Report+and+Flip+Charts


 * Summary of Conversations held at the CRP Livestock and Fish ARPM**

**22nd and 23rd May 2013** **(Site Updated on 13 June 2013)** (Full Report in Word)
 * Stuart Worsley**

All the major players of the CRP Livestock and Fish participated in a round of conversations between May 20th and 22nd at the Annual Review and Planning Meeting (ARPM). Participants included theme teams, value chain teams, the management team, partners, participant centre teams, the PPMC and members of the SPAC.

The three days meetings reviewed work that had been done, focusing in what was important, and making recommendations regarding what should happen next. The process was highly participative and dynamic allowing for broad based input from all players. This report provides a synthesis of the findings of the meeting participants. Section 1 covers a summary of resonant findings from the event Section 2 details summaries from specific conversations, around the Critical Success Factors, around Big Ideas that the program leadership will table at the upcoming Montpelier meetings, and Value Chain targets for the coming 12 years. At the end of this are two further flipcharts that could not be placed within the CSF, Big Ideas or Value Chain conversations. Below each summary in section 2, a flip chart reference sheet identifies the source material for the narrative of each section. ** A. **** __ Section 1 __ ** Resonant themes and recommendations coming from all discussions:

1)We need to be principally demand driven. In choosing where to work and how to act, it is critical that we involve a wide range of actors. Our efforts must centre on issues defined by value chain system actors, and these must resonate strongly as being worthwhile agenda items by potential partners. 2)We need to be in partnership from the outset. “Going it alone” at the beginning is a recipe for remaining alone, and being ineffective and unattractive. With partners, we should together determine desired impact and outcomes. 3)Partnerships require commitment of time and resources, to align intentions, facilitate action, build capacity, and maintain trust. All parties should invest. 4)We need to use multidisciplinary approaches more effectively. By this, we mean that actors of widely disparate views, disciplines and knowledge, must be effectively enabled to work on the same system. Conversation and dialogic approaches are at the heart of achieving this. We need new skills to help us do this between partners and disciplines. 5)We need to work on our mindset and approach to other actors. We must be more humble, and learn from those that we don’t understand. 6)We need to be much clearer in our intentions and goal setting, and within this space, teams should be empowered to “get on with it”. This requires clear alignment, communication and space. Specifically value chain coordinators need empowerment to act. 7)How we do our work (the process) is as important as what we do. The more collaborative, participative and learning-oriented we are, the greater our chance of garnering interest, gathering support, influencing policy, and stimulating system wide and transformative action. 8)We should be operating on and through platforms and networks, to communicate and share evidence and information 9)A theory of change needs to be defined for each IDO, accompanied by objectives and measurable indicators. 10)We should capture evidence about what works (success) and what does not (failure), and of the performance of interventions.


 * B . **** __ Section 2 __ **

__The Process__

The meeting posed a number of questions, namely

- How can we ensure the right science addresses the right problems in our value chain systems? - How can we stimulate the right changes at scale? - How can we efficiently and effectively organize ourselves across disciplines and centres? - How can we learn and adapt? - What are the most important things we must do in the next 18 months?

The structure of the meeting covered these through three phases, namely

I. __ Conversations around the CRP Critical Success Factors __

Participants convened in self-formed groups to respond to the following questions
 * Critical Success Factor || Question 1 || Question 2 || Question 3 ||
 * ** A. ** ** Addressing the right issue ** || What makes an issue the right issue? || Should the science drive development or should development drive the science? || When the value chain issue is not scientific, how should we respond? ||
 * ** B. ** ** Building effective delivery teams ** || How do you assure team performance across organizations? || What inspires shared vision? How can you assure this at all levels? || What mindset do we need to have, and how can we develop this? ||
 * ** C. ** ** Promoting ‘animal source foods’ and CRP program concepts ** || How can we assure buy-in by all program stakeholders with different agendas and different approaches? || What must we do to counter arguments that livestock and fish are bad for the environment and for development? || How do we know when we are successfully influencing change? ||
 * ** D. ** ** Build Partnerships ** || What kind of partners should we have to achieve impact at scale? || How can we encourage development organizations to invite us to be part of their initiatives? || How can we develop (change) capacity in our value chains? ||
 * ** E. ** ** Governance and Leadership ** || Who is responsible managing-for-results in value chains? What do they need to do this? || What is the right balance between driving forward the agenda, and flowing with emerging evidence? || What is the biggest problem you face and how should this be fixed? ||

II. __ Big Ideas; Conversations to frame Big Ideas for the next round of the CRP Livestock and Fish to be proposed at the coming Montpelier Meeting __

Two rounds of conversations juxtaposed the three production science themes with the applied science themes, and vice versa the three applied science themes with the production science themes. In each round, the leading conversation (represented by the rows in the tables below) framed a response to the question

“What big ideas do you have that will have relevance in value chains, and that can exploit these for short, medium and long term results for “more meat, milk and fish, by and for the poor?”

These discussions were contributed to by the columned themes. This resulted in 6 Big Idea conversations.

Round 1:
 * **Genetics** || **Targeting**  ||  **Gender and Impact**  ||  **Value Chain Development**  ||
 * **Health** ||^  ||^   ||^   ||
 * **Feed** ||^  ||^   ||^   ||

Round 2:
 * **Targeting** || **Genetics**  ||  **Health**  ||  **Feed**  ||
 * **Gender and Impact** ||^  ||^   ||^   ||
 * **Value Chain Development** ||^  ||^   ||^   ||

III. Value Chain Intentions and Planning

Each Value Chain group worked together to respond to the question “What are your intentions for each IDO and at what scale over a 10 year time horizon?”

The minutes of these conversations are recorded below:

__The Record of Conversations__


 * I. **** A Summary of Critical Success Factor Conversations **


 * CSF 1)****Addressing the right issue**

A1. __ What makes an issue the right issue __ ?

**Discussion**: Being right is a vague term. We need to define criteria to determine the importance of issues and rank them. “Right” issues are those with critical attributes such as having potential for IDO defined impact through sustainable intervention. The process of defining importance of different issues is critical, and there will be inevitable trade-off between criteria. However, important issues are those that have effect (and potential) at scale, both horizontally and vertically. There are some issues that are outside of our scope to deal with directly. In selecting these, we must be clear about the nature of our target groups. The poor are just one part of the overall value chains we seek to address.


 * Recommendations and Action**:

A. Define criteria for determining critical issues. These should include -The potential for funding -Relevance to IDOs, and potential for impact -Likelihood of and potential for social, economic and environmental sustainability -The amount of valid evidence to support their inclusion -The extent to which value chain system actors have participated in defining issues -The extent to which interventions can be cost-effectively applied, and are in line with core programming principles -The extent to which issues attract critical partners -The extent to which issues come out of value-chain analysis

B. Form Partnerships around key issues. Here we must -Reach a shared vision -Build capacity to understand the issues -Build multidisciplinary teams -Involve other actors to address issues beyond our scope. (Lobbying might be part of this) -Understand respective comparative advantages -Be pragmatic about what we choose to work on -Define program goals within a set of core program principles -Build mechanisms for continual learning -Assure robust monitoring and evaluation

Reference to Flipcharts:

A2. __ Should the science drive development or should development drive the science __ ? **Discussion**: This topic is about the identification of problems, and the tools and approaches we might use to address these within different contexts. Our development processes must be result-oriented. Science and development drivers must both be recognised and this is best achieved through dialogue. There are lessons for development processes in science successes and failures. Science should not be allowed to fade into the background simply because it does not offer quick wins and short term gains. Rather, science processes need to be validated against long-term goals. Specifically, science should influence policy, which in turn should support science. -Establish robust 2-way communication channels between science and development arenas, including mechanisms for feedback on development -Place science //in// development and //for// development -Assess gains and results from action in the short, medium and long term -Establish clear ways and means of interaction with development partners -Make our science demand driven that can be used for development processes
 * Recommendations and Action**:

Reference to Flipcharts:

A3. __ When the value chain issue is not scientific, how should we respond? __ **Discussion**: We do not understand what is meant by the term non-scientific! Are there value chain issues that are not scientific? What are they? Development questions may not be scientific, and may include infrastructure development, policy issues, equity, value-for-money, gender issues and the nature of interaction and behavior between value chain actors. **Recommendations and Action**: We need to secure partners who can deal with these issues. We should provide the evidence as to the extent to which these issues affect the value chain and its operation. We should facilitate the process to make this happen, including organising discussion forums around such issues. Reference to Flipcharts:


 * CSF 2)****Building effective delivery teams**

B1. __ How do you assure team performance across organizations __ ? **Discussion**: What is it that makes a team? Key elements here include an effective performance management system, incentives, good team composition with leadership and the right mix of people, shared vision, team skills, the right attitude and freedom to follow one’s own passion (the law of two feet). Teams need clear goals and deliverables, and well defined roles and responsibilities. With teams, skills should be built, and overall effectiveness deliberately enhanced. Teams need to be able to perform well across a range of situations. Adequate resources need to be available for teams to function. Performance and efficiency needs to be regularly monitored and reviewed through a clear mechanism. Within teams, communication must be clear and effective. Teams should work around a defined work schedule, and have clear work objectives. -Set clear goals that are clear and achievable, and point towards a shared vision -Get the right team ; this is a process of self-selection, composition and leadership -Be deliberate about team building -Schedule work and communicate clearly -Conduct regular monitoring and team reviews
 * Recommendations and Action**:

Reference to Flipcharts:

B2. __ What inspires shared vision? How can you assure this at all levels? __ **Discussion**: Shared vision comes from working together around the right incentives, within a culture of mutual respect, and with the right attitude. Team members should have clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and this requires effective and transparent communication, appreciating that different team members have different capabilities. At all levels, being clear about vision, objectives and goals is critical. These can become a cause worth championing, and can branded to release passion. A good example of this is “Maziwa Zaidi”. As opposed to seeking attribution for what we do, we must focus on contributing to such cause. This means that we must involve partners at the very outset, and get to action quickly. Our actions speak louder than words. An effective delegation and management style is important to sustain team spirit. We must involve partners at the very beginning of our processes. Here, we must define clear roles and responsibilities, identify issues together, recognise that dynamics change over time, regularly review the nature of relationship, encourage effective facilitation, seek and identify areas of complementarity, build trust for vibrancy, do as we say (walk the talk), work to achieve critical mass, recognise and celebrate individual contributions, and be clear on indicators of success in progressing towards achievement of a shared vision. Reference to Flipcharts:
 * Recommendations and Action**:

B3. __ What mind set do we need to have, and how can we develop this? __ **Discussion**: (The discussion encompassed skills as well as mind set). There is a need for flexibility in thinking at all levels. Our thinking should focus around clearly stated IDOs, which should provide clear direction for all players (including partners) and enable alignment at all levels. Such work requires a variety of skills ranging from science to facilitation. This means that we have to adjust ourselves to work together as part of interdisciplinary teams. We need to conceptualise integrated approaches around our theory-of-change. This means that we need to be entrepreneurial, and be more flexible in the way that we work. We need to fully believe in the CRP and its team. Here we note that alignment between sciences is already happening through the CRP. We must believe that transformation is possible. In dealing with the shift towards research-for-development, we must develop better communication and partnership skills, and learn to facilitate action from the ground level. We must assure accountability at all levels for action and impact, and with partners hold ourselves mutually accountable to achieve such impact. We need to learn from successes and failures through facilitated learning processes. We must understand the contexts of our value chains a lot better, and determine where our niche lies. **Recommendations and Action**: Research and development actors must work harder to understand one another’s contributions to the development process. We must clearly define what we mean by the interface between research and development. Is it research for development, or research and development, or research in development? Such definition needs to be mutually agreed with our partners. We must do better to recognise our partners and learn from them. This requires us to embrace humility as a virtue, and to respect the work of others. We should embrace a learning culture, where failures are openly discussed without blame and fear, and where the successes of others (partners etc.) add to this to shape our thinking. This will require a change in our organisational culture. Towards the world, we must do better to challenge the accepted norms that livestock are bad for health and the environment. We should more broadly publish accessible data what we have, and get our best-bets out there more quickly. We must show greater flexibility to change research pathways that are not working. We must better include social sciences into overall research agendas. Within our teams, we must have accountability. We must assess the skills that we have in our teams. In terms of power, we must operate with limited hierarchy of authorisation if we are to achieve outcomes. (//This is a plea for structured but clear delegation//). We must build team leadership and management skills to enable more people to assume delegated responsibility. We must concentrate people’s time on doing CRP projects. Yet we must also leave space and time for creative ideas and pursuits, including partner mapping skills. Reference to Flipcharts:


 * CSF 3)****Promoting Animal Source foods’ and CRP Program Concepts**

C1. __ How can we assure buy-in by all program stakeholders with different agendas and different approaches __ ? **Discussion** was had within the context of promoting animal source foods and the success of CRP L&F. There are many different actors and stakeholders that do not buy the argument that animal source foods are good for society. Donors and stakeholders need to understand this. Stakeholders include value chain actors and enablers, government, policy makers, development partners, private sector businesses and wider research partners. Within these, partnership and relationships are often unequal, and approaches to delivery of sustainable livestock development programs vary a lot. There may be a role for specific advocacy here. We should determine those actors that buy into the ASF argument, and their interests. Is it one of our roles to try and influence society’s view on livestock production? To assure collective buy-in, we need to focus much more on good process. Here, we should, Such process requires that we engage and support networks, support and provide capacity development services, foster new levels of awareness and assure leadership that, although likely driven by major stakeholders, is balanced towards smaller stakeholders. Such process can happen at different levels and at different scale. Experience of applying such process should be carefully documented in order to challenge assumptions, record lessons and disseminate learning and experience. As we learn from our value chain work, we should bring evidence and actively engage in large forums. Here we must remain open, listen to other opinions and frame discussions around areas of shared interest. Within value chain platforms and networks, such debate should always be nurtured. We must maintain active engagement with communication professionals and the media to assure that evidence and knowledge is being aired and heard. Reference to Flipcharts:
 * Recommendations and Action:**
 * consult wider networks to identify problems that we should work on,
 * better understand the agendas, expectations, strengths, interests, needs and gender power relations at play within value chain systems
 * define shared vision, and complementary roles with other actors
 * show impact, and learn and adapt

C2. __ What must we do to counter arguments that livestock and fish are bad for the environment and for development? __ **Discussion:** As it is formulated, the title of this topic appears defensive and negative. It should also encompass a nutritional element, for ASFs are perceived to also do damage here. The IDOs focus on environment, development and nutrition. However we need to make choices as to the level of effort that we place between these elements. Efficiency of natural resource use should be a primary concern. There is a danger that we are focusing too much on productivity. For example, does this fulfil the agendas of pastoralist communities? The pilot study conducted for the Tanzania dairy value chain incorporated a wider review and should guide the way that we work in other value chains. ASF arguments compare differences in food safety between animal and vegetable source foods and their respective nutrient value. Development arguments have been elaborated around comparisons between small holder and industrial production systems. A theory-of-change needs to be elaborated for each IDO, and these should be assigned different priorities. We need an impact pathway to bring the story that more livestock and fish is good, to the people that matter. We must stress our mandate to serve poor consumers and producers. This obviates the need to address over-consumption issues that arise in wealthier contexts. We must mainstream environmental assessment within each value chain, and quickly develop tools and approaches to do this. We must develop and standardise a robust approach for impact assessment and assure that this is implemented in all value chains. This should lead to the development and dissemination of evidence of the nutritional benefits of animal source foods. We must step up economic and policy analysis to evaluate development opportunities of each value chain, for example by highlighting market opportunities. We must generate evidence as to the extent to which the poor are able to provide food for the poor.
 * Recommendations and Action**:

Reference to Flipcharts:

C3. __ How do we know when we are successfully influencing change? __ **Discussion**: We must be clear about what we mean by “influencing change”. The nature of such change must be defined, and a change pathway must be built. We need to define the means for such change, and assign measurable indicators. With each intervention, we must measure and monitor change. We need to be clear about who it is that we are trying to influence, and these must include consumers, policy makers and value chain actors. This will require careful thought as to how we approach evaluation, and will need to incorporate external review. We must capture evidence of intervention performance and the extent to which they are reaching scale. Contributions from various sources should be seen and acknowledged. We must also recognise failure and identify gaps. To do this, we must build capacity. Create and share a common definition of change and (in each chain), define and quantify the change that we seek. Be clear on how we intend to influence, and establish clear and acceptable indicators of change Define and conduct iterative processes of monitoring, learning, documentation and communication. We should transcend traditional approaches for monitoring change and adopt multiple approaches that fit. Participatory approaches to monitoring and evaluation should become part of all change measurement. Successful change processes must be able to demonstrate ours’ and others’ contributions to such change, cognisant of time frames. This will require good internal and external M&E systems. We must set targets and monitor progress towards achievement at different levels with each value chain. Reference to Flipcharts:
 * Recommendations and Action**:


 * CSF 4)** **Build Partnerships**

D1. __ What kind of partners (and partnerships) should we have to achieve impact at scale? __ **Discussion:** We need partners that complement our desired outcomes, and who can facilitate their achievement. Partners should consist of policy makers, international and nation research organisations, non-governmental organisations, civil society development groups, knowledge partners (such as universities), farmer organisations, private sector actors (including industry players that can assist with service delivery), and government extension services. Many potential partners have limited capabilities, and there is scope for us to develop these. This would require robust assessment processes. Partnerships require long term relationships, and we should not under-estimate the significant management time required to handle these. This requires a new skill set. If trust is developed in these relationships, CRP L&F can become an effective broker and facilitator for partnerships. It is unclear what ILRI’s role would be in “going to scale.” We need to define this. What happens when partners leave the relationship with the program? How would we manage the program and its remaining partners? What exactly is it that we are taking to scale, (and what does scale mean here)? We need to establish consensus across the CRP on this. What has happened to the previous ex-ante studies that were used to set ILRI priorities? We need to determine the right partners, and align objectives with these from the start. Our role in forming partnerships should be a catalytic one. We should partner principally with institutions as opposed to individuals. With all partners, we must define desired impact early on in the process. A monitoring and evaluation framework is required. We need to establish a process that helps to defines impact. We need to be confident that the technologies that we developed will be used and paid for. We must sell our products better. In our chains, it is important to choose the right adopters of technology. We need integrated impact. Partners must be able to commit resources, and there are not many of these around. We must therefore be able to align our objectives to theirs. This will require a change in our mind-set that encourages mutual alignment, and working for partners. Our mind-set must be demonstrated with action. “Don’t just say it, do it!” We must find ways to engage with national systems, and build trust with these. We should link knowledge management to all partnerships We need to develop our own skills to work with development partners, and also foster development partner skills to work with research for development institutions. We should identify organisations that have achieved scale, be that within or beyond agriculture. We should actively learn from their experiences here. To achieve scale, we must influence international partners such as regional trade organisations. Reference to Flipcharts:
 * Recommendations and Action**:

D2. __ How can we encourage development organizations to invite us to be part of their initiatives? __ **Discussion**: The group defined development organizations as including non-government organizations, the private sector, government and other value chain actors. They defined the “us” in the question to be researchers. From the perspective of farmers, the question could be reversed: how can researchers work with farmers? There is work that has been done, (and could be done) for simple modeling of technology dispersal. There are experiences around specific technologies that we could explore. It is important that we seek mutual understanding with development organizations, and carefully manage perceptions. We can make an effort to understand what they need, and then look for opportunities to help. We can better show that our objectives are aligned, and demonstrate the long term benefits of working together. We can add value by helping to understand the diverse views and objectives of value chain system actors and other stakeholders (using self-assessment and external view collection), help define problems well, and promote a robust understand value chain system context. As researchers, we can be more effective by being more appealing. We can show that research adds value to what others do and is cost effective. The benefits that we bring include the quest for knowledge, the ability to improve technologies and develop capacity, and the capability to assess and analyze farmer innovation and take this to scale. Here we can offer services that validate and standardize up-scaling processes. There is significant scope to debunk some misconceptions about technologies by bringing in evidence based truth, by being a neutral participant, and by influencing. We should work to build trust with development actors, and seek long-term sustainable partnerships. We should seek win-win solutions that meet the needs of partners, as well as ourselves. We must engage development actors from the start to assure ownership and utility of research products. We should focus on the generation of technologies and not just on pure science. This implies that we should only work on science that provides (economic) value. We should expand our zone and definition of research to include this, and work to disseminate this. We should provide initial incentives to use and test products that have been developed by research We need to demonstrate that research adds value. We should carefully consider the incentives that we bring through inclusion (knowledge, tools etc.) and determine the added-value that we bring. Here, we should make sure that we are in fact providing the right tools. We should communicate clearly without using technical jargon, and determine who it is that we should be communicating with. For this, we need to retain regular contact and relationship. We need structures to spread messages at different levels. We should engage with sector working groups to understand the challenges and offer appropriate measures. We should allocate enough time and resources to communicate and listen. We need to start with ourselves, and seek solutions within our own behavior. (//Implicit here is that we behave in ways that are not conducive to being invited into wider development processes).// We must always consider the local context.
 * Recommendations and Action**:

Reference to Flipcharts:

D3. __ How can we develop (change) capacity in our value chains? __ **Discussion**: To develop effective change, we must be principally demand driven. This must be an institutional position that mandates our responsiveness to value chain actors as well as our own internal clients. Regular meetings and innovation platforms offer ways and means to assure that demand is understood. However, there is a flip side, for we need to clarify a number of internal operational issues and modalities, and we are not very good at communicating these. Moreover, there is a sense that those that demand are not aware of all of the options available, and we do not have the financial and other means to meet all articulated demand. What is the best way to articulate demand and needs? What is the role here for the Capacity Development Unit? Do our researchers have the capacity to engage with partners? Do we have the right mind-set to deal with Research-for-Development, or are we still operating in the domain of Research-for-Research? To what extent can we leverage existing knowledge in value chain systems and markets? To some extent, this is already happening in CRP L&F. We need to better communicate our research findings. We must prioritize our partners to focus on critical “weak links” within value chain systems, and look for systemic value addition. Reference to Flipcharts:
 * Recommendations and Action:**


 * CSF 5)****Governance and Leadership**

E1. __ Who is responsible managing-for-results in value chains? What do they need to do this? __ **Discussion**: There is poor coordination between value chains and themes. This means that there is poor understanding of each other’s roles, needs and constraints. This has given rise to a lot of frustration. Value chain coordinators should be empowered and encouraged to communicate and coordinate their priorities. Engagement between value chains and themes must be led to validate and agree on needs and priorities. We should establish a formal process to validate and prioritise the thematic needs of Value Chains, and ascribe clear and accountable roles and responsibilities. Reference to Flipcharts:
 * Recommendations and Actions**:

E2. __ What is the right balance between driving forward the agenda, and flowing with emerging evidence? __

The concerns of target people need to be clearly understood, and inform the evidence collected through empirical means in the situational analysis. Agendas for action need to be set through a combination of expertise and local understanding. With different time scales, the process for change and flexibility varies. We need methods to allow for some structured flexibility. Agendas need to be set in collaboration with, and with the clear understanding of target people. Such agendas need to be set with flexibility that allows for change. Evidence of what has worked elsewhere needs to be discussed during agenda setting, and intervention approaches should be accordingly worked out. We need to find alignment with forecast change. We should develop policies and methods on -design, funding and implementation -Documentation and dissemination -Structures that enable flexibility
 * Discussion**:
 * Recommendations and Actions**:

Reference to Flipcharts:

E3. __ What is the biggest problem you face and how should this be fixed __ ? **Discussion:** Management structure, roles, information flows are problematic for the whole CRP. This is not optimal if we are to assure that the CRP delivers in the value chains
 * Actions and Recommendations:**

Reference to Flipcharts:


 * II. **** Big Ideas **


 * 1)****Value Chain Development**


 * Discussion Points**

Big ideas in Value Chain Development could include __ Social transformation __ : Value chain development that offers to attain social impact, including good quality and reasonably paid employment for women and youth. There are potential advances to be made through agribusiness. Value chain development processes also offer means to foster better interaction across other strategic interventions. __Demand Orientation__: Value chain development that is FOR nutrition and for consumers __Value Chain Transformation__: Processes that transform value chains, through upgrading and/or addressing specific constraints. We can foster the development of institutional models for addressing market failure using collective action, and review learning and feedback on such processes. __Models for up-scaling and out-scaling__, with long term implications

__New Value Chains__: there is scope to consider wider chain options


 * Recommendations and Actions:**

A.Value Chains for diversified and dynamic livelihoods, covering -Employment for youth and women -Rural and micro enterprise development and growth -Stimulation of expansion of chains and effect through value networks -Efficiency improvement technologies

B.Nutrition driven ASF Value Chains -Market channels that reach the poor -Intra household distribution of ASFs

C.Innovative institutional approaches for addressing market failures

D.Transforming named value chain -Upgrading opportunities -Addressing critical productivity constraints The ideas should be developed by a smaller group

Reference to Flipcharts:

Gender and impact should be separated in our consideration, for they are separate concepts.
 * 2)****Gender and Impact**


 * A. **** __Gender__ **

How can we change the way in which women lose control over income? As value chain returns increase, and when income increases, so too does the labour burden increase for women. We need to look at time saving technologies to help here. We need to better understand culture and context within our areas of operation. How can we address social and cultural constraints that perpetuate gender inequality? Is there scope for policy influence here? Key issues:
 * Discussion**:

-Women have a particularly important role in managing nutrition within the household. -Intra household consumption of animal source foods -Gender differences in terms of who has information and who controls resources -Fair distribution of profit along the value chain, from value chain improvement and up-scaling


 * Recommendations and Action**:

In the short-term, programs should seek to -More effectively deliver technologies in gender equitable ways. -Influence intra-household consumption patterns of animal source foods, and understand existing social context, gender roles, norms, and decision making processes. (Here promoting nutritional knowledge is an important element)

In the medium-term, programs should seek to -Design and test interventions to address the causes of gender inequity

In the long-term, programs should seek to -Integrate animal and human health -Integrate gender to become standard practice in CRPs

Reference to Flipcharts:


 * B. **** __Impact__ **

We need to develop a commonly agreed impact pathway across domains, all involved actors, and across innovation systems. We must consider all types of change, both positive and negative. We should regard the generation of international public goods as a product We should be mindful that there are considerable capacity issues that underpin the achievement of impact.
 * Discussion:**


 * Recommendations and Action**:

In the short-term, we should -Develop a system that integrates learning with partners at all levels. (How can we trace contribution here?) -Review the M&E and Impact Assessment systems of other organisations

In the medium-term, we should conduct iterative validation of the impact pathway In the long-term, we should seek ways to trace and demonstrate contribution to long term goals, and to trace unintended associated outcome and impact. Here we would seek to uncover how to achieve impact at scale. Reference to Flipcharts:


 * 3)****Genetics**

Genetics and breeding would seek to focus on enhancing efficiency, growth, disease resistance and reproductive performance, all in a bid to produce more for a consumer driven market. Such production needs to happen in ways that assures food security, enables and support livelihoods, and protects the natural environment. Such gains come from environmental adaptation to acquire new levels of resilience and disease resistance.
 * Discussion**:
 * Recommendations and Actions**

In the short-term, we must -deliver existing improved genetic products that value chain stakeholders want -enhance genetic management processes within production systems -generate genetic cooperatives

In the medium-term, we must -determine the best genotypes for different production systems -develop breeding platforms -develop innovative phenotyping systems and technologies -develop conservation systems for future needs

In the long-term, we should -work to develop stable semen and IVFE service provision and technology, -work to develop climate and disease tolerant animals -Engage in designer genetics for improved efficiency, climate and disease resistance, and resilience (//pro. CC)// for human consumption.

Reference to Flipcharts:


 * 4)****Targeting Sustainable Interventions**


 * Discussion**

Data Remote Sensing and Spatial Targeting. -Develop novel poverty/welfare mapping approaches -Exploit digital information technology for site specific feed technologies -Within the production environment, conduct low cost ground-truth collection using mobile phones (IIASA Steffan Fritz)

Get a better understanding of adoption -Improvement of farmer adoption -Understanding stakeholders

Assess small holder versus industrial systems, using different dimensions

Conduct Trade-off-analysis of Interventions, and use value chains to improve knowledge about impacts -Ex ante multicurrency environmental assessment -Given dimensions that include poverty, environment, equity, and nutrition, apply economic, environmental and social criteria in identifying interventions -Develop a full life cycle analysis approach for our value chains

Develop a process with universal buy-in, for example -Map value chain -Analyze value chain -Use the right tools and actors to prioritize interventions

Conduct a focus meeting on present and future market needs

Explore how scaling up and out can happen

Capture lessons learned from previous interventions -Show case studies to demonstrate useability Sustainability is achieved IF interventions become integrated into the __structure__ of the system

Reference to Flipcharts:


 * 5)** **Animal Health**

Three areas were proposed for development; vaccines and their delivery; production related diseases; and development of methodologies and tool kits for prioritizing disease constraints.

__Vaccine and Delivery__ It is important to be able to get a handle on the priorities that exist within value chain systems for vaccination services. It is not clear whether there are the tools available to do this. Are extension services and systems adequate to enable value chain actors gain access to vaccines? How do other animal health constraints rank compared to other production constraints within value chain systems?

Stimulate systems for the right vaccines to be delivered through public and “other” private and informal channels. Approach vaccination service provision in a multidisciplinary way
 * Recommendations and Actions**:

__Production Diseases__ It was felt there are effective solutions to current disease problems, but they were not being used'

Explore ways and means to assess why current tools are not being used to manage production diseases
 * Recommendations and Actions:**

__Methodologies and Toolkits__ Additional resources are needed for prioritization of disease constraints, to be applied for short-term, medium-term and long-term disease challenges. Diseases are specific to certain value chain systems in certain countries. For example, in Uganda, ASF is most important and a vaccine is one solution which could be developed. In Tanzania, ECF is important. There is a perceived need to develop pen side tests that can accurately and quickly detect infection.

Explore ways to better capture data quickly, turn these into tools (assays and treatment), and enable effective surveillance of response to trans-boundary animal disease control processes. Big ideas need to be presented in a simple, user friendly way.
 * Recommendations and Actions**:

Reference to Flipcharts:

__Fish__ 1)Fish productivity will have increased by 40% in a 10 year period 2)Total fish production will have increased by 75% in 10 years 3)There will be a 40% increase in employment, of which 30% will have been secured by women and youth 4)The micronutrient gap will have shrunk by 5% within target groups 5)There will be a 20% reduction of global warming potential (GWP) from every ton of fish produced 6)Capital investment in the aquaculture value chain will have increased by 100% (for example in feed manufacturing and intensification)
 * III. **** Value Chain Plans **

Reference to Flipcharts:

__Dairy – India__

1)Productivity -Compared to current levels, there will be a 20% increase in production -Calf mortality will decline by 40% -Milk quality (as defined by butterfat and SNF) will not decline -There will be no disease outbreaks -Mastitis and endometritis will decline by 50%

2)Food Safety and Consumption Indicators -%age of people consuming milk -# of outbreaks of food borne diseases (such as salmonellosis) -Clean milk production across the value chain

3)50% - 60% enhanced women’s participation; 290,000 Households in one VC Our Best Indicator -20% increase in milk production -50% increase in income

Reference to Flipcharts:

__Dairy – Tanzania__


 * IDO1** – Increased dairy productivity in small-scale production systems

I.Indicators a)Milk/animal/period b)Mortality rate c)Fertility/reproductive indices d)Morbidity e)Milk/input use (a) is the best indicator

II.Reasonable change in indicator is a doubling of productivity across systems III.Reasonable number of beneficiaries: 20,000 households


 * IDO2** – Increased quantity and improved quality of milk supplied from small holder market systems

I.Indicators a)Quantity produced (bearing in mind seasonality fluctuations) b)Milk hygiene quality indicators.

II.Reasonable change in indicator is the doubling of milk quantity, and maintenance of minimum hygiene standards

III.Reasonable number of beneficiaries: consumers and producers 75%.

Reference to Flipcharts:

__Dual Purpose Cattle - Nicaragua__

Intervention area is in central Nicaragua (Boaco, Matagalpa, Chontales) and part of RAAS (Región Autónoma del Atlántico Sur). 60% of farmers here use dual purpose breeds, totaling approximately 120,000 households. (We need to indicate the adoption rate that we could expect here)


 * IDO5** – Silvi-pastoral system defined

-Public and private policy makers influenced by 5 briefs on pro-poor small scale production and marketing systems with special attention to women in value chains -Private and public sector, and donor investment increased by x %
 * IDO6** –

Reference to Flipcharts:

__Pigs – Uganda__ Adoption domain: The census of 2008 indicated that there were 1.1 million households that produced pigs. It is estimated that the pig production will grow between a rate of 5% and 7% per year between now and 2030.
 * IDO ||||  For Participating Households  ||
 * ^  ||  Indicator  ||  Change (% per year)  ||
 * IDO 1 - Productivity || Pork per animal per year || 1.5% to 2% ||
 * IDO2 – Quality and Quantity || piglets weaned per sow per year || 10% ||
 * ^  || % of piglet mortality || -4% ||
 * ^  || Off take rate inspection and quality assurance || 5% ||
 * IDO3 – Employment and Income || % involvement of women and vulnerable people along the value chain || Up to 20% in 10 years (not a per year change here) ||
 * ^  || Contribution to household income || 5% ||
 * IDO4 – Reduced Nutrient Gap || % of energy and protein intake from animal source foods || ? ||
 * ^  || Calories and grams of protein from animal source foods || ? ||
 * IDO5 – Environmental Impact || Smell / Air Quality || ? ||
 * ^  || Water quality (bacterial content) || ? ||
 * ^  || Use of manure as fertilizer ||   ||
 * IDO6 - Policies || Inclusion of pigs in the development agenda ||  ||

Reference to Flipcharts:

__Pigs – Vietnam__ -litter size, -kg of pig and pork per unit of input, -farrowing period, -live weight gain (LWG) per unit of feed, per unit of land, per unit of time; || -Growth in supply at various levels -Per capita consumption (disaggregated by income and gender group) || -Household Income derived from pig enterprise -Full time labour equivalent (disaggregated) -Value added generated by chain actor -Return to labour -US$ per kg. pork -Labour typology shifts || -Total calories supplied by pork || -Resources invested by stakeholders (public, private and donors) ||
 * IDO ||  Indicator  ||
 * IDO 1 - Productivity || -Piglet mortality,
 * IDO2 – Availability and Access || -Marketable surplus
 * IDO3 – Employment and Income || -% contribution of pig enterprise to household income
 * IDO4 – Reduced Nutrient Gap || -Relative contribution of pork to household diet
 * IDO5 – Environmental “trotter” imprint || -Greenhouse gas emission per unit of output ||
 * IDO6 – Policy, money, investment || -Number of programs

Adoption domain: smallholder household pig producers and value chain actors Target number of beneficiaries: Over 10 to 12 years _

__Reference to Flipcharts:__

__** IV. **** Unplaced Flip charts **__

M&E Framework

An impact pathway dumbed down for the public

For each IDO within each value chain, there is an impact pathway. These are achievable through actions framed through the logical processes of our theory of change, and when critical success factors are addressed.

Each Value Chain contributes to the achievement of the program IDOs. Within each value chain, our action is framed by an impact pathway that, based on the program impact pathway, is customized to meet local context. Against this, we need to set targets and milestones.

Some monitoring is required for general management purposes, and includes financial expenditure, timelines, partnership inputs and client satisfaction. These should be done by Critical Success Factor.

Working with the Private sector__:__ __-__Private sector players are proprietary in nature and do not offer easy access to their technologies. -There is not enough information to compare and select amongst products -CG policy is a constraint, but exceptions are possible -This is a catch 22 situation

__**Recommendations and Actions**__ -We need a spokesperson -Seek ways to establish private public partnerships -Build on the one example of working together, Novus and ILRI on feeds. They gor into the market

Reference to Flipcharts:

How to Get Scientists to Develop a Research Agenda to Get to a Big Intervention__

It is not clear how much capacity or interest there is among scientists here. Moreover, there are risks involved here, including -Influence (how much do scientists have this now) -Institutional commitment to a new business model -Lack of understanding on value chain issues. Can we get scientists into the field and into value chains? -Awards and rewards. There is a danger in fragmenting work load.

Scientists and value chains need to talk on possible interventions and come back with needs.

It would be a good exercise to ask individual researchers to define their vision of their contribution to the livestock and fish agenda. What is your s.m.a.r.t. contribution and intervention? With clear roles defined within teams, scientists could be asked for their interim solutions and inputs.

Reference to Flipcharts: