SPAC3+Update

The, and this elicited a in March 2014. This page represents an update on that report in preparation for the 4th SPAC meeting in September 2014. A Word Version of this can be found. ** Management response to the SPAC Meeting 3 Report ** ** December 8-12, Morogoro, Tanzania **


 * ** Numbered elements of Management Response ** ||  ** Elements of response **  || ** Actions proposed - March ** ||  ** Update on Actions - August **  ||
 * 4. The SPAC has evolved over the past three meetings. New members have continued to be added into the Committee as others have departed. To the credit of the management team, the new members have been well oriented and the existing members have also appreciated the updated TOR and other information. Despite having the dual roles of both an advisory group and a governance responsibility, the SPAC continues to evolve and contribute. SPAC members now feel confident that they understand their roles and responsibilities and can contribute in an effective manner. || Agreed. The CRP governance review may add new perspectives for us to consider as part of the dialogue between ILRI, the CRP management and SPAC. || Continue to monitor our common understanding of SPAC’s role as a business meeting agenda item. || SPAC 4 agenda includes a review of SPAC ToR as part of the consortium board’s response to the CRP Governance and Management Review ||
 * 5. Several items provided in SPAC’s previous feedback were not addressed in the management response. Many of these were clarified in the meetings in Tanzania. However, since the report and logframe documents are public and may be shared in communications with partners, some additional clarity in phrasing and presentation of concepts should be considered. Some comments and questions from earlier SPAC feedback are included below.

The remaining issues and comments from the report and logframe are included in the annex to this SPAC Meeting 3 report. || Agreed. Identifying gaps in the response is much appreciated. || Review specific items that were not addressed to identify: (a) lessons for ensuring more complete responses in the future, and (b) revisions needed in the existing documentation. || SPAC2 comments on the log frame themes were reviewed and fed into the 2015-2016 planning process. As SPAC will have noted in the Extension proposal for 2015-2016, the program is being restructured from 6 Themes to 5 Flagship Projects. The research agenda is maintained, but with the work under the Value Chain Development, Targeting and Gender & Learning Themes now re-organized into a cross-cutting Systems Analysis Flagship and a delivery Value Chain Transformation & Scaling Flagship. Strategy & Implementation Plans for the flagships have been prepared or are under preparation, taking into account the comments made by SPAC on the current log frame. Most other issues were raised in the SPAC3 report and are addressed in this document. || There was mention of collaboration with faculty at the University College Dublin on diagnostic development, but it is not clear exactly what role they will have. || This is accurate, except for how the initial disease priorities were identified, which was not based on the initial participatory assessments but rather on the fact that they were pre-existing ILRI priorities. The rationale for the initial emphasis on ECF and CBPP was perhaps not sufficiently explained. ECF and CBPP have long been priorities under ILRI’s animal health agenda, reflecting regional priorities and available information, the relevance of which had been periodically reconfirmed over the years. The CRP has taken these historic priorities as the starting point to be rigorously challenged and validated now through the in-depth assessments. This approach is also consistent with the principle that the CRPs were intended to re-orient the existing CGIAR research agenda and momentum, rather than stopping ongoing research and starting from scratch. For now, we are therefore continuing the focus on the two diseases as major constraints warranting longer-term research, while we also now develop new capacity within the program to evaluate technologies and strategies for shorter-term uptake within a herd health framework. A similar approach is being applied in the other value chains. In sum, the selection of ECF and CBPP reflects more how CRP science is at this point feeding into the value chain agendas rather than vice-versa. Collaboration with UC Dublin is being explored given their strength in dairy herd health in grass-based systems and recognizing Irish funding is currently supporting our value chain work in Tanzania. We are also exploring collaboration with our targeted strategic global research partners, Wageningen UR and SLU (Sweden), given their strengths in this area, as well as other potential partners, but have not identified any concrete activities to date. || Report to SPAC in 2015/2016 how the animal health priorities and activities have evolved based on the outcome of the in-depth assessments. || No further update || We are proposing that these be reviewed at the SPAC5 meeting in December. || Yes, we are in agreement. Our objective in making these observations is to highlight that CGIAR is not making a judgement as to whether the value chain approach used in Tanzania is preferable to other possible value chain approaches – but that in CGIAR’s judgement, the Tanzanian approach is (1) a sensible one that follows good and effective principles in terms of achieving value chain objectives, and (2) that it provides an acceptable framework for the consortium’s scientific research. It also will provide a practical example as the consortium builds a base of knowledge of various value-chain based approaches. CRP Management: It appears we are well aligned. || The different experiences for the technology Themes versus the social science Themes is perhaps to be expected: the technology Themes are more focused at a global level and are building on their earlier research and partnerships, whereas the social science Themes tend to rely more on partnerships in the value chains, which is new territory in many cases. || Include partnership strategy development in Theme implementation plans developed this year. Maintain a review of existing partnerships and new partnership opportunities as a standing item on the PPMC agenda. || Explicit partnership review and expansion action has been included in the 2014 POWBs for Genetics, Feeds and Forages, SASI and Value Chain Transformation. There is a specific section in the Flagship and value chain Strategy & Implementation Plans describing the partnership strategy.Partnership development, both strategic and tactical, will continue to be review as a standing agenda at the PPMC || The first challenge, though, is improving our own planning process and internal communication to facilitate better integration of the activities at both value chain and program level. || Consider preparing additional training materials that highlight the importance of the multidisciplinary approach, for both internal and external audiences. Give attention to planning and organizational mechanisms that could enhance integration of activities. || The central role of multidisciplinarity in the prorgam’s approach has been a key message repeated at all planning meetings this year, but not action has been taken yet to develop training materials to support this. A consultancy to support multidisciplinary team work is under consideration. Organizationally, planning processes for the extension phase of the CRP have focused on building stronger integration between flagships. Additional funding from the exceptional W1/2 increase this year has allocated $38,000 to each value chain to strengthen the links between the discovery/cross-cutting/technology flagships and the value chain work on the delivery side. || Target having all materials posted on the program wiki 2 weeks before the meeting. || Materials on Wiki and shared 3 weeks before SPAC4 Most materials cited in the director’s report have been shared on an ongoing basis by email through the 8 month period since SPAC3. || Monitoring some specific activities could be useful. This can be reflected in the CRP’s commitment to report back on issues raised by SPAC – and some of this reporting back or updating is evident in some of our proposed actions. We would also encourage SPAC to identify specific activities it would consider useful to monitor on an ongoing basis and we can negotiate what is reasonable in terms of supplemental reporting to address these. || Clearly identify reporting back/updating assignments as part of the management response. || SPAC4 is being organized to allow a review of the Strategy & Implementation Plans across all Flagship Projects, and there has been communication with the SPAC chair regarding the necessary information. || CRP management reports back to SPAC at next meeting on the actions being taken to develop the policy research and engagement agenda. || A modelling workshop was organized by the Value Chain Development Theme, which identified methods and lead researchers to initiate policy analysis research for the value chains (workshop report available on the L&F wiki). Policy work in Tanzania is on-going with Sokoine University. || There is certainly a budget constraint issue. The program was likely overambitious, significantly underestimating the resources required to implement a true ‘whole value chain’ approach. The original budget envelope for each value chain effort was estimated at roughly $2m for the 3-year life of the first phase of the CRP. The thinking was that the first 3 years would involve building up capacity and momentum to be able to attract the additional funding needed. However, the program was not able to mobilize the all of the bilateral funding needed to fully fund even the planned envelope, and so has worked under a 1/3 shortfall in overall funding, further constraining investment in the value chain efforts. The areas cited – gender, capacity development and certain value chains (though not Tanzania) – have relied initially on their allocation of limited ‘core’ CRP funding to staff up, and have not been successful yet in mobilizing bilateral funding, leaving little to fund research activities. That allocation of CRP funding maintains the balance between technical and social science research as approved in the CRP proposal (roughly 20% to overheads and management, 45% to technology generation, and 35% to social sciences). That balance will need to re-visited going forward as we evaluate its appropriateness and the returns generated from investment in the different areas. It is also important to note that we do not seek to implement last mile activities, but that without a minimal level of engagement with the appropriate boundary partners in these areas, we are unlikely to see a shift towards development outcomes. This rather long analysis should help to confirm whether we have understood the points raised by SPAC. From this understanding, we therefore agree with SPAC’s suggestion, which gives additional urgency to developing strategy and implementation plans for each group to clarify their focus. We are currently exploring reorganizing the value chain efforts so that the AR4D integration of the Themes in the value chain is better recognized as specific component of the program. As a point of clarification, does the reference to the ‘consortium’s engagement’ in your note refer to the CG Consortium or the consortium of partners working within the Livestock & Fish CRP? We assumed the latter. || The strategy and implementation plans being developed by each Theme in 2014 to respond explicitly to this issue. CRP management reports back to SPAC at next meeting on the actions being taken to reorganize the Theme versus value chain work. || The Flagship SIPs being developed will respond explicitly to this issue. Themes have been redefined into flagships and the theory of change for the program has been structured around these. The value chain transformation and scaling flagship has been designed to enable the engagement of other flagships at the value chain. Value chain SIPs will define their work within this flagship to define the scope and focus of cross cutting themes in each chain. || Mainstreaming multidisciplinarity in the CRP’s value chain approach as an objective to be addressed in the Theme strategy and implementation plans. The capacity development group to prepare a proposal for how to promote mainstreaming multidisciplinarity within the teams. We would like to continue engaging with SPAC on this issue and get specific advice on how we might resolve this tension || The new structure of Flagships was meant in part to address better integration of the social sciences, and to encourage better integration in the value chain teams. The SIPs should reflect this. We will continue to monitor this issue. || Included here is the report to the BoT || We were also conscious of keeping the reading material limited to a reasonable amount of ‘must read’ synthesis in brief format, with additional ‘can read if interested’ supporting material. We will take this lesson on board, and will be getting more experience on this over the course of the external reviews planned in 2014. The synthesis material provided for the Morogoro meeting totaled 29 pages; we would appreciate SPAC guidance on the appropriate volume to target in the future. We do not agree with necessarily providing a list of detailed issues for SPAC to focus on as this risks limiting the scope of SPAC’s review and becoming a ‘tick the box’ exercise. We feel that the higher-level questions proposed to SPAC for the Morogoro meeting were at an appropriate level given SPAC’s responsibility, advisory capacity and the quality of the membership. The questions were intended to keep SPAC’s level of analysis at a fairly high strategic level that keeps the overall CRP context in sight, and that allows sufficient latitude for SPAC to apply its expertise, experience and different disciplinary perspectives to refine and break down the higher-level questions as needed. || Agree with SPAC Chair well before each meeting the types of background materials to be prepared || Reports are available with guidance on the Wiki || Share with SPAC an example of the Value Chain Partner Landscaping as they become available. || The SIPs under preparation include a section on partnerships.
 * 8. Animal Health**:** On the basis of an initial participatory approach animal health appeared to be of minor importance in the Tanzanian DVC. Later visits with farmers together with diagnostic screening, have been employed and two diseases were selected as most important for value chain development, especially if the number of genetically improved animals increases. These diseases are ECF and CBPP. Although there appeared to be few reported overt clinical issues, subclinical effects on present dairy production are not clear. A second stage inventory study is being done to assess the prevalence of a number of diseases.
 * 12. Capacity development: The work has just been started and was generated from a CGIAR-wide umbrella approach. It is not clear how broadly the capacity building should be considered and how it will be implemented. It is now in the stage that goals for the strategy need to be set, and key organizations and key innovation leaders need to be identified under these goals. || Agreed || Strategy – both general and Tanzania-specific – to be developed during first half of 2014. || Strategic Roadmap for Livestock and Fish Capacity Development, both generically and for Tanzania developed and under review. ||
 * 13. M&E& Learning: We were told this will be up and running in January 2014. SPAC considers this to be a must. || Overall M&E framework guidelines are still being developed at the CGIAR Consortium level, so we expect our CRP MEL framework to continue evolving. It is an initial provisional framework specific to Tanzania that is being finalized in January 2014, to meet the needs of the Irish funded project there. || Update brief to be prepared and circulated before next SPAC meeting. || The following documents have been prepared for review
 * MEL Framework
 * Indicator Manual
 * Best Bet Selection Criteria
 * Best Bet Selection Protocol
 * Evaluation and IA Schedule
 * ü // Feeding the right science into the value chain activities? // ||  ||   ||   ||
 * 17. Animal Health**:** The theme is well equipped for development of vaccines and diagnostics. Herd health is a new approach which needs to be developed and has been discussed at previous SPAC meetings but yet to be implemented. Action should be taken soon. || Agreed. || Maintain the development of the capacity for implementing a herd health approach as an agenda item for updating SPAC. || Herd health interventions have been specifically incorporated as a principal product of animal health research in the extension phase of the CRP. A senior epidemiologist is being recruited to lead this agenda and is likely to be on board at ILRI in January 2015. More information is provided in the Animal Health Strategy & Implementation Plan. ||
 * 18. Genetics**:** There is a need to find business models that can deliver proper genetics (e.g. an improved but robust crossbred for dry regions). Challenges are the multiplication of best breeds/genotypes and to combine breeding interventions with health and feed interventions to avoid poor outcomes. This is not a trivial exercise and requires considerably focused efforts. || Agreed. || The Theme strategy will be developed further during 2014 to articulate how the CRP will address these challenges. || POWB 2014 Genetics milestone 2.1.1.2.4. defines the development of partnership and business models for sustainable genetic improvement programs for 2 sheep and goat breeds in Ethiopia and dual purpose dairy beef cattle in Tanzania. The extension proposal additionally indicates “delivery and use systems” as a genetics research cluster. More information is provided in the Animal Genetics Strategy & Implementation Plan. ||
 * 20. Feeds**:** It appears that farmer groups and other actors are forming to try to tackle the issues of feed storage and management, especially in the dry season. Additional science inputs including appropriate species of plants should be considered. || Agreed. In addition, we have identified finding the most appropriate preservation techniques in the context of labour, transport and storage costs and livestock productivity as researchable issues. || Identify how new forage options will be identified and evaluated as part of the MilkIT project action plan. || Improved forage species have been selected to target agro-ecological conditions and production system. Demonstration plots have been planted as well as individual farmer plots. Farmers who are organized in Innovation Platforms have been trained on forage planting, management and utilization, including hay and silage making as preservation techniques. Uptake by farmers is being monitored. ||
 * 21. Value Chain: The knowledge/science for developing the Tanzania dairy value chain appears to be largely drawn from the EADD hub model experiences in Kenya and Uganda. Hubs will be implemented and studied in cases with different markets and they will include traders, veterinary services, small chilling units and farmers in the studies. This seems appropriate. SPAC understands, however, this approach is not a CGIAR consortium approach, but one in which the consortium has decided to partner. Thus, the approach does not necessarily reflect the consortium’s own research or its own considered best practices with respect to (a) value chain development or (b) an optimum framework for researching and mainstreaming good science. || This point merits more discussion to make sure we have a common understanding of the issues raised. If we understand it correctly, then it would be helpful to highlight that, as you note, the CGIAR consortium doesn’t promote any single value chain development or agricultural research-for- development approach or best practices as such, but does encourage research that generates evidence about the best options for each. Little of CGIAR research is done in isolation – nearly all of its research is done in partnership, both with advanced research institutes and local national research actors. In the case of value chain development and AR4D approaches, there is necessarily a heavy emphasis on collaboration with development actors to embed our research or research outputs into their development activities – which is coming out strongly when applying the Theory of Change/impact pathway framework in each value chain context. It would be helpful if you could clarify whether this addresses what you had in mind. || Seek clarification. || SPAC Response:
 * ü // Applying an appropriate partnership approach? // ||  ||   ||   ||
 * 23. The mix of scientific and business partnerships seems to be the result of two processes: using existing research partners and using those partners in the field that are available. While this makes sense at some level it does not address the issue of whether there are better partners to be found. The SPAC was not clear if this had been fully considered. Theme leaders of Animal Health, Genetics and Feeds expressed no imminent need for finding new partners and reviewing their present partnerships. The Gender, Capacity Development and Value Chain leaders, with fewer long-standing partners, are establishing / or expressing their willingness to / establish new partnerships. || Agreed. We have adopted a distinction between strategic partners who we work closely with on a joint agenda, versus collaborators who we have a lower volume or quality of interaction with (and there are other categories, including political partners). There is a functional dimension, too: high-end research, development, delivery, influencing, etc. To date, we have focused our partnership search on either a few strategic international partners whose research agenda matches well the broad range of the L&F productivity agenda, or on the range of local partners available within a given value chain. We are also scanning the horizon for other types of strategic partners, e.g. private sector. Each value chain team has been asked to do a partner landscaping study to inventory the relevant actors and then do an assessment of their capacity and incentives for contributing to the value chain R&D agenda. In addition to this systematic review, the individual research teams continue to scan for opportunistic collaboration to work with new partners when possible. The individual Themes have not been asked to do similar reviews from their perspectives, but this should be part of the effort this year to flesh out the Theme strategies and implementation plans.
 * 25. Animal Health: There are the usual scientific partners for research. The ILRI team believes there is no need for other partners, although these will probably be necessary for vaccine and herd health delivery. || Partially agreed. On the research side, we have generally been working with many of the relevant partners, with individual new partners being added as project opportunities allow. For diagnostic assays, we shall need to rely on private sector manufacturers and national laboratories. On the R&D and development side, we will need to identify partners for veterinary service and vaccine delivery, including a likely central role played by GALVmed in this area. || Give attention to partnership strategy for veterinary service/herd health delivery in Theme implementation plan being prepared in 2014. || More information being provided in the partnership section of the Animal Health Strategy & Implementation Plan ||
 * 26. Genetics: Genetics have well established partnerships (a.o. with TALIRI and EADD/ABS) and they are not actively searching for new ones in the value chain in Tanzania. This may be a limitation as other University partnerships could bring new ideas to the table || The pool of relevant partners is considered quite small in Tanzania and the existing ones represent the key players in the public (TALIRI), academic (Sokoine AU) and private (ABS) sectors. The upcoming 2nd phase of the Dairy Genetics for East Africa project brings additional partnership with the Univ of New England (Australia), and we will be exploring leveraging collaboration with UCDublin, Teagasc, SLU Sweden and Wageningen. The point is well taken: we will continue to scan for what additional collaboration could be brought to bear. || Give attention to partnership strategy in Theme implementation plan being prepared in 2014. || More information being provided in the partnership section of the Animal Genetics Strategy & Implementation Plan ||
 * 27. Gender: Sokoine University is a partner and they looking for additional partners that could include USAID, CARE and local NGOs. || Agreed. We have an ongoing collaborative project with CARE and some local NGOs on goats that we will be able to build from. || Give attention to partnership strategy in Theme implementation plan being prepared in 2014. || More information being provided in the partnership section of the Systems Analysis Strategy & Implementation Plan ||
 * 28. Feeds: New partnerships could be considered which might lead to new feed innovations. Additional participatory testing seems appropriate. || Agreed. We are currently accelerating implementation of the MilkIT project in Tanzania which is expected to generate lessons regarding both testing of feed and forage options and partnerships, and create a stronger platform for identifying and engaging with other potential partners. Also the design and creation of small-scale business around feed value chains is expected to result in new partnership arrangements. || Give attention to partnership strategy in Theme implementation plan being prepared in 2014, taking into considerations lessons learned during the final phase of the MilkIT project. || More information being provided in the partnership section of the Feed & Forages Strategy & Implementation Plan (SIP). ||
 * 29. Value Chain:As already discussed, partnerships appear to be opportunistic, based on available initiatives and funding. This is appropriate for value chain-based implementation, as long as these partners have been examined and are considered to have the qualities required by the consortium for proper science and effective mainstreaming. || Agreed. We are assessing these partners as part of the partner landscaping, so will be documenting this process. || Complete partner landscaping. || Partnership landscaping is being undertaken in all value chains, and key elements are described in the Value Chain Transformation & Scaling SIP. ||
 * 30. Conclusions: It is important to reiterate that the research into feeds, genetics, animal health, and social issues will make the objectives and the goals of the program heavily multidisciplinary, thus requiring a multidisciplinary approach. This will require, from all participants, including partners, more integrated thinking and less compartmentalized research and application of research results. These are considered to be absolute requirements for the successful achievement of the objectives in the value chain approach in general, and in this Dairy value chain in particular || Mostly agreed. It may not be that all participants and partners must embrace a multidisciplinary approach, but rather that the core CRP team and a small set of key partners understand the integrated nature of this value chain-based AR4D approach and are able to harness the interests and capacities of other actors to play their part. It is important to assess the roles of the different players and their appropriate degree of involvement and understanding of the approach.
 * 31. Information and data need to be provided to the SPAC in a more timely manner to effectively meet the mandate of the SPAC. In addition, during the SPAC visit it appeared that baseline data and information on the Tanzania value chain were available. It would have been very useful to provide such information to the SPAC. Moreover, neither the Tanzania value chain staff nor Theme Leaders seemed to have the outcomes of Tanzania baseline studies readily available to share with SPAC. || Agreed. In a number of cases, the analysis of the baseline data was not sufficiently complete to be able to share yet, but we should have prepared an inventory of what was available and summaries of preliminary results, and had these on hand for SPAC to consult as needed. We were also conscious of keeping the reading material limited to a reasonable amount of synthesis in brief format. We will take this lesson on board, and will be getting more experience on this over the course of the external reviews planned in 2014. || Prepare relevant materials more comprehensively for SPAC areas of focus in future meetings.
 * 32. While this meeting was to focus on the Tanzania Dairy VC it is unclear if SPAC is expected to in addition provide an assessment and/or evaluation of the activities of the overall Livestock and Fish CRP at each meeting. The SPAC thinks it would be useful to be able to follow the progress of various activities under the L&F CRP in an ongoing manner. If so, the appropriate arrangements for future SPAC meetings should include the necessary information and communication to be provided by ILRI to the SPAC. || We would support the idea that while SPAC focuses on a specific set of issues for each meeting or evaluation, it continuously translates the insights gained from the more narrow analysis back into the context of the overall program, and so considers its remit to evaluate and advise the overall program on an ongoing basis.
 * 33. One of the final long-term objectives of the new CGIAR research approach, including the L&F CRP, is to improve local food security, including more food supply by poor for the poor. Addressing many critical issues such as land ownership, water availability, sanitation, etc., over the coming years and during project implementation will be paramount for achieving these goals. This requires correct, effective and efficient partnerships that could influence national governance processes. Under the L&F Tanzania Dairy VC project, this requirement should be carefully examined so that lessons learned can be transferred to other value chains and research efforts. || Agreed. This should have been evident in our investment in facilitating the establishment and development of the Dairy Development Forum, which we see as a critical mechanism for influencing consensus among stakeholders for appropriate policies. It may not have been clear, though, that we are also developing capacity to support dairy policy analysis with Sokoine UA as an approach for generating policy relevant evidence to inform policy processes. We are therefore making some headway in Tanzania (though you didn’t have a chance to meet the scientists involved). Although envisaged in the CRP proposal, the program has yet, however, to establish internal capacity for leading policy analysis and engagement across the CRP value chains, and this is on record as a priority when additional resources are mobilized. || PPMC to review strategy for supporting CRP-level policy analysis and engagement agenda.
 * 34. There appears to be tension between the possible objectives of the gender, capacity development and value chain themes and the resources available. These three themes appeared to repeatedly express their objectives in terms that suggest direct CRP implementing action by the 4 consortium partners throughout the entire value chain, and even beyond the value chains with overarching policy and other institutions. The SPAC is concerned that this may be a “slippery slope”, meaning that CRP3.7 may seek to intervene far more broadly than resources and scientific priorities would justify. The SPAC suggests that the scope of the mandate for these three themes be further considered, focused and defined. It is possible, at the other end of the continuum for example, to either define specific topics of thematic interest, or to emphasize topics that are strongly connected with the animal health, genetics and feed themes. The scope of the consortium’s engagement with gender, capacity development and value chain **science** needs to become clearer. || This is a valuable insight, and it would be useful to ‘unpack’ it a bit as there seem to be different dimensions to the tension and reflecting various factors:
 * o As noted, there may also be a ‘scope of work’ dimension. Our approach has been to respect the value chain framework presented in the original CRP proposal and so recognize that ideally we would be addressing the full range of the value chain, from input services to farm to consumer, and the full range of disciplinary perspectives from the technical to the social sciences and policy. However, we have not yet achieved a common understanding within the program on the degree to which the CGIAR researchers are responsible for addressing all of the potential entry points (the ‘CGIAR does it all itself’ model) versus (1) being both strategic and practical in focusing the bulk of our effort on a few selected high priority entry points, while at the same time (2) being strategic in mobilizing and enabling the appropriate partners as part of our effort on the entry points we have identified, but also to address other entry points where we have less comparative advantage (e.g. stimulating value-added business services in processing). Collaboration with other CRPs may offer some opportunities to address such gaps.
 * o There may also be an additional timing dimension. The initial phase of assessment is still on-going. In this phase, the intention is to step back and look at the whole value chain to assess constraints and identify priority entry points, giving the impression that the program’s ambitions are equally broad and comprehensive. During the next phase beginning now, the shift to focusing on the priority entry points and best-bets confirmed by the evidence generated during the initial assessment should change that impression. Identifying priority entry points will also provide the basis for better linking the social sciences with the technical themes around the best-bet interventions being tested.
 * 35. Perhaps connected to the previous observation, there appears to be a tension between the hard sciences and social sciences in the program and the SPAC wonders if this is healthy?As an example, the intended work and interventions of the (social science) themes Gender, Capacity development and value chains should take due consideration of the research and interventions planned under the three (hard science) themes Animal Health, Genetics, and Feeds or inform these themes about relevant research and development options. The current process shows insufficient interaction. || Agreed. Establishing better integration between the hard and soft sciences was exactly one of the objectives of the CRP’s A4RD approach and focus in selected value chains. Although there are many good examples of past and on-going multidisciplinary research across the four partner CGIAR centers, the vision is to have more active and systematic integration in constraint analysis (defining demand: defining the research priorities) and evaluation of potential solutions (assessing supply: technology evaluation) in the value chains. It has been becoming evident that this represents a change in the way we do business, which may be reflected in the tension noted by the SPAC. Again, there are likely different dimensions to consider:
 * As a fundamental change in the way we do business, it needs to be viewed as a change process and attention given specifically to facilitating it. Mainstreaming multidisciplinarity, like gender, could become an explicit operational objective.
 * It may also reflect that communication between the teams is still not being facilitated appropriately, as was raised at the ARPM last May. We will be experimenting with a new arrangement to give the value chain coordinators a stronger role to strengthen collaboration and improve communication.
 * As noted in the preceding point, identification of best bets to design and evaluate may be expected to encourage more multidisciplinary activities, so it may be partly situational (though recognizing the assessment phase was also intended to involve integrated assessment.)
 * It may also reflect tension about what people are accountable for: on the one hand, the program is encouraging researchers to evaluate their work in terms of how it contributes to the program objectives of increased productivity and transformed value chain (and which encourages more of a joined-up approach with other disciplines), whereas there is what is viewed as a competing expectation to focus on their science and publications (which can be seen to encourage insularity). This has long been an issue within the CGIAR. || PPMC to undertake analysis to identify key limitations and how they might be addressed. To report back to SPAC.
 * 36. On occasion receiving refined reports as they are presented to the Board and other parties would be helpful. This extends beyond the material currently provided for the SPAC meetings. || Agreed. We will ensure relevant internal institutional documents such as progress reports and evaluations are automatically shared with SPAC members. Otherwise, the email notices (Livestock-Fish News) circulated that highlight relevant research outputs seem to be working well for SPAC members. || CRP administrative assistant to monitor. || CRP management has shared a substantial amount of the reports referred to. These have been filed on the Wiki under supporting documents for the director’s report; Most of these documents have been shared with SPAC during the past 6 months
 * 37. While the briefing note on the Tanzanian Dairy VC included a great deal of information and excellent thinking, it was voluminous and was provided too late for the material to be properly assimilated by the SPAC members. It would be helpful in the future to provide, in a more timely manner, a more concise document, as well as to provide a list of issues for which particular SPAC focus is requested or suggested. || Partially agreed. We missed our targeted deadline to circulate the background briefs 2 weeks before the meeting. We will strive to meet the deadline in the future.
 * 39. With so many partnership needs and opportunities, SPAC is concerned that the consortium give appropriate consideration to ensuring that its strategic partnership choices continue to be wise, and that situational or opportunistic choices offer the CRP3.7 the needed mechanisms and alternatives to develop, implement and mainstream good science. In particular, we feel that there may be risk of partnering with specific value chain collaborators simply because they, or accompanying funding, are there. || Agreed. We very much share SPAC’s concern about these risks. The CRP management committee has a standing item on its agenda to discuss partnership strategy each time it meets, so the rationale for targeting certain partners as strategic for a relationship beyond specific time or funding-bound collaborative activities undergoes repeated, careful review. Within the value chains, each coordinator has been given the task to undertake a partnership landscaping to identify the universe of relevant actors and analyse their capacity and motivation to contribute to the CRP agenda. We anticipate using this together with explicit criteria to guide our selection and justification of targeting strategic partners versus other collaborators. The distinction we are making between ‘strategic partners’ versus collaborators – including those actors who we have clearly no choice but to collaborate with -- will be useful for understanding that they may need to be approached and managed in different ways. The intention is to have a living confidential internal document that documents this analysis, together with a public document based on a participatory stakeholder analysis of the relevant actors in our target sector. || As noted in the response to the SPAC review of the CRP logframe, we anticipate a specific section in each Theme strategy and implementation plan to be developed this year will present an explicit partnership strategy.

We propose that SPAC5 will be dedicated in part to reviewing the selection and management of partnerships across the management of the CRP || We have proposed and structured the meetings to date with these three primary functions in mind. It would be good to get SPAC’s perspective on these. We agree that April may be too soon, but do note that it might offer an excellent opportunity to meet the WorldFish management and the ILRI Board of Trustees. We have generally avoided going into mid-year (esp. July-August) since it tends to get complicated during vacation time. In the meantime, we suggest continuing to propose accordingly with an emphasis on familiarization with the research //in situ//. We would very much appreciate SPAC’s own proposals for timing and locations. || Develop a brief summarizing principles for the function and format of SPAC meetings to capture CRP, ILRI and SPAC perspectives and have more clarity. Follow up immediately to confirm dates and venue for the next meeting. || As anticipated, the role of SPAC is being modified to some degree in response the CRP governance review, so as part of the discussion with SPAC about their revised Terms of References, we propose also reviewing during SPAC4 the implications for SPAC meeting organization and timing, for which a brief is being circulated to SPAC. || At this point, SPAC is communicating these observations for management’s information. They do not require a response at this time. However, SPAC would appreciate that, at subsequent meetings, management provide SPAC with its developing perspective on these issues and report on actions taken to address them. || Request SPAC to monitor. || PPMC and SPAC are being asked to evaluate this issue when reviewing the Flagship project SIPs. || Vetting and reporting of methods and approaches applied is part of the paperwork and reporting required of scientists noted above. Evolving performance management systems within the Center research management and at the CRP level highlight various dimensions of scientific quality and communication, and require that evidence of outputs be identified and made accessible for review. This will be described in the M&E strategy document. || Ensure MEL strategy document addresses issues related to baseline data, scientific quality assurance and the role of publication in performance management at Center and CRP level. || The MEL strategy will address issues related to baseline data, scientific quality assurance, and the role of publication in performance management at Centre and CRP levels. || There was clearly a miscommunication regarding the review of the Logical Framework. The email of 2 October 2013 from the SPAC chair to the CRP management noted that: // We sent our earlier review in a bit of a rush to meet your deadline. We have continued to review the documents and believe this report better describes our concerns and issues. Please use it. // Based on these instructions, we made no further reference to the documents submitted by the SPAC chair on 11 September 2013, which include the points raised below. We make this point to assure the SPAC that we thought we were acting in good faith in focusing on the October 2nd document. We certainly appreciate these additional points and are happy to respond to them. || Clarification requested. ||  ||  In reality the targeting theme is working at two distinct geographic levels. At one end of the spectrum, it works to provide information about the larger context in which the value chains are operating. Here, we are working on projections of how dairy supply and demand is likely to change under a range of plausible futures, taking into account regional markets. This positions the value chain in a broader geographical, demographic, global context and increases understanding of its fit within broader trends such as economic competitiveness. We also work to deliver projections of program and value chain impact on livelihoods, nutritional status and the environment. More locally, we support the selection of research sites across different production systems and a commercialisation gradient. This allows for context-specific learning and guides later out-scaling. At both scales a variety of bio-physical and socio-economic factors (or filters) are taken into account. || The development of the Theme strategy and implementation plan to articulate these better. || This research agenda will now be embedded in the Systems Analysis Flagship, so these issues are being addressed in its Strategy & Implementation plan. || On the second point, we have not adopted a rigorous lexicon, but generally view production and marketing systems as the basis that value chains draw from and influence. || Consider how to articulate better when revising. || This will be better articulated in program revisions || The partner centers do not have much experience in research in the area of finance, so this initial description may admittedly be too cursory. This is clearly an area where we need to develop capacity or identify appropriate partners who can help us address. || Flag for consideration by the Tanzania team. || No further update ||
 * 40. Related to this, we are aware that funded initiatives, particularly under contract or grant formats, are pressured to achieve quick wins or results. Similar pressures may therefore be placed on the consortium. We are concerned that the “right science” may suffer if insufficient time is accorded. || Agreed. One of the objectives of the CGIAR reform has been to move away from its agenda being unstable and fractured by the whims of the funders, to one that stabilizes a core agenda with funding that better aligns specific donor-funded projects. This gives the CRPs some flexibility in funding the ‘gaps’ between specific donor-funded projects to maintain momentum for research collaborations on the agreed ‘right science’ (priorities), though it doesn’t eliminate the need for the collaborations to demonstrate the relevance and quality of their research and ability to continue attracting funding. This is certainly an issue we will need to monitor over time and should figure on the partnership side of the SPAC agenda. || As the specific Theme partnership strategies are developed in 2014, consider devoting all or part of a SPAC meeting to reviewing the selection and management of partnerships across the CRP. || This point relates to whether the bilaterally-funded projects aligned by the centres to the CRP contribute effectively to the CRP priority outputs and outcomes. We have been undertaking an exercise to map each project’s objectives and outputs to the CRP log frame; it is showing good alignment for the most part. ||
 * 41. What is the best use of time at the two SPAC meetings a year? Should the meetings be focused on specific value chains, or should they more generally consider the L&F CRP? We are not sure that we yet have the right balance in this respect. Also when is the best time for such meetings? April may be too soon for a next meeting. We might suggest a meeting nearer to the mid-year in a central location. || It might be useful to clarify and agree on the function of the meetings. From our perspective, these include:
 * ** Fact-finding and familiarization ** . We consider it critical that the committee does not limit itself to desk reviews of documentation about the CRP and discussions with CRP and ILRI management, but has the opportunity to see on-going activities, have access to relevant information (that might not be readily available off-site), and interact with the researchers and partners. This suggests that visiting research sites, focused either on the technology platforms or on the integration in the value chains, is a priority principle.
 * ** Interaction among SPAC members ** . Face-to-face meetings of the members permits joint analysis and the benefit of the various perspectives and expertise when drawing conclusions and making recommendations.
 * ** Interaction between SPAC, CRP management and ILRI management/Board of Trustees. ** Communication between these three is critical, and it has been especially important as SPAC has been getting established. Going forward, it will be important to organize periodic face-to-face meetings, but not necessarily for every SPAC meeting; virtual meetings should suffice for at least every other meeting, noting though that the current CRP governance review may lead to expectations around more structured interaction between SPAC and the ILRI Board of Trustees.
 * 42. While noted earlier, several areas are again highlighted --- the SPAC has noted a level of frustration or concern relative to: || Thank you for noting these concerns you heard expressed during your interactions with the program scientists. It will be important to get clarification from SPAC whether SPAC is communicating these concerns for information only and so do not require a response from CRP management, or as concerns evaluated and endorsed by SPAC that do require a response. || Clarification requested. || SPAC Responded: These are concerns that derived from various conversations and interactions during the visit. They are concerns to SPAC because, if they are not effectively addressed, there is risk that they will interfere with the consortium’s effective performance.
 * # 46. Lack of novel, new research coming forward. || This comment concerns us very much. It may reflect that there is a perception that the CRP research agenda has yet to be fully embraced and owned by the center research teams. As the result, researchers have tended to implement the CRP research as consultancy tasks rather than shaping it as their own core research agenda. Framing our research agenda within Flagship projects under the next CRP phase may help to address this by bringing out the innovation side of our research more clearly. SPAC’s role in evaluating the CRP science clearly should include monitoring this issue. || PPMC will continue to review this issue to identify what might explain it, and possible responses.
 * 48 The need for all members to review M&E&L when finalized. || Agreed. || Request SPAC review of MEL when ready. || SPAC will be asked to review framework in the December SPAC meeting ||
 * 49. We would like the opportunity in advance to suggest content for the next SPAC. This content should certainly include M&E review and Capacity Development Review, as well as the consortium’s mechanisms (and tools) for working with value chains. || We welcome SPAC’s proposals for the focus of their reviews; this aligns well with our expectation that review topics would be decided jointly. We will establish a list of candidate review subjects based on input from both SPAC and PPMC and agree on priorities. || PPMC to contribute their candidate areas for review to those proposed by SPAC, and the CRP director and SPAC chair to agree on proposal to PPMC and ILRI management (and Board of Trustees). || A proposed draft agenda for SPAC4 was prepared in collaboration between the SPAC chair and CRP L&F management. It was agreed to focus first on business matters followed by a review of science with a focus on genetics. MEL, partnerships and Capdev will form the heart of review in the December meeting. Candidate topics for future reviews will be suggested by PPMC. ||
 * 50. The SPAC has concerns about the scientific quality assurance in value chain work such as the Tanzania Dairy VC. There is mention of baseline data but it is not clear where such data are and how they are obtained. Results from focus group discussions, surveys and trials will be an important basis for interventions and prioritization, but there is no transparent reporting of methods and approaches used, or proper screening by the broader scientific community. The SPAC therefore strongly advises to put emphasis on publication of research under L&F in double refereed journals as a means of quality assurance. || The definition, role and sources of baseline data appropriate for the program are currently under discussion and will be articulated in the M&E strategy document to be shared with SPAC for review.
 * ** Annex: Outstanding issues from management response to SPAC2 report and SPAC review of program logframe ** ||  ||   ||   ||
 * 52. Several items provided in SPAC’s comments were not addressed in the management response to the SPAC2 report. Many of these were clarified in the meetings. Since these documents are public and may be shared in communications with partners some additional clarity in phrasing and presenting concepts should be considered. Some perspectives and questions are listed below from earlier remarks from the SPAC. || It would be good to get clarification whether SPAC felt that certain items in SPAC’s comments were not addressed in the management response to the SPAC2 report, or whether the responses were considered inadequate: no specific examples are provided. The SPAC2 management response followed the same structure as the SPAC2 report, so responses were provided to all of the items in the report.
 * Regarding the **Narrative Account of the Livestock and Fish Logical Framework**: ||  ||   ||   ||
 * ** 4. **** Theme 5 Targeting Sustainable Solutions ** ||  ||   ||   ||
 * # 58. We are confused about how the objectives and outputs of this theme are expressed. The introduction to the section essentially focuses on using household-level measures, although the measures for urban level food expenditure could actually cover a number of value-chain related productivity measures. But the outputs 5.1.1. seem to emphasize other (but not unrelated) measures. Perhaps what this really is saying is that a first “filter” for selection or targeting would be the household level measures, and the second set of filters would have to do with agro-climate, resource and market measures? || We agree that the narrative presented is somehow confusing and not very convincing. Giving details about potential poverty measures and not about other factors that are taken into account is misleading.
 * # 59. The underlying economics and profitability of various value chain opportunities are paramount to sustainability issues; but this is not specifically mentioned. The Background Brief does mention a proposed “//focus on value chain economics//”. Will this also include the profitability for various value chain actors, and of various proposed models? || We agree that there needs to be a strong element of economic and financial analysis integrated into this work. The higher level foresight-type of analysis, e.g. what pressures will affect the competitive advantage of smallholder dairy systems in Tanzania in the future, is also one of the specific objectives of the sectoral and policy analysis sub-component under the Value Chain Development Theme, so we wanted to avoid duplication and have given it less emphasis in the Targeting Theme. With respect to household and enterprise economics, we envisage characterization of production and marketing systems to take place under the Value Chain Development Theme, together with economic evaluation of best-bets in field trials, whereas the Targeting Theme would be more concerned with bio-economic simulation and scenario modelling. Improving the methods for value chain and enterprise economic analysis may be done in collaboration with the Policy, Institutions and Market (PIM) CRP led by IFPRI. || To address in the Theme strategy and implementation plan. || This research agenda will now be embedded in the Systems Analysis Flagship, so these issues are being addressed in its Strategy & Implementation plan . ||
 * ** 5. **** Theme 7: Management Support Services and Governance ** ||  ||   ||   ||
 * # 60. Output 7.1.4 “//The responsibility for assuring results in country value chains lies with country leadership//.” This reads as an imprecise and hence possibly contentious statement. By “leadership”, are we assuming political or governmental leadership, or are we suggesting leadership in a broader sense? What of business and investor-led approaches? What of stakeholder responsibility, within the hubs? The statement should be clear in being open to a variety of approaches. || This statement related only to the much more immediate and internal leadership within the program itself, i.e. the value chain coordinators and the lead scientists on the country teams. || Articulate better in program management strategy and implementation plan. || This research agenda is now embedded in the Value Chain Transformation & Scaling Flagship, so this issues are being addressed in its Strategy & Implementation plan. ||
 * # 61. Also, 7.1.4 could be read as a top-down approach to scaling up. Is that intended? || No. The emphasis is on the CRP as a catalyst for change, so how does the CRP mobilize the relevant stakeholders either as direct partners or aligned and working toward a common objective. In doing so, the CRP needs to be clear about and plan its strategy for stimulating change in helping to generate innovations and creating the conditions for scaling up. That strategy is certainly meant to be inclusive and participatory as a principle. || Articulate better in the Value Chain Development Theme strategy and implementation plan. || The intention is for inclusive and participatory scaling up. This research agenda is now embedded in the Value Chain Transformation & Scaling Flagship, so this issues are being addressed in its Strategy & Implementation plan ||
 * ** Results Strategy Framework ** ||  ||   ||   ||
 * # 62. “//Over a 10-year horizon, the program is committing to deliver impact to over 500,000 households in the target value chains.//” Are we just speaking here about the 9 selected value chains (the terminology used in many other places in the documents)? If we’re speaking more broadly, then the 500,000 households would seem to be an under-commitment. || The target of 500,000 households relates specifically to the 9 selected value chains. We are having to be careful about this commitment since we will be accountable for demonstrating how we plan to achieve this and monitoring the progress along the way. We are therefore concentrating our commitment in the 9 sites where we will have the most control over our agenda, most investment in partnerships, highest likelihood of success, and best chance of measuring impact. We certainly expect to generate additional impacts—including those created through collaboration and synergies with other CRPs—but cannot necessarily plan for and commit to ensuring they are realized. || Consider how to articulate better when revising. || Targets are currently set as a function of what will be achieved in the value chains only; there is some discussion of this in the response currently being prepared to the Consortium Office comments on the L&F Extension proposal for 2015-2016, so we suggest SPAC review that response when it is circulated. Developing a harmonized approach to estimating targets looks to be an important component of the upcoming preparation of the 2nd cycle CRP proposals. ||
 * # 63. Is there agreement on what is meant by “//large-scale development interventions//”? This question was also taken up on Day 1 of the SPAC meeting. || Yes, we have the example of the East Africa Dairy Development project. As noted further above, we have set this as a stylized ideal of what we are striving for – an integrated package of pro-poor transforming technologies and institutional strategies, fully aware that individual components may be taken up directly or through a range of channels that are more difficult to anticipate (e.g. private sector). || Consider how to articulate better when revising. || This will be better articulated in program revisions. ||
 * **//The Value Impact Pathway//** ||  ||   ||   ||
 * ü Re Figure 1: ||  ||   ||   ||
 * # 65. IDO/Impact Pathway 1: Perhaps include “affordability” and “access” as outcomes. || There has been a lot of discussion about this across the CRPs, including the degree to which these dimensions are independent; the latest version of the common IDO on supply is: //Food security - Increased and stable access to food commodities by rural and urban poor.// It is likely that we may adapt the wording of our IDO accordingly. || Consider how to articulate better when revising. || We will be seeking to align with the agreed wording of this as a common IDO across the CRPs. ||
 * # 66. Research outcomes: “//change in capacity in the value chains//” – what does “capacity” mean in this context? || Capacity in this context refers largely to the capacity of local R&D actors to continue supporting uptake and further adaptation of technologies and institutional innovations to upgrade the value chain. This might be expected to include //inter alia// researchers familiar with the needed analytical methods, NGOs equipped with intervention strategies and training modules, private sector with strategies for SME development, value chain actors able to adapt to changing circumstances such as demand for different products. || Consider how to articulate better when revising. || This will be better articulated in program revisions ||
 * ü Re Assumptions: ||  ||   ||   ||
 * # 68. “//Addressing the whole value chain...//” We certainly agree. But this perspective isn’t much referred to in the narrative. || Agreed. || Expand upon this when revising. || This will be better articulated in program revisions, and we may expect some input on this from the CCEE. ||
 * # 69. // “… innovations in the right value chains // …” What does “right” mean? || ‘Right’ is intended to convey the idea that we have done our targeting homework in evaluating whether the value chain: (1) has an appropriate natural comparative and competitive advantage going forward given our best foresight; (2) has appropriate pro-poor potential; and (3) has potential for scaling out significantly within the region. || Consider how to articulate better when revising. || This will be better articulated in program revisions, and is one of the evaluation questions being considered by the CCEE. ||
 * # 70. “//The poor will consume more ASF if availability, access and affordability of products improve from those systems//.” We suggest that this should also refer to quality of product and risks associated with the product. || Agreed. This should come out as well in the nutrition and health IDO. || To revise. ||  ||
 * # 71. The sale of hides and skins (H&S) hasn’t been discussed anywhere. In many countries, the value of H&S is diminished by poor husbandry, parasites, poor flaying, etc. Improved H&S would be an addition to household income. || Agreed. We have intentionally kept the primary focus on the food security benefits of livestock intensification, and so hides are treated as a secondary issue. It will certainly emerge since it is an integral part of several of the value chains. || Consider how to flag this when revising. || This will be considered in program revisions ||
 * ü Key Risks ||  ||   ||   ||
 * ü Table 1 ||  ||   ||   ||
 * # 74. #6 - //Policies (including investments) support the development of small-scale production and marketing systems, and seek to increase the participation of women within these value chains (SLO2)//. We suggest instead that the policies would seek to support the “//productivity and market linkage//”, rather than the (vaguer) “//development//”? Also, note that the way this is written equates “//production and marketing systems”// with //“value chains”//. Is that intended? || On the first point, we can see advantages and disadvantages of the suggested re-wording. The focus on ‘productivity and market linkage’ could lend it too much focus at the farm level rather than keeping the broader focus at the value chain level. But we certainly should consider sharpening the wording from ‘development’: perhaps to ‘intensification and professionalization’?
 * ** Target Value Chain Impact pathways and Theories of Change ** ||  ||   ||   ||
 * # 75. A niggling point from Para 2, page 8. We separate “farmers” and “private sector”. By “farmer”, are we referring to just small scale farmers? Are they not also “private sector” – earlier, we talk about pre-commercialization and commercialization. What about larger scale or commercial farmers? Are they private sector actors or farmers? And what do we mean by “private sector”? Do we mean “private business”? Investors? Entrepreneurs (the narrative used this term)? Are cooperatives or associations considered “private sector”? The terminology, if not defined already somewhere else, is vague and possibly stereotyping. || Agreed. Since there is no single agreed definition for these terms, they are used notionally. Perhaps a useful distinction is considering our target farmers and value chain actors as informal sector, versus considering large-scale farmers and private sector as formal sector. This would be consistent with our increasing reference to ‘professionalization’ and market linkages of our target clients within our value chains. The wide range of contexts we work in often makes agreeing blanket definitions a challenge. In the end, all are certainly ‘private sector’. || Consider defining our vocabulary up front in the strategy documents. || This will be better articulated in program revisions ||
 * # 76. Value Chain network maps. Do these include an understanding of where value is added in the value chain, would include service providers in the map, would provide insights into profitability and price incentives, and similar factors? Such elements would be crucial to identifying the “//changes that are needed to achieve the program vision//”. || For this initial exercise, the value chain network maps are intended to be descriptive with value addition identified only qualitatively. The more in-depth analysis of value addition is one of the objectives of the value chain assessment activity. || Consider how to articulate better when revising. || This will be better articulated in program revisions ||
 * **Tanzania Dairy value Chain Pathway** ||  ||   ||   ||
 * # 77. Farmers are linked to MFIs, SACCOs, and Banks through farmer groups. Seems reasonable. But are there other financing alternatives? Value chain financing, for example? || The ‘check-off’ arrangements involving traders, business development service providers and members of farmer groups being piloted in Tanzania may be seen as our experimentation with value chain financing at the local level. Based on this, linkages with larger financial institutions could be explored with the involvement of appropriate partners where improvement in the flows of funds to and among the various links within these nodes is required.
 * # 78. Facilitate the creation of village banks. The reason for this precise item is not obvious. Why this choice rather than other choices? || This is largely informed by the experience with the East Africa Dairy Development project, which encouraged banks to establish village offices linked to dairy producer groups. The ‘village banks’ may be seen as an example of strengthened financing arrangements as described above, and was meant to be illustrative rather than prescriptive. || Highlight better the illustrative nature of the interventions featuring in the impact pathway diagram when revising. || No further update ||
 * # 79. Understand the drivers of milk consumption in Tanzania and understand what constrains milk consumption. || Agreed: this is certainly our intention. || Revise in impact pathway diagram. || No further update ||

 S ee, for example, the study by Perry et al. (2002). Investing in Animal Health Research to Alleviate Poverty. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.