CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish: Phase II ideas

782 views

Published on

Presented by Tom Randolph, John McIntire, Malcolm Beveridge, Michael Peters and Barbara Rischkowsky at the CGIAR Consortium Office, Montpellier, 27 June 2013

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
782
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish: Phase II ideas

  1. 1. CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish: Phase II ideas Tom Randolph, John McIntire, Malcolm Beveridge, Michael Peters, Barbara Rischkowsky CGIAR Consortium Office Montpellier, 27 June 2013
  2. 2. Research outputs to global development goals MDGs - SDGs 12-18 years CGIAR SLOs CRP goals Common IDOs + Target statements + Theory of Change 9-12 years Value Chain Impact Pathway VC1 Egypt VC2 Uganda VC3 India etc. Δ behaviour  direct benefit 3-yr milestones 0-12 years CRP Activities + Outputs (research, capacity building, engagement) IPG Impact Pathway Enabling Environment 3-yr milestones
  3. 3. Common IDOs across CRPs • Productivity (crop/system/ food system) • Food security • Nutrition and Health • Income • Gender • Capacity to innovate • Risk Management (adaptive capacity) • Policies – enabling environment/ institutions • Environment • Future Options • Climate
  4. 4. Research outputs to global development goals MDGs - SDGs 12-18 years SLO1 Reduce Poverty CRP goals IDO6 Better policies9-12 years Value Chain Impact Pathway0-12 years CRP Activities + Outputs • Actionable options • Engagement/transformation Process • Evidence base IPG Impact Pathway SLO2 Food Security SLO3 Nutrition & Health SLO4 Environment IDO5 Environmental benefits IDO4 Reduce nutrient gap IDO3 More employment & income, esp. for women IDO1 Improved productivity IDO2 More & better supply IDO7 More forage?
  5. 5. Theory of Change assumptions • Addressing whole value chain will improve relevance, uptake and effectiveness of innovations. • Focus and targeting will increase efficiency and the probability of achieving proof at scale. • Implementation of demand-driven innovations in the right value chains with the right partners will accelerate the program’s progress towards achieving outcomes and impact. • A significant number of pre-commercial smallholders can become market-oriented and intensify production sustainably. • Pro-poor value chains can compete and generate sufficient incentives to promote investment in intensification. • The poor rely on animal-source food produced locally by smallholders and from less formal marketing channels. • The poor will consume more ASF if availability, access and affordability of products improve from those systems. • Increased and equitable consumption of ASF will improve nutrition and health.
  6. 6. Our engagement in a value chain embodies our impact pathway Approach: Solution-driven R4D to achieve impact Year 1 Year 8-12 Relativedegreeofinvolvement Research partners Development partners Assessment Mobilization Best bets Experiment s Evaluation Evidence Design Piloting Lessons Context Advocacy Disseminatio n Attracting investment Implementin g large-scale interventions Knowledge partner Along the impact pathway
  7. 7. Increased number of healthy pigs Safe pork and pork products Increased number of off take Improved income from piggery Increased income from other enterprises Better coordination of value chain actors Increased adoption of technologies Equitable distribution of income Better access to markets PROGRAM OUTPUT General assumptions Inputs are available and accessible, Partners are interested and have the resources to scale out the technologies, Good communication strategies, There is sufficient demand, The pig sector takes priority in the policy framework, The right partners are identified, Different stakeholders are willing to be part of the IP General risk i. Religious biases remain Assumptions i. There is adequate demand for pigs ii. Farmers are willing to increase investment in piggery iii. There are favorable market conditions. Risk Disease outbreaks Better prices Assumptions No backlash from equitable distribution of income Assumption Farmers will adapt the improved protocols Farmers are aware of safe pork. Risk Mismanagement/misinterpretation of information on ASF Assumption Incomes are invested in household nutrition Farmers are aware of what constitutes good diets Assumption i. Awareness of negative environmental impacts of poorly managed piggery RESEARCH OUTCOMES INTERMEDIATEOUTCOMES Better animal health approaches Improved feeds and feeding methods Innovative pig husbandry and pig management Better breeds and breeding methods Strong pig farmer groups Policy briefs Innovative linkages to credit providers Incorporation of gender in value chains Increased information on technologies Improved food security Reduced poverty Improved nutrition and health Sustainable management of natural resources Less air and water pollution SL Os Innovative linkages to pig markets Improved profits (VC actors) Improved diets Uganda Smallholder Pig Value Chain Impact Pathway ParticipatoryImpactPathwaysAnalysis
  8. 8. Safe pork and pork products Increased number of off take Improved income from piggery Better coordination of value chain actors Equitable distribution of income Better access to markets PROGRAM OUTPUT General assumptions Inputs are available and accessible, Partners are interested and have the resources to scale out the technologies, Good communication strategies, There is sufficient demand, The pig sector takes priority in the policy framework, The right partners are identified, Different stakeholders are willing to be part of the IP General risk i. Religious biases remain Assumptions i. There is adequate demand for pigs ii. Farmers are willing to increase investment in piggery iii. There are favorable market conditions. Risk Disease outbreaks Better prices Assumptions No backlash from equitable distribution of income Assumption Farmers will adapt the improved protocols Farmers are aware of safe pork. Risk Mismanagement/misinterpretation of information on ASF Assumption Incomes are invested in household nutrition Farmers are aware of what constitutes good diets Assumption i. Awareness of negative environmental impacts of poorly managed piggery RESEARCH OUTCOMES INTERMEDIATEOUTCOMES Better animal health approaches Improved feeds and feeding methods Innovative pig husbandry and pig management Better breeds and breeding methods Strong pig farmer groups Policy briefs Incorporation of gender in value chains Increased information on technologies Reduced poverty Improved nutrition and health SL Os Innovative linkages to pig markets Improved profits (VC actors) Improved diets Innovative linkages to credit providers Increased number of healthy pigs Increased adoption of technologies Less air and water pollution Increased income from other enterprises Sustainable NRMFood security Uganda Smallholder Pig Value Chain Impact Pathway
  9. 9. Increased number of healthy pigs Safe pork and pork products Increased number of off take Improved income from piggery Increased income from other enterprises Better coordination of value chain actors Increased adoption of technologies Equitable distribution of income Better access to markets PROGRAM OUTPUT General assumptions Inputs are available and accessible, Partners are interested and have the resources to scale out the technologies, Good communication strategies, There is sufficient demand, The pig sector takes priority in the policy framework, The right partners are identified, Different stakeholders are willing to be part of the IP General risk i. Religious biases remain Assumptions i. There is adequate demand for pigs ii. Farmers are willing to increase investment in piggery iii. There are favorable market conditions. Risk Disease outbreaks Better prices Assumptions No backlash from equitable distribution of income Assumption Farmers will adapt the improved protocols Farmers are aware of safe pork. Risk Mismanagement/misinterpretation of information on ASF Assumption Incomes are invested in household nutrition Farmers are aware of what constitutes good diets Assumption i. Awareness of negative environmental impacts of poorly managed piggery RESEARCH OUTCOMES INTERMEDIATEOUTCOMES Better animal health approaches Improved feeds and feeding methods Innovative pig husbandry and pig management Better breeds and breeding methods Strong pig farmer groups Policy briefs Innovative linkages to credit providers Incorporation of gender in value chains Increased information on technologies Improved food security Reduced poverty Improved nutrition and health Sustainable management of natural resources Less air and water pollution SL Os Innovative linkages to pig markets Improved profits (VC actors) Improved diets Uganda Smallholder Pig Value Chain Impact Pathway ParticipatoryImpactPathwaysAnalysis Sequencing? Who to implement? Who to target? Changes in behaviour?
  10. 10. PIGS AQUACULTURE SHEEP & GOATS DAIRY Exploiting opportunities to prepare regional scaling-out Comment on ‘Focus, focus, focus’
  11. 11. IDO Metrics 1. Increased livestock and fish productivity in small-scale production systems for the target commodities (SLO1 and SLO2) • Uganda and Vietnam – yields / animal of pig meat; percentage pig mortality; • Ethiopia and Mali – yields of small ruminant meat; flock mortality; kidding rate; • Tanzania and India – dairy yields per animal; • Egypt and Bangladesh – fish yields per hectare; • Nicaragua – beef and dairy yields per animal and per hectare 2. Increased quantity and improved quality of the target commodity supplied from the target small-scale production and marketing systems (SLO1 and SLO2) • Quantity, by commodity yields per animal and per unit of land or time, stratified by target systems • Market-level volume • Quality by real unit prices Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs)
  12. 12. IDO Metrics 3. Increased employment and income for low income actors in the target value chains, with an increased share of employment for and income controlled by low-income women (SLO1 and SLO3) • Increased income among poor people, disaggregated by sex and age. • Higher share of women reporting greater control of income from value chain participation. • Increased employment in the target value chains, disaggregated by sex, age and poverty status. 4. Increase consumption of the target commodity responsible for filling a larger share of the nutrient gap for the poor, particularly for nutritionally vulnerable populations (women of reproductive age and young children) • Higher Individual Dietary Diversity Index (IDDI); higher Household Dietary Diversity Index (HDDI) • Better health and nutrition status of children under five years:  Wasting: % of children under 5 years falling under -2 standards deviations of weight for age (%).  Stunting: % of children under 5 less than -2 standard deviations of mean height for age. Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs)
  13. 13. IDO Metrics 5. Lower environment impacts in the target value chains (SLO4) • Quantities of greenhouse gases (methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide) in each value chain; solid wastes in swine and dairy 6. Policies (including investments) support the development of small- scale production and marketing systems, and seek to increase the participation of women within these (SLO2 and SLO4) • Public spending on value chains, as shares of national public spending; quality of spending on public goods in value chains, as share of spending on all goods in the value chains • Private investment in the value chains • Number of prominent policy reforms 7. Improve yield potential of major feeds and forages (SLO1, SLO2, SLO4) • Yield potential per unit of land in environments representative of the given value chains • Uses and yields of improved materials in environments representative of the given value chains Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs)
  14. 14. Defining IDO targets 1. What is the adoption domain? 2. What is the best indicator? • Seek to align with other CRPs 3. What is a reasonable change in indicator? • Bio-economic modeling 4. What is a reasonable number of beneficiaries? • Existing examples Defining IDO targets
  15. 15. Flagship Projects 1. Building a Livestock and Fish Genetics Platform. 2. Improving animal health 3. Reducing the environmental costs of animal production. 4. Developing new biotechnologies for animal nutrition. 5. Sustaining feed-based intensification of animal production. 6. Reducing gender disparities. 7. Transforming selected value chains
  16. 16. Flagship: Building a Livestock & Fish Genetics Platform Platform of scientific competencies of ILRI, World Fish, NARS and ARI partners Objective: to build an integrated animal genetic improvement and innovative delivery program for emerging small and medium- scale market-oriented livestock and fish production systems
  17. 17. Livestock & Fish Genetics Platform Short and medium term: a) identification of desired genetic livestock and fish products and initiation of sustained improvement programs within value chains b) supporting farmers to access desired genetics in cost-effective manners c) applying a combination of conventional and emerging genomic and information technologies to determine and promote best genetics from existing populations for the different production systems; d) formation of genetic improvement and delivery platforms to systematically improve and deliver desired genetics within and beyond country borders e) conserving genetic diversity for future needs Long term: f) development and testing of novel technologies to provide long- term
  18. 18. Ultimate outcome: significant and sustained genetic improvement of priority livestock and fish species in developing countries. This will contribute to • Improved productivity (IDO 1) • More and better supply of ASF (IDO 2) • More income (IDO 3) Livestock & Fish Genetics Platform
  19. 19. Feeds flagship • Realize feed-based intensification of animal production to meet the needs of poor and vulnerable consumers, while mitigating environmental effects – … at the core of sustainable intensification…. – optimize temporal and spatial use of land for feedstuffs – model and reduce environmental costs associated with different feeds – identify and utilize novel feeds and forages, including technologies from biofuel production to produce more and better quality fodder
  20. 20. Feeds flagship - targets • 50% improvements in productivity (livestock and fish per unit land area) • In 50% of our value chains • Zero additional environmental costs (?) • By end of nine years….
  21. 21. Indicative Budget (US$ million) 2015-17 2018-20 2021-23 Building a Genetics Platform 12.7 12.7 12.7 Improving Animal Health 17.0 17.0 17.0 Reducing Environmental Costs 17.3 17.3 17.3 Developing New Biotechnologies 7.0 7.0 7.0 Sustaining Feed-Based Intensification 13.1 14.4 15.9 Reducing Gender Disparities 7.2 5.4 5.4 Value chains 50.6 66.1 62.9 Capital 5.0 5.0 5.0 TOTAL 129.9 144.9 143.1
  22. 22. Budget for value chains Indicative Budgets, US$ thousands Value Chains 2015-2017 2018-2020 2021-2023 Bangladesh Fish 12,000 12,000 12,000 Egypt Fish 5,000 5,000 5,000 Ethiopia Small Ruminants 8,400 7,800 7,800 India dairying 6,000 12,000 12,000 Mali Small Ruminants 2,800 5,200 2,600 Nicaragua dual purpose Cattle 2,800 5,200 2,600 Tanzania Dairying 3,000 6,000 8,000 Uganda Swine 6,130 6,130 6,130 Vietnam Swine 4,500 6,750 6,750 Total 50,630 66,080 62,880
  23. 23. ILRI WorldFish CIAT ICARDA Partner CGIAR Centres
  24. 24. Approach to partnerships • Head of Development Partnership • GCARD session on partnership • Partnership strategy under development • Identification of strategic partners • Research • Development • Stratified • Criteria? • Evolving and dynamic
  25. 25. DEVELOPMENT Partnership strategy Global Regional Local • Strategic partners • Collaborators • Strategic partners • Collaborators • Strategic partners • Collaborators RESEARCH Global Regional Local • Strategic partners • Collaborators • Strategic partners • Collaborators • Strategic partners • Collaborators
  26. 26. Links Livestock & Fish Crop CRPs: Food-feed crop breeding A4NH: Animal source food nutrition A4NH: Food Safety & Zoonoses PIM: Value chain analysis Systems CRPs: Value chain options CCAFS/WLE: Environmental impact mitigation
  27. 27. CGIAR is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for a food secure future. The CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish aims to increase the productivity of small-scale livestock and fish systems in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and fish more available and affordable across the developing world. CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish livestockfish.cgiar.org

×