18maynotes

18 May Addis Science Feedback on the new ILRI Strategy On 18 May a group of scientists (from ICARDA, ILRI and CIMMYT) met to reflect on the questions posed. Here are the main comments, in bullet format.


 * Overall – on the Storyline**
 * 1) Need to show what’s already been done … does not draw enough on lessons. Do we really know what impact the past strategy had, and why/where to change?
 * 2) Need to show how the new approach works in to ‘integrate’ the things we all do
 * 3) How does this link to CRP strategies – this is ‘bigger’? On the CRPs, how much do we follow or lead? What are __our__ messages vis a vis CRPs. Don’t be completely CRP driven. The strategy needs to ‘collate’ CRP efforts and not ‘dilute’ them
 * 4) Do the three scenario’s link to ‘pastoral’, ‘semi-commercial’ ‘commercial’?
 * 5) Role of knowledge in each scenario is different – more indigenous in ‘pastoral’; more external in ‘commercial’?
 * 6) Use the scenario’s to identify gaps
 * 7) How to scale is the big challenge
 * 8) Before, the ILRI approach seemed more ‘inward’ and ‘diagnostic’; this is a welcome opening – towards more development actions/partners, to a wider scope
 * 9) Be clear in the priority setting; Where will we __really__ make a difference?
 * 10) More attention needed on environment – the negative impacts
 * 11) The Matrix/Table illustrating the scenarios/trajectories – like it (the vertical); but wonder if the horizontal is too silo’d. This table works for ICARDA as well – they see themselves in it
 * 12) Would be useful to map/illustrate some current activities on to the table?
 * 13) Need to be MUCH clearer what is ‘growth’ in the storyline and table? Production? Productivity? Potential? Market orientation? What are we measuring/characterizing?

**Value chain approach**
 * 1) Does VC approach work so well in ‘low growth’ scenario? Or is the VC just much more confined?
 * 2) Is a ‘by the poor, for the poor’ essentially a ‘low growth’ scenario?
 * 3) This is very much an ‘approach’, a ‘tool’, part of the ‘how’; and so should not be so upfront in the thinking. Should not be a determining or guiding approach
 * 4) VC very useful as a way to help facilitate getting to desirable trajectories/scenario’s
 * 5) Beware … we as research are very small to try and steer markets
 * 6) VC approach most useful in market-oriented situations…; but don’t forget there is an element of market orientation always!
 * 7) VC not necessarily best for all situations; too narrow sometimes – eg on environmental issues?
 * 8) However, if done well, VC approach should take account of all issues

**Productivity**
 * 1) Currently: It seems that ILRI wants to ‘sell animals not produce them’
 * 2) Need to get a balance, what’s our niche? Much of this work is better done by others
 * 3) Niche is perhaps broker role between high end science and farmer application? Is this mainly ‘up’ or ‘down’?
 * 4) Important is to connect on the ground technology service delivery with technology development; get the technologies into use, a lot about extension, KM … Key bottleneck is delivery of technologies
 * 5) Many NARS still need connecting to advanced research institutes (ARIs); we may also need to help them find **their** balance between higher end research and farm-oriented application/uptake
 * 6) Do we ‘just’ broker?
 * 7) We need to be ‘ahead’ of the game …. Which game? – the development game (rather than the high science game!)
 * 8) Cutting edge science – we can’t compete, but we need to make sure it is applied (through eg. alliances)
 * 9) We observe that a lot of the productivity research is not well documented from an analytic/science perspective; there’s a lot of ‘process’ research on making things work… which is often a bit lost.
 * 10) On platforms – these only work if they have good content and real added value
 * 11) The bottom line: impact plus appropriate and relevant technologies and approaches. Too much technology is already not used. Must understand the application environment; really understand the real adoption rates/reasons behind so-called ‘successes’
 * 12) Technologies are tricky, sometime systems are not yet ready so we need to accept some ‘waste’ until time is right. Some playing and experimenting is ok
 * 13) We tend to research what is needed now … how can we be forward looking?


 * Health & Nutrition**
 * 1) It’s not obvious how much ILRI should really get into human nutrition issues. So many others already
 * 2) In onehealth/zoonosis/health areas, there is MUCH we can borrow from elsewhere – especially developed countries.
 * 3) Product quality an important aspect to add to issues of food safety
 * 4) Again, brokering role important; need to pick partners very carefully - with a view to influencing others and other larger agendas
 * 5) Is ILRI thinking to do anything with disease forecasting/early warning?