * What are we not doing well?
 * What do we need to do differently?

- Summary of what is happening globally in the livestock for development sector, with respect to
 * Animal source foods and human nutrition
 * Animal and fish agriculture, livelihoods and market opportunities
 * Animal and fish agriculture and social equity
 * Animal and fish agriculture and the environment
 * Animal and fish agriculture production and productivity

- Summary of comments on 4 opinions regarding
 * Intensification as a principle driver
 * Testing science in value chains
 * Research to development boundaries
 * Focus for results

- Summary of recommendations within **Scenario 1** where L&F //remains in its current form.// Recommendations cover
 * Key research areas that a new CRP L&F should focus on
 * Promising Research to Development approaches in the new CRP L&F
 * Changes to the current model
 * Adjustments to our fundamental theory of change

- Summary of recommendations within **Scenario 2** where L&F //covers a global animal science agenda.// Recommendations cover
 * Key research areas that a new CRP L&F should focus on
 * Promising Research to Development approaches in the new CRP L&F
 * Changes to the current model
 * Adjustments to our fundamental theory of change