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:
Strongly agree: 27.3% Agree: 54.5% Disagree: 9.1% Strongly disagree: 0% No opinion: 9.1%
Contributors to the blog generally supported the approach. One cited the example of the rapid growth of aquaculture in Uganda
About the process—
- ILRI study not available, so unable to evaluate degree of consultation
- Did ILRI study consider fish? Was it consistent with nutrition objective of MP?
- Selection used top-down approach – whose rationality?
- Why compile data after choice is made?
- More evidence needed to sharpen process
About the choices–
- Lack of balance between countries and commodities
- Lack of potential for scaling out from India
- Too few fish value chains
- Potential overlap with MP2 and MP4
- Include dual purpose cattle
- Who deals with protecting rangelands? Pastoral systems?
- Need to involve China because of capacity and huge scaling out potential
- Budget will be low for such ambitions
To strengthen the process:
- Clarify how are filters weighted
- Consider national institutional capacity, particularly of private sector
- Clarify roles of other partners
- ‘Humanize’ the projects