addis_stakeholder_settingscene2

=**Stakeholders’ Consultative Workshop**= =**Addis Ababa**= =**24-25 August 2010**=

**Setting the scene - The Livestock and Fish Mega Program**
After the general introduction to the CGIAR change process, ILRI's Tom Randolph introduced the proposed Mega program in more detail (view the presentation)

The overarching goal of the Mega Program is to "//sustainably increase productivity// of small-scale livestock and fish systems so as to increase availability and affordability of ASFs for poor consumers and, in doing so, to reduce poverty through greater participation by the poor along Animal Source Food (ASF) value chains."

The Proposition of the Mega Program is: "The enduring productivity gap in poor country small-scale livestock and aquaculture systems can be sustainably reduced through new ways of working in which partnerships between research, development and private sector actors stimulate gender-equitable innovation in selected pro-poor value chains; enable uptake of existing appropriate technologies; and identify and communicate demand for new priority technologies that exploit scientific advances. Reducing the productivity gap for livestock and fish will lead to increased access to ASFs by the poor and increased incomes for producers and other value chain actors, thereby improving nutrition and food security."

The proposed Mega Program has three main components:
 * A 'value chain development component' (the front end)
 * A 'technology generation component' (the back end)
 * A cross-cutting component on 'targeting and M&E', with activities on prioritization, impact assessment and learning, horizon scanning, improved mapping of systems, and gender analyses

He introduced the notion of value chains that underpin much of the work of the Mega Program. This is the so-called 'front end' where the Mega Program partners engage in specific value chain development interventions, comprising assessment, implementation, and policy analysis phases.

Selecting the focus value chains generated much discussion among the Mega Program partners. The focus value chains were selected by identifying high-potential regional value chains and target countries with enabling environments and existing momentum. This process led to a tentative list of target Value Chains:
 * Smallholder pigs in Vietnam and Uganda
 * Smallholder small ruminants in Mali and Ethiopia
 * Smallholder aquaculture in Uganda
 * Smallholder dairying in Tanzania and India
 * Smallholder dual-purpose cattle in Nicaragua

The so-called 'back end' - the engine behind the Mega Program - will focus on technological development on high-priority cross cutting issues: feeds, breeds, and health - where the Mega program expects to make biggest gains in productivity. This component is likely to work on:
 * Better performing breeds and breeding programs
 * Improving feed and forage resources and their use
 * Animal health

He highlighted an issue the Mega Program was been wrestling with: how to balance adaptive, real-time problem solving (for today's problems) with medium/longer-term basic research. Another challenge the proposal seeks to address is how to combine a local focus with local and global impact. Randolph argued that the focus on value chains will "serve as proof-of-concept of impact at scale …which can then be scaled out"; further "problem-solving in focus value chains informs cross-cutting research…so will continue to generate International Public Goods."

What's new in this proposal? According to Randolph, it is:
 * 1) Commitment to focus on a limited set of 6-8 value chains and generate measurable impact
 * 2) Creating synergies by pooling our collective resources across the 4 CG centers

One major shift is that the impact pathways are embedded directly in the Mega Program. In conventional research, outputs are transferred to development actors, these are viewed as outcomes. In the new model, outputs are 'made-to-order' for immediate use within large-scale interventions with scaling-out strategy.

He concluded by elaborating on the niche to be played by the Mega Program. According to Randolph: "we want to play a catalyst role that brings together research and development actors through effective partnerships." In this Mega Program, the CGIAR will become a knowledge partner for development organizations; and it will take on brokering roles that help bring development needs to our research colleagues."

[|Download his presentation]


 * View his presentation:**

media type="custom" key="6759981"

Questioning the proposal
The presentation generated a wide-ranging discussion on the proposal in general as well as many specific elements.


 * What is your measure of productivity?
 * Worried that we are two far down into the short term solutions. How will we feed the world in 2030? what about the other systems, not just the smallholder ones
 * What does this imply for the skills mix of your scientists.
 * What is the balance between investment in smallholder and other investments in industrial approaches etc. we need to also include the others in the chains.
 * Hall: is about making asf foods affordable and accessible to poor consumers. must not lose the focus on all the elements of the value chain, which might not be focusing only on 'by the poor'. needs to be for the poor....
 * What is the actual value chain? eg feed v breed?
 * The focus on innovation platforms may call for many 'non-scientific' skills
 * How to link science and enterpreneurship? what's the mix of competences? do we bring entrepreneurship to science, or vice versa
 * In the past the cgiar was accountable, but not responsible (for what other actors do).
 * When so many actors come together, many interests, many different pieces of accountability, credit, responsibility. How will these be apportioned?
 * How does the CGIAR see itself long term in the future, when compared to eg, a multinational company. It sees itself as producing IPGs, but often these end up in private hands.
 * We need a bit more insight into how you came to focus on the specific VCs. what process, studies used?
 * Scaling out the impact? how will the lessons from uganda benefit the other countries?
 * Benchmarking. We are not starting at ground zero. how do we know where we are? and what can be attributed to the MP.
 * Focus on productivity of L and F for smallholders. To what level? to what effect, as they are both consumers and producers.
 * What about NRM and climate change?
 * Hall: "there's no limit to what you can achieve if you don't care who gets the credit!" what's critical is that something happened, its important that we are part of the process
 * Staal: as public orgs, we dont go out of the way to claim credit.
 * Staal: there's much work to be done to better understand the productivity measures.
 * No coordination between animal nutritionists and the plant breeders... many farmers not aware of the value of their residues/byproducts for feed
 * Barbara: it is likely that many of the VCs will have sub VCs...
 * Barbara: is a risk when intensifying smallholder productivity that others will drop out, no longer be able to compete. is not win-win for all. Need to pay attention to equity.
 * de Haan. If smallholder is crowded out, is only a problem where there are not other employment possibilities. So need to make sure the chosen VCs are indeed in situations where any losers have other opportunities.
 * Need to have both 'push' and 'pull' in the VCs. Need to pay much more attention to the consumers.
 * VC development. just how involved will the CG be?
 * Breed, feed, and health is very narrow. Need to also consider 'production'
 * FAO: Value webs rather than VCs; chain too narrow.
 * FAO: need to look at the stability and volatility of the chains.
 * FAO:crowding out is not a problem if they get a higher income for their labor somewhere else.
 * Does there need to be a livestock -fish synergies in the MP?


 * Steve Hall: “Livestock and fish synergy [in the mega program] needs to be intimate somewhere, not everywhere”**


 * Do we need sustainable Value Chains .... or rather 'resilient' value chains**

Back
Questions and comments that came out from the presentation of Tom Randloph:
 * Little things said about self efficiency? Putting a lot of focus on market…not the poor?
 * What we saw is productivity in a commercial way, What measure of productivity …
 * Wants discussion on smallholder….. Too much background on the short term …How much do we increase efficiency … What does this imply to the skill mix of the scientists?
 * What is the balance between smallholder and investment … in terms of being efficient? The value chain must include large and small factories and assembly areas? What could be the balance when we consider the whole chain?
 * Very little difference on the Value chain? Concept of feed value chain? Is the VC animal product or the feed itself? What is the real configuration of the VC? How is livestock and Fish program going to address ? Said there is a Gap between science and enerpreneurship. Which one are you going to apply on this?
 * Question about M&E. Should the CGIAR focus on responsibility? Should we bother about this? The balance of interest for bringing so many actors. What about other options of being a catalyst?
 * What organizational structure do we need?
 * Share more on work consultation on the selection of ... Impact will be measured across and how will the technologies generated in Uganda will benefit other countries for example?
 * Concerned about benchmarking? How do you access impact? How do you attribute it to the project?
 * Climate change impact?
 * Increasing productivity?
 * Natural resource management and policy?
 * Concept of feed crop. There is no coordination between people with different expertise?
 * Comment on VC, Push and pool kind of chain.. need to make the chain clear all the way
 * Stability of the value? Labour productivity is important