Livestock gene plan2016
Livestock CRP genetics flagship planning meeting Nairobi 12-13 October 2016
Contents
Words of welcome by Tom
We've been challenged to sharpen our thinking and arguments and we'd like to put together all the critiques and comments about the proposal because they own't go away. ISPC reviews our work and they make a concerted effort to always review their past comments. So we need to continue and analyse what they're uncomfortable wit and address that. Among last comments they mentioned 'weak justification' of the genetic potential. They also mentioned our lack of comparative advantage if we look into imported genetics. There's a strong argument to think that this group can deal with that shift very well. We don't know who the reviewers were so we don't know whether those comments are from the council or external to them.
Olivier said that we're expecting that the flagships will be more or less funded at the level we proposed. One last hiccup that this flagship has to go through is that the council has to improve the portfolio and in the process they said that for allocation of money they would go through flagship by flagship to see if the request for funding requests the proposed deliverables. There's still uncertainty as to the shifting around funding to different flagships, based on their judgment.
We don't need to do scenarios but we do need to prioritise and be clear what our priorities are that need to be protected if there's variation of funding for next year and beyond. What essential things do we need to finish if we are to deliver on the overall concept of the flagship? That goes into the general comment on W1/W2 funding: W1/2 funding is the glue and grease that allows us to do strategic, value-adding activities. We've used that quite flexibly in the past. But the donors are not going to condone this any longer. A working committee of the donors is getting agreement on what W1/2 funding is meant for. Two possible surprises: 1) Long-standing debate among donors as to whether W1/2 can co-fund projects or not. Donors want to see a more efficient use of W1/2. 2) Donors want to see that their funding is leading to produce something rather than small ad-hoc activities, they want a translation of their funding into outputs. They want to fund upstream rather than downstream work. The problem is that donors are not speaking with one voice - so our upstream research share of funding could be affected. When thinking about W1/2 funding, be clear about what it is funding and what deliverables will result from it. Think of W1/2 funding as another bilateral project with clear deliverables etc.
The theory of change will be powerful to help us think about what is our upstream work promising about the future. What are weak points in our logic?
Presentation by Olivier about the new flagship vision, theory of change, strategy, structure
See the presentation: (upcoming)
- Q: Connection with nutrition programs - what genetic resources are there to add value to animal products? Human microbial genetic resources could be quickly related to feeds, climate change etc. There are opportunities to characterise these resources.
- A: I agree with you. The important thing is we have a structure in place and a document, sometimes vague enough that we have room to change. We are learning by doing. If we realise we have to do some things for delivery, let's do it. It's never too late as long as it's justified. It has to be discussed but the spirit is that we have to be dynamic, that's extremely important.
Your point relates to the ToC also - is there sthg that could be incorporated to achieve the changes we want. That's exactly how we see the ToC being used for recording the rationale for changes and adjustments. At least once a year do a reflection about what's changed in the evidence and our understanding of the ToC that allows us to try this new way, abandon an old way etc. Use the ToC to show why these adjustments are justified. (Azage, the question asker) I want to make sure that in the long term we develop areas and link up with other programs. Animal genetic resources have been about the animals only over the past few years but there are other dimensions to it. ==> Yes we are talking about the same thing, The question is how we achieve it.
- Q:
- A:
Outputs:
1. Updated logframe
File:FP_genetics_logframe_oct2016.xlsx
2. Updated list of bilateral projects
3. Ideas around academic linkages in the flagship
- engage/backstop local academia
- symposia
- institutional linkages (eg via USAID)
- summer/graduate schools
- access to resources (journals)
- shared infrastructure
- advanced training courses
- beca fellowships
- phd/msc students, and co-supervision / fellowships, studentships, projects
- engaging at sub-msc level
- attachments and visits
- professorships
- academics in a project
- research 'calls' together
- curriculum development/delivery
4. Initial list of positions to be recruited for the Flagship (not prioritized). Professional gaps to be filled.
- bioinformaticians (2) ICARDA Addis; ILRI Nairobi/China - Quantitative animal breeder/geneticist - research technicians (data crunching/ field support) - business model developer - systems modelling/programmer - capacity development specialist / instructional designer - communications specialist - knowledge and data systems manager - 9% of a gender and genetics specialist
5. Big project ideas (with champions)
A. the ACGG long term genetic gain (LTGG) program objectives: 1) based on data from acgg, breed tests identify high producing efficient and farmer-preferred breeds. 2) set up ltgg program in partnership with private sector breeding companies for continuous improvement, multiplication and delivery at scale. 3) Develop an EML framework for sustainable gender-balanced improvement. outcome: increased income and nutrition security of smallholder farmers in SSA. partners and their roles: private sector breeding companies; NARES; ILRI, WUR, CTLGH etc Champion: Tadelle/Olivier
B. Appropriate genetics DELIVERY in ruminants using reproductive technology and applying genetics, genomics, ICT, bug data, in multiple countries and agro-ecologies. Integrated sub-projects, IT platforms, genomic platforms, feedback systems. Links to other initiatives. Champion: Okeyo/Azage
BB. Delivering 'seed' at scale - using all forms/approaches etc.
C, Breeding for resource-use efficiency
D. 10K livestock gnome project (Olivier)
E. Genetic resistance to diseases ... host-pathogen interactions (Phil, Mourad)
F. Genetic and environmental approaches to reproductive fitness in the tropics (Mourad, Julie)
G. Scaling a gender approach to small ruminant breeding in pastoral areas (Aynalem, Julie)
H. Gender - how to make sure women will benefit from our impacts (Rhiannon)
Presentations
File:genetics_planning_olivier.pdf
File:genetics_planning_aynalem.pdf
File:genetics_planning_hans.pdf
