assumptions

Testing Assumptions
Assumption 1: 5-10 year targeted interventions along meat, milk and fish value chains will result in sustained transformational improvements in production and productivity of animal source foods.

Agree
Because of the wholistic approach. We may not have answers at this point, but if we go through with this wholistic approach, I am optimistic that we will have results.

Somewhat agree

 * An economist. In economics everything depends…. Depends on quality and quantity and on who is receiving these interventions.
 * If a strong product is identified, we can have big interventions. If the right product is identified to begin with.
 * I want to see more emphasis given to markets.
 * It needs to be sustainable/sustained. The period is too short; I’d say 20 years for such an impact.

Not sure, I don’t have the right info

 * There are too many assumptions in assumption 1.
 * Research and innovation systems have been here for years, but we are not sure of whether we can identify …
 * “Sustained transformation” is the catch. I did some work with ILRI dairy. We are not going to push to consumers that are not willing and expect sustained transformation. Increased production does not necessarily mean sustained transformation.
 * You may increase production, but is the demand there? We need to look at markets.

Disagree

 * There are so many other policies involved and in 5 years, you can’t address all of them.

Assumption 2: Increasing the amount of meat, milk or fish produced by a value chain will result in significantly increased consumption of these products by poor consumers, including vulnerable groups such as poor women, children, people living with HIV, the rural and urban poor, and that this will result in measurable improvements in the health of these groups.

Disagree somewhat

 * The focus could be in the market
 * Increasing production does not necessarily mean more access for consumers.
 * Prices and income need to be considered.
 * If you have formal linkages with the industry, it could work.
 * The evidence we have is contradictory.
 * The increase in production by poor keepers is a long way coming.

Agree somewhat

 * Egypt has had success in 10 years. Increase in production as well as fish consumption n the country. 40k jobs created, etc. But there are also countries where it failed. So it is very much country-specific.
 * It depends on what level it is done. If it is on household farmer level, yes; if on industry level, no.

Fully agree

 * The key word is //value chain.// It negates all other assumptions. Also personal experience. We could afford to produce it, but not to sell it. So production is key. If you do not have it, then you cannot afford to give it even to the poor.
 * Increased production has made egg affordable to the poor and students in Kampala. If the value chain works, then there is no reason to be skeptical.
 * “by the poor”… In such an assumption, even if the poor do not own the cow or the farm, they could get employed. Working in the production centre, so that they can afford to buy the milk, eggs and fish they need. Need to consider the question, “who is going to use (eat) these products”.

Assumption 3. That it is possible to develop value chains, create incentives and promote uptake of research products (technologies, approaches, institutional change, evidence-based advocacy for policy change) in such a way that the majority of benefits, from production to consumption, can be captured by the poor and this will result in transformational improvements in livelihoods.


 * Can't avoid some rich benefiting
 * Does it need to be the 'majority' of benefits
 * Can't decide when notions like poverty are not defined, need more info
 * Evidence shows that the majority always benefits from such changes, and in this case the majority is poor
 * Don't be afraid if a few rich benefit

Assumption 4. That by focusing on a small number of well-defined value chains it is possible to achieve local impact at scale (hundreds of thousands of households)


 * Hundreds of thousands?
 * What is local?
 * Already examples where this has happened

Assumption 5: That by focusing on a small number of well-defined value chains it is possible to achieve local impact at scale (hundreds of thousands of households)and also generate public goods that are applicable in larger recommendation domains (tens of millions of households) and international public goods (technologies, approaches, institutions) with even wider relevance (hundreds of millions of households)


 * How to move from very specific value chains to enormous impacts
 * Numbers are scary
 * Of course it is possible that something will emerge that has massive transformational possibilities, though very local focus may limit this
 * To generate IPGs is possible, but applying them so they lead to impact is not easy
 * Entirely plausible that knowlege will emanate that will be relevant and applicable in other domains, does not mean we have to do the application
 * If we have faith in the research, the CG, it should be possible
 * It's possible, but the probability is low unless we can connect with the much wider communities who can reach the millions
 * This approach almost by definition limits ourselves to incremental improvements
 * Assumption is that we have generated applicable outputs, not that they have actually been applied!
 * What about the institutions and policies that frame and influence changes?