In Vietnam, the ILRI-led Livestock and Fish research program focuses on smallholder pig value chains. As part of the planned activities for 2013, ILRI organized a stakeholder consultation workshop in Hanoi on 22 March 2013 (see wiki for more information).
Lucy Lapar and Seth de Vlieger from ILRI’s Hanoi office wrote this report on the meeting.
The workshop aimed to identify a short list of priority research sites that fit the characteristics of three target value chain (VC) gradients: Rural to rural (R2R), rural to peri-urban/urban (R2U), and peri-urban to urban (U2U).
A set of GIS maps were presented to the stakeholders for discussions; these identified the list of provinces that met the thresholds for the geographical targeting (pigs, poor people, market access) and the VC gradient classification (% of province area that represent each VC gradient type). See Table 1 below and the presentation showing the GIS maps.
Participants were divided into four groups to discuss some soft criteria to be applied for prioritizing the proposed list of provinces under each type of VC gradient. The inputs from a diverse field of expertise and the participants’ intimate knowledge of the country and its different socio-political and economic dimensions highlighted a variety of perspectives, fostering an atmosphere for open and informative discussions.
At the plenary where each group was represented by a leader who presented their set of priority site selection criteria, the recurring elements that stood out as important according to the stakeholders were 1) the expressed willingness by the political leadership to engage with ILRI and its collaborators, 2) the potential for building synergies with development and other ongoing initiatives, and 3) dynamism that will enable the capture of temporal and spatial changes in the process of transformation and better contextualize the dynamics across the different VC gradients.
Table 1: List of priority criteria proposed
|Group 1||Group 2||Group 3||Group 4 (not prioritized)|
|1. Geographical representation||1. Province level||1. Target Beneficiaries||Include some areas of low density but high poverty|
|2. Dynamism (potential for change)||2. Collaboration with pig-stakeholder (producer)||2. Capacity to scale up (political engagement)||Presence of Variation of density/poverty within province|
|3. Cultural/ethnic differences||3. Dynamics||Commitment of local government to apply priorities + resources|
|4. Institutional partners synergy building)||4. Synergies||Co-located with development projects|
Thereafter, participants were divided in two groups. One group identified the top 2-3 provinces among the list of provinces under the R2R and R2U VC gradient; the other group identified the top 2 provinces among the list of provinces under the U2U VC gradient. The groups then came up with a short list of provinces, based on their priority set of criteria. Given the difficulty to come to a consensus on how to identify 1-2 provinces for each type of VC gradient, it was suggested that more information and consultation at the sub-province level should be conducted, in order to develop a final list of the priority research sites.
The outputs from the group discussions are summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Proposed priority provinces (in descending order) for each value chain gradient
|Proposed for Rural to Rural & Rural to Urban (provinces)||Proposed for Urban to Urban (provinces)|
|Dac Lak||Thanh Hoá|
|Son La||Hoa Binh|
|Thanh Hoa||Tien Giang|
|Nghe An||Dong Nai|
|Hoa Binh||Long An|
Next steps for the site selection will be to generate revised GIS maps, taking into account the comments from the stakeholders, including relevant variables in the geographical targeting exercise, and collecting sub-provincial information to refine the targeting. Sub-province consultations with key stakeholders will then be organized for ground-truthing.
In the afternoon of the same day, a smaller group of ILRI and some partners discussed the program’s impact pathway framework for Vietnam. The outputs from this discussion will be used to develop the impact pathway narrative in Vietnam. See Table 3 for a summary of impact pathway elements identified.
Table 3: List of impact pathway elements identified
|Vision||“A thriving and inclusive pig sector that is environmentally sustainable, efficient, and consumer friendly”|
|Outcomes||1. Capacity developed among partners to apply tested models for smallholder pig system that demonstrate increased productivity reduce d risk higher and more reliable income|
|2. Uptake of productivity enhancing technologies, strategies, innovations, for improved pig nutrition, breeding and health|
|3. Markets actors behaving so as to reduce risks, respond to incentives, enable compliance with changing demand and standards|
|4. Capacity developed among targeted research partners|
|5. Expanded market opportunities for smallholder pig producers|
|6. Learning alliance functioning for continued R4D for pig systems|
|7. Improved opportunities for income generation by women in pig production and marketing|
|Key Assumptions||1. Addressing whole value chain will improve uptake of innovations.|
|2. Prioritization will increase the probability of achieving proof at scale.|
|3. Work on localized solutions will generate regional and global public goods.|
|4. Implementation of appropriate innovations in the right value chains with partners will accelerate program’s progress towards achieving outcomes and impact.|
|5. More smallholders can and will respond to greater market demand, become market oriented, and intensify production.|
|6. Pro-poor value chains can compete and generate sufficient incentives to promote investment in intensification.|
|7. The poor rely on animal-source food produced locally by smallholders and from less formal marketing channels.|
|8. The poor will consume more ASF if availability of products improves from those systems.|
|9. Increased consumption of ASF will improve nutrition and health.|
|Key Risks||1. Focusing on a few value chains might limit geographical spread of research benefits.|
|2. High transaction costs and or transactions investments of managing a complex network of partnerships.|
|3. Potential ineffectiveness stemming from managing complexity|
|4. Limited impact due to poor implementation, low buy-in, low capacity, disagreements in policy|
|5. Increased income and gender inequalities due to program implementation.|