Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Planning the Priority Country Programs


Published on

Presented by Tom Randolph, ILRI, at the Livestock CRP Priority Countries Planning Meeting, Nairobi, 26–27 March 2019

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Planning the Priority Country Programs

  1. 1. Planning the Priority Country Programs Tom Randolph Livestock CRP Priority Countries Planning Meeting 26 – 27 March 2019 Nairobi, Kenya
  2. 2. Purpose • Fulfill commitment from proposal The program’s approach … mirrors the Livestock and Fish CRP approach to focus and integrate its value chain work for particular commodities in priority countries, particularly for rapid growth trajectories. It will extend to selected sites where the Humidtropics and Drylands CRPs have worked on systems issues and apply a similar approach, focusing on the role of livestock within a systems perspective particularly aimed at enhancing resilience for fragile growth trajectories. • Ensure common understanding of what is expected, how it will be done, roles and responsibilities • Prepare proposal as basis for country-level planning meeting with partners • Identify and address potential fail-points
  3. 3. Outputs • Preliminary country Strategy & Implementation Plan – Concept for integrated intervention – Basic research design – Resources • Flagship activity for country programs • Strategy for integration of cross-cutting themes • Plan for PMU-KIT support
  4. 4. Meeting flow • Day 1 – Sharing information and tabling proposals – PMU – Country leaders – Flagship leaders – Cross-cutting coordinators • Day 2 – Preparing key components of country plans – Country team working groups – Plans for supporting the teams – Next steps
  5. 5. Priority Country Programs Redux
  6. 6. The Target • Deliver on commitment from CRP proposal (and L&F) – Translate our livestock research into integrated transformative pilot interventions in selected value chains/systems (LR4D model) – Generate evidence to attract funding to go scale, reach impact targets – Evaluate whether: 1. Intervention and its components work 2. This LR4D model works • Complete this by the (shortened) end of the CRP: Dec 2021
  7. 7. So far • The LR4D model concept – Pressure to demonstrate process for managing research into impact – Underlying hypothesis: Nature of livestock systems requires integration of genetics, health, feed technologies with institutional innovations to achieve significant change – Best done at regional/national level for a specific value chain or systems • The Livestock & Fish experience – 7 priority value chains selected based on potential for research to generate impact – Concept: • establish country team • adopt common research approach with Flagship support • attract bilateral project funding to implement activities • Initial phase of partner engagement, rapid assessment. testing of component innovations – Result: • Mixed – some countries getting momentum, showing ‘promise’ • Reviews endorse approach, but identify weaknesses in implementation
  8. 8. Implementation challenges and our response • Inadequate resources to achieve critical mass  Reduce number of priority countries  Provide stronger support to country teams  Ensure adequate funding support (W1/2) • Inadequate participation of flagship research  Integrate as explicit activity within each flagship POWB  Flagship representation in country team • Inadequate cross-country research design  Integrate themes explicitly in planning and support  Clarify country plans and design as research protocols  Clarify flagship and cross-cutting work within cross-country research design
  9. 9. Consider as a W1/2 donor project • More focus, time-bound, with clarity of expected output • Rationale: Need to move on from phase of assessment and testing best bets, consolidate the learning so far and pilot an intervention – Consistent with LR4D model – Generate evidence of the relevance of our research for impact
  10. 10. Consider as a W1/2 donor project • More focus, time-bound, with clarity of expected output • Rationale: Need to move on from phase of assessment and testing best bets, consolidate the learning so far and pilot an intervention – Consistent with LR4D model – Generate evidence of the relevance of our research for impact – Understand our impact pathway to prepare scaling • Opportunity to design and test our ‘dream’ intervention
  11. 11. To make it work – Resources 1 • Providing budget certainty: Dedicate $1.65m / country over the 3 years • $100k / yr / flagship + $50k /yr PMU • Additional SIF funds may support cross-cutting theme or special calls • Continued bilateral project funding mobilization • Country Leader as PI • Normal balance of personnel vs field work costs
  12. 12. PRIORITY COUNTRY ANNUAL BUDGET PMU Genetics Health Feeds & Forages Livestock & Environment LLAFS TOTAL Project common costs Personnel X X X X X X X Operating Costs X X X X X X X Flagship contributed activity Personnel X X X X X X Operating Costs X X X X X X 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 550,000 1 Activity Sheet 1 Activity Sheet 1 Activity Sheet 1 Activity Sheet 1 Activity Sheet 1 Activity Sheet Budget arrangements • Dedicated W1/2 funding source under each Flagship in MARLO
  13. 13. To make it work – Resources 2 • Clearly identified research team – Principle: Country leader + 1FTE / flagship • 1st tier: in-country team – Country leader + admin staff – Other scientists based in-country, may be flagship focal point – Project staff: e.g. Field supervisor • 2nd tier: external team members – Scientists supporting specific activities , may serve as flagship focal point
  14. 14. To make it work – Roles & Responsibilities • Matrix, with focus to support country teams • Country Leader as PI – Leads team – Prepares POWB in form of Activity Sheets that add up to the country PPWB – Prepares country annual report, with Flagship focal points responsible for submitting relevant parts to their Flagship • Flagship Leader and Administrator – Ensures consistency of activities with Flagship CoA, outcomes – Approves Flagship portion of POWB, allocates funding – Reports relevant component of country work as part of Flagship report • Flagship-Country focal points – Serves as country team member interacting with others, overseeing and implementing their component but with a focus on the overall intervention
  15. 15. To make it work – Roles & Responsibilities • PMU – Supports cross-flagship, CRP-level components that ensure the LR4D ‘experiment’ is adequately implemented and evaluated • Research design & Theory of change • Partnership and stakeholder engagement • M&E • Documenting the ‘experiment’ - KIT • Supporting cross-cutting coordinators to pursue strategy across countries • Reporting – making sure it is captured – LLAFS responsible for aspects related to overall integrated package as intervention – Each Flagship responsible for the work specific to their mandate area
  16. 16. Comment on Vietnam • Pork value chain at more advanced stage – Most Phase 1 work A4NH looking at food safety – No major work on production systems or other aspects of value chain under L&F (fewer opportunities, lower donor interest) – Consider: • ‘Sunsetting’ exit strategy for CRP work • Regional lesson-sharing • Opportunity for ‘Systems’ focus – Deliver on commitment to pick up from HumidTropics and extensive characterization done – Build on bits of work on beef – indigenous pig – backyard poultry systems in highlands – Recognize this is not sufficiently mature for intervention testing
  17. 17. Comment on KIT’s role • Exploring support to priority country program • Focus: Conducting our LR4D ‘experiment’ – Strengthening Theory of Change across countries – Providing an Innovation Systems lens – Monitoring role of stakeholder engagement with impact pathway – Assessing opportunities to strengthen agri-business orientation – Assessing role of better interdisciplinary dynamic within team – Coaching country teams in these areas – Work closely with PMU team
  18. 18. Our two main tasks 1. Design the ‘dream’ intervention – Evidence-based, building on our work and work of others – Combines our research outputs with development best practice – Some components will be integrated, some will be semi- independent as part of a package 2. Design the evaluation of the intervention – Ensuring credible, publishable results
  19. 19. CGIAR Research Program on Livestock The CGIAR Research Program on Livestock aims to increase the productivity and profitability of livestock agri-food systems in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and eggs more available and affordable across the developing world. This presentation is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The program thanks all donors and organizations which globally support its work through their contributions to the CGIAR system