We hold personally identifiable information for the purposes of:

• giving you the products, information or services you have requested
• improving the quality of the products, information or services you have requested
• communicating with you about an event or conference
• evaluating your job application
• complying with laws and regulations.

Our information products are managed by FeedBurner. Your data is processed by Google FeedBurner accordance with their Privacy Policy and their Terms of Service. We will store this information securely and will not share, rent, or sell it to any other organization.

If you wish to stop receiving our products, please click unsubscribe now. You will be asked to enter your email address—this process should take less than a minute.

The May 31 meeting in Bangkok brought together 24 participants to discuss key elements of ILRI’s strategy 2013-2022. Participants are keen to see ILRI take action as soon as possible, beginning with articulation of priorities, building strategic partnerships and strengthening its presence in the region. One immediate action is to share past research results, and make these more accessible in the region. Download the report.

The June 25 meeting in Addis Ababa had similar objectives. By the end of the discussions, there was support for the general directions set out in the strategy. Work is needed to translate ideas into practical implementation. It was suggested that ILRI needs to have different implementation plans for Ethiopia in particular. It also needs to ‘market’ its information and knowledge to a range of different audiences – both content and language. This is part of a broader agenda in terms of ILRI becoming more business-like: Communication, marketing, delivering. Download the report.

On 1 April 2013, the final strategy document was published online. As well as the full document, we are making available summaries and supporting multimedia resources.

In December 2012, the ILRI Board of Trustees approved the new strategy document, ‘with some small tweaks’. These were completed in early 2013.

On 15 September 2012, we sent the final draft out for final comments.

In July and August 2012, to validate and improve the analysis and directions, ILRI hosted five consultation meetings with external partners. In total, 91 people excluding ILRI staff joined the discussions in Accra (15 August), Addis Ababa (24 July), Delhi (6 August), Gaborone (30 July), Nairobi (21 August) and Pretoria (31 July). We also had a further internal round of discussions on the same questions.

In June 2012 we published a synthesis of the feedback we received on our strategy storyline of May 2012. We also published a summary of feedback on the three ‘tough issues’!

In May 2012, we worked up an initial ‘storyline’ setting out some general directions for our strategy.

We also identified several ‘tough issues’ where we face some big choices. Tell us what you think about:

• adopting a value chain approach in our research
• increasing our research on livestock productivity
• addressing the interface of animal and human health

In April 2012, following discussions with the ILRI Board of Trustees, we developed a ‘strategy storyline’ and asked staff for feedback on this.

In March 2012, the ILRI Board reviewed the ‘annotated outline‘ of a possible new strategy, providing feedback on its content and the process to get it developed.

In February – March 2012 we asked staff for initial inputs to help develop an outline document for our Board of Trustees. We also asked them to suggest a tagline that best captured our work.

The development of this strategy has been a process lasting nearly a year. The key elements have been:

• analyses of the strategic challenges ILRI faces and of its preparedness to respond to them;
• extensive consultation externally with partners and leading thinkers and practitioners in agriculture and food production, and internally with staff throughout the organization;
• examination of the issues, leading to development of ambitious objectives and pathways to their achievement.

The resulting document sets out ILRI’s proposed:

• Purpose
• Roles
• Strategic issues ILRI needs to address
• Three strategic objectives
• Five critical success factors to achieving this strategy

Alongside this document, ILRI will develop a series of ‘operational plans’ guiding activities in specific areas.

• Read a collated summary of the feedback provided by external partners and stakeholders as part of this process

If you have any final suggestions or feedback, please click the ‘leave a comment‘ option above – We aim to have a final final document by 1 October 2012

The first, between May and August, asked people to comment on the ILRI strategy ‘storyline’ as well as three ‘tough issues’ where we wanted some critical inputs and feedback (adopting a value chain approach in our research; increasing our research on livestock productivity; and addressing the interface of animal and human health).

The second, in July and August, comprised six consultation meetings with external partners in Accra (15 August), Addis Ababa (24 July), Delhi (6 August), Gaborone (30 July), Nairobi (21 August) and Pretoria (31 July).

Download a collated report on these discussions and the feedback provided to ILRI

The storyline argued that today’s challenges of growing food demand, continued rural poverty, climate change, and scarcity of land, energy and water call for changes in livestock production systems – to be both highly productive and highly sustainable.  It calls for changes in ILRI’s research focus. As a way to help us set priorities, the storyline set out three main livestock system ‘typologies’:  ‘inclusive growth systems’, ‘low growth systems’ and a’ growth with externalities system.’

In mid August, we summarized the feedback received and implications for our work [download the longer document here].

This is a much-shortened structured synthesis of all the comments and feedback we received. It tries to capture the main messages and feedback that we will use to help shape our new strategy.

Those comments received are already feeding into our strategy thinking and many of the ‘how’ issues raised will also contribute to the development of our research strategy.

We would like to express our great appreciation to the MANY people who gave us their time and feedback.

Alongside this consultation on an overall ‘storyline’ and several ‘tough issues’, we are identifying the key external drivers likely to shape livestock development in the next decade. We plan to enrich these virtual conversations with some face to face consultations with partners and stakeholder in some countries where ILRI has a physical presence.

We welcome any further comments or suggestions as comments you may have!

What were some of the key insights emerging?

None of the people commenting actually disagreed with the basic analysis that we need to expand our scope, focus and targets. We did however receive many suggestions indicating in which types of areas we need to give more or different attention.

• With much more food  needed to feed 3 billion MORE people, we need to focus on production and productivity for food, while recognizing that delivering this food will put unparalleled stress on our ecosystems and out environment.
• ILRI’s focus should go beyond bringing people out of poverty to ensuring a safer and healthier world for the future. We should also broaden the scope of the research beyond productivity and technical aspects: We should speak ‘green’, we should speak ‘climate smart agriculture’.
• We need a focus on increasing livestock production and productivity (which was somewhat secondary in our previous strategy).
• We should aim to reduce the environmental impact and avoid the energy use inefficiency that comes with intensive production of animals. We should look for ways to optimize the long term benefits of livestock to human health and wellbeing within a broader ecological or socioeconomic context.
• We need to focus on marketing and land use issues, not production or valuation problems.
• We can adopt a more inclusive focus that transforms the whole system. This can be in relation to market/value chain systems, but also in relation to ecosystem services.
• We also need to better link the livestock sector to other agricultural sectors, considering interactions/competition between smallholder livestock systems and other land use(r)s.  We need to integrate livestock systems into wider systems to create more synergies between cropping, livestock and energy.
• We also need to link our research to field problems and work on the solutions that can guide development partners. We need to talk more about solutions than about research findings.

Several people argued that this new strategy needs to more explicitly and clearly draw on and present the lessons from our previous strategy? Has ‘livestock’ indeed created a pathway out of poverty, to what extent, and which approaches have been most successful? Which approaches have not worked?

Others pointed out that we need to more systematically spell out the wider changes and drivers influencing ILRI and the livestock sector. These include the transformation of the CGIAR, recent statements from the G8 and G20 and the commentary around Rio+ 20.

There was not much discussion on ‘who’ we should target – it wa suggested that targeting ‘the poor for the poor’ may be ok for more subsistence oriented farmers, we should also target entrepreneurial smallholders who produce for the market (poor and middle class).  We need to put women and equity more generally at the forefront of the livestock development agenda.

On the livestock system typologies, we received many general comments, some on the content, others on the terminology used, and some on other ways to characterize the systems.

• As examples, it was suggested that the three approaches be presented as opportunities, they need to be clear on people and geography, they need to be much on the measure of ’growth’ they are based on, they  need to be more people (and women) –centric, and they should include a summary of ‘how’ each approach would be implemented.
• Others focused on the terminology we used:  Perhaps we might focus on ‘inclusive growth’, ‘green growth’ and ‘healthy growth’ of developing-world livestock systems.  Perhaps replace references to ‘low-growth livestock systems’ with ‘slower growth’ livestock systems.’ Maybe we just need two ‘pathways’ on ‘supporting sustainable inclusive growth’ and ‘protecting ecosystem services for long-term resilience.’ More simply, just go for one ‘Good, green, growth.’

Most interventions were directed to the so-called ‘low growth’ systems typology, suggesting that these warrant greater attention that we first thought.

• The title ‘low growth systems’ was thought by one person to be “clearly a loser.” Others ‘voted’ for ‘low growth systems’ – as this is closest to ILRI’s mandate and is possibly of most benefit. One respondent argued that the middle point – the low growth group, should not be forgotten, as it is there where the greatest challenges but also the greatest pro-poor/pro vulnerable benefits lie for an institution like ILRI. It was suggested that ‘low growth’ may prove crucial with regard to the delivery of ecosystem services – which is a more positive way of presenting this second scenario.
• This ‘low growth’ system also attracted most comments on the importance of pastoral people and rangelands. Thus: it was argued that when you look at the extent of rangelands in Asia and Africa (significantly more than half the land mass), to neglect rangelands production is to neglect one of the principle reasons the livestock sector is so important.
• Furthermore, it was argued that our story line completely neglects a major component of the livestock sector that offers tremendous opportunity for growth, namely pastoralism.  The livestock sector will benefit most from a) research into technologies and management practices that improve the prospects for successful pastoralists, b) research into the social dimensions of poverty that will address inequity and underlying weaknesses in human rights and property rights, and c) research into ways out of pastoralism. This needs strong applied and inter-disciplinary research. Considering the focus on sustainability, pastoralism also deserves particular attention on its contribution to environmental protection and ecosystem services. More research is needed into the environmental benefits around carbon sequestration and water cycling, and the conditions under which these services are provided or not provided.
• On the ‘growth with externalities’ system typology, it was suggested that we could give more emphasis to the positive aspects of intensifying systems, and hence the need for research on the potential negative impacts. This should not limit itself to environment; it should call on the value chain approach.
• On the ‘inclusive growth’ system typology, perhaps we expand should the concept with an explicit sustainability dimension. so we could aim at growth that: 1) Aims at broad-based improvement of well-being, 2) operates within environmental limits, 3) is capable of coping with or adapting to global change.

Two other major areas of feedback were provided.  The first was mainly concerned with the ‘how’ – what pathways should ILRI use to ensure its work would have intended impact? The second, called on ILRI to pay proper and innovative attention to communication and dissemination – to get its (and others …) knowledge off the shelves.

• One respondent pointed to the importance of capacities to manage, maintain, market and feed livestock – How do we realize the critical numbers of trained and empowered people? Others, inside ILRI especially, were concerned that we want to do too much – emphasizing that we need to work with others to reach our objectives. We should beware however that having too many partners can cause confusion; too much time can be spent navigating through the interests of partners instead of solving farmer problems and helping them to seize opportunities.
• The storyline does not indicate what types of research ILRI should be engaged in. We can contribute through action research, testing innovations. Such research can also be complemented by impact research based on action – gender, climate, nutrition, health etc.
• The storyline misses important elements such as the role of gender, equity, and the role of partnerships, but also R4D and action-research (where participation, facilitation and capacity building become important components).  We also need to ensure the genuine involvement and participation of farmers in our work.
• The Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) approach was mentioned several times as a ‘complete approach’ which looks at productivity, markets, policy, NRM, product development, nutrition and gender.
• In terms of knowledge and communication, the importance of indigenous knowledge was highlighted; we were encouraged to embrace multi-media approaches to communication and information dissemination (radio, video, mobiles, extension, ICTs , meetings, theatre, etc); and we need especially to  avoid our researchers working in isolation from the users of technologies.   We need a plan for knowledge dissemination/ sharing, for technology adoption and adaptation.

• adopting a value chain approach in our research
• increasing our research on livestock productivity
• addressing the interface of animal and human health

First, we would like to express our great appreciation to the MANY people who gave us their time and feedback.

Alongside these questions on tough issues, we asked for feedback on our overall strategy ‘storyline’ and we are identifying the key external drivers likely to shape livestock development in the next decade. We plan to enrich these virtual conversations with some face to face consultations with partners and stakeholders in some countries where ILRI currently has a physical presence.

This is a structured synthesis of all the comments and feedback we received on these three ‘tough issues’. It tries to capture the main messages and feedback that will help us shape our new strategy. We have done some very basic spellchecking, the comments remain very as they were received.

In general, of the three issues, the questions around value chains attracted most comments, then questions on whether and how ILRI should address productivity challenges, and finally the issue of the animal-human health interface.

Adopting a value chain approach?

1. Do you agree that the value chain concept is appropriate for helping to define ILRI’s role in research to promote market-oriented livestock production in our ‘inclusive growth’ scenario?
   • If yes, are there any reasons not mentioned above that you think should be highlighted for why it is useful?
   • If no, why do you think it is inappropriate?

We received three types of replies:  ‘Yes’ it is appropriate; ‘yes, if’ certain other factors are taken care of; ‘yes, but’ the approach is not sufficient; and ‘maybe’ there is something else.

ANSWER ‘YES’

Each stage of the value chain has challenges that require attention and all this has to happen simultaneously as opposed to stepwise.

It is a good analytical tool that can lead to targeted interventions in a pro-poor direction. It helps to analyze how benefits are shared by all players in the chain and therefore forms the basis for equitable distribution of benefits to ensure improved productivity from all players and efficient performance of the overall livestock value chain.

It helps targeting and focusing research and developing activities – because eventually, it is always a product that is used/demanded/consumed, hardly ever a system. And the product is at the end of a value chain.
It is identifying the problems, exploring opportunities and addressing the problems of all the key actors from input suppliers to consumers.

Adopting the value chain approach to research will ensure that the most limiting constraints along the value chain are addressed.

It is important to consider the post farm activities, sometimes the work has to be focus on dealers or retailers. If these parts of the chain are weak or missing it will be difficult for small farmers to reach markets.

A value chain strategy helps farmers understand and reach markets; it provides for interactions between ILRI and the farmers

In all this the markets/consumers are central as they determine what kind of product(s), what quality of product(s) must be produced

The additional element that should be stressed is the widespread adoption of this approach by rural development agencies such as the World Bank and IFAD.

We fully endorse and support this approach. Key points for consideration in the future will be extrapolation and further selection of value chains, including the ones we are currently working on. In our view, equity in the value chain will be a very important topic.

ILRI’s research is to create public goods usable widely to empower the livestock industry stakeholders (producers, traders and consumers) in the mostly poor developing economies. Most of these industries are not competitive, lack vertical integration and are dominated by under-productive traditional and emerging (commercially transitional) systems. Where could ILRI research “add value” along the chain that others are not doing? This is easy to explore and to identify (e.g. through fact finding consultations with the NARS) and to establish in its new strategy. Some [ e.g. CRP 3.7) call this Value Chain Development! That is OK, if the aim is to identify weaknesses/ constraints along he chain that research results could overcome. But some could argue that all researchable questions that aim to improve livestock systems fall within the new terminology!

Yes! This should identify where the blockages are in allowing growth and development, and for identifying the specific research needs.
ANSWER ‘YES IF’

If it is combined with a long-term approach to developing research and development alternatives it becomes more useful and sustainable in ensuring diversity in the basket of choices open to individuals, groups and communities in the future.

If the identification of the chains to work in must be done together with stakeholders.

The value chain approach makes a lot of sense; the benefits cannot be achieved in the absence of enabling development policies, which is properly coordinated.

The emphasis should still be put on increasing production and productivity to ensure food security, without compromising on the quality of the finished product.

Only if it is inclusive and has well developed capacity building among the farmers and strong partnership of stakeholders involved.

If we ‘really’ do it. In many occasions we study the livestock value chain but at the end of the day we suggest/ do only those stuff which we like to do or are comfortable to do, ignoring all other value chain factors/ actors. If that is the case, talking about value chain approach would not add much value.

It is a useful approach if applied sincerely to address all issues in the value chain in the truest sense and not addressing partially, dictated by the expertise present within the responsible team. The CRPs as they stand currently are likely to benefit those having potential to get connected to the market easily and the poorest of the poor will not benefit. In addition, over playing/indulgence with the value chain will erode the science base of the CGIAR, limiting its capability to address future challenges.

ANSWER ‘YES, BUT’

The Value Chain approach in ILRI seems more a general framework for ensuring impact of research activities than actually a support strategy for livestock commodities value chain. Is it clear that is the role of ILRI in Livestock Value Chains: VC research, VC support, VC development or VC inclusivity?

VC is more implementation oriented – thus ILRI needs to define its role on the research – development continuum.

Normally value chains are about formal markets (the industry actors for a specific commodity). How does it work for informal markets?

This is very much an ‘approach’, a ‘tool’, part of the ‘how’; and so should not be so upfront in the thinking. It should not be a determining or guiding approach.

ANSWER  ‘MAYBE’

ILRI should adopt an approach that has the target clientele at heart. Considering the current complex, dynamic livestock ‘world’ such an approach (es) should be sustainable and should address emerging sustainability challenges. Any approach (or pathway) that ILRI ultimately chooses must respond to (and not overrun) poor livestock farmers’ goals, knowledge and values. Such an approach should not be dictated by narratives developed and being advocated by powerful actors and ‘other’ institutions …. an approach that favours the rights, interests and values of livestock farmers who are currently among the most marginal and excluded. Is the Value Chain Analysis such an approach? if yes, then go for it?

The term “Value Chain” has been over-used (even abused). In reality, agriculture does not function as a chain. It’s a rather nested set of activities which sometimes relate and at times don’t relate. Given that some private sector players appear once and are never seen again, it may not be useful to consider them value chain actors particularly if we take sustainability seriously.

ILRI should boldly embrace Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) as the approach to be used. Although this approach also links partners on the value chain, it has a well elaborated research engagement. In IAR4D, seven research themes are considered- productivity, market, policy, NRM, product development, nutrition and gender. Research theme should go beyond productivity and include the remaining 6 which have been so far marginalized. Also in IAR4D, the market is considered in a slightly different manner. Instead of looking at locations , we look at specific demands or outlets with the agency or person making the demand specified, quantities, qualities and time needed also well specified. In addition to this, IAR4D looks at the three classes of constraints- technological, institutional and infrastructural to ensure that famers do not have any chain tying them to poverty. IAR4D uses the Innovation Platform which brings all partners on the value chain to interact with others including policy makers, researchers, meteorologists, and others including standard boards etc to promote technology development, dissemination and adoption.

2. If ILRI adopts the value chain concept and approach at the heart of its strategy, what risks might be created?

I do not agree that this approach will result in only dealing with short term interventions but can be useful in determining some long term research activities if the design also looks at trends and what might happen to the industry in the medium and long planning horizon

The value chain approach may disregard the problems faced by environmental changes wrought by agriculture and that in turn effects agriculture. It is important that livestock production ALSO be seen in light of more long- term environmental objectives.

The approach is not necessarily best for all situations; too narrow sometimes – eg on environmental issues? However, if done well, VC approach should take account of all issues

A value chain approach can be too simplifying and misleading. So while rationalizing and focusing through working along a value chain, research should always, at least where needed to generate valid results, look at systems linked to and impacting on the value chain.

For public goods without functioning environment, biodiversity etc), VC is not the best approach. Therefore, farming systems related research remains important in order not to neglect issues critical for long-term system sustainability (incl. exit strategies).

Many (but by no means all) of the solutions to VCs are developmental rather than research. This means that ILRI adopting the value chain approach puts a premium on effective partnerships with the development community, and the private sector. In other words the ILRI uptake pathways would be more complex.

Defining and engaging with partners and defining roles is essential to deliver on selecting the appropriate VC management and governance options to merge commercial interests with social objectives ie inclusive approaches to poorer farmers.

As it is mostly referred to formal markets, the question of the public good needs to be well defined, as also the private sector can (and does) undertake VC approaches to develop markets. Therefore, the role of the private sector and ILRI/NARS need to be defined if public funds are being used.

Addressing the risks in improving chain efficiency covers managerial, financial and marketing risks, and problems are often incurred because of failure of coordinated delivery of services and inputs.

Beware … we as research are very small to try and steer markets

The risk of adopting this approach is in taking scarce resources and spreading them even more thinly by adding a suite of research activities without any reduction in current activities/areas of focus. What does ILRI see as its comparative advantage? What activities should be done in-house and what kinds of activities can it undertake through partners/strategic partnerships? It’s possible that the best approach is to look for such partnerships to take over the elements of the value chain in which ILRI does not currently have a comparative advantage in order to build networks that cover the spectrum of activities rather than by trying to manage it all in-house. This would imply building a greater awareness of how research activities link together between institutions to ensure coordinated efforts influence development outcomes rather than building a bigger barn, as it were.

The only risk I think value chain concept and approach can pose to the heart of ILRI research is the cost of executing the project, maintaining the project, future sustainability and finally, general norms of the stakeholder’s involved.

One of the risks that came with the approach is the planning cycle is longer as you need to carry stakeholders along.

A greater focus on livestock productivity?

1. Do you agree that research on livestock technologies related to productivity needs to be high on the research for development agenda?

Stongly agree

From economic point of view, the research must directed to efficiency of production related to conversion rate specially under these climatic change regarding the pastoral mode of production putting in mind other likelihoods assets.

Currently: It seems that ILRI wants to ‘sell animals not produce them’ [this needs to change!]

In Africa, livestock production is largely undertaken by traditional pastoralists. Overall low productivity is a result. Increased productivity and healthy livestock are key to poverty alleviation. Main need of pastoralists is grazing resources, water, livestock diseases control and profitable market for livestock and livestock based products. Solutions to grazing resources/feeds and water scarcity is to increase productivity of land resources to have enough carrying capacity and water sources development, which are dwindling. More productive and healthy livestock (increased live weight, milk, etc) and strategies for ensured profitable marketing, which meet needs and improve pastoral communities livelihoods are the ways to go.

We believe that animal productivity is still a limiting factor in many countries for the improvement of animal production. However, to know more and more the different components of the productivity, it will be better that the researchers must have a direct relationship with farmers. It means that the participatory and the multidisciplinary approach for the research programs must be applied: we must start from the farmers and we must return to the farmers for the transfer and the adoption and adaptation of the technologies.

I believe the ILRI strategy while targeting the livestock productivity and production should also enhance the sustainable use and conservation of forage and pasture species occurring in Africa and beyond. Natural factors such as climate change as well as anthropological factors are threatening biodiversity, ecosystem and plant diversity including that of pasture and forage which are indispensible part of the livestock industry and production system. Although a limited number of forage/pasture species have been captured and conserved in various national genebanks, their systematic evaluations and research (nutritive, molecular, etc) are inadequate curtailing their potential use especially in the context of local farmers and pastoralist among others. ILRI may need to consider to bolster its collaborative work and partnership with NARS and local communities on unlocking the potential uses of local plant diversity for sustainable livestock productivity and production.

NARS have evolved greatly over the past few decades to handle site specific strategic and adaptive productivity research. ILRIs role here should focus on developing the bigger picture ( e.g. such as the poverty mapping task of the early 2000s). This should involve maintenance of the traditional NARS capacity development programs (internships, post doctoral fellowships, training sessions, expert consultations ). ILRI’s research should mainly focus on high end (blue sky) productivity enhancing research (biosciences). A more complicated downstream research could be in the areas of knowledge management and dissemination, mainstreaming productivity enhancing innovations and wider use of research results

Our research should always have a practical application to meet a specific development problem for the target communities as the desired outcome. We should always be thinking that in the end, we will be managing livestock better for the benefit of the communities with the greatest need. We should not waste our time or resources at aiming for the wrong priorities.

The three key areas are to my mind very important. The most important is a clear focus on PRODUCTIVITY, not with production, but instead of … Productivity implies an economic reality as it is a ratio between cost and benefits. Food safety is another important aspect, often neglected but closely linked to the productivity in a family based livestock system.

2. Is there a balance between research on animal nutrition, health and genetics that needs to be aimed for?

The three aspects are inter-related in achieving maximum productivity.

Who benefits from applied research in feeding, breeding, health? It depends on the type of technologies. In general, there is a greater risk in this area of failing to show impact, (smallholder systems too diverse and complex; service delivery systems incapable to deal with complexity etc.)

Need to get a balance, what’s ILRI niche? Much of this work is better done by others

3. ILRI could focus more on the high-end biosciences research for animal nutrition, health and genetics, or strive to balance with on the ground applied research – what do you consider the priority?

In the developing countries, especially in Asia, there is no dearth of high-end bioscience research on animal nutrition, health and genetics but the issue is transforming these high-end research findings/ technologies to simple concept/ technologies useful for the smallholders. Many technologies developed by the institutes are not economically viable or technologically feasible for smallholders.

ILRI could have a two-pronged approach:  (a) continue to do high-end bioscience research at the Headquarter/Principal campus and (b) applied/ action research in other target areas outside HQ/PC.

High tech bio-science seems to be a better window of opportunities for ILRI in responding to pressing increasing productivity agenda (e.g. gene-technology vaccine and diagnostic, GM for breeding and feeding etc.)

Platforms only work if they have good content and real added value

In cutting edge science ILRI can’t compete, but ILRI needs to make sure the cutting edges are applied (through eg. alliances)

ILRI Niche is perhaps broker role between high end science and farmer application? Is this mainly ‘up’ or ‘down’? Does ILRI ‘just’ broker?

4. In your view, how should ILRI respond to strong demand to support technology development in a way that complements and builds upon the strengths of national livestock research organizations in these areas?

It is a catch 22 situation, especially because intensive, high–input technologies offer better quick wins to national Governments to respond to national supply demands and fulfill their export aspirations rather than support their smallholder systems. Their scenario: today’s smallholders will be the consumers of tomorrow, maintaining commodity prices high. Is this the ILRI scenario as well?

5. What are appropriate strategies to ensure that technological research to increase productivity is connected to the in-country delivery of services (veterinary, artificial insemination … etc)

Human capacity building should be encouraged to improve knowledge and know how

ILRI may work with R&D organisations to develop simplified concepts/ technologies useful for the smallholders based on the existing high-end research findings.

Increase of productivity is a strategically risky area for livestock research, when addressed through technology alone on the ground.
Many NARS still need connecting to advanced research institutes (ARIs); ILRI may also need to help them find their balance between higher end research and farm-oriented application/uptake

Important is to connect on the ground technology service delivery with technology development; get the technologies into use, a lot about extension, KM … Key bottleneck is delivery of technologies

ILRI needs to be ‘ahead’ of the game …. Which game? – the development game (rather than the high science game!)

A lot of the productivity research is not well documented from an analytic/science perspective; there’s a lot of ‘process’ research on making things work… which is often a bit lost. Can ILRI help here?

The bottom line: impact plus appropriate and relevant technologies and approaches are needed. Too much technology is already not used. We need to understand the application environment; really understand the real adoption rates/reasons behind so-called ‘successes’

Technologies are tricky, sometime systems are not yet ready so we need to accept some ‘waste’ until time is right. Some playing and experimenting is ok

ILRI, and others, tend to research what is needed now … how can we be forward looking?

Addressing the interface of animal and human health?

• Which are the key problems in this area of animal and human health where pro-poor agricultural research will make a significant difference?
• There is an emerging consensus that agricultural and ecological research and interventions must be a part of the solution to health problems that originate in agro-ecosystems, i.e. the answers are wider than ‘just’ health. There is less agreement how to put this into practice. What is the best role for ILRI? Should we aim to be a broker or entry-point facilitating involvement of advanced ‘agri-health’ research institutes in developing countries or carry out our own specialized research in a few key areas? How do we best engage developing-country national research institutes in this?
• In the area of food safety, zoonoses, emerging disease and ecohealth/OneHealth, what do you think ILRI should do more of, and what areas should ILRI do less of?

Working at the interface between human and animal health is an excellent idea as this aspect has largely been ignored in the developing countries.

With the growth in income and employment and growing concern for human health, the research and development actions on this area would be increasingly more important.

This area is felt to be the biggest windows of opportunities for ILRI.

Research on the control of zoonoses and monitoring of emerging diseases (having livestock as hosts), and food safety (focus on food-borne diseases) should be pursued with the same intensity

Product quality an important aspect to add to issues of food safety

In onehealth/zoonosis/health areas, there is MUCH that ILRI can borrow from elsewhere – especially developed countries. But how to make the connections?

Focus is going to be a key criterion to narrow and prioritise the actual ILRI future areas of excellence in this complex research field

Bigger complexities are seen in the ILRI role and type of partnerships necessary to advance this research area.

Brokering role important for ILRI; But it needs to pick partners very carefully – with a view to influencing others and other larger agendas

Facilitating involvement of high profile eco-health organisations and ILRI role as knowledge broker seems one of the best strategic bets.

A very important topic, however, there is also a relation with environmental health which could be explored.

ILRI must be in position to work closely with national and regional partners on OneHealth issues. There is already a coordination mechanism – regional organizations are developing policies and approaches to integrate animal, human and ecosystems health institutions and early warning tools. The NARS could be supported to establish methodologies for researching best bet approaches for policy/ strategy mainstreaming and for verification of impact. Models could be developed by ILRI scientists to assist in addressing the interface and in providing research result based arguments and possibilities.

I am pessimistic that ILRI has the capacity or even the motivation to address issues arising from problems at the animal health-human health interface. For them to record any significant successes in this area there is an urgent need to encourage veterinarians to practise in the field, so a steady stream of information can be obtained in respect of zoonotic infections. Second, highly competent public health personnel need to work actively with pastoral communities so that detailed studies of the diseases prevalent in this ecosystem can be done. Certainly, in collaboration with Field Clinical veterinarians, a lot can be learned about problems that these pastoral communities face and how best to address them. ILRI however has always had an historical preference towards Animal Scientists, Agricultural Economists and Veterinarians masquerading as the latter because they do not want to get their hands dirty. Therefore ILRI is doomed to continue to make hardly any impact.

See a summary of the feedback received so far

Please read the storyline below and give us your comments and feedback :

1. Do you agree with the starting diagnosis – that ILRI needs to expand its scope, focus and targets, and the reasons why?  Tell why you disagree and what you disagree with!
2. How about the three approaches and the system typologies underpinning them – ‘inclusive growth’, ‘low growth’ and ‘growth with externalities’. Do these reflect the livestock development world as you know it? Is it an appropriate way to generally organize and conceptualize our work? Are there any missing elements we overlooked? What would improve it?
3. Are there any gaps or failures in the logic that need to be addressed? Please suggest any specific examples or cases we might use to support our arguments.

ILRI strategy storyline: ‘Solutions for a Transforming Livestock Sector’

We developed the text below as a way to guide our attention and focus on the issues we face in addressing livestock development. Alongside this, we are looking at the ways we do research, the partnerships and approaches we use, and how to make these more effective.

• Our past strategy ‘Pathways out of poverty’ has been a useful framework

ILRI’s strategy for the past ten years (‘livestock – a pathway out of poverty’) was based on a simple but insightful conceptual framework to understand the potential roles of livestock in poverty reduction. It describes three main opportunities – or pathways – to enhance the role of livestock in providing a pathway out of poverty, summarized as ‘securing critical assets to the livelihoods of the poor’, ‘sustainably improving their livestock productivity for food and income’, and ‘linking livestock keepers to markets’ to increase the value from their production.

These pathways were particularly relevant in the context of the rapidly rising demand for animal-source foods in the developing world, termed the Livestock Revolution. The challenge to ensure these three pathways could reduce poverty while also responding to the Livestock Revolution helped to put ILRI’s research into context and identified opportunities by which its research could better support the pathways.

• However, this framework needs to take into account changes ongoing and projected in the global context

Pursuing the pathways out of poverty has sharpened ILRI’s research focus on interventions and institutional strategies for pro-poor livestock development. Our experience over the past decade, however, shows that achieving research impact across the pathways is a continuing challenge.

During the past years, we have observed that the context for livestock development is rapidly evolving, driven by the continued  Livestock Revolution, particularly in Asia, and a greater recognition that the ongoing transformation needs to be nuanced in relation to the roles of smallholders (and thus the pathways out of poverty), their diverse economic situations and the different livestock commodities they produce.

Meanwhile, the food price crisis and heightened volatility has raised concerns about having sufficient food supplies into the future and renewed threats of food insecurity for the poor, particularly in the face of increasing land and water constraints. The private sector in developing country food economies has become much more dynamic, creating new types of opportunities for smallholder livestock production and marketing systems and means for market development, but also causing rapid structural changes in scales and quality of livestock commodity production, marketing and consumption. And pressure to raise animal production is increasingly weighed against its impact on the environment, health issues and climate change.

The combined challenges of growing demand for food, continued rural poverty, climate change and scarcity of land, energy and water require changes in livestock production systems, i.e. livestock production needs to be highly productive and highly sustainable.

• We need to expand the scope of the pathways out of poverty and its focus on the poor livestock keeper, to a wider vision of livestock commodities in developing country food systems and how they can evolve to improve food security while reducing poverty in a way that is environmentally sound and has positive human health outcomes

These trends calls for us to redefine the targets of ILRI’s research.

Our past strategy has focused on poor livestock keepers and using their livestock assets as a means out of poverty. The focus must now expand to meet the future challenges of addressing the role of livestock to address food security, poverty, environmental and health issues – it must be inclusive.

Based on the diversity of livestock systems and their likely transformation in the coming decade, three main approaches emerge, characterized in relation to the potential livestock sector growth scenarios (these largely derive from a recent High-Level Consultation for a Global Livestock Agenda to 2020 co-convened by ILRI and the World Bank).

Inclusive Growth Systems

The first approach is to develop sustainable food systems that deliver key animal-source nutrients to the poor, while facilitating the structural transition from a majority of smallholder households keeping livestock in low-productive systems to a livestock sector raising productive animals in more efficient, intensive and market-linked systems.  These are the systems that currently provide significant animal and crop products in the developing world and where there is likely to be the most growth, and the greatest opportunity to influence and empower that growth. In some regions, this transition is occurring relatively quickly through the development of more specialized livestock farms, but in many areas of Africa and Asia, the transition is happening slowly and will be long term. Likewise, marketing systems associated with smallholder systems are largely informal, even though elements of modern supply chains exert an increasing influence. When viewed as value chains, opportunities can be identified to improve production and supply chain efficiency, employment creation and benefits captured by the poor.

The goal is for the transition to be as broad-based as possible, allowing for those who can – and those who may already be advanced – to continue on the path to sustainable, highly productive and resource efficient small-holder systems, including in some cases,  intensification and specialization to do so, and for others to participate in different non-production elements of the value chain (such as trading, processing, input or service provision) or to accumulate sufficient capital to exit from agriculture without falling back into poverty. The role of research is to inform, devise and enable the up-scaling of interventions, organizational strategies and policies that will support such inclusive growth and agricultural transition that maximizes the well-being of people now and in the future, addresses the growing threat of a supply gap whilst addressing environmental and human health challenges. 

Low Growth Systems

But it is not likely to be feasible to create the same levels of opportunities for all poor livestock keepers, especially in areas where productivity growth may be limited by remoteness or ecological and social constraints, such as in some pastoral systems or areas with slow demand growth or chronically low market access. In these situations where smallholder livestock systems may face few incentives or possibilities to improve productivity or market participation, a second more nuanced approach will still look for incremental growth and productivity options within the constraints, but more emphasis will be given to enhancing the role of livestock for resilience, both in terms of ecosystem services and household/community livelihoods. Livestock will continue to play a strategic role for household food security and social protection, and research can support this role through technologies and institutions to protect livestock assets of the poor and their contribution to stewarding the natural resources upon which they rely.

Growth with externalities

A third approach recognizes that in some intensifying small-scale livestock systems, dynamic markets and  increased human resource capacity are already driving strong growth in productivity and livelihoods, but may give rise  to negative impacts on environmental services, or human health, and may also be leading to a highly stratified structure of production, with the resource poor being left behind . For example, many smallholders raising pigs in Vietnam may create pollution problems for local water supplies, while also rapidly intensifying production and marketing in ways which expose themselves and consumers to increased health risks.  In these areas, zoonotic diseases may also be of importance. The approach in these settings will also be multi-faceted, with strong emphasis on understanding and anticipating the potential negative impacts of small-scale livestock intensification, and conducting research will address the incentives, technologies and strategies for market-driven options for mitigation risks to health and environment, but also organizational and product innovations to allow the resource poor to play some part in changing markets and to comply with increasing market standards.

Our current thinking is that ILRI will devote the greater share of its research resources to the first challenge of supporting inclusive growth and transition as this has the potential of benefiting the largest number of poor, both poor producers and poor consumers, as smallholder production increases.

The second and third challenges remain important, very strategic components of the ILRI research portfolio.  Regional variation in economies, policy environments, and production systems will determine the relative emphasis among the three approaches in specific regions.

Please give us your comments and feedback :

1. Do you agree with the starting diagnosis – that ILRI needs to expand its scope, focus and targets, and the reasons why?  Tell why you disagree and what you disagree with!
2. How about the three approaches and the system typologies underpinning them – ‘inclusive growth’, ‘low growth’ and ‘growth with externalities’. Do these reflect the livestock development world as you know it? Is it an appropriate way to generally organize and conceptualize our work? Are there any missing elements we overlooked? What would improve it?
3. Are there any gaps or failures in the logic that need to be addressed? Please suggest any specific examples or cases we might use to support our arguments.

Click this link to comment

In developed countries, combining research results for these three areas has generated significant impacts on livestock production – increasing for example, milk yield by at least fourfold over a 60 year period (Capper, J.L., Cady, R.A., Bauman, D.E., 2009.  The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007.  Journal of Animal Science 87, 2160-2167).

In developing countries there has been no shortage of research on diverse technical aspects of animal nutrition, genetics and health, but the impact of this work on overall livestock productivity has been patchy.  On the whole, despite the strong contributions of livestock to local livelihoods and national economies, productivity levels remain low.

There has been considerable speculation about the reasons behind this, including for example, lack of connection between farmers and markets, inappropriate technologies that do not take account of farmer needs or circumstances, focus on often single (“silver bullet”) technologies to the exclusion of other innovation processes needed for sustainable changes, lack of attention to service and delivery mechanisms, isolation of technological fixes from other dimensions (e.g. feed research not combined with genetics and health).

In recent years, ILRI thus worked on various dimensions of livestock productivity including nutrition (especially food feed crops, feeding strategies, fodder innovation systems, forage diversity), genetics and breeding and health (vaccines, diagnostics), with in many cases limited on station or laboratory based research in these areas in the past 10 years.

The potential growth scenario of the livestock sector and implications for smallholders means that strategies to improve productivity are again high on the research agenda, but the lessons learned regarding productivity and technological solutions need to be explicitly embedded in this agenda.  This would mean:

• Ensuring that productivity enhancement is placed in the context of specific livestock commodity value chain opportunities;
• Combining in realistic and practical ways research on technologies addressing all dimensions of productivity – feed, breed and health;
• Factoring in service and input delivery mechanisms and the diverse actors involved through innovation systems approaches in relation to value chains;
• Linking ‘high end’ biosciences research on productivity solutions with on the ground realities.

We are seeing a growing demand from many national and international partners for ILRI to increase its efforts in livestock technology research for productivity and not least, the capacity development activities that were associated with this.  Clearly there is a challenge to determine the appropriate balance here and the importance this issue needs to have in the institute’s new strategy.

This leads to five main questions:

1. Do you agree that research on livestock technologies related to productivity needs to be high on the research for development agenda?
2. Is there a balance between research on animal nutrition, health and genetics that needs to be aimed for?
3. ILRI could focus more on the high-end biosciences research for animal nutrition, health and genetics, or strive to balance with on the ground applied research – what do you consider the priority?
4. In your view, how should ILRI respond to strong demand to support technology development in a way that complements and builds upon the strengths of national livestock research organizations in these areas?
5. What are appropriate strategies to ensure that technological research to increase productivity is connected to the in-country delivery of services (veterinary, artificial insemination … etc)

Click this link to comment on the questions

The value chain concept was quickly taken up by ILRI and further endorsed by an External Review of our work on Sustainable Intensification – it was felt to capture the types of research ILRI had been doing to combine increased productivity on farm with market participation using an impact pathway logic. It also complements well the way ILRI views the world as dynamic systems. Importantly, it has also provided a common language to engage with development partners and other stakeholders when exploring how research might more directly support development efforts, as in the case of the East Africa Dairy Development Project (EADD) and the Improving Productivity and Market Success of Ethiopian Farmers project (IPMS).

Perhaps more subtle, the value chain concept has signaled a shift in emphasis from livestock systems to livestock commodities. When ILRI together with CGIAR partners and stakeholders developed the idea for the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish, the value chain approach was adopted as a central feature, together with an impact-minded commitment to focus the program’s activities on improving only selected value chains.

In terms of an ILRI strategy for the next ten years, the value chain approach seems to offer a logical extension of the livestock pathways out of poverty; value chain development typically incorporates a combination of the three pathways, especially with respect to improving productivity and access to markets. But the value chain perspective also helps to recognize that these challenges are not limited to on farm, but also concern the range of services and inputs needed to support livestock keepers and the post-farm activities associated with livestock products, including the poor who earn their livelihoods from providing these services. It thus provides a powerful framework to understand how ILRI’s research might translate to broad-based economic growth, environmental sustainability and poverty reduction. It also connects us more clearly to consumers and the opportunities to enhance benefits they derive from access to affordable animal-source foods.

This all makes a compelling argument for us to embrace the value chain concept as a fundamental impact pathway for ILRI research. Concerns have been raised, however, that it may be too limiting. It may, for example, shift focus too much towards finding quick solutions for today’s constraints, at the expense of longer-term research to address the more difficult challenges such as developing a vaccine for a key livestock disease.

This leads to two main questions:

1. Do you agree that the value chain concept is appropriate for helping to define ILRI’s role in research to promote market-oriented livestock production in our ‘inclusive growth’ scenario?
   • If yes, are there any reasons not mentioned above that you think should be highlighted for why it is useful?
   • If no, why do you think it is inappropriate?
2. If ILRI adopts the value chain concept and approach at the heart of its strategy, what risks might be created?

Click this link to comment on the questions