Theme planning mar2014

Theme Planning Meeting Naivasha 24-28 March 2014

---

Contributing to the CRP planning process 2014

Background documents

Some photos

Purpose

• Initiate Strategy and Implementation Plans for 5 flagships (2015-2023)
• Obtain inputs from flagships to Extension phase/phase 2
• Develop the first version of the flagship POWB for 2015
• Obtain preliminary input for SIPs for each of the 9 value chains with follow up to be done at in-country meetings from April onwards
• Generate initial resource mobilization concept notes for each flagship.

Specific tasks

• Confirm/re-conceptualize the overall objective and outcomes of the flagship through a visioning exercise (up to 2023)
• Update the current theme Log-frame
• Conceptualize and document the clusters of activities and product lines
• Conceptualize and document the key activities (and their associated milestones and outputs)
• Details for 2017-2019 and the 2015-2016 time periods
• Sketch out initial thoughts on place of gender research and cross-cutting issues in the theme
• Brainstorm resource mobilization ideas and priorities
• Populate ‘theme’ chapters in the SIP
• Tighten 2014 outputs in the POWB in light of above

Participants

• 6 theme ‘teams’ - normally 2 days
• Health / Genetics / Feeds
• Gender and Learning / Targeting / VCD Research
• VC Coordinators – all week
• Cross cutters – all week
• Management and support team – all week
• Facilitators and Documenters

Presentations

Tom - program update and outputs for this week

File:LF_update_mar2014.pptx

Livestock and Fish New Flagships for day 1 Acho and An - intro to new flagships

File:LF_newflagships_mar2014.pptx

Iddo Dror, Diana Brandes - van Dorresteijn; Abridged Rapid Value Chain Analyses Training

Products

Cluster Logframe sheets per flagship:

SASI: Systems analysis for sustainability File:sip_sasi_logframe_mar2014.xlsx

VCT: Enabling innovations for value chain transformation and scaling File:sip_vct_logframe_mar2014.xlsx

Feeds:

File:sip_feeds_logframe_mar2014.xlsx

Health:

File:sip_health_logframe_mar2014.xlsx

Genetics

File:sip_genetics_logframe_mar2014.xlsx

Summary of Flagships with updated objective statements and clusters of activities

Flagship	Value Chain Transformation	Systems Analysis for Sustainable Innovation	Feed and Forages	Animal Health	Animal Genetics
Objective	From 2016 onwards, this flagship is producing at least one scaling and delivery mechanism per year that ensures that CRP products are being used and benefitting poor women and men in small and medium scale enterprises in the value chains and beyond.	Developing and guiding a systems approach being used for pro-poor, sustainable & equitable transformation of livestock and fish value chains through AR4D	Develop superior feed and forage responding to actual and evolving demands to enhance meat, milk and fish production and design and implement equitable feed value chains while reducing ecological footprints	With partners, generate evidence and gender equitable products which reduce losses (including food safety) from animal diseases in targeted pro-poor value chains and beyond	By 2023, Choices of improved and appropriate livestock and fish breeds and strains are widely available, used, sustainably and are equitably providing nutritious, affordable food and income for the poor.
Cluster of activities 1	Enabling and attaining sustainable scale	Guiding & supporting L&F VC interventions	Feed tools, analysis, and information platform	Animal health assessment and prioritization	System and genomic assessment: System, strategies and genome assessed for best use of L&F Genetic Resource in targeted production system
Cluster of activities 2	What works well (where, when, how)	Research beyond VCs to explore issues relevant to value chains, global as well as attaining IDOs of L&F CRP	Efficient utilization of feed and forage resources	Animal population health and food safety	Improved strains: Genetically improved strains and conserved genetic resources to meet future needs
Cluster of activities 3	Capacity development for VC transformation		Feed and forage improvement	Vaccines and diagnostics	Delivery and use: Improved breeds/strains and genetics management strategies being promoted, delivered and used sustainably by appropriate stakeholders
Cluster of activities 4				Delivery	Technology and information systems:; Prototype breakthrough technologies and information systems for improved use of genetic resources

Fund raising project ideas

Feeds

1. Piloting (feed certification) scheme- funding window
2. Assessing and targeting feed interventions in Vietnam
3. Funding on forage/seed feed seed Ethiopia
4. Aflatoxins in feed $ 1 million
5. Sustainable intensification concept note for Ethiopia. Cross centre. Crop improvement/climate change/livestock $50 million
6. IFAD small ruminant Ethiopia $ 1.5 million. Proposal submitted, tentative agreement
7. SIMLESA 2 – proposal submitted
8. Burkina Faso – small ruminants – ideas note use of rice straw. Islamic development bank $8 million for 5 years
9. Small ruminant value chain- Burkina, IFAD. Rework and submit. Assessment/best bets/pilot feeds component
10. ILRI-CIAT forage work-Tanzania Dairy Chain- idea stage, very early.
11. Forages and environment –IFAD. Tanzania DVC Kenya (CIAT)
12. Adoption/non adoption – CCAFS rejected forages (CIAT) Tanzania concept note
13. Feed value chain assessments- Fish Egypt + Bangladesh. Quality issues, aflatoxins Proposal to SDC to continue-feed certification, feed processors, novel feeds, large scale feeds (possible GIZ for 2 years)
14. Dual purpose rice- proposal submitted Japan funds $400K
15. Concept note- second generation biofuel spin-offs. Gates, Biotec Dept India $9 million
16. MasterCard Foundation - $15 million 5 years. Forages and forage seed systems- Uganda ICIPE/CIAT
17. Forages carbon, methane (CIAT)- concept, CCAFS, Nicaragua
18. New Zealand- VC forage policy- concept
19. TATA Trust- ideas stage, 3 VCs feed, health, genetics. India 3 years $ 2 million.

Feed tools, analysis and information platform

Project ideas

1. Ration-balancing tool for sub-Saharan Africa Objective: Making production of ASF more economical on farm level and reducing ecological footprint Approach: Matching nutrient supply to productivity; Least cost feeding options; Linking & networking farmers/practitioners/researchers/cooperative (stakeholders) Outcomes; Improvement of decision-making on feed formulation + choice among farmers, feed suppliers & processors Key activities

• Systematic collection of feed information (quality, quantity, price)
• Training/capacity building in the use of the tool
• Modifying the tool to livestock species
• Systematic collection of market information of livestock products
• Testing and validation of the tool
• Application of ICT platforms
• Stratification of farmers (rather than individual farmers)

Two pronged approach on forage/feed improvement Plan A. Long-term sustainable approach to feed development Enhance capacity and empower partners to drive forage/feed development in livesock and fish value chains

Components 1. Work with universities Key activities

• champions in NARS/FARA etc
• awareness creation
• curricula development
• fellowships
• short term training
• train trainers

2. Gender and mentoring Outcome: capacity and empowerment to do research

Plan B Just do it! Fill funding gaps to do the research (identified in the CA) by the CGIAR and immediate partners in the L&F value chains and own research sites Components Key activities

• Forage evaluation
• Breeding (forage and food feed crops)
• Seed systems development
• Feed value chains development – environment
• Novel feeds
• Impact/socio-econ/adoption studies/lessons

Outcome: Increased use of feeds for productivity

Animal Health: Title: A diseases assessment for action (ADAF) Objective- to identify and prioritize diseases that constrain productivity and threaten public health in order to identify best bet recommendation for interventions and research priorities Centres: ILRI, ICARDA Value chains: shoats in Ethiopia, pigs in Uganda, dairy in Tanzania, cattle in India, pigs in Vietnam Budget: for East Africa and Asia, USD 5M each Approach- multi-disciplinary context analysis- including policy, economic, gender, foresight and lessons learned Activities: Longitudinal multipathogen survey Special assessment of key diseases, control option study Outcomes: cluster testing best bets works on the ‘vital few’ not ‘the trivial many’ diseases and most appropriate control

Title: Integrated pro-poor disease control and strategies to improve herd health Objective is divided along two phases the project will have: 1- To test and evaluate suitable disease specific DCS- country and commodity specific (USD 2-3 M) 2- Develop, test and integrate DC packages to address multiple disease constraints (USD 2-3 M Components Phase 1: priority diseases identified and agreed Identify foreseeable potential best bets and RCT design Establish modelling framework for selected diseases (epidemiological, socio-economics, WTP, CBA) Best bet studies implemented Phase two: Design and test integrated herd health packages Tools: RCT BLS- baseline surveys RIA-Rapid impact assessment Supportive biological survey WTP/CBA Training Outcomes: Farmers take ownership and apply integrated packages and increased productivity demonstrated Capacity building in NARS Cross-centres: (include gender, capacity building, dissemination) PPP, CRP 4.3/3.7, all 9 value chain assessments

Title: Delivering animal health products in a resource poor environment Areas of focus: i. Testing ITM efficacy for productivity (USD 20M) ii. Testing thermostable PPR vaccine manufacture and delivery in Ethiopia (USD 3M) iii. Assessing the demand and utility of the CBPP diagnostic assay in Tanzania (USD 1M) Value chain links- Ethiopia, Tanzania Cross centres- ICARDA and ILRI

Genetics 1. Enhancing food security and livelihoods of small-scale fish producers in the Great Lake Region through selective breeding of Nile tilapia Outcome: An improved high producing strain of Nile tilapia available for multiplication and use by small-scale farmers. Objectives: To have an improved strain of Nile tilapia and associated technologies for its management under small-holder system. Approach/activity

• Assessment of targeted system
• Map of the value chain for fish
• Develop a breeding program (10% of improved in term of growth by the end of the project)
• Capacity development for stakeholders (20% of small holder adopting)

Partners: ILRI, WorldFish, Wageningen University, NARS, Development NGOs

2. Delivering appropriate genetics to millions What is the problem

• ‘Best’ genetics are available; No impact unless used. Appropriate breed and strain are being widely used in sustainable and equitable ways
• How can we get these to farmers
• Can these currently be delivered at scale? On time? Efficiently? (NO)

What can we do Design and test business models Understand current situation – what genetics and where? Innovative delivery options to fit socio-environmental circumstances Promotion of capacity development Business case models

• Best genetics: what, who, where
• Multiplied – who, how, where
• Delivered and dissemination – who how where

3. Mola genomics to improve food and nutrition security under a changed environment

File:Mola breeding proposal_very draft_280314.docx

---

Ideas to promote integration across the CRP

generated by participants on 27 march

• Idea management and incentives
• Sharing, talking, interactions
• Integrated into multidisciplinary teams
• Work on common biological systems
• All CRP money to be managed by Value Chain coordinators
• Consolidate flagships 1-3 under something like ‘productivity’
• Write proposals together
• Do projects together
• Include sharing in work plans (and reward it)

---

Next steps, issues arising and follow ups

• Consider how best to organize/manage the new flagships (especially the value chain one)
• Presentation of the flagships to be re-thoguht (less 'boxy'?)
• Consider visibility of commitment to gender - this seems to be lost in the new flagships
• Ensuring effective synergies and linkages between the 2 new flagships and between them and the 3 technology ones
• Clarify notions of ‘product lines’
• Short flagship narrative updates to tom (next week)
• 2014 POWB updates (end of next week)
• SIP (end of June)
• Value chain country SIP meetings (by end of June)

---

Notes from selected discussions

Parallel session on cross-cutting activities

The group met on Monday to discuss how as a team they would need to structure so as to engage with the technology platform and the either platform more effectively. Each unit listed down their activities below and thereafter the team mapped where they units could fit within the new flagships.

	Gender (4/5)	Capacity Development (5)	KM, comms advocacy and data (4/5)	Monitoring Evaluation and Learning(4)	Partnerships (5)
Activities (Research and operation)	Research on tools, methods, approaches; Gender transformative approaches; Nutrition in a gender perspective in the value chain; Access gender engagement, interacting with partners	Design and delivery on innovative learning tools for research uptake; Ensuring capdev aspect captured in ME framework; Enabling collaborative capacity; Strategic research in fellowship; Mainstreaming of capdev	Making data and knowledge available; Internal communication to promote knowledge sharing; External communication especially IPGs that come out from research; support value transformation process	Develop overall monitoring and evaluation framework to guide learning and program implementation; Outcome assessment, validating the theory of change in each of the value chains; Impact assessment	Coalition building around issues; Value chain learning to adopt action (method and approaches); Forming strategic alliance; Researching change at scale through multi-stakeholder processes

---

Flagship 5: Enabling innovation for value chain transformation and scaling

Flagship objective; what would success look like in 2013 Group was divided into 3 groups that came up with different definition of success for the Flagship:

1. By 2023 The flagship have created the knowledge base, methods and approaches that ensure products developed by the CRP are being used by and benefitting small and medium scale value chain actors. Issues; who are the actors, whose responsible to get products in the value chains 2. Our VC actors are adopting at scale and benefiting those IDOs from targeted intervention packages are developed or delivered by our Research and Development partners within a facilitate environment (policy, gender, institution). 3. In 2023 small and medium size value chain actors including women and youth benefit from value chains that are sustainable, business oriented and equitable hence that deliver quality and affordable Animal source foods to poor consumers.

Refined and summarized objective From 2016 onwards, this flagship is producing at least one scaling and delivery mechanism per year that ensures that CRP products are being used by and benefiting poor men and women in small and medium scale enterprises in the value chain and beyond.

---

Flagship 4: Systems Analysis for Sustainability

This flagship contributes to all the IDOs equally- i.e. looks at the whole system and ensure that all the IDOs are addressed, thus optimize overall performance of the system; with a particular responsibility /emphasis on IDO 6 (enabling policy and investment environment) The SAS flagship is intended to make sure that the rest of the themes of the whole CRP are addressing the IDOs in terms of prioritizing and evaluation

Objective statement: Developing (and guiding) a systems approach (being used) for pro-poor sustainable and equitable transformation of livestock an fish VCs through AR4D

Theory of change

Pre-requisites for achieving our objective: What needs to happen to achieve this? I.e. what will be the major changes from what we are doing now?

• Develop an approach that interfaces with technical research
• Develop a mechanism for better linking the technical work to the systems dynamic
• A platform/methodology/framework that enlists inputs and feedback from technical research
• How do we connect the research better into the systems approach so that it’s not seen as an isolated approach?
• Generate evidence based research on our ToC (why use the gender tools to achieve the objectives) i.e. why it works; as well as communicate this evidence appropriately
• Link with other CRPs to ensure what we are doing is relevant at a wider scale; clearly articulate some of the aspects of CRP 2; environment and environmental modelling (WLE, CCAFS); A4NH;

Who are our customers? Upstream vs. Downstream

• The other flagships of L&F
• Policy makers and investors
• R&D community
• Other CRPs

---

Operationalizing the new SASI and VCT flagships - notes from discussions

Some issues and concerns emerged from the Tuesday-Wednesday discussion on the two new flagships. Including:

• Flagships 4 and 5 more complex than existing so flagship leadership will need good management skills. Leader must be good manager/ both people and project.
• Flagship 5 should be headed by a leader, appointed from a product line anchor holder group (6-7 people with one as leader). Should be single port of call that people with products can approach for how to take product to scale. The leader of the flagship would then work with team of 7 and propose ways forward.
• Structure should give clarity of knowledge and decisions taken.
• Appoint a flagship 5 leader; maybe have leadership for clusters of activities. The main physical people should be flagship leader and value chain coordinators. The coordinators should report through clusters of activity rather than through physical leaders to the overall flagship leader.
• Questions how to show/manage gender.
• Leadership: different levels to be identified at flagship, cluster, VC, ..
• Can have cluster captains, for the clusters and for the key clusters.
• Have teams around activities and specific linkage activities that need to happen.
• ‘Bridging people’ at flagships 4 and 5 could help build links. Look at who are the link people in the value chain?
• On product lines: Need clarity of what these are. Different types and levels - within a flagship, across clusters, across CRP. Need to have a champion, - as a vision of what to be achieved? to help move towards goals.
• Next steps, See what product lines pop up (this week) and categorize them and plan how to take them forward (role of task force). Examples needed to show what we are looking for. A task force to take stock of different models/options and produce clear guidelines?

---

Capacity Development cross-cutting session

Iddo Dror, of capacity developments (capdev) took the team on exercise of identifying the capacity development needs. Groups discussed 3 questions posed on capacity development i.e. i) what do you like about capacity development ii) what do you not like iii) what are your needs. The responses are summarised below.

	What do we like about capacity development	What do we do not like about capacity development	What we would like them to do / plan
Group 1	* Improved ability to facilitate student work * Proactive in value chain engagement	* Not clear about CapDev objectives * Lack of clarity with relation with human capacity * Lack of clarity between capdev and partnership	* Need them to anticipate and manage change for impact * Detailed plan of CapDev up to the level of the value chain interaction
Group 2			* Still some capdev development needs in the value chains * Some areas not well represented for instance human nutrition * Filling partners challenges needs
Group 3	* Proactive team * Always available * CapDev needs could be different in the different countries, not clear if the capdev needs have been identified in each country Location – headquater being ILRI calls for better coordination No interaction with some team Needs assessments, then strategy, the implementation Strategy to have coordinating among centres Developing the capacity to build capacity
Group 4	* Dynamic leadership of capdev * More proactive in demand gathering	* Team seems to be understaffed * Modalities for choosing partners * Working through gender * Building capacity for using participatory methods

Question and answer session

• Qn. What structures are we using to build capacity in other centres? Ans. The team has full time Livestock and Fish capdev person – Diana Brandes. Team is reaching out to other centres but challenged because there are no counterparts in other centres. However team is moving forward whenever there is a need to move forward.
• Qn. How demand driven capdev’s role? Ans. To a large extent it is, since they do not have a budget of their own and embed their work within the value chain, entirely demand driven within the value chain work.The team is working county by country and starts by doing a needs assessment before engaging in their activities.Strategy is being developed and is open for review so that the team can see if it’s inclusive of their value chain country needs and work.Staffing needs are limited by funding.There are overlaps with the partnership that the teams are actively looking into.

---

Communication and KM cross-cutting session

Two cross-cutting sessions engaged the participants in a conversation about communication and KM in research for development. We aimed to quickly think through the basic components of a communication strategy and to understand the demand for integrating communication and KS in research. In small groups, the participants discussed these questions:

• People: Who are our key stakeholders? Who do we want to reach and influence?
• Objective: Why are we engaging them? What behavior change do we want to see?
• Content: What products can we share? What formats does our audience require?
• Channels: On which channels can we reach our key stakeholders? Which conversations do we need to be part of?

The groups focused on different scenarios and quickly brainstormed the basic building blocks of a research communication strategie. The four scenarios were: Delivering vaccines, influencing policy makers, communication in cross-disciplinary teams and a project dissemination plan for the mola genomics project. (s. below for details).

In discussion it was noted that researchers have become quite good at devising dissemination plans. However, stakeholder groups often remain generic. Researchers requested assistance with the profiling of partners for better targeting desired behavior changes.

Scenario	Who	Why	What	How
1. Delivering vaccines	* Farmers * Private sector, manufacturers * Donors, policy makers	* Farmers: change behavior to adopt products & practices * Manufacturers: adopt and market best bets, do research	* Protocols * Implementations (assays, vaccines) * knowledge	* Farmers: role playing, participatory methods, comics, radio, TV * Manufacturers: F2F, presentations, seminars, workshops * Donors: formal proposals, research pubs, workshops & conferences
2. Influencing policy makers	* MoA, ASUS * prof. organizations * UIE * FAO * AUIBAR	Facilitate registration and give approval	* Dosiers * policy briefs * Workshop presentations * newspaper articles	* Multi Project Group * Launch Event GALVMED
3. Communication in cross disciplinary teams	* Internal Staff, partners	* Improve communication in cross disciplinary teams across centers	* Reports * publications * proposals * workshop notes * events * project updates	* Emails * wikis * Yammer * Skype * databases

Scenario 4: Dissemination Plan for Mola Genomics Project Outputs

1. Improved fish
2. Production mechanisms – closed breeding cycle
3. Data - nutritional / metabolism / gene markers / ?gene networks / CC

Stakeholders	What information	Format / Channel
Researchers	2,3	Publications / reports / workshop / conferences
Donors	3	Report
Producers / Hatcheries National agencies	1 2 (hatcheries) 3	Manuals / websites / radio / farmer field days & demonstration event
Decision makers / policy makers	3	Policy brief
Consumers	3	Radio / social media?
National institutions	3	Manuals / website
Extension systems	3	Manuals / websites / videos?
NGOs	1,3	Manuals / websites/ videos?

---

Key planning tasks

1. Tightening up the 2014 POWB
2. Confirming the activities and deliverables for the 2015-2016 extension proposal – agree with the team if there are adjustments to made. Agree how to present the transition from Themes to Flagships. This will be in the form of a summary of key outcomes and activities for the theme
3. Review orientation of the 2nd phase CRP proposal
4. Articulate the visions and flagships for each themes; ‘ initiate strategy and implementation plan’
5. Achieve a common understanding of the planning terminology that responds to the program and the consortium needs