Comments for ILRI Events

Comment on What farmers really really need by Annet Mulema

Annet Mulema — Tue, 19 May 2015 11:10:47 +0000

In reply to Ewen Le Borgne. Thanks Ewen, you raise important questions which need to be delved into. Researchers need to influence the donor community with concrete evidence. Bringing donors closer to the communities can aid this as it provides a platform where donors directly interact with the beneficiaries and listen to their stories, their actual needs and wants. I was a bit hesitate to change the title but I will think through it again. Thanks.

Comment on What farmers really really need by Annet Mulema

Annet Mulema — Tue, 19 May 2015 10:59:19 +0000

In reply to Dirk Hoekstra. I agree. Our research needs to consider the needs of actors who directly or indirectly interact with the producers especially the consumers. The approach needs to enhance producers' capacity to meet the demands of the consumers. In most cases, its private sector - traders- who are knowledgeable about this thence and can pass on this information to farmers and researchers.

Comment on More Integration / More Collaboration among ourselves by Ewen Le Borgne

Ewen Le Borgne — Fri, 15 May 2015 11:15:05 +0000

(Late comment from Addis team)
We need better mechanisms to work together across programs and projects. There is a lot in common across some of the programs and projects where if brought together can result in achieving the outcomes at scale.
The aim is to avoid duplication of efforts within the projects and programs, creating processes that links and helps to harmonize and organize research interventions, at the same time create linkages among research programs and projects that complement.
There is greater need to create more linkages between the integrated sciences & biosciences.
How does the 5 areas of the Science strategy (1) Animal Genetics & Breeding, 2) Feed resources, 3) Livestock & Human Health, 4) Policies, institutions & market, 5)Sustainable systems) fit into the existing organizational structure? Would it require re-organization?
The programs are there, which thematic area in the science strategy do they contribute to? Then create the linkages.
There is the need to harmonize and organize the research activities; we need to revisit the processes and the whole coordination of all the research activities.
From the program strategies identify how to fit in with the science strategy linking up to the ILRI strategy.
Also see the linkage with the CRPs.
Integration and collaboration starts from bottom up – identify common interest and common goals – and co-work. Finances is not an issue. This necessitates a change from us, a behavioral change and an attitudinal change. We need to have the willingness to change and to collaborate. Structure can facilitate collaboration. This might be a proper time to think about change in our structure that will bring down the silos.
Put some instruments to help foster change management.

Comment on Evidence based research to foster integration of system based interventions by Ewen Le Borgne

Ewen Le Borgne — Fri, 15 May 2015 11:14:11 +0000

(Late comment from Addis team)
We haven’t much seen an integrated approach to research interventions. There is a lot of duplication of efforts and wastage of resources.
This is a pilot intervention that can generate evidence where an integrated approach works at a systems level – evidence can be used to generate an integrated system model.
This can be Integration at scale or integration at farm level
Synergy
This can be seen from two perspectives: 1) Doing research on how best to integrate the interventions and 2) research on how to get better impact at scale.
The ideas already exist in some of the research projects (like Africa RISING) but there is no practical intervention.
We need to see the evidence where we first identify the key issues jointly, bring in all expertise and work together. Different interventions can be brought together from the CG and national system. Here also we need to understand the systems in operation.
Integration for impact.

Comment on Climate smart livestock systems by Ewen Le Borgne

Ewen Le Borgne — Fri, 15 May 2015 11:13:28 +0000

(Late comment from Addis team)
The idea behind this is that we need to think about not only about the issues we are facing now but also the future. Our environment is going to change dramatically. We need to have productivity gain with the environment – a win win situation.
There is need to have multidisciplinary solutions, not just work on feeds, genetics, health alone but an integrated approach to all.
Short & medium term research is the focus at ILRI. We need to come up with long term researches.
We need to identify the ‘Bright spots’, linking what we do in NRM.
Use the modeling components.
Use an inter-disciplinary approach. We need Sustainable intensification for changing the climate. The other ideas SI are developing indicators for SI.
Feed is a major contributor to animal feed which in turn contributes to GH emissions.
If you ignore feeds and focus on the other components that will be a very dangerous approach.
Zoonosis and some of the diseases – new breed – match to new feed – changing the diet of the animals would be mitigating GH emission.
Bringing together different parts of the institute into a more coherent way of targeting interventions.
This can be linked to the climate change and sustainable intensification initiative that is currently underway.
The challenge at times is centers wanting to own research components. How do we work that tradeoff?

Comment on What farmers really really need by Ewen Le Borgne

Ewen Le Borgne — Fri, 15 May 2015 11:12:38 +0000

(Late comment from Addis)
This research needs to incorporate not only identifying what needs to be done but also exante evaluation on farmer’s needs and wants.
The appreciative approach of existing knowledge and building up on what is needed is what makes this approach different.
We also need to bring in somehow the external knowledge – the focus being on internal knowledge doesn’t help to move things forward.
Need is about priority setting – with limited resources – you need to be really focused. Quantification of what the likely impact would be, some sort of modeling exercise would be helpful.
On the other hand, the issue of donor’s requirement vs a vs farmer’s interest needs to be considered.
There is very low adaptation to innovations, but the question is why? Are we not propagating demand driven research?
Why don’t we respond to already assessed need instead of doing another research on farmer’s need?
We recognize no matter what we have done, we haven’t found the solution, hence working on this is potentially good. Trying to do an analysis of why we are not successful in bringing technologies that they adapt is something that needs to be looked into. A lot of methodology is both quantitative and qualitative is out there, but why is it not working? Maybe we really need to look at not only the need but also the want aspect as well
Suggestion was made to change the title in to “What farmers really really can do”

Comment on Plant diseases in Forage productivity by Ewen Le Borgne

Ewen Le Borgne — Fri, 15 May 2015 11:12:02 +0000

(Late comment from Addis team)
The work on viruses and diseases relating to forges is very limited. Especially in countries such as Ethiopia it is literally lacking. The need to develop a diagnostic kit to better identify and mange viruses is vital.
One factor contributing to this work being limited is the fact that productivity of forages is very less – and less means high cost. The Lack of forages in the system is one of the factors that hasn’t been researched much.
The virus problem is a global problem. It will be good to pilot this research in countries where forages is widely available. Ethiopia is not a good choice for this project as the current focus on feed is the introduction of fodder.
Prioritization and targeting
We need to pay attention to diseases at the rollout stage of a forage project, for example we can take the experience of Napier grass vs smut disease particularly in Uganda and Western Kenya. If we don’t pay attention to diseases at the rollout stage – we might end up 10 years down the road thinking that the intervention is not as useful as we thought it would be.
A good way to go forward might be to strengthen the national systems, capacity building of the national systems, ensuring that the forage interventions are disease resistant at the time of introduction.
At times this might pose a kind of the ‘chicken or egg’ scenario where by one needs to assess if the problem of viruses emerge from the introduction of forages or the other way round.
The evolution of viruses is also a challenge by itself. Viruses emerge very rapidly at the same time evolving into different viruses which makes this research a starting point to look into the challenges.

Comment on Bridge seminars: Boosting cooperation across research areas by Ewen Le Borgne

Ewen Le Borgne — Fri, 15 May 2015 11:11:26 +0000

(Late comment from Addis team)
Many times seminars are attended by staff within the program or project presenting the seminars. They lack participation from other programs and projects within ILRI and across the centers. As the idea here is to integrate through seminars on a regular basis a platform like the virtual IPM would be ideal to bring in inputs from people from across Africa and the regions.
It will also be good to pick up the points that have come out of this IPM, for example like the Sustainable Intensification that have come up across LSE & ASSP – although the programs are approaching Sustainable Intensification from different angles. We need some kind of a concerted approach to deal with such kind of issues.

Comment on Forage into Use by Ewen Le Borgne

Ewen Le Borgne — Fri, 15 May 2015 11:09:45 +0000

(Late comment from Addis team)
As we think about more forages into use in Africa, we need to think about variations across countries. There is an increasing demand for forages partly because of the supply issue, but we need interventions that are targeted at the different agro – ecologies.
There needs to be a concerted effort among the Centers and partners that are targeting issues pertaining to forages (CIAT, ILRI, CSIRO … )
Better supply of germplasms is an important issue that needs to be address.
Fostering of agribusiness to fill the gap is another crucial point that needs to be considered.
Resources are needed to do the capacity building – capacity building not only around the technical aspect but on the thinking around targeting forages.
The idea is to have one focal country in East Africa and one in South Africa. Some of this regional organizations like ASARECA / CADESA might be interested but both are in financial stress which we might need to look into for possible joint effort.
Understanding the constraints is important. We need to think about mechanisms that will help to develop dialogue at the higher level to establish buy in and as a means to establish the market.
There could also be additional linkages between this idea and what is going on the other centers across the CG.
Forages provide feed but they also provide other benefits as well. A holistic approach needs to be considered.
The issue of subsidizing and giving away ‘free seed’ will need to be addressed if we are targeting a sustainable seed market for forages.
This ‘Forage into use’ project proposal is aimed at awareness creation for appropriate feed interventions.

Comment on What farmers really really need by Stuart Worsley

Stuart Worsley — Fri, 15 May 2015 11:05:51 +0000

In reply to Dirk Hoekstra. Indeed Dirk. And that adds grist to the mill. Participatory research need not be limited to farmers alone. There are wider groups that are affected by our work, or who have a stake in the agendas we pursue. The scope for building this methodology is immense. If we can but agree that we need to start this journey, then we can determine how. I like Annet's idea here because it tables the idea of a "different approach to science".