This week Tom Randolph, Director of the CGIAR ‘Livestock-Fish’ Research Program announced that the Program “officially started on January 1st 2012, so we are off and running.”

He drew attention to some recent developments:

Phuket stakeholder consultation: We held a final consultation with stakeholders at the FAO Agenda of Action for a Sustainable Livestock Sector Development meeting in Phuket, Thailand on 2 December 2011. The purpose of the consultation was to share our evolving implementation plan, especially how we plan to address the environmental issues. The feedback was very positive and constructive.

Funding: The overall CRP3.7 budget for 2012 is $29.7 million, of which $10.3 million is expected to come from the CGIAR Fund and the remainder from our traditional restricted funded projects.

Planning: Our primary challenge right now is to complete the planning process that we started in September. This should give us a sense of what activities and outputs can be achieved. It will also: (1) define deliverables to be agreed by each Center; (2) allow the Component teams to begin implementing their work plans; and (3) allow the value chain coordinators to step up their engagement with partners in each country and help organize the activities across the Components happening in their value chains.

Management: The interim Program Planning and Management Committee (PPMC) met before and after initial planning meeting of CRP3.7 research leaders in September 2011; the minutes from those meetings will be in the Program repository. The PPMC will be meeting face-to-face 3 times a year, with the first meeting planned for 22 March 2012, just before the ILRI Board of Trustees meet. Terms of reference for the PPMC as well as the Program’s Science and Partnership Advisory Committee (SPAC).

Project updates (most current Program activities build upon existing projects in the partner Centers)

• The WorldFish Center has approval for an SDC (Switzerland) project to support its aquaculture value chain work in Egypt.

• The leader of the Program’s Gender and Equity Component, Jemimah Njuki, has begun working closely with Jacqueline Ashby, Gender and Research Advisor to the Consortium Office, to develop our CRP Gender Strategy.

•  Component 2.2/2.3 on value chain assessment and innovation plans to meet the week of March 5th in Nairobi. It will take advantage of the need to develop a suite of rapid assessment tools for a major development-oriented project in Ethiopia (LIVES) to jump-start its tool development activities.

•  IFAD approved an IFAD-EC-funded project on smallholder pig value chains in Uganda in December 2011.

• In December 2011, Irish Aid approved a major project designed explicitly to implement CRP3.7 activities in the Tanzania dairy value chain; and IFAD approved a smaller project on dairy feed systems in Tanzania and India (MilkIT). We will be integrating the activities under both projects as much as possible.

• With IFAD, we are developing a concept note to start up CRP3.7 activities on small ruminant value chains in Mali and Ethiopia.

• ACIAR has approved a small 6-month project on feed and fodder value chains in Ethiopia.

• BMZ approved a second phase of the ILRI-led ‘Safe Food, Fair Food’ project. The project is under CRP4.3, but is explicitly focused on improving food safety in several CRP3.7 target value chains—not only for livestock in several countries, but also for fish in Uganda; we hope that this will serve as a model for how synergies can be created across our Centers and across CRPs.

So our grand adventure has begun. I look forward to working with everyone as we try to meet the expectations we have raised! – Tom Randolph

The seminar provided an opportunity for 50 key-stakeholders who had helped to shape the program to be updated on the progress of planning, with Tom Randolph’s presentation focusing on the core concept of CRP3.7, in addition to the draft work plan and the strategies for addressing environmental concerns amongst other things.

Participants were also provided a chance to voice any questions or concerns in a feedback session facilitated by Keith Sones, with additional support during the session in regards to aquaculture dimensions and links to CRP4 (Agriculture for enhanced nutrition and health) provided by Nguyen Nguyen of the WorldFish Center and Delia Grace of ILRI respectively.

The presentation was well received and generated a number of thoughtful and constructive questions and comments. The consensus was quite positive and generally endorsed the CRP3.7 approach.

Addressing environmental concerns

• Caution was advised in oversimplifying the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach – the value of the detail in the LCA could be lost and could miss key issues;
• CRP3.7 aligns well with the Agenda of Action, particularly in terms of promoting improved efficiency of resource use and better waste management.

The general CRP3.7 approach

• Ensuring keeping to the pro-poor agenda may be difficult when dealing with livestock and fish products;
• There may also be a potential contradiction in promoting higher income for poor producers versus affordability for poor consumers;
• What mechanisms will the approach use for enhancing uptake by the poor?
• Should poultry be considered as a target value chain?
• The importance of learning from past and existing successes and failures – no need to re-invent the wheel;
• Pragmatic approach advised that recognizes role of entrepreneurial middlemen as engine of development, with view of system as complex mix of governance, structure, etc.;
• Recognizing that pro-poor value chains may not be competitive or effective in providing affordable animal-source foods in all contexts. Similarly, value chains are incredibly dynamic, so one-size-fits-all solutions will not work and emphasis will be needed on developing innovation capacities;
• Need to ensure that research using the value chain approach is not vulnerable to being supply driven, while still recognizing and building appropriately on the strengths of past research efforts.

We extend our thanks to FAO for allowing the program to consult with it’s key stakeholders during its Global Agenda of Action Meeting.

Learn more about the FAO Global Agenda of Action.

View Tom Randolph’s presentation:

Dr Tom Randolph has been named Director of the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish. The Director General of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Dr Jimmy Smith, made the announcement on Thursday 13 October 2011.

ILRI leads this CGIAR research program – which will be collaboratively undertaken with the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and the WorldFish Center as the core CGIAR partners. Various other strategic and value chain partners will play key roles in the implementation of the program.

Dr Randolph was instrumental in the collaborative process to develop the proposal. He previously headed ILRI’s research team on smallholder competitiveness in changing markets under the Market Opportunities Theme.

He holds a PhD in Agricultural Economics from Cornell University. His research interests at ILRI included animal and human health issues and impact assessment. Before joining ILRI in 1998, he conducted policy research at the Africa Rice Centre in West Africa.

At the 5th CGIAR Fund Council Meeting held on 6-8 July 2011 in Washington, DC, the Fund Council approved the CGIAR Research Program (CRP) proposal, More meat, milk and fish by and for the poor (CRP 3.7).

The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is the lead centre for this research program. The research program will be implemented in collaboration with three CGIAR centres — the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and the WorldFish Center – and various national, regional and international partners.

Following the approval of the proposal, the various research teams are preparing to implement the proposal by translating it into a performance matrix of detailed operational arrangements, budgets and work plans for 2012-14.

Download the full proposal

Download the flyer

The ISPC provided its feedback and comments in mid-May, and comments were also subsequently received from individual Fund Council members (Australia, FAO, World Bank).

The four CGIAR Centers involved in CRP3.7 (ILRI, WorldFish, CIAT, ICARDA) drafted a response to the various sets of comments which was submitted by ILRI Director General Carlos Seré on their behalf to the CGIAR Fund Council this week. This response will be shared with the CGIAR Fund Council members as they prepare to make a decision to approve funding for CRP3.7 at their upcoming meeting July 6-7 in Washington, DC.

Together with representatives from the European Commission (EC) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), a joint team from the two Centers recently continued its scoping activities there by visiting a number of people involved in the smallholder pig value chain, including seeing the impressive work to promote smallholder pig production by VEDCO in Kamuli and the Kamuzinda Farm in Masaka.

CRP3.7 then convened a stakeholder meeting in Kampala on June 14th to provide an opportunity for sharing information about ongoing R&D activities related to the smallholder pig value chain and to assess how research might best support further development. A meeting report summarizes the discussions.

The EC Food Security program, through IFAD, is considering support to an initial research activity proposed by CRP3.7 to pilot and evaluate best-bet improved smallholder pig production systems. This research will generate evidence of the effectiveness and benefits of the farm-level component as one part of an overall value chain upgrading strategy. It will also help us better understand where more in-depth research could relieve over time the more fundamental constraints to improving production.

View his presentation:

More information on the 4th CGIAR Fund meeting

For many developing country communities, especially those living close to coastal and inland waters, fish are the dominant animal source food. Accounting for more than 50% of the animal protein in the diet for 400 million poor people in Africa and South Asia, fish provide both quality animal protein and critical micronutrients. This nutrition is especially important for vulnerable groups, such as infants, children, pregnant and nursing women and those living with HIV/AIDS.

As a member of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), The WorldFish Center will partner with several other CGIAR Centers in the CGIAR Research Program 3.7 “More Meat Milk and Fish by and for the Poor”.

Under this program we will work to help achieve large scale, environmentally sustainable increases in supply of fi sh to poor consumers in developing countries.

We will do this by focusing our research to develop new seed and feed technologies, understand how to improve the institutional environment, and by testing an integrated value-chain approach to these issues in a limited number of countries. In doing so, we also recognize the importance of aquaculture as an engine for rural development and will seek to achieve these increases by strengthening aquaculture-based value chains in which the poor are able to capture a significant share of the benefits.

Download a brochure on fish in this research program

This responded to comments and feedback provided on the initial proposal of September 2010.

We expect that the revised proposal will be submitted to the CGIAR Fund Council for consideration at its next meeting.

We particularly acknowledge the help of those people who provided feedback on the three questions we had posed – these did indeed strengthen the quality of our response and revisions!

View or download the proposal

We just received feedback and guidance from the CB as well as comments from 4 external reviewers. Overall, the Consortium Board “appreciates the innovations in this proposal, and its overall quality. The Board considers that, with a few additional improvements, the proposal will be ready to be submitted to the Fund Council.”

The Board and the reviewers also raise some important questions about our proposal – which means we have much work to do if we are to submit a revised proposal before March 5, 2011.

We need your help to respond to some of the critical questions raised by the reviewers:

Question 1: Can we really expect livestock and fish production ‘by the poor’ to contribute meaningfully to nutrition ‘for the poor’?

Question 2: How best to partner with the private sector in pro-poor livestock and fish value chain development?

Question 3: Should poultry be a priority value chain for the CGIAR Livestock and Fish research program?

The Issue

The proposed CGIAR Livestock-Fish research program will focus all of its initial efforts on developing eight pro-poor value chains in seven countries: aquaculture (Uganda); dairying (Tanzania, India); pigs (Uganda, Vietnam); dual dairy-beef (Nicaragua); and goats/sheep (Mali, Ethiopia). These were identified as commodities holding particular potential in their respective regions for wide benefits to the poor, both as consumers and as producers or other actors employed along the value chain. In the proposal, having a poultry value chain was not considered because “large-scale commercial producers enjoy a competitive advantage for poultry production in most situations” and again offers “a very mixed outcome in terms of opportunities for the resource poor since production rapidly moves to industrial systems.” It therefore did not pass our filter of “opportunity for impact among the resource poor.”

In its review of the proposal, the Consortium Board questioned this reasoning and challenged us by noting that “given the potential role of poultry for resource poor farmers, the CB would like the proponents to provide and explicit justification why they will not work on these issues.” One of their external reviewers suggested that there was a contradiction between our decision to exclude poultry and the example cited in the proposal of how policy in Indonesia to limit the size of poultry farms greatly enhanced the development benefits generated as its poultry sector grew. That reviewer also notes “the agro‐ecological complementarity and potential importance of other poultry, especially ducks.” A second reviewer argued that the shift to industrial systems applies to a limited segment and that:

Poor women, use poultry to raise initial funds and to provide some higher levels of protein for their families. Chickens are sustainable because they continue to produce eggs – one does not have to kill the source to get the protein. Research from Uganda published recently suggests that poor farmers raise fish and pigs to sell and rarely eat their own production while chickens are raised both for income and intake. Perhaps consideration of poultry in a limited fashion in Africa should be reconsidered.

Our Response

The critical role that poultry plays in the livelihoods of the poor is well established. ILRI was recently involved in a series of studies across several countries examining the livelihood impacts of avian influenza and its control and the results again reinforced this conclusion, including the particular benefits of backyard poultry keeping for women and the young. Recognition of this role is one reason why ILRI has been leading work to characterize and conserve highly diverse indigenous poultry genetic resources across the developing world. Opportunities certainly exist for our research to enhance and protect this livelihood role for the poor.

Our Livestock-Fish proposal, however, is primarily about getting household livestock and fish activities out of extensive, low-input backyard systems for home consumption and occasional sales, and into graduated intensive, higher-input systems to generate a steady supply of animal-source foods for the market and poor consumers, and income for poor producers and other actors in the value chain.

Poultry is an archetypical example of this process – particularly in peri-urban zones throughout the developing world, small-scale layer and broiler operations have been set up to varying degrees of sophistication. These small-scale operations benefit from the development of larger poultry farms that import the exotic breeds particularly suited to intensive high-output production systems. The private sector is usually quick to respond to this opportunity, creating distribution channels for packages of day-old chicks, vaccines, and feeds through agro-vet shops or their equivalent, and often providing the ‘how-to’ knowledge to their clientele.

In one well-known case, the development of small-scale commercial poultry production has been designed and managed in such a way to support very small production units in low-income households, often run by women. The so-called ‘Bangladesh system’ has been highly successful, relying on major NGO involvement to ensure widespread participation and benefits to the poor (*Acamovic et al., 2005). NGOs in Bangladesh, with their particularly strong capacity and large scale, were able to provide the high intensity of organizational capital required; this model, however, has not been replicated at scale elsewhere.

More generally, then, as local and urban demand for poultry increases beyond the capacity of low-input backyard indigenous systems to supply, a proven technological package for layer and broiler production is usually readily provided by the private sector. In many countries, small and medium-scale production units play an important role in developing the poultry sector until economies-of-scale eventually favor large-scale industrial production.

Because the essential technology and its delivery is already available from the private sector, we could not identify any obvious opportunities for the proposed Livestock-Fish program to have significant impact in improving poultry value chains. There may be some argument, given cultural preferences and willingness to pay premium prices for indigenous poultry in many places, for adapting layer and broiler systems on indigenous rather than exotic poultry breeds, as is occurring in Indonesia. This idea has limitations, though, because much of what consumers value in indigenous poultry is that they have been free-ranged, and it will be difficult to retain this key characteristic under intensification. It will certainly still be worth exploring, but at this point its potential would appear limited to a niche market approach without the broader benefits anticipated from the ruminant, pig, and fish value chains targeted under the mega program. Otherwise, it is anticipated that the role of backyard poultry systems will be best addressed within the livelihood objectives of the other CGIAR ‘systems’ research programs (CRP 1).

Now that we have explained our rationale in more detail: Do you agree or disagree with our argument?

Please offer specific examples, especially those that we can reference from the literature, that support your view. If you agree with our assessment, we would appreciate any suggestions that you feel would strengthen or otherwise improve our line of argument. If you disagree, we would equally appreciate any concrete examples you can cite that would demonstrate that research has a critical role to play in developing pro-poor poultry value chains. If we feel the counter-arguments are convincing enough, we will certainly be open to re-considering the role of poultry within the mega program in the medium term.

Footnote: *Acamovic et al., Poultry. In Owen, Kitalyi, Jayasuriya and Smith (eds). 2005. Livestock and wealth creation: improving the husbandry of animals kept by resource-poor people in developing countries. Nottingham University Press. Nottingham. pp. 301-324.

In our livestock fish proposal, we highlight our intention to “foster partnerships that harness the respective strengths of research and development partners, including the private sector” (p. iv).

This is because, as we note, “increasingly, opportunities are being created to partner with the private sector, tapping into their research and business expertise to benefit the target value chains, while at the same time providing a means to create market pull or ensure commercial provision of appropriately designed pro-poor gender responsive inputs and services that promote and support uptake of productivity-enhancing technologies by the target groups” (p. 9).

The Consortium Board has challenged us “for a better explanation of how this sector will contribute to value chain development and scaling out the outcomes.”

One of the reviewers was more critical, saying: “Where somewhat unrealistic expectations are raised throughout the document is where numerous suggestions for private sector involvement are made. It appears not justified to assume major private sector investment in the context of the value chains targeted by the Programme given that they are somewhat marginal to the large market dynamics preferred by the private sector.“

To address these comments, we propose to describe in more detail how we envisage involving the private sector as partners along the following lines.

The private sector is targeted as a key partner because its commercial orientation will improve the viability, appropriateness and ultimate sustainability of the value chain development strategies. It will be engaged at a range of levels.

As an international science partner

Large international companies have impressive capacity in R&D and can leverage patented technologies that can accelerate the discovery process. ILRI has partnered in the past with pharmaceutical companies for vaccine development. More recently, ILRI and WorldFish Centre have similarly engaged with international feed companies in developing feed products tailored to small-scale systems. ILRI is currently partnered, for example, with one company in field testing prototype feed products appropriate for beginner dairy farmers in Kenya and Uganda. CIAT collaborates with multinational seed companies for the dissemination of bred grass cultivars mainly, but not only, targeted at the Latin American market.

The motivations for an international company may partly be to meet corporate social responsibility objectives, but clearly remains largely commercial. Such collaboration provide opportunities to develop appropriately designed products aimed at emerging markets that have been ignored to date, as well as facilitating testing of new products. For our proposed research program, once a new technology has proven its viability, such companies can immediately scale it up for subsequent widespread dissemination from a healthy profit motive.

As a national business partner

Within specific value chains, we will seek to identify opportunities where existing companies could contribute to developing the value chain in a pro-poor manner while expanding their own business. A current example is the East Africa Dairy Development project, a large-scale intervention being implemented by Heifer Project International and other partners, with ILRI supporting as the knowledge partner. A Kenyan genetics company, African Breeders Services Total Cattle Management Limited (ABS TCM LTD), is one of the core partners in the project; not only does it benefit from the immediate business gained from working with project, but it also is keen to test strategies for creating new markets among lower-income dairy farmers who they have failed to reach previously. Similarly, the WorldFish Center has partnered with the commercial feed industry in Egypt to help develop fishmeal and fish oil free nutritionally complete tilapia feeds. In pork value chains, an opportunity may be to replicate smallholder outgrower schemes with the small meat processing enterprises that have appeared in Uganda, and so on.

As a local small-scale business partner

At local level, we are finding it increasingly critical to help develop—and often create—small-scale business services to support emerging production and marketing systems. This approach will be central to value chain development efforts. In post-tsunami Aceh, for example, the WorldFish Center has fostered thousands of small-scale, enterprise-oriented aquaculture businesses, improving food security and helping create resilient livelihoods. Under the dairy development project mentioned above, ILRI has been instrumental in responding to feed demand by introducing and promoting small-scale feed processing services. On the output side, training and certification schemes for informal milk traders have been developed for upgrading these important market services. Similar experiences exist from the work of CIAT and partners in Latin America with milk collection centers and small-scale cheese factories, and in SE Asia working with livestock traders and national institutions to connect consumer demand to producers.

The key is to create a vibrant network of local business actors who each have it in their interest to sustain the development of the value chain.

Our questions for your comment:

• Is this description of our strategy to partner with the private sector clear and sufficient?
• What is missing?
• Are there other examples that we can cite to demonstrate how the private sector can be actively engaged in pro-poor value chain development?

While designing the Livestock-Fish proposal, our working hypothesis has been that small-scale livestock and aquaculture systems are an important source of the limited amounts of animal-source foods (meat, dairy products, eggs) that currently figure in the diets of the poor, and that by increasing productivity and targeting the poor in these production systems and their associated value chains, we could simultaneously improve food security, reduce rural poverty and reduce under nutrition (which now figure as 3 of the 4 CGIAR system-level targeted outcomes).

We therefore set our over-arching goal to “increase productivity of small-scale livestock and fish systems so as to increase availability and affordability of meat, milk and fish for poor consumers and, in doing so, to reduce poverty through greater participation by the poor along animal source food value chains.”

Our reasoning is based on three key facts:

• Much of the supply of animal-source food in lower-income countries still comes from small-scale systems and will continue to do so – i.e., small-scale systems remain competitive for many products and markets vis-a-vis large-scale systems.
• Production from small-scale systems not consumed on-farm enters domestic markets for lower-value products, e.g. the extensive informal markets for raw milk in East Africa and South Asia, and these are the markets where both rural and urban poor largely buy their animal-source foods.
• ASF generally represent a small but extremely critical share of the diets of the poor, with even marginal increases making important contributions to improved nutrition and health.

Evidence from our work and the literature to support these statements is cited in the proposal on pages 2-5. We stress that these are patterns characterizing lower-income countries particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, South East Asia, and Central America. The situation is obviously dynamic and evolving and there are certainly counter-examples from some of the emerging economies, such as the importance of large-scale pig and poultry production in China, but we expect these patterns to persist in the countries and contexts that will continue to be the focus of CGIAR efforts.

The Consortium Board in its review concludes that “the articulation between improving productivity of livestock and fish and of their value chains and better nutrition for the poor is not currently very convincing. There are many examples of work on increasing productivity that does not automatically benefit the very poor.”

The Board therefore recommends that “the proponents’ case in this respect should be strengthened.”

We propose to address this recommendation by putting better into perspective our focus on small-scale production systems and their associated market systems in meeting the needs of the poor for animal-source food.  The figure below is perhaps a good starting point.

The figure presents typical flows of livestock product supplies in a lower-income country (due to economies of scale issues, fish production may be related more to small and medium-scale commercial aquaculture rather than smallholder farms as such). An important feature of livestock and fish markets is the linked nature of high and low-value local markets: production of prime cuts for better-off consumers or export at the same time supplies lower-priced by-products to the lower-valued market for lower-income consumers.

Pro-poor productivity improvements would increase supplies generated particularly by poor livestock keepers in the medium term, but also undoubtedly increase production among better-off smallholders through spillovers and as the benefits to poor livestock keepers lead them out of poverty into the better-off group. Though some benefits would be captured by the better-off smallholders, we would view this as an added indirect and positive outcome.

Much of the new production will supply lower-value domestic markets, where our pro-poor value chain development efforts will seek to improve efficiencies and benefits for the poor dependant on these value chains for their livelihoods. Improved efficiency at farm and market level and increased supply will keep downward pressure on prices, keeping products in these markets affordable and accessible to the rural and urban poor who depend on them for their ASF, allowing them to improve –or at least protect—the quality of their diets.

We fully recognize that there is a lot of ‘leakage’ across markets and producer and consumer groups, which one reviewer raised as diluting potential impact. For example, some of the smallholder production increases can be expected to end up in commercial production or higher-value formal marketing systems serving the better-off consumers. But such leakages also contribute to positive outcomes since they imply increased income is captured by the poor—contributing to more and better food purchases—and because the linked nature of the two markets means that increased supplies to high-value markets also result in more by-products going to the lower-value markets; therefore, we do not see such leakages creating any fundamental inconsistency with the stated objective of the mega program.

Using the framework above helps to put into perspective several of the comments made by the individual reviewers:

• “… much of the demand for these higher cost commodities – fish, meat, and milk, come from a growing middle class, urban population that could challenge how much of the growth from enhanced productivity actually remains with or reaches the rural and urban poor.”
• “It appears conceptually, politically, technically and economically inappropriate to expect that the selected value chains will operate ‘to benefit poor consumers’; this would suggest that they will provide products in the low price segment only – an assumption which is not acceptable. The first and primary objective for these value chains is assumed to be to gain strength with the involvement of smallholder producers – who thus acquire the means to get out of poverty. The benefit of this process to the poor (urban) consumers can only be indirect.”

These and other specific comments by the reviewers question specific pathways by which smallholder production can be expected to translate into more consumption of animal-source foods by the poor; the framework described above begins to describe the complexity of the flows of products and associated benefits. It highlights the fact that there will inevitably be many leakages, but by focusing on pro-poor productivity improvements both in small-scale production and informal market systems, we do nevertheless in the end increase the availability, accessibility and affordability of animal-source foods for the poor, which is the goal.

A related set of questions have been raised whether animal-source foods are an appropriate mechanism for improving nutrition of the poor. For example, one reviewer notes:

• “What is most interesting is the relationship it [the proposal] opens between productivity increases and explicit efforts to improve nutrition and health through increased food consumption, particularly of protein and other nutrients that can be realized through the increased consumption of meat, fish, and milk. While this may be a laudable outcome, there is growing evidence that other sources of protein and nutrients are available from lower cost, and also more sustainable commodities that yield improved health outcomes.”

We start from the principle that the high income elasticity for animal-source food demonstrates there is clear demand: the poor want more animal-source food in their diet. And they should want more: on pages 3-4 in the proposal, we highlight conclusions from the nutrition literature regarding the strategic nutritional value of animal-source food for nutritionally challenged populations, particularly those becoming increasing dependent on a narrower set of plant-based foods that do not offer the full range of micronutrients needed. Increasing supply and keeping downward pressure on prices in markets where the poor source their animal-source food will offset risks of relying strictly on least-cost foods.

Our question to you, then, is:

Do you agree or disagree with our reasoning and that it reflects the reality in low-income countries?

Please share specific examples, especially those that we can reference from the literature, that support your view. We would appreciate any suggestions that you feel would strengthen or otherwise improve our line of argument. We would particularly appreciate any examples that demonstrate targeting poor producers will benefit poor consumers. This will help us enormously in challenging our own arguments and tightening them up.

Around the meeting we interviewed some of the participants on video and audio:

Listen to the podcasts or views the videos:

Value chain approach promises aquaculture development in Uganda (video)

CGIAR Livestock Fish Mega Program can ‘do something special’ (video)

Impact of CGIAR Mega Programs ‘on the ground’ requires development and policy partnerships (video)

Bridging, Brokering, Catalyzing – Emerging roles for the CGIAR (video)

Livestock Fish Mega Program to focus on specific value chains, working with development partners (video)

Value addition chains central to proposed Livestock Fish Mega Program (video)

Stakeholders debate Livestock Fish Mega Program proposal (video)

Value ‘webs’ a promising approach for CGIAR Livestock Fish Mega Program

Scaling out Livestock Fish Mega Program results a major challenge

Private sector has an important role to play in Livestock Fish Mega Program

Holistic solutions the right approach for Livestock Fish Mega Program

Livestock Fish Mega Program needs to get beyond the professionals

Livestock Fish Mega Program needs to engage final beneficiaries to achieve impact

Livestock Fish Mega Program consultation meeting an ‘eye-opener’

CGIAR Mega Programs need to help countries find their own ways

Value chain focus of Livestock and Fish Mega Program provides opportunity for future

Livestock Fish Mega Program to integrate ILRI approaches and themes

—

Commenting on reasons that past attempts to intensify small-scale livestock production systems in developing countries can fail, Nouala argued that the discussion “should be expanded to the prevailing policy and institutional environment that does not facilitate uptake of new technologies by smallholders. The prevailing environment is many times biased towards intensification or large-scale production systems, ignoring therefore the public good concept of certain services.”

Reacting to the proposed focus on entire value chains for selected animal source food commodities in specific areas, Nouala suggests for Africa that “regional value chains may create more opportunities for stakeholders.” Further “in the framework of the CAADP we suggested to exploit regional complementarities in utilization of resources so as to promote regional trade and integration. In West Africa for example, beef is mainly produced in the Sahel, yet consumption in the urban cities of coastal countries mainly depends on import from Brazil to meet the increasing demand.”

He also noted that Ministers responsible for animal resources in Africa recently requested that factors affecting competitiveness of animal products in Africa be identified and recommendations to address them be proposed.

Commenting on the selection criteria for value chains, he cautioned that evidence of poor people in a value chain needs to be looked at carefully: “We need to carefully look at this indicator – if not, we might be promoting what is currently observed in the crop production where the production is mainly owned by large-scale producers and the poor are being employed in the value chain with limited income security.”

Specifically on the proposed focus on small ruminant value chains in mixed crop-livestock systems in Ethiopia, he re-emphasized the need for a regional focus: “looking at the trade of small ruminant with the Gulf countries, I will suggest you consider the links to Somalia and Djibouti in your value chain analysis and make sure you have a methodology to consider in your analysis the number of small ruminants from Ethiopia sold in the Gulf through Djibouti and Somaliland which is considered illegal.”

With regard to the proposed work on animal health, Nouala emphasized that determining the suitability of an intervention should “also include the cost benefit analysis. Taking into consideration that even the return on investment is very high, smallholders will find it difficult to invest in high-cost interventions.”

Commenting on the proposed partnership strategy, he suggested that the Program work with two types of partners – Research partners and Development partners (the draft proposal identified ‘core program partners’ and ‘value chain partners’). In the category ‘development partners’, he suggests the proposal include regional and sub-regional organizations who will play a major role in dissemination of project results.

—

Thanks for sharing the MP3.7 proposal. I think that overall the proposal could make a stronger case under ‘what’s new’ about the program in that it is an evolution from the ‘farming systems’ to a type of ‘food systems’ approach and that it is market and outcome-driven and thereby seeking innovative partnerships and partnership arrangements with research
AND development actors facilitating interaction between the two.

Flicking through the second half of the proposal with the individual VCs I did not see any specific reference to the engagement of women in the chain while they feature prominently in the first part. If this is not just an oversight on my
part perhaps something to be redressed.

In any case, congratulations on this herculean task of putting something of this magnitude together in such a short time!!!

—-

Watch a video interview on value chains with Joachim Otte

—

The team has made a colossal job and very interesting proposal for this MP. Congratulations for the work done. It is effectively very long, and at start quite heavy to go into but everything is inside the different parts and thoroughly justified.

If you still have time to refine, the best would be to concentrate on the first introductory and overview parts and distillate or reinforce a little bit more on some points the essence of the project.

Overall concept of research for development, justification, aims and objectives

Focusing at start on “by and for the poor” appears sound for such program, a short summarized descriptive assessment of what the term “poor” really covers would clarify the general scope (is it the general UN less than 1 or 2 $/d indicator or very probably here a more larger definition of the poverty in terms of revenue, capital, access to production means and information … these elements are present along the document and would gain to be more firmly stated in the head or starting overview).

Positioning: everybody is focusing on the numerous negative impacts of livestock productions in the world; here the project clearly addresses a major nutritional concern: protein supply in link to the cognitive capacity needed for the development of poor populations, a large and apparently growing share of the humans of our planet.

Many focus also on the fact that livestock systems in small-scale agriculture are inefficient and as such the larger contributors to negative impacts. Arguing that in counterpart it is in these systems that the larger gains of efficiency can be found and that for each $ invested the margin will be very much larger then in industrial systems would be sound.

A § developing the importance to maintain, improve and research into knowledge building systems, and to promote some kind of a research (grey) revolution, more collaborative, built on strong local, regional and international partnerships, that will be more effective than in the past. Reading the document, one can sometimes think that the CG will solve all the problems; I think it is important to say in the head part that as leaders you will promote, monitor, support the way international research will organize itself to contribute to the main themes addressed in the project. In page 40 you affirm this “our role as knowledge partner to development actors »; it would be useful to stress this point at the outset.

The approach:

Theme 1: Technology Generation and Adaptation. Theme 2: Value Chain Development. Theme 3: Targeting, Gender and Impact Analysis, is coherent and federative for all the partners and regarding the study cases of the intended research. What still lacks in the head is a small diagram and comment showing the interactions between the 3. When ordering as 1,2, 3, it appears linear and not really connected, first science will develop technologies then implement in value chains and finally target and assess impacts.

Explaining (as it is detailed later in the document) that 1 and 3 are highly interconnected and exchanging questions, to conceive and develop 2 would improve the proposal.

The key is also to recognise the plurality of local development models, along with technologies and impact assessment, local policy analysis (priorities, chain management), comprehensive approaches on local poor’s strategies, etc.. would be helpful to reason the technologies’ potential adoption and value chaining and to go beyond the classical idea that outside market there is no salvation for the poor.

The project focus on a set of value chains and specific study case countries; technologies and lessons generated through this focused approach will be applicable in broader regional and global settings.

The idea of focusing on limited number of study cases is sound; it would have been less efficient to address all the problems in a large number of situations. The reasons to choose each particular case is justified, what is lacking is a short evocation of the common and comparative added value that could emerge and be shared in the way questions are addressed in the different situations and become exemplar for broader regional and global “by and for the poor” livestock development programs.

“Value” chains is an interesting concept to put forward. As previously discussed it is however still confused with the classical idea of “supply” chain. The term value could be reinforced and broadened to a larger extent to the high “ecosystemic values” that can be attached to the smallholder systems.

Accounting for all the “values” such as low NR energy consumption, high nutrient recycling potential, precise and parcimonious management of the resources, carbon storage potential in the tight link these system have to crops would be interesting. Less spillage and potential avoided emission from the manure, contrary to industrial intensive systems for which solutions will necessitate energy and add (unaccounted for till now) large emissions for treatment and exportations over long distances back to crops is another example. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) approaches and tools can provide useful multicriteria indicators to describe these comparative values. Many of these elements are alluded to in the different parts; being more affirmative on these other values would reinforce the idea of value chains.

Synergies and linkages with other megaprograms is thoroughly detailed. It is certainly an important innovative positioning within the CG system. Along the same lines, highlighting more firmly the fact that you clearly address a new partnership strategy with NARES, ARIs and other stakeholders would be relevant.

- Science components (the 3 research Themes)

Research Theme 1: Technology generation and adaptation
Animal health is not my subject, but my feeling is that along with important infectious diseases and vaccines, it would be important to address also the more classical latent and neglected husbandry diseases that are severely impairing the efficiency of these systems such as mastitis, lameness etc…. in conjunction with the intensification of these systems would be sound in such a proposal.

Breeding and Genetics: no particular comments

Feeds: enabling phenotyping for crop residue fodder traits in new cereal or legume cultivars is something very sound to me. (Incidentally we were discussing this point for the upland rice straw this afternoon here in Madagascar.)
Biofuel residues, ok.

Making better use of available feeds on farm: I would add the idea that combinations of agricultural innovations, such as cover crop cultivation for direct seeding, combined with the feed use of part of the cover materials, could be highly synergic in crop livestock systems.

Transporting, trading and processing of feeds and forages, forage exchange is quickly developing; it is totally sound to address this in terms of value chains.

Research Theme 2 Value Chain Development

This part is very clearly rich in concepts; the idea of “a methodology platform for tailoring value chain development methods to animal products” will certainly attract researchers (among others CIRAD, I’ll definitely support collaborations with ILRI on this).

This value chain theme is certainly central and innovative in the approach of the project. It is thoroughly detailed and particularly well argumented; eventually try to summarise and bring this out a little more affirmatively in the overview.

Research Theme 3: Targeting, Gender and Impact

The same as for theme 2, I found this particularly well argued and structured. It is an important aspect of the research works developed in CIRAD. Here in the project, as said before, it is important to insist in the overview on the interaction between 3 and 1.

- Organizational structure and implementation plan
As described, the organizational structure appears classical and relevant regarding the aims of the project.

—-

—

In general the proposals are well written, and I am impressed by the enormous amount of work done since we met in Addis. It is also much clearer now what you propose, and, within the confines of pro-poor livestock development, most of it makes sense.

My main concern is that there is very little attention to the negative externalities that operate also in smallholder livestock systems, and, in some aspects, such as in non-point source pollution and in GHG emission per kg product, are even stronger than in industrial systems. These are legitimate public good issues (some global in nature), and deserve a place in international livestock research.

I like the quantification of the overall benefits on page 16. This is, as we discussed in Addis, quite courageous. However, except for food-feed crops on page 35 and feed transformation on page 38, none of the others give any quantified impact. It would be useful, if also the other programs in Theme 1 and 2 would give their estimated on when some of the technologies (vaccines, diagnostics, breeding technologies) would be available, and when.

While the vision focuses on availability of animal source food and therefore the consumer, the actual proposal under themes 2 and 3 seem to forget the consumer. See also below.

I still get somewhat confused with the sequence of the three themes. To me, the most logical flow would be: value chain assessment and identification of gaps (part of theme 2), then technical research (theme 1) and the integration of 2.3 and 3. A clear statement why this is not done might help.

The technical programs in theme 1 read too much as a shopping list, and priorities have to be set. Developing the tools to set priorities could be one of the most important global public good, and I fully support the effort on page 42 (Value chain 2.2) to do so. Some reference under theme 1, that this will be done, would be useful.

More specific comments

In chronological order, I have the following specific comments:

Balance of introduction: The amounts needed to provide the essential nutrients to vulnerable groups are small, and could probably be produced without any additional research input. I feel the introduction is too much focused on the nutritional aspect and not enough on the potential impact of the livestock sector on poverty reduction and economic growth.

Page 9: There are also quite a number of successes in smallholder livestock development, besides East Africa and Indonesia. Operation Flood, dairy and beef in Central America, poultry in West Africa, etc, are others. As you know, I have some problems with the Indonesian poultry example, as the large protection and the regulatory limits on scale of farm increased the price of eggs and poultry to the urban poor. In a document focusing on the entire chain, the consumer side has to be taken into account.

Page 11: Wouldn’t the poverty reduction aspect also be included in the vision? As it reads now, the best way to realize the vision would to focus on industrial systems.

Page 12: Can you provide a reference that small scale value chains are more effective? In any case, it would be useful to make a differentiation between commodities. In dairy they are easier competitive than in monogastrics.

Page 12: The program objectives are fine, but shouldn’t there be a discussion on the trade-offs between those objectives?

Page 15: Selection of value chains: (i) shouldn’t the representativeness, number of small holders affected and the potential for up-scaling be included? (ii) Maybe it is too late, but it would have been nice to have some measure of comparative advantage, such as the DRC included.

Page 16: Impacts: (i) it would be useful to have a figure on the current status; (ii) an impact of 50 percent in livestock production in LA seems overly optimistic. Wouldn’t it be useful to post also some risk factors and “killer” assumptions?

On the technical research programs

The animal health program seems very ambitious. I take the point that (page 25) that new tools and a more “generic approach” can speed up the process and allow an attack on a broad front, but the list of activities seems excessive, and priorities need to be set.

In the animal breeding program, pigs seem to be absent from the program (also in the chains on page 32). I would argue also on page 31 for the evaluation of simpler technologies such as room temperature semen (until recently one of the most used methods in China). And maybe even more importantly would be work on cloning. In most environments there is a specific level of exotic blood (25,50,75), which fits best into that particular environment. Further breeding with any of the two parent breeds would make the offspring either too sensitive of too low producing. Mating inter-se with the best fitting crossbred gives large variation and some hybrid vigor is lost. If we could clone the best fitting level of crossbred animal, this could have tremendous impact. For India I would add on page 32 the potential of using sexed semen. Imagine if all bull calves, which are now wasted and cause overgrazing, could be avoided. Finally, there seems to be excessive attention to farmers and farmer’s organizations for example on page 30. Most of the breed improvement and the decision about them are in the hands of private commercial breeding companies.

In feeds, I would argue for more economic evaluation of the food-feed crop approach, before we spend too much time and resources on it. Some methodological work (along the line of a performance/selection index with economic values, as done in animal breeding) might be useful. I feel that an international institute such as ILRI should also work on rumen manipulation to increase the digestibility of the high fiber tropical grasses. Imagine the potential for say the Guinea Savannahs of Nigeria, if the millions of tons useless grass there could be converted in the rumen to high quality energy. This would reverse the monogastric Livestock Revolution to a ruminant Livestock Revolution.

On value chains: Aren’t the first four bullet points on page 41 part of the analysis already done to select the chains now retained? It now gives the impression that the initial selection was haphazard. I don’t understand the reference to theme 1 at the bottom of the page. Maybe, they will emerge from the chain analysis, but in the questions on component 2.1 (Policy and Sectoral Analysis), I miss questions of issues such as access to land and credit. I like the discussion on scaling up and out, although this part is still somewhat vague on what is exactly going to be done. Especially here, I miss the consumer perspective in the discussion. Somewhere the entire document gives the impression to stop at the processing side. The Livestock Revolution is demand and consumer driven….

On gender and targeting: The write-up seems quite long, and some of the discussion on monitoring could be reduced, as these are generally accepted principles. Component 1.1 in activities (page 47) seems rather global and divorced from the value chain focus. Pages 58-61 seem to repeat parts of the introduction and theme 3.

On partnerships: On page 56 CG centers (especially adaptive research)? Where are the development banks? They are important investors. Similar as in the value chain: Where are the consumers?? The question of the role and comparative advantage of CGIAR viz-a-viz the NARS and Universities, a long-standing issue, which is not resolved, if I look at the respective descriptions of their role on page 56. A discussion on how to reduce the transaction costs of partnerships would be useful. It is conceptually sound to involve as many partners, but any additional one increases the transaction costs, to the extent that I can see the scientists involved doing nothing else than networking and meeting with the partners. I see it is mentioned on page 72 as the high risk factor, but the mitigation seems vague. What are the incentives mentioned under the mitigation column?

On Communication, advocacy and data-management, again I miss the consumers. For the rest, it seems to be well focused.

—

Watch a video interview with Cees de Haan

In their foreword, the Directors General of the four Centers wrote:

“In accepting the invitation to develop a CGIAR Research Program to increase global food security through livestock and farmed fsh, the participating Centers have embraced the spirit of the ongoing change process to propose a bold new approach for organizng and conducting our research. This new approach relies on two key principles: focus and new partnerships that together allow us to take more active responsibility for impact.

To improve our focus, we have agreed to concentrate our collective efforts on just eight animal‐product value chains in seven countries, replacing our conventional approach of more piece‐meal research across scattered sites. This will allow us to integrate our research in a holistic manner to generate the solutions that will transform the selected vlue chains and produce more food. Although counter‐intuitive, we see this focus actually enhancing rather than restricting our ability to generate international public goods for impact more widely.

Transforming value chains requires new partnerships, and here we propose to build on recent experiences in which Centers have been working more closely with development and privat sector partners. This emerging model has the Centers serving as the knowledge partner within large‐scale development interventions. This arrangement increases the urgency and relevance of our research while providing a mechanism for translating our research esults directly into use at scale. This also means that the Centers contribute directly to—and become accountable for—achieving verifiable development outcomes.

Clearly this approach will present new challenges and risks, but we are excited about its potential for generating measurable impact and are keen to begin. It will have implications for the way we organize ourselves and work together, but we have already been encouraged by the interactions and synergies being created among the four Center partners.

In the spirit of the GCARD meeting in Montpellier, we have actively engaged a wide range of stakeholders for their feedback and input as we developed the proposal, both through a series of face‐to‐face meetings and through a public e‐consultation. We have greatly appreciated and benefited from both the quantity and quality of response: the e‐consultation alone received over 14,000 visits and generated over 400 thoughtful — and often thought‐provoking— comments.

We now look forward to continuing to work with these stakeholders and new partners as we prepare to implement the Program to deiver impact on the ground for thousands of poor producers and improved supply of animal source foods for millions of poor consuers.

Ruben G Echeverría (CIAT)
Mahmoud Solh (ICARDA)
Carlos Seré (ILRI)
Stephen Hall (WorldFish Center)

See the Proposal
More on the e-consultation and stakeholder engagement

Download the report

More information on this blog and the supporting wiki.