The Livelihoods, Gender and Impact Program overview got 46 comments, as per 14 May at 10 am. LGI has 3 research teams: 1. Smallholder Competitiveness in value chain; 2. Gender; and 3. Impact Assessment (IA). Isabelle Baltenweck presented the overview, Alessandra Galiè presented on gender while Lucy Lapar presented on Smallholder Competitiveness. We didn’t get a chance to present on IA. A summary of the discussions is organized as follows:

• There is increasing recognition and interest in gender research, as demonstrated by the discussions around the ‘root causes’ of gender inequalities and the role of research in not only understanding them but also identifying mechanisms to address them. There was also discussion related to how gender needs to be mainstreamed in technology development and delivery mechanism.
• Scientists from other programs highlighted the need for us to be more proactive in impact assessment studies (both ex ante and ex post), linking with their work and providing feedbacks. A couple of examples were highlighted, including the work with the Genebank. Still on M&E and IA, it is worth noting that the team has 2 functions: own research and support to other programs. We increasingly see monitoring data and evaluation results as a great opportunity for valuable scientific investigations. For example, we collaborate closely with RMG to improve the design of interventions and data collection activities in various projects to achieve this.
• The topic of ‘innovations’ was also discussed, and its place in ILRI, as it was originally in LGI(I). It was clarified that this issue was brought up at IRMC and a task force was constituted
• The link between PTVC and LGI was also discussed. It was clarified that LGI has a team focusing on farm-level competitiveness and mechanisms to improve smallholders’ access to markets and services, working closely with value chain development initiatives. There is therefore a clear linkage with PTVC, which deals with value chain research.
• In terms of new or stronger collaboration, joint work with LSE should cover not only climate change but other environmental externalities also.
• It was finally suggested that in the proposal development checklist, there should be some questions around impact and gender and how these are budgeted, who will be involved in order to avoid these aspects getting lip service once project get funded.
• The regions asked for a stronger presence and activities! We will take up the challenge!

 Exploring gender perceptions of livestock ownership– Alessandra Galiè

The presentation ‘Exploring gender perceptions of livestock ownership’ received 32 comments from male and female colleagues from various disciplines. The comments were generally positive about the usefulness of the findings given that a number of people are working on data that include ‘ownership of livestock’. For the purpose of this summary the comments were clustered into 4 focus issues:

Decision-making. The largest number of comments focused on decision-making. Decision-making was introduced in the presentation as an example of a more concrete question – than ‘ownership of livestock’, which the paper shows means little – that can be used in studies looking at food security and gender equity. Comments in general welcomed the idea of focusing on decision-making. Some asked about tools to do so. Others asked about ‘how comprehensive it is to focus on decision making about livestock’: are more details on what other assets (beyond livestock) need to be included when looking at decision-making? is a focus on decision-making sufficient to assess gender roles?. Some asked for advice on how to deal with understanding the complexity of decision-making at household level. Some mentioned how to work with instances of co-ownership.

Gender norms. Some questions focused on the issues of gender-based priorities about livestock management for food security. The presentation had made the point that supporting decision-making –rather than ownership -might have more direct impact on food security. However, decision-making alone might also be insufficient because locally, gender-specific constraints might exist beyond decision-making. An example was brought forward from the paper about respondents from Ethiopia who argued that, together with decision-making about livestock, more flexible gender norms about what roles women can take in the management of the farm and livestock were needed to progress towards food security.

Methodology. One question was asked about the validity of the findings given the small sample size of 140 respondents from 3 countries. Because the aim of the paper was to show the large variability of ‘understandings of ownership’ – even among the small number of respondents – the small sample size was not considered a weakness.

Next steps. Some suggestions were put forward on how to progress with this piece of research. One commenter mentioned assessing through observation the daily practices regarding decision-making, management, benefit sharing of livestock. This component will enrich the understanding of how livestock exist within household dynamics. An exchange between one commenter and the presenter resulted in the formulation of a new research question ‘how is the vague nature of OL used in various context to perpetuate gender inequity and how, on the contrary, this very vagueness provides spaces for contestation?’

Bringing new insights to livestock science: economics and decision-making– Lucy Lapar

Comments from colleagues can be summed up in three categories, namely: 1) on tools and analytical approaches that can be shared and how they have been used in previous work, as well as how these can be applied to new/ongoing work to address questions about farmer choices on selling vis-à-vis keeping animals, for example; 2) insights on how some institutional and organization solutions to address smallholder constraints to effectively access input and output market have performed in actual practice; and 3) the need for new insights to better connect research with desired outcomes and how to make this happen.

1. Alignment of BecA-ILRI Hub’s Program with CRPs: The alignment is necessary to better serve smallholder farming communities and African NARS in various aspects that includes identification of technology need, resource mobilization, technology development, capacity building, expansion of BecA extended faculties, effective supervision of ABCF Fellows, and dissemination of the technologies.
2. Strong and functional collaboration between BecA-ILRI Hub and ILRI: A functional collaborations would be highly useful to gather critical mass to conduct research, effective resource mobilization and strong capacity building of African NARS scientists. Joint appointment, joint research team, join research proposal, the common focal person for the program that overlaps between BecA-ILRI Hub and ILRI have been suggested. Some collaboration in these areas has been already taking place and we need to have more and effective collaborations in future.
3. BecA-ILRI Hub is a huge still quite untapped resource: BecA-ILRI Hub is huge but to be fully tapped resource available within ILRI for other programs and ILRI projects. Therefore, ILRI scientists are encouraged to use “state of the art” biosciences facilities. Similarly, there are some interesting ‘integrated, non-bioscience’ works currently on-going at BecA-ILRI Hub that can be better connected into other ILRI pillar for better outcomes.
4. Technology scaling up outside East and Central Africa: Research Program at BecA-ILRI Hub generates technologies that are applicable to farmers’ outside Eastern and Central African countries (BecA’s mandate countries). Therefore, working with ILRI closer will help in the scaling up of these technologies (e.g. Brachiaria grasses, Aflatoxins monitoring & detection) across the world.

What does the new prominence of food safety and human health in the CG strategic research framework mean for ILRI?

Health and food safety has never had higher ranking in the CG. We think this offers opportunities for ILRI. Apart from mycotoxins, no other center has any substantive capacity in food safety or human health. The FERG report out in October is going to say mycotoxins don’t matter that much for human health, but the microbes and pathogens we work on are of enormous importance. We think there should be two new flagships in phase 2: one on food safety and one on human health. We have solid epidemiological and laboratory capacity (although more is needed) but we need to leverage economic, policy and gender expertise.

What are you doing for endemic disease?

Endemic diseases are very important but don’t fit in the remit of FSZ – in fact we have been working on them because we recognize a “one health” approach which doesn’t artificially divide human and animal health. But ILRI is not well organised for One Health.

…… and chickens?

From the FSZ perspective, poultry are important because of their role in zoonotic disease –both endemic and emerging and generation of antimicrobial resistance. We think they may have a role in environmental enteropathy. There are advantages of working in a value chain, but not to the exclusion of more important risks and benefits. A broader L&F would be able to address poultry from the perspectives of resilience, nutrition and health externalities.

You say 6.5 million people are getting from safer milk. Where do the figures come from?

The 6.5 million consumers is based on a) surveys on the number of milk traders and the consumers they supply b) surveys on the number of traders who have been trained and certified c) evidence on the improvement of milk safety as a result of training. Five million are in Kenya and 1.5 million in Guwahti, the major milkshed in Assam, India. We are working this year to strengthen these impact assessments by additional field evaluations. We think this model has proven to be sustainable (projects ended 3-9 years ago but still delivering benefits) and scalable (6.5 million consumers reached) and we want to make a case for donors to invest more.

Publish or perish: how can we get more time for writing?

The commenters made helpful suggestions: For instance could one day per week be reserved for this? Or a more explicit recognition within the KRAs? Invest a lot in high quality research support staff? Cut down on meetings? I think If we really see evidence and influence as a key strategy which we invest in, track progress on, and reward good performance in, then the ILRI culture will change, and the papers will ‘write themselves’.

IPM FSZ Milk and Fish Safety in Zambia – Mwansa Songe

How do you get stakeholder inputs?

We are in the process of forming a Food Safety Advisory Committee at national level, and at provincial level an innovation platform for each of the two products, which will allow for engagement even with different players along the value chain.

Why milk and fish?

Local along with community members identified fish and milk as high risk foods eaten in large quantities with poor preservation methods and hygiene. A field study of fish value chains highlighted dried fish as of particular concern. We have now performed microbiological sampling of fish from markets and fresh milk (sour milk to be done), to confirm this and guide future investigations (awaiting lab results).

Is collective action an opportunity for dairy development?

In Western Zambia there is lots of grass, lots of cattle yet dairy value chains are largely informal and productivity is low. Investments in facilities are needed but production needs to increase to justify these investments, yet there is no current access to sizeable markets to justify this investment. Looking at food safety and quality is one aspect, but whilst a holistic approach is ultimately required a sensible option may be to try to improve one aspect, such as basic cattle nutrition or health, which would potentiate the next steps, e.g. improved breeds, AI and milk yields, which could allow more investment in milk quality and supply chain infrastructure.

What approach does AAS follow to assess food safety from production to consumption?

The AAS uses participatory methods to conduct research. We will sample foods along the supply chain. We also collect info on storage and hygiene. Fish will follow a similar approach.

Why did you identify sour milk as a problem? What pathogens could be present?

Sour milk was identified is consumed in large quantities and we know relatively little about its safety – we do know it is less safe than boiled or pasteurized milk. We are screening fresh milk samples for: 1) Total Bacterial Count (TBC), 2) Faecal coliforms count, 3) Antibiotic resistant E. coli, 4) Salmonella spp., 5) Brucella spp., 6) Toxigenic E.coli, 7) Entertoxin producing Staph aureus, 8) bTB, 9) Campylobacter, 10) (Listeria may be added). We also hope to test for aflatoxins in fish.

How about insecticide treated nets?

With regard to insecticide-treated nets for controlling flies in the fish markets, it would be important to consider traditional perceptions of nets and colour. With malaria control this has proved to be a major constraint in some countries. After efficacy studies we intend to pilot this intervention to identify problems like this that were not anticipated. So far we have conducted a small survey (semi-structured interviews) to get an idea of traders’ and consumers’ perceptions on the use of nets-mixed views, but most of them seemed eager to try the intervention

Useful suggestions: Contact the colleagues from ZimCLIFS in Harare. Exchange notes with Barbara Sv of FSZ team here in Addis who is leading a similar process.

IPM FSZ – Food Safety and Ecohealth in Vietnam – Hung Nguyen

How are you addressing gender in food safety and risk management?

Women and men are involved differently in food safety. We see clearly role differentiation in slaughterhouses and selling pork in the markets between men and women. Men mainly work in pig slaughterhouses and women mainly sell pork. For food purchase and preparation, in most of the cases this is done by women. The consequence of the difference in occupational exposure might lead to different health risks and of course women play a role in managing risks for food safety.

How do norms and social perceptions affect food selection and consumption?

In one of the study sites in center of Vietnam, people prefer buying pork from less than 50kg pigs (they are not purchasing indigenous pigs, which are naturally small but rather small crops bred pigs of that could grow to 100 kg or more). This comes from the belief that small pigs were fed mainly with vegetables and food residues from households and therefore that meat is better than pork from bigger pigs that are believed to be fed with concentrate feed. This perception has some implications: pigs are sold quite early and pig keepers might not benefit from fast growth of pigs after 50kg thus reducing profits and pork availability. It might also affect meat quality. Another perception is that some of the pig organs are good for children and old people (heart, stomach, liver) and these can influence food selection and accessibility. Some highly risky food such as raw pig blood or fermented pork are also consumed in the country; again this consumption is influenced by beliefs and preferences.

What is essential for future “best bets” for improving pork safety?

We are conducting risk assessments which help identify the problems of food safety and potential solutions, but risk management needs to go beyond technical measures to reduce risk. Among others, the important role of education and training for farmers and self-policy through farmer organization, and cultural/perception (as mentioned above) need to be addressed.

How does ecohealth provide a guiding framework to expand partnership with other programs?

Whatever we call this approach – One Health, Ecohealth, integrative approach or other terms – the underlying idea is to break the silos to bring different disciplines to work together and to try to integrate different types of knowledge to address a common research questions without making every disciplines become generalist. In this sense Ecohealth can help to create new linkages between FSZ and other programs like LSE (environment), LGI (value chain) or bioscience (diagnostics) for instance.

1. Systems analysis and scaling for impact: The relevance of this LSE theme depends upon strong links with other programmes. There are challenges of finding data for good targeting but also impact assessment. This is clearly an area for collaboration across several programs. This analysis needs to be forward looking as well (scenarios, anyone?). For impact, we need to a) bring social issues and indicators into the analysis, and b) work with implementing partners to prioritize options and technologies.

2. Dryland systems are an opportunity for growth, but the science needs to offer solutions that work in these contexts. This is challenging given changing dynamics in pastoral systems. Four key areas were noted, namely forage production and management; value chains; breeding and improvement of genetic resources; and data collection for M&E. We need innovative thinking on rangeland ecology and options for “restoration”, with our partners.

3. Ecosystem / disease interactions: collaborative work on vector born diseases and their emergence/ re-emergence due to system changes is a great opportunity for ILRI, especially if it is linked to developing solutions that work.

4. Ecosystem/ productivity interactions: Two interesting points; Firstly, ecosystems could be mapped and included in the systems intensification work! This helps get at all of the tradeoffs. Secondly, productivity should be the entry point for discussions about the importance of enhancing ecosystem services, as this is what will engage smallholders.

Environmental Governance in Extensive Livestock Systems – Summary of Comments

1. Other ILRI teams are interested in paying more attention to the institutional, governance, and power dimensions in various streams of work, including feed and forages and animal diseases. This is more than simply adding a governance dimension to these areas, but would involve taking a stronger systems approach both in the research and in the collaboration with other stakeholders. Therefore, innovation platform work in these areas would also be connected.
2. Perhaps the most obvious collaboration involving research on institutions and governance would be between LSE and LGI. We should schedule time to share each other’s findings and lessons learned, and then brainstorm.
3. There is a need for more concerted work on NRM.  This should be integrally connected with research and action on value chains and productivity improvement. Inquiry questions include identifying critical success factors and means of scaling up, the degree of productivity improvement that can be expected from improved NRM, and how power dynamics interact with new interventions such as fodder production and market development.
4. Innovation systems needs greater. This is both in terms of ILRI engaging with innovation systems and looking at innovation systems as objects to be researched. The engagement with innovation systems must be two-way, both providing a pathway for our research to have impact and providing a means for stakeholders to influence what we are researching.  The research on innovations systems should investigate an array of issues, several of which are directly connected to governance: participation, power dynamics within innovation systems, learning, how networks enable or constrain innovation systems, and questions around sustainability and scaling up and out. Creative thinking is needed here, particularly for work in extensive drylands: there may be non-conventional links to service provision and innovation in other sectors such as education and health.

Livestock Production & the Environment

1. Emission estimates from “local livestock under local conditions” has the potential to significantly change global livestock emissions maps by constructing robust herd/flock models that are well-paramaterised for different systems. With this, we can scale out estimates and explore the impacts of different interventions on both production and emissions. This is challenging given the heterogeneous nature of systems in sub-Saharan Africa. While we emphasize field measurements, these will be linked to models.
2. The strategic focus on direct livestock emissions is a strength of this research agenda. Work has already started with a focus in East Africa. We are also including productivity and soil health dimensions.
3. Collaboration: Reliable data on feed quantities is hardly available. We need to work together on this, and on incentives to stimulate investment and behaviour change.
4. Mitigation interventions are central. There is debate around intensification – efficiency gains if livestock numbers continue to increase.

1. Collaboration: There is demand and opportunities for PTVC to collaborate with other programs at ILRI. The size of the PTVC team combined with its other work in the program is a constraint. Nonetheless, great ideas and interests were communicated and shared, especially from LSE (brainstorming on ideas on rangeland management issues) and Bioscience (market assessment studies of the vaccines being developed). PTVC will follow up with LSE and Bioscience researchers.
2.  ASSP program: The presentation did not mention collaboration with ASSP. Key collaboration area include creating linkages in producing joint value chain analyses and support the LIVES project in Ethiopia, strengthening ASSP collaboration in West Africa on red meat value chain developments, and creating synergies with the ReSAKSS country node in Tanzania.
3.  PTVC visibility – PTVC needs to be more visible within. Some recognized progress that PTVC has made in external communications
4. Appreciation for the need of PTVC  – Work is needed in markets, policy and institutions, especially in relation to markets as markets, as a pre-requisite for investment in productivity. Changing policy and institutions can have a role on scaling out technical interventions.
5.  PTVC input in other projects – As it is small, PTVC cannot contribute to data analysis of projects it helped design. PTVC noted its efforts in tool development and data collection. There are both demand and supply elements to this. It is important for others to be clear in their collaboration ideas where they need analytical input. Data analysis cannot be done in a vacuum. Clear requests, research questions and required data analysis, coupled with means to fund this is necessary. PTVC cited planned work to use existing L&F data as part of its work funded by L&F in 2015.
6.  PTVC and LGI synergies – Both PTVC and LGI work on value chains. LGI focuses on gender and impact assessment in value chains. PTVC uses the value chain approach to develop tools and methods to assess value chain performance, using indicators such as competitiveness, and testing these in bilateral projects. Collaboration should be fostered between the two programs. The perception that both are doing the same work is exaggerated. Both should strengthen the other (e.g. impact assessment work in LGI and policy analysis in PTVC).

Summary of Comments on PTVC, Strategic Foresight Presentation by Dolapo Enahoro

There were a numbers of questions seeking to clarify the Model’s components and suggestions were made on possible linkages to improve the modeling platform below:

• Does the model incorporate societal trends such as population and food consumption? How does it handle the divide between macro-level trends and modeling and the micro-level impacts on welfare such as livelihoods and equity? At what scale is gender important in the model?
• The model seemed complex and quantitative. Incorporating participatory or qualitative assessments could improve the value of analyses
• Can the model better account for non-ruminant species with active links to Value Chain modeling? Can VC-commodity specific simulations be done?
• Robust herd and flock modeling is needed to capture yield gaps and productivity changes that interventions will achieve. Is this possible in the current model or is a complementary model needed?

Questions and comments on Model Outputs and their use are here summarized:

• The model output(s) were not clear
• The use of (outputs of) the integrated model in informing other models should be explored, to facilitate working across scales and to improve links to impact
• Do model outputs from livestock strengthening work at ILRI exist; they have not yet been communicated
• Some of the global results did not make sense; country-level simulation could provide more benefit

Model application and Collaboration within and outside ILRI

• It is important to structure intervention modelling to fit into ILRI’s core areas of research. In general, we need more cost-benefit analyses of ILRI’s projects and programs
• There is need to harmonize or better coordinate system modeling across programs and CRPs we are involved in, to take advantages of synergies
• There are practical challenges to collaboration between PTVC and other programs. These may need addressing at Management level
• Increased management support could improve the profile of ILRI’s foresight work in relation to the broader work that it feeds into in PIM and IFPRI, and more globally
• Ownership of the livestock component of the model is needed. ILRI is establishing itself as the lead center for analyzing global livestock issues and the onus remains with ILRI to maintain this relevance in and outside of PIM

Summary of key points arising from ReSAKSS presentation on ‘Understanding Dynamics of Intra-regional Trade in Food Staples in COMESA Region

1. On ReSAKSS, its focus and how it links to other ILRI programs

ReSAKSS was established in 2006, to support evidence and outcome-based planning and implementation of agricultural-sector policies and strategies in Africa. It offers high-quality analyses and knowledge products to improve policy making, track progress, and facilitate policy dialogue, benchmarking, review and mutual learning processes of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) implementation agenda. It is organized into four nodes: Africa-wide node (facilitated by IFPRI and working closely with AUC/NEPAD), West-Africa node (facilitated by IITA and working closely with ECOWAS), Southern Africa node (facilitated by IWMI and working closely with SADC) and the East and Central Africa node (facilitated by ILRI and working closely with COMESA).

The ReSAKSS-ECA research agenda is set through a consultative process through its COMESA chaired Steering Committee, with membership from EAC and COMESA business councils, government representatives, East Africa Farmers Federation, and development partners, among others.

In ILRI, ReSAKSS focuses on supporting implementation of CAADP through analysis (trade, agriculture growth options, role of livestock in economies, etc) and policy engagement, CAADP M&E, capacity building, and knowledge management. It works in agriculture and rural sectors without necessarily focusing on livestock. There has been considerable collaboration with PTVC on capacity building and trade analysis, and there is considerable scope to intensify collaboration with PTVC and other ILRI programmes. We will explore more opportunities for joint research activities and policy outreach.

2. There is need to include inputs such as feeds among commodities whose trade is tracked in the region

This issue was raised by a number of commentators. We acknowledge it is important but we have highlighted the challenge of data quality. However, ReSAKSS is working with partners to enhance the quality of trade data and there might be opportunities to revisit the issue in future.

3. Need to highlight findings and outcomes of the study especially on welfare impacts
4. We acknowledge that the presentation was too brief but more details can be shared either through reports with individuals or through regular institute seminars.

Our focus is on developing vaccine-based solutions and diagnostic assays as inputs to increasing livestock productivity as livestock diseases feature prominently among the many constraints faced by resource poor farmers.

• We learn from existing vaccines to develop improved ones, try to simplify diagnostic tests into more user-friendly formats, and develop generic technologies that cut across different diseases.
• We undertake both basic and applied research, which is high risk but high reward, and long term in nature.
• As we don’t have the expertise, our dream alliance requires collaboration for market and impact assessment studies, to overcome policy barriers and end user constraints, learn from the genetics of disease resistance and predictions of climate change and to increase the use of vaccines and diagnostics in improving disease control.

The biggest “problem” that Vaccine Biosciences faces is that the vaccine products we are working to develop exist as concepts and virtual inputs in value chains during a major part of the lifetime of a given project.

• So, how do we get buy in from ILRI programs and CRPs for the Vaccine Biosciences priority diseases and what do they do in the interim?
  • For ECF, a subunit vaccine is still many years away and the interim solution is the live ITM vaccine.
  • For CBPP/CCPP, again we are years away from improved vaccines and interim solutions rely on the existing vaccines, which give a short duration of immunity (CBPP) or is difficult to make (CCPP).
• Are there other diseases that we should be working on?
  • Should these include the “easy-to-make” vaccines (at least by the private sector), even if they are not of high priority?
  • An example, includes to make and test an attenuated live viral vaccine for MCF to curb the seasonal outbreaks in cattle at Kapiti and other sites (Naivasha) associated with wildebeest calving. [We lost 200 cattle last year!]

Diagnostic assays are short-medium term deliverables and probably the easiest ILRI health related technology to develop. There was a lot of interest in and demand for “JJ’s magic tool”, the self-loading diagnostic chip. Other diagnostic formats can be developed.

• In the first instance more user-friendly tests have a bigger use as a research tool within the Integrated Sciences programs and CRPs.
  • So who would use such tests and for what purpose?
  • What type of tests are needed and to which diseases?

In addition to all the above, as we look forward to CRP phase 2, there is a clear call for more human and livestock health issues to be tackled in the SRF.

• In addition to the strategic partners identified by LaF, should we consider a formal relationship with GALVmed?

In order to be more opportunistic and responsive in tackling health related issues we should consider investment in a unit to fulfill such demands, which currently are out side the capacity of the current Vaccine Biosciences group.

• Such a unit – ILRI Biologics – could be tasked with a service (and research) function to support vaccine and diagnostic activities and play a role in capacity development with the BecA-Hub.

Many thanks to all for the interesting comments that people sent to the ASSP Program Leader’s and Scientists presentations. We have grouped and summarized them as follows:

1. A number of contributions noted that one of ASSP’s strengths is in considering all of feeds, breeds, and health in an integrated way (even if the animal breeders are now located in Animal Bioscience). Some suggested that the breeding side should go back to ASSP, or at least place 1 contact person with a foot on the ground. The integration is seen as a basis for promoting inter-disciplinarity across ILRI programs. There were also suggestions that animal management should be added to this mix as this is what puts all the pieces together. This is an area that we will be giving prominence in the coming years, especially as we grow the herd health initiative.
2.  On Sustainable Intensification; How does the development of Sustainable Intensification indicators help ASSP’s work? Who is demanding such indicators? Should we not treat Sustainable Intensification as a hypothesis? LSE could certainly help here, with their experience in indicators for resilience and for climate smart agriculture. ASSP and LSE should collaborate on this idea, and together demonstrate where SI is possible and where it is not. A roundtable discussion is planned with Polly convening.
3.  Cross-fertilization between ASSP’s feeds and forages work, low-emissions feed and fodder practices in the Mazingira Lab; and the feed analysis lab in Addis Ababa. Other collaboration with LSE was identified including: putting technologies in a social context through integrating the analysis of the institutional and governance dimensions of changes in feeds & forages regimes; not just for understanding impact, but at the level of basic research.
4.  As most ASSP work is applied animal science, integration with Capacity Development becomes very important if we are to have impact through radio, videos etc. ASSP should collaborate with capacity development here.
5.  There are many possibilities for increased collaboration with FSZ on animal health, and economic impact, especially for zoonotics and aflatoxins. There is potential to work also with the feeds group and Africa Rising on aflatoxins. Can you say something more regarding the development of SI/Sustainable Intensification Indicators (I assume SII?)? Is the work only starting, or do you have some more exciting information to share?
6. Livestock Master Plan communications should be enlarged, highlighting Ethiopian agencies. This is a great opportunity to acknowledge Ethiopia’s NARS, and build closer relationships. We could do a series on this by unpacking the plan for different sectors and audiences, giving prominence to Ethiopian agencies. It was proposed to discuss this with James Stapleton when he arrives in Addis to develop products and activities that highlight the master plan.

A question was posed on the feeds and forages work. In ILRI’s feeds and forages research, what belongs where (and why)? Feed and forage work is spread across ASSP, FFB, BecA-ILRI Hub, Mazingira Lab, and the Genebank CRP. It is time to unpack this.

We are not strong on animal welfare, and are only involved in the welfare of experimental animals. We should examine broader animal welfare issues such as the implications of livestock intensification on animal welfare. For instance, we might lead the development of minimum standards for housing or treatment of draft animals. We have been approached by other institutions to be involved in this area of research.

Summary of comments on Peter Thorne’s Sustainable Intensification presentation

The discussion on the sustainable intensification presentation was diverse, probably reflecting the diversity of the issues that these projects have to deal with. Some key points were:

• Defining and measuring sustainability and sustainable intensification. Comments highlighted the range of thinking and lack of consensus that we have. Definitions vary and are either insufficiently generic (mostly focusing on cropping systems) or difficult to interpret at a household, community or even landscape scale. The issue of indicators that go beyond the biophysical was raised. Africa RISING has been aware of this when developing its indicator framework (and this remains work in progress). ILRI has a technology platform that might be adapted for operationalizing our indicator framework in the field. There are exciting possibility provided that we move forward together.
• Livestock waste. Minimising waste from livestock production systems is important. Intensification works to increase system efficiency and this can also be achieved by better input and loss management, as well as by increasing production.
• GHG emissions from intensifying systems. We have little evidence as to the benefits of systems intensification on GHG emissions other than the assumption that more efficient systems are more climate-smart. Project’s like Africa RISING could offer an opportunity to generate concrete data here.
• Intra household issues. Not everyone in a household is equally affected by intensification. We account for this amongst households by the use of typologies and within households in terms of gender an youth. There may be opportunities for some projects to more explicitly address intra household variability as farming systems practiced evolve.

We identified concrete opportunities to collaborate with LSE and RMG on sustainability indicator frameworks and on the implications of intensification trajectories of smallholder systems for GHG emissions.

Summary of comments on Alan Duncan Participatory Tools presentation

Most comments posed two questions:

• Can FEAST be modified to do other things?
• Can the FEAST approach be applied to other sectors such as health or breeding?

The answer to both questions is yes with some caveats. For tools like FEAST, there is always a trade-off between (1) making them try to do everything and (2) making them too cumbersome to be useful. FEAST has been refined over a period of years and its size and scope is probably optimal for the job at hand. The FEAST/Techfit approach is relevant to other sectors and its ideas are being incorporated into another tool called Legume CHOICE which focuses on multi-purpose legumes in smallholder systems. Modifying FEAST to deal with pastoral systems could have mileage but it might be more efficient to develop a different tool using the same principles.

On the data generated by FEAST, there was some agreement that harvesting and using data for other purposes could be useful. Mechanisms for this are already well advanced.

“What Next?” FEAST is good for quick diagnosis but needs to be combined with other approaches including Techfit and Participatory Technology Development to turn talk into action. Suggestions for this are contained within the new FEAST Learning Materials being developed by CapDev.

There were a few queries around farmer selection and particularly the need to have a good balance between women and men among respondents, particularly as feeding is often handled by women.

1. How to better integrate work in Integrated Systems and Biosciences; Smaller programmes with few staff and resources are forced to work in a collaborative mode to deliver. Incentives are needed to foster collaboration across programmes, locations and disciplines to make better use of our resources and deliver appropriate products needed by smallholders.
2. How to better integrate activities across programmes so that work in regions and systems can guide the selection of research topics that we work on in biosciences with feedback loops to ensure relevance of the final products.
3. Other opportunities for forages; for example in pig and poultry systems or for NRM. There could be lots of benefits but use of forages comes down to the benefits and economics, trade-offs for land and labour for alternative land use and what other feeds are available and at what price.
4. The focus of the feed and forage bioscience programme was raised in several comments and opportunities to apply cutting edge genomics to forage improvement were proposed. A comparison was made in the face to face meeting on the importance of genetic improvement in the crop centres and if ILRI is intending to start a forage improvement breeding programme. The current thinking for the programme is that the focus should be on identifying genes or gene variants for specific traits that can be used for selection for disease or drought tolerant genotypes but that ILRI is not currently thinking of starting a breeding programme on forages.

The best way to do this is for someone in the debate room to be assigned the task of entering comments while the meeting is ongoing.

If you do not capture comments on the site, they will not be recorded.

There are three lines of questions with which to approach this topic;

1. What are the implications on ILRI if we pursue some of these ideas?
2. What are the implications on ILRI if we don’t pursue some of these ideas?

Consider these questions bearing the following in mind

• On our science in general; would the ideas mean that we would either have to change the way we did scientific work in general?
• On our structures; do the ideas require new forms of organisational structure and arrangements?
• On our relationships with others; would this require new types of alliance and partnerships?
• On our processes; would we need to change the way we do things in terms of support services, policies and procedures?
• How would we be perceived publicly?

You are invited to make comments below and develop discussions with one another. These will be summarized and used to frame an advisory paper for the IMC, along with the ideas that are presented