Value chain development and how it could be best linked to technology development was one of the ‘hot’ issues debated at the recent ILRI-hosted livestock fish Mega Program stakeholder meeting. To help focus the conversations, colleagues from ICARDA and the WorldFish Center illustrated real-life value chain development and how they interface with the envisaged technology … Continue reading »
Monthly Archives: August 2010
Debating the Livestock Fish Mega Program
On August 24, participants from around the world converged on Addis Ababa to discuss the proposed CGIAR ‘Livestock-Fish’ research Mega Program. Participants attending came from 4 CGIAR Centers – CIAT, ICARDA, ILRI, and WorldFish; others came from Africa, Latin America, Europe and Asia. They represent governments, national research organizations, regional and sub-regional bodies (FARA, IBAR, … Continue reading »
Livestock Fish Stakeholder Consultation – Introducing the Mega Program Proposal
During the ILRI-hosted livestock fish Mega Program stakeholder meeting in August, ILRI’s Tom Randolph introduced the proposed Mega program in more detail. The overarching goal of the Mega Program is to “sustainably increase productivity of small-scale livestock and fish systems so as to increase availability and affordability of ASFs for poor consumers and, in doing … Continue reading »
Livestock Fish Stakeholder Consultation – CGIAR Change Process Update
During the ILRI-hosted livestock fish Mega Program stakeholder meeting in August, Steve Hall, Director General of the WorldFish Center introduced the process of change in the CGIAR. He highlighted four major changes in the new CGIAR: from 15 independent centers to 1 consortium from diffuse priorities to 15 Mega Programs from funded Centers to funded … Continue reading »
Livestock and fish Mega Program: What the feedback tells us
In the past weeks, we have asked you for comments on the directions and shape of the proposed CGIAR livestock and fish Mega Program. Check the original invitation to comment and the process timetable for more details. In the past month, this web space and the related wiki have been viewed some 7000 times and … Continue reading »
Feedback: Impact through focus on value chains?
We sought comments on the question: “The proposed approach commits the CGIAR Centers to achieve impact by catalyzing development and research interventions in a few value chains in a few countries. Is it an effective approach for the CGIAR to take? Please comment: What are the risks of such an approach, and how could we … Continue reading »
Feedback: Achieving wider impact?
We sought comments on the question: Is it reasonable to expect that the focus on working to transform specific value chains in specific places will generate measurable local impact AND facilitate subsequent scaling out regionally AND generate technologies and research findings that will benefit international development efforts more widely? Please comment: What strategies could we … Continue reading »
Feedback: Can the CGIAR add value to other actors?
We sought comments on the question: This approach assumes that CGIAR Centers can act as catalysts to attract new or align existing development investments (including by the private sector). It also assumes that different research partners will work together to support development partners as they implement major development interventions in the targeted meat, milk and … Continue reading »
Feedback: Good process for deciding focus?
We sought comments on the question: Do you think that the process used for deciding where to focus the Mega Program efforts is sufficiently reasoned and evidence-based (assuming that we now compile the data to support the choices)? How can the process be improved or further strengthened. Results from the survey: N=44 Strongly agree: 27.3% … Continue reading »
Feedback: Relevant criteria for deciding where to focus?
We sought comments on the question: Do you think that the criteria used for deciding where to focus the Mega Program are the most essential and relevant? What specific criterion you feel is non-essential or is missing. Results from the survey: N=45 Strongly agree: 28.9% Agree: 55.6% Disagree: 6.7% Strongly disagree: 0% No opinion: 8.9% … Continue reading »