Best Bets Selection Protocol

Protocol for implementing a pilot exercise of selecting the L&F Best Bets

Introduction This protocol is to be used together with the Best Bets guidance note (2015). Its aim is to guide the program’s process of identifying integrated interventions (Best Bets) that stimulate pro-poor transformation of targeted Livestock and Fish (L&F) value chains. According to the Best Bets guidance note, Best Bets are defined as:

“Technologies, processes, institutions or social innovations that have been chosen through a rigorous, participatory and transparent research-based selection process because of their potential for making positive contributions to one or more of the L&F Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs) without having a negative impact on other IDOs.”

Best Bet selection is an additional step of the larger process consisting of four steps namely: identification and bundling of the technologies, vetting, piloting and testing and verification and scale-up or-out.

Dimensions of the Best Bet selection criteria In this process, we intend to rely heavily on soft criteria supported by anecdotal evidence and some technical outputs. The criteria consist of 6 basic elements, namely: economic and technical feasibility, gender and social equity, environmental sustainability, social sustainability, political acceptability and contribution to program’s IDOs. Below, we provide a summary of the dimensions and the key areas of enquiry that will guide their assessment (also included in the Table 1).

1) Economic and technical feasibility[12]:

1. Market studies

• These sources will provide assessments of whether livestock and fish products for which the innovations are targeting have adequate demand to sustain the scale-up of the best bet.

1. Cost-benefit analysis

• Evidence will include the extent to which total benefits accruing from up-take of integrated packages outweigh total associated costs. The might include put some value on the aggregate welfare generated and comparing with the direct cost of resource needed to produce the products, regulatory, transactional and other indirect costs.

1. Technical capacity

• Evidence in this category might center on availability local resources and skills to scale-up the technology or innovation.

2) Gender and social equity 34:

1. Equity

• Information on the impact of the innovation on relationships between men and women, especially on control of and access to resources of vulnerable groups.

1. Labor demand

• Here, evidence might answer questions of how the innovation/technology affects labor demand for various sections of the target community.

1. Human safety and health

• This will include evidence on the effect of the technology on quality of life of target populations.

3) Environmental sustainability 5:

1. Soil and land

• This will seek for information on the effect of the innovation on soil quality and land degradation.

1. Atmosphere

• This will need to answer two questions: what impact does it have on air quality? And is there any anecdotal evidence of its impact on greenhouse gas emissions levels?

1. Biodiversity

• How about its impacts on ecosystem, species and genetic diversity of the focal value chain?

4) Social sustainability:

1. Maintenance and creation of employment and its effects of quality of life

• What is the impact of the innovation on evolution of people employed in agriculture (male and female)?

1. Governance and public life

• What is its impact on community participation in civil society organizations?

1. Social capital

• How does the innovation affect trust among members of the community and how does it change the level of connectedness to others in the community?

5) Political capital 6:

1. Political support

• To what extent is it acceptable and supported by local/national leaders?

6) Relevance to the IDOs

1. The assessment should include a simple description of how the innovation contributed to the IDOs (the MEL team will provide a brief ToC narrative)

Practical guidelines for assessing Best Bets

Step I: i. The value chain coordinator takes the lead at building an inventory of all available and possible LF best bets for a specific value chain. ii. The value chain coordinator then provides potential evidence to support the Best Bet. iii. The value chain coordinator identifies potential reviewers for each dimension of selection criterion. It is preferable that nominated reviewers are selected from other value chains to encourage cross value chain learning, more so if they are selected from value chains with similar livestock species. iv. Reviewers are invited to assess the Best Bets.

Step II: Each reviewer adopts table 2 to assess the evidence attached to each dimension of the criterion by implementing the following steps: Rank the evidence against a selection criterion on a scale of 1-3: (1=does not meet criterion, 2=has positive alignment with criterion, 3= meets criterion). i. Where possible the reviewer includes additional evidence to support or counter evidence provided by the value chain coordinator. ii. Where technical evidence is lacking, the reviewer can rely on personal experience or anecdotal evidence to support or counter the evidence and to justify the score.

Step III: For the pilot exercise a validation focus group discussion amongst the value chain coordinator, the reviewers and some selected value chains actors. Such a meeting will be organized by somebody from the team and facilitated by the VC coordinator. Details of the reviewers’ scoring will be shared in the focus group discussions. The aim of the meeting will be to harmonize evidence and identify cross criterion implications.

Step IV: After all stakeholders have submitted their views and minutes documented, the value chain coordinator aggregates the scores and submits the scores and the minutes of the FGD to the CRP director for a decisions on whether to proceed with the BB or not.

Table 1: Livestock and Fish Best Bets Selection Criterion

Country/value chain
Name of Best Bet
Name of Reviewer
Selection criteria	Type of evidence	Area of Enquiry	Available evidence (provided by the VC coordinator)	Assessment criteria (1does not meet criterion, 2has positive alignment with criteria, 3 meets criteria)	Reviewers justification of the score (provide counter or supporting evidence)
# Economic and technical sustainability	Market analysis studies	Adequacy of market demand for the final product
^	Financing	Adequacy of financial resources to rollout all activities associated with the full cycle of the best bet.
^	Cost-benefit analysis	Extent to which total benefits accruing from the best bet outweigh total associated costs (resource, regulatory, social welfare, transactional and indirect costs).
# Gender and social equity	Equity	Impact of the innovation on relationships between men and women, especially on control of and access to resources of vulnerable groups
^	Labor demand	Impacts on labor demand for various sections of the target community
^	Human safety and health	Nature of adverse effects on quality of life of target populations.
# Environmental sustainability	Soil, Land and Water	Effect on soil quality, impact on land degradation and on water quality and availability
^	Atmosphere	Impact on air quality and association with greenhouse gas emissions levels.
^	Biodiversity	Impacts on ecosystem, species and genetic diversity Status
# Social sustainability	Maintenance and creation of employment and its effects of quality of life	Its impact on the evolution of people employed in agriculture (male and female); proportions of potential beneficiaries; subjective dimension of quality of life related to the introduction of the innovation
	Governance and public life	Impact on community participation in civil society organizations
	Social capital	Changes in trust in members of the community, changes in the level of connectedness to other in the community
# Political acceptability	Political support	Extent of acceptance and support by local/national leaders
# Contribution to IDOs ( to be assessed by the MEL team)	Contribution to program IDOs	How significant is the BB towards achieving program IDOs

---

[1] United Nations Development Programme, 2012. International guidebook of environmental finance tools: A sectoral approach. Environment and Energy. [[1]] [2] Zhen, L. 2003. Operational indicators for measuring agricultural sustainability in developing countries, Environmental Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 34–46. [[2]] [3]Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, n.d. Gender checklist, [[3]] [4]Food and Agriculture Organization, 2013. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA) guidelines, version 3.0, [[4]] [5]Zhen, L. 2003. Operational indicators for measuring agricultural sustainability in developing countries, Environmental Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 34–46. [[5]] [6]United Nations Development Programme, 2012. International guidebook of environmental finance tools: A sectoral approach. Environment and Energy. [[6]]