Best+Bets+Selection+Protocol


 * Protocol for implementing a pilot exercise of selecting the L&F Best Bets **

This protocol is to be used together with the Best Bets guidance note (2015). Its aim is to guide the program’s process of identifying integrated interventions (Best Bets) that stimulate pro-poor transformation of targeted Livestock and Fish (L&F) value chains. According to the Best Bets guidance note, Best Bets are defined as:
 * Introduction **

//“Technologies, processes, institutions or social innovations that have been chosen through a rigorous, participatory and transparent research-based selection process because of their potential for making positive contributions to one or more of the L&F Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs) without having a negative impact on other IDOs.” //

Best Bet selection is an additional step of the larger process consisting of four steps namely: identification and bundling of the technologies, vetting, piloting and testing and verification and scale-up or-out.

In this process, we intend to rely heavily on soft criteria supported by //anecdotal// evidence and some technical outputs. The criteria consist of 6 basic elements, namely: economic and technical feasibility, gender and social equity, environmental sustainability, social sustainability, political acceptability and contribution to program’s IDOs. Below, we provide a summary of the dimensions and the key areas of enquiry that will guide their assessment (also included in the Table 1).
 * Dimensions of the Best Bet selection criteria **

1) **Economic and technical feasibility[12]: **
 * 1) Market studies
 * These sources will provide assessments of whether livestock and fish products for which the innovations are targeting have adequate demand to sustain the scale-up of the best bet.
 * 1) Cost-benefit analysis
 * Evidence will include the extent to which total benefits accruing from up-take of integrated packages outweigh total associated costs. The might include put some value on the aggregate welfare generated and comparing with the direct cost of resource needed to produce the products, regulatory, transactional and other indirect costs.
 * 1) Technical capacity
 * Evidence in this category might center on availability local resources and skills to scale-up the technology or innovation.

2) **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Gender and social equity 34: ** <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif'; font-size: 16px;">3) **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Environmental sustainability 5: ** <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif'; font-size: 16px;">4) **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Social sustainability: ** <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif'; font-size: 16px;">5) **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Political capital 6: ** <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif'; font-size: 16px;">6) **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Relevance to the IDOs **
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Equity
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Information on the impact of the innovation on relationships between men and women, especially on control of and access to resources of vulnerable groups.
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Labor demand
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Here, evidence might answer questions of how the innovation/technology affects labor demand for various sections of the target community.
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Human safety and health
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">This will include evidence on the effect of the technology on quality of life of target populations.
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Soil and land
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">This will seek for information on the effect of the innovation on soil quality and land degradation.
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Atmosphere
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">This will need to answer two questions: what impact does it have on air quality? And is there any anecdotal evidence of its impact on greenhouse gas emissions levels?
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Biodiversity
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">How about its impacts on ecosystem, species and genetic diversity of the focal value chain?
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Maintenance and creation of employment and its effects of quality of life
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">What is the impact of the innovation on evolution of people employed in agriculture (male and female)?
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Governance and public life
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">What is its impact on community participation in civil society organizations?
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Social capital
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">How does the innovation affect trust among members of the community and how does it change the level of connectedness to others in the community?
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Political support
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">To what extent is it acceptable and supported by local/national leaders?
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">The assessment should include a simple description of how the innovation contributed to the IDOs (the MEL team will provide a brief ToC narrative)


 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif'; font-size: 18.6667px;">Practical guidelines for assessing Best Bets **

<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';"> i. The value chain coordinator takes the lead at building an inventory of all available and possible LF best bets for a specific value chain. <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';"> ii. The value chain coordinator then provides potential evidence to support the Best Bet. <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';"> iii. The value chain coordinator identifies potential reviewers for each dimension of selection criterion. It is preferable that nominated reviewers are selected from other value chains to encourage cross value chain learning, more so if they are selected from value chains with similar livestock species. <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';"> iv. Reviewers are invited to assess the Best Bets.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Step I: **

<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Rank the evidence against a selection criterion on a scale of 1-3: (1=does not meet criterion, 2=has positive alignment with criterion, 3= meets criterion). <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';"> i. Where possible the reviewer includes additional evidence to support or counter evidence provided by the value chain coordinator. <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';"> ii. Where technical evidence is lacking, the reviewer can rely on personal experience or anecdotal evidence to support or counter the evidence and to justify the score.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Step II: **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Each reviewer adopts table 2 to assess the evidence attached to each dimension of the criterion by implementing the following steps:


 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Step III: **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">For the pilot exercise a validation focus group discussion amongst the value chain coordinator, the reviewers and some selected value chains actors. Such a meeting will be organized by somebody from the team and facilitated by the VC coordinator. Details of the reviewers’ scoring will be shared in the focus group discussions. The aim of the meeting will be to harmonize evidence and identify cross criterion implications.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Step IV: **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">After all stakeholders have submitted their views and minutes documented, the value chain coordinator aggregates the scores and submits the scores and the minutes of the FGD to the CRP director for a decisions on whether to proceed with the BB or not.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Table 1: Livestock and Fish Best Bets Selection Criterion **
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Country/value chain ** ||||||||||  ||
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Name of Best Bet ** ||||||||||  ||
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Name of Reviewer ** ||||||||||  ||
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Selection criteria ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Type of evidence ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Area of Enquiry ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Available evidence **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">( **//<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">provided by the VC coordinator //**<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">) ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Assessment criteria ( **//<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">1=does not meet criterion, 2=has positive alignment with criteria, 3= meets criteria //**<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">) ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Reviewers justification of the score ( **//<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">provide counter or supporting evidence //**<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">) ** ||
 * # **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Economic and technical sustainability ** || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Market analysis studies || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Adequacy of market demand for the final product ||  ||   ||   ||
 * ^  || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Financing || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Adequacy of financial resources to rollout all activities associated with the full cycle of the best bet. ||   ||   ||   ||
 * ^  || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Cost-benefit analysis || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Extent to which total benefits accruing from the best bet outweigh total associated costs (resource, regulatory, social welfare, transactional and indirect costs). ||   ||   ||   ||
 * # **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Gender and social equity ** || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Equity || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Impact of the innovation on relationships between men and women, especially on control of and access to resources of vulnerable groups ||  ||   ||   ||
 * ^  || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Labor demand || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Impacts on labor demand for various sections of the target community ||   ||   ||   ||
 * ^  || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Human safety and health || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Nature of adverse effects on quality of life of target populations. ||   ||   ||   ||
 * # **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Environmental sustainability ** || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Soil, Land and Water || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Effect on soil quality, impact on land degradation and on water quality and availability ||  ||   ||   ||
 * ^  || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Atmosphere || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Impact on air quality and association with greenhouse gas emissions levels. ||   ||   ||   ||
 * ^  || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Biodiversity || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Impacts on ecosystem, species and genetic diversity Status ||   ||   ||   ||
 * # **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Social sustainability ** || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Maintenance and creation of employment and its effects of quality of life || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Its impact on the evolution of people employed in agriculture (male and female); proportions of potential beneficiaries; subjective dimension of quality of life related to the introduction of the innovation ||  ||   ||   ||
 * || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Governance and public life || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Impact on community participation in civil society organizations ||  ||   ||   ||
 * || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Social capital || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Changes in trust in members of the community, changes in the level of connectedness to other in the community ||  ||   ||   ||
 * # **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Political acceptability ** || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Political support || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Extent of acceptance and support by local/national leaders ||  ||   ||   ||
 * # **<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Contribution to IDOs **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">( **//<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">to be assessed by the MEL team //**<span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">) ** || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">Contribution to program IDOs || <span style="font-family: 'Garamond','serif';">How significant is the BB towards achieving program IDOs ||  ||   ||   ||

<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">[1] <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">United Nations Development Programme, 2012. International guidebook of environmental finance tools: A sectoral approach. Environment and Energy. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">[] <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">[2] <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">Zhen, L. 2003. Operational indicators for measuring agricultural sustainability in developing countries, //Environmental Management//, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 34–46. [] <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">[3] <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 12px;">Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, n.d. Gender checklist, [] <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 12px;">[4] <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 12px;">Food and Agriculture Organization, 2013. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA) guidelines, version 3.0, [] <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 12px;">[5] <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 12px;">Zhen, L. 2003. Operational indicators for measuring agricultural sustainability in developing countries, //Environmental Management//, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 34–46. [] <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 12px;">[6] <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 12px;">United Nations Development Programme, 2012. International guidebook of environmental finance tools: A sectoral approach. Environment and Energy. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 12px;">[]