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%     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

Some concerns:

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