Week 2- Question 1: Good process for deciding focus?
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)?
Please comment on how the process could be improved or further strengthened.
Share your comments below:
Return to list of questions for Week 2.
CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish 
Yes, the process was well reasoned and is evidence based, take the case of Uganda there is a lot of interest in aquaculture and the number of smallholders and number of pond acreage is increasing by the day and can/is spilling over to western Kenya, Rwanda, Southern Sudan and Northern Tanzania. We have technologies developed other countries and transferred and improved in Uganda, take example of BOMOSA fish cage culture technology developed in Kenya, transferred to and improved in Uganda and is doing well.
The process for deciding where to focus the Mega Program efforts is good.
No comment.I agree with the process so far.
Dear Nadia
Thank you very much for this concept note in ILRI Mega program. As national of Nepal I feel there is need of improvement in native animal species. We have preliminary data on feed resources and need advance research for specific animal feeding. There is need of research and opportunity, we are in between big countries and huge population in the world. Specifically, I want to do research on native pig, how they perform in improve feeding regimes, like wise in native poultry and goats.
Compiling the data to support the choice after choosing seems difficult to understand. Using the filters is good, but also mind the sequence of the filters – which criterion has the highest priority/weight?
The outcome of the process and criteria used gave the following priority choices – of the 6 main countries being chosen, 3 are in East Africa, 1 each in West Africa, South Asia and SE Asia. Among the species/commodities 2 are on dairy, 2 on small ruminants, i each on pigs and fish. I don’t think these choices are blanced between countries and commodities.
In South Asis, India is a big palyer with its huge capacity on dairy. True it has backward areas but they can learn from the advanced areas. On the other hand, the expected spill over through scaling out from Indian dairy to other south Asian countries may not really happen. The reasons are many, which can’t be adequately discussed in this brief comment. More countries for fish value chains should have been considered.
This mega prog will have to compete with the Health and Nutrition mega prog on some issues and with the policies and Institutuins meg aprog on others. The choice of value chains and the research agenda under those need much more careful analysis before they are finalized.
I agree, Nepal also doing research on fish, poultry, Pig feeding, and goat I think focus on these and scaling up in Nepal and other relevent countries.
So far, I agree. I think the idea of dual purpose of cattle should be included.
The process to decision making is alright, the challenge is in implementation.
The process may be alright but in the case of livestock, I am waiting to see who will deal with pasture improvements in the public rangelands and how.
There is a lot of degradation, especially where freerange grazing is practiced, and yet little is done to organise pastoralists towards active revamping of grazing lands….
I agree that the process for deciding where to focus the Mega is well reasoned. Many technologies produced in one country could easly be transferred to neiborghs if we respect their deep specificity
We need more evidence to sharpen the process.
One also needs to look in to Institutional capacity more particularly capacity of private sector in any region or within a country. International relations (Trends in regional integration) and cultural factors are also important.
The process to deciding focus is alright. At the moment I would like to emphasize the following:(1) Pastural systems and related research issues (eg forage genetic resource and breading, restoration of degraded pasturelands, management of grazing systems) should be well adressed;(2)China is among the world largest in terms of, e.g., pastureland area(as well as the degree of degradation), pig productio and consumption, and sheep and goats production; (3) involving China in the MG is important for scaling up and generating significant impacts; (4) The CAAS-ILRI joint Lab on Livestock and Forage Genetic Resources can play an important role in implementing the Mega Program.
We are not very clear with your view points. Budget is too low for such high profile project to be effective.
It is also not very clear the role of organization like us in the long run in this Project.
I am not clear whether fish was considered overtly in the ILRI study?
I also have some concerns that the focus on nutrition (and malnutrition) in the Concept Note is not picked up in a study which was focused on ‘increasing production and reducing poverty’. This is the perennial question of trade-offs between producing high value products for economic growth vs having high nutritional value products available to those on low calorie diets. The justification at the start of the Concept Note majors on the latter: for me, that raised issues with the prioritisation process.
Yes, it is well selected.Am sure the technologies are transferrable from nation to nation.In Kenya the Economic Stimulus Package has revealed tremendous farmer interest in fish farming.However, ILRI needs to “humanise” their projects.
Yes, I agree with the choice as Burundi is close to Tanzania and DRC it is possible to benefit experiences from those two countries.
I still have a problem with the top down approach to selecting value chains . The underlying assumption is that ‘rational decisionmaking’ will determine which value chains to promote. But whose rationality –Ilri’s scientists, those of other CGIAR research institutions or potential local participants.I believe that starting up a dialogue with groups in these countries to find out what they feel are the value chains of most interest and importance to them should begin during this consultation period.
Without knowing a lot more about how the study was carried out, who were the informants that informed the study, which countries/organizations were consulted in the study, etc or view the study report it is difficult to make a judgment on the process used for deciding the mega programme focus.
Based on what knowledge I have (nil) I cannot really make a judgment,
a. Whether the choices of commodities are balanced or not, can only be determined after selecting the countries. Even within a country, region specific commodity choice may be different. If we take the case of India, eastern region has choice for meat and fish rather than milk. However, in northern region, milk is the primary choice. In northern parts, buffalo milk is preferred. However, in eastern parts cow milk is preferred.
b. While improving the productivity of livestock, conservation of native breed is essential. Genetic improvement should match with the available resources.
c. Backyard faming may be given importance for smallholders.
d. Fodder development strategies may be included (nutritional quality, water efficient, biomass yield).
e. High value products or high nutritious products?
The focus is relevant in spite of the big challenge of putting together all the complexities of various livestock systems and country frameworks. Development is at a time where such complexities must be addressed in a bold way in order to stimulate collective actions leading to global solutions. There are still commodities left out (poultry, beef) but the tools so far used (e.g. ‘filters’ for identifying the high-impact value chains; country specific enabling policy (etc) environments) are useful when addressing other livestock industry commodities
No, I don’t think that the process used for deciding where to focus the Mega Program efforts if sufficiently reasoned and evidence-based. The ‘three main filters’ for identifying the high-impact value chains are not sufficiently well defined in the documents provided and it is not clear how they have been used.