37livestockfishfeedback



February 2nd, 2011

More meat, milk and fish by and for the poor
View these comments as PDF Reviewer comments - 1 Reviewer comments - 2 Reviewer comments - 3 Reviewer comments - 4

The Consortium Board (CB) appreciates the effort made by the proponents in elaborating a full proposal for this CGIAR Research Programme taking into consideration the comments and guidelines provided by the CB on 24 June 2010.

The CB considers that the topic of this CRP is of strategic significance for the CRP portfolio. The Board particularly appreciates the innovative dimensions of the proposal, the genuine integration of activities across the participating CGIAR centres that is proposed in a number of instances, and the overall quality of this proposal. The Board welcomes the articulation of this proposal around targeted value chains, with seven strategic objectives and three research themes. The proposal is overall convincing.

The Board considers that a stronger case for emphasizing technological research is needed. The major bottleneck to delivering improved technologies to the poor, and for adoption by the poor and by women of these technologies, is most likely policy and institutional in nature. The reason for investing 50 per cent of the funds in this proposal on technology and productivity enhancement work needs to be stated in a more convincing manner. The articulation between improving productivity of livestock and fish and of their value chains and better nutrition for the poor is not currently very convincing. There are many examples of work on increasing productivity that does not automatically benefit the very poor. The proponents’ case in this respect should be strengthened.

In addition, the CB would like to ask the proponents to address the issues below in order to further improve the proposal. These issues are not so significant that a substantial amount of additional work is needed on the part of the proponent. Addressing them will increase the probability of approval by the Fund Council.


 * 1. Strategic coherence and clarity of CRP objectives**

The CB appreciates that the proposal is coherent and the work proposed is aligned with its seven objectives. These objectives are clear and convincing. In the discussion of the three research themes, the proponents explain that it is difficult to set clear priorities, as data are not readily available. Consequently, priority setting will be undertaken at a later stage. The CB would like to stress the importance of having a clear and robust research priority-setting process in a programme of this size. The value chains and countries chosen are fine as a point of departure, but the priority setting process will need to be firmed up as soon as possible in the life cycle of the programme. It is not immediately obvious that this is the intention of the proponents from their description of theme 3 (Targeting, Gender, Impact).

The CB found that the discussion of the proposed work under theme 1 (Technology Development), component 1 (animal health) was less convincing than the discussion under the other elements of the programme. Indeed, the proponents state that they want to deliver better arrangements for delivery of improved animal health mechanisms for poor livestock owners. There is however no work proposed under this theme that will provide the necessary analysis of bottlenecks and obstacles to reaching the poor and the women owners/managers of livestock. It is not clear either that such analyses will be provided by the proposed work under theme 2 (value chain development).

Concerning component 2 (animal breeding and genetics) of theme 1, the CB agrees with the referee who requests a justification for the emphasis on transgenesis, genomic hybridisation and molecular hybridisation, in view of the cost/expected benefits ratio of these approaches. Given the potential role of poultry for resource poor farmers, the CB would like the proponents to provide and explicit justification why they will not work on these issues.

Concerning theme 2 (Value Chain Development), component 1 (sectoral and policy analysis), the Board notes that there are no research questions that address the issue of how exactly the poor will benefit. This should be addressed explicitly, as it will strengthen the case the proponents are trying to make about targeting the poor.


 * 2. Delivery focus and plausibility of impact**

The impact pathways described in the various log frames presented in the proposal are convincing. The identification of the eight target value chains is likewise a good mechanism for clearly focusing the work on addressing development challenges. The CB concurs with the referee who states that this is a very innovative dimension of the proposal, and a very effective one as well.

The clarification of the logical linkages between increasing productivity of livestock and fish, improving value chains and delivering affordable sources of proteins to the poor will contribute to clarifying the expected beneficiaries of the proposed work, and the localisation of these expected beneficiaries. The discussion of the plausibility of impact is well done and the CB appreciates the various risks described in the proposal.


 * 3. Quality of science**

The proponents have succeeded in providing sufficient information about each research theme so that it is possible to have an overall view of the quality of the science in the proposal. This is a difficult thing to do and the Board appreciates the effort of the proponents. The Board concurs with the referees that this quality is sound. When the proponents address the point raised under strategic coherence about the apparent lack of research questions on how the poor will benefit and on how policy and institutional bottlenecks are currently constraining delivery of improved technologies to the poor, the overall scientific quality of this proposal will be high indeed.

The Board appreciates the explanation of the value addition of ILRI and WorldFish working alongside on genetic issues, as well as the description of the value chain development work.

For the CGIAR, these are novel, and much needed, approaches. The third research theme on Targeting, Gender and Impact is less developed than the others are and would benefit from a greater integration with themes 1 and 2. In this respect, the scoping study commissioned by the Consortium has recommended key features of the analytical framework for achieving an optimal level of gender integration into the CRPs. The Gender Scoping Study will be disclosed shortly by the Consortium Office and the results should be taken into account before finalizing the proposal.


 * 4. Quality of research and development partners and partnership management**

The proposal is clear about the role of partners and in identifying how the proposers will involve key stakeholders as well as which roles they will have. In the case of the private sector, the CB would like to ask the proponents for better explanation of how this sector will contribute to value chain development and scaling out the outcomes.

The discussion on the linkages with the other CRPs is interesting. Given the high potential for overlaps in activities, the linkages with CRP 2 and CRP 4 should be described in more depth. If an agreement has been reached with these CRPs about having a number of joint projects, this should be specified, as it would be a very positive signal that overlaps will not be significant.


 * 5. Appropriateness and efficiency of CRP management**

The proposed management and governance structure seems to be overly complicated. As a principle, the CB suggests a simpler management structure based on a Steering Committee/programme governance committee that comprises of a representative of the Lead Centre, a representative of each key participating Centre and a representative of other Partners that have a substantial responsibility in the implementation of the CRP. This will ensure that the key partners have a voice concerning strategic research directions and budget allocation. The Programme director would then report to the Steering Committee (not just to the DG of ILRI, and this would be in keeping with the collaborative spirit of this programme). The CB is not convinced that CRP 3.7 really needs a scientific and partnership forum plus a value chain advisory committee.


 * 6. Clear accountability and financial soundness, and efficiency of governance**

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) procedures are suggested for progress guidance and feedback generation. Given the uncertainty, it would be useful to include some clearly stated reasonable milestones as none was really found in the proposal. This will give the project-management group the ability to better judge the progress of the work outlined in the proposal. Furthermore, such milestones could be tied to increases in funding and will assure all agencies and donors of the progress made and the success of the proposal.

The presentation of the budget, where the three research themes have a budget, in addition to each value chain having its own budget, is disconcerting. The proponents have explained that the work on the research themes takes place within the value chain, at each location. The budget presentation sends a different message, of work in parallel. A clear explanation of what will be undertaken where (e.g. will some work be undertaken ‘centrally’ or at the headquarters of some of the centres, in addition to the in-country work on the value chains?) is needed. This will clarify what is the amount of funds that will be expended on the three different research themes.

Overall, the budget needs some more details. A minimum justification of how the numbers were arrived at in each cost item (e.g., personnel, travel, operating expenses…) should be provided as donors will request such justification. The proposers should also explain whether the amount of funding to non-CGIAR partners (17.75%, slightly below the indirect costs) can lead to tangible results on the ground within the time frame envisaged in CRP3.7, or whether joint fund raising with partners will be undertaken to provide co-funding to the partners.


 * Recommendation**

The CB appreciates the innovations in this proposal, and its overall quality. The Board considers that, with a few additional improvements, the proposal will be ready to be submitted to the Fund Council. Particular attention should be paid to the reviewers’ comments, especially those in line with our above comments.