a good transition for tomorrow LGI presentation: there’re 3 teams: 1 on gender, 1 on M&E and IA and 1 on smallholder competitiveness in VC.. see you all tomorrow!

Thanks Lucy. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, one of the things that PTVC is doing this year is analytical work using some of the existing L&F datasets. We will conduct studies on technical and profit efficiency, characterisation of food security and ASF consumption of smallholder livestock producer households. PTVC is a small team and has projects that it is implementing and need to complete, so we will focus on 2 L&F VC countries and do more on others next year. Yes, policy is a crosscutting theme and needs to be mainstreamed, but I also think that respective project leaders also need to articulate their needs and communicate on them. Some not all programs are aware of various projects in other programs.

Overall, on collaboration we have discussed a lot on the need for it since the last APM, it is a more about doing it and taking action, sitting together and explore specific topics, projects etc. vs. just talking about it.

Thank you for your comments Tim. I agree with you on both points. One key barrier to the uptake of some technologies (e.g. vaccines) by farmers has more to do with poor delivery systems and services of these technologies. Often, there is lack of clarity on the roles of the public and private sector in the delivery services of certain technologies, resulting in the dominance of the public sector crowding out private investment, and limiting wider reach to farmers. All of these constraints relate more to policy and institutions, and addressing these will enable a wider impact of technical interventions, as you point out.

Hi Todd,

Thanks for sharing the information and interesting highlights on this project. Yes, let is discuss more on it and look for opportunities for PTVC involvement in the second phase. Definitely interested. We are working with Abdrahmane on ideas on resilience for the Sahel region and he contributes to LSE, so we should definitely discuss. I think that some ideas that you note would be of interest the World Bank (some contact recently visited ILRI and were looking for ideas for big project that they will propose for Kenya, and resilience is one key area that they are interested in.

Hi Susan,

Thanks a lot for this observation and encouragement! Yes, we are trying and will be doing more on improving communication and visibility, especially within ILRI. It is very important, and not having had a communications person in the team has not helped us much. We now have a communications intern and we’ll be doing more.

Hi Shirley,

Your observation on the staff constraint is quite right. In the short term, we may not be able to increase the team. So in the immediate term, we will focus on completing current work and increase our efforts in resource mobilisation. We will aim to write new proposals and use new resources to fund some new people to contribute to the existing capacity and to the new projects. In the meantime, we are utilising joint appointments (e.g. we currently have researcher , Abdrahmane, from CIRAD in PTVC working with us and LSE) and will be looking collaborations with other partners including NARS and universities.

Regarding donors, we will target various: Development banks including (African and Islamic development banks), look at big invest projects say by the WBG and try to incorporate research within those development projects, OPEC, and regional bodies that sometimes get donor funds to implement specific projects (so it important to engage with them). We can discuss more.

Thanks Emily.

1. Yes, yes…let us discuss on collaboration with the ReSAKSS work. 2. As I noted before, where there is synergy between LGI and PTVC, we should collaborate , and still focus on our keys areas on work. And is LGI looking at these issues (say competitiveness) from an impact assessment and gender point of view? We can discuss further.

Thanks for the addition Lance.

Yes, we can talk about feed/fodder crop production management and this is important. But in dry areas I think the eye has remain focused on better rangeland management, addressing issues of bush encroachment and land degradation. Yes, let us get together to discuss and put ideas together. I once worked on some concept note looking an market based approach on addressing bush encroachment turning invasive bush species into a market commodity (e.g. de-bush, but turn unwanted bush into say saleable product such as charcoal) and had it link of employment generation. But I think certain donors may look at it as getting rid of something bad, but producing a product that also emit carbon when used…we can discuss on how to improve it and other ideas that you have.

In the Global Agenda (FA1), we submitted idea for pilot projects dealing with rangeland management, proposing certain interventions and with cost considerations.

Some folks complain that farmers and policy makers in developing countries have not bought climate change and are not yet keen on taking action, but this debate is primarily framed around GHG emissions. I think that if it is linked to the problem the farmers face, such as degraded land, bush encroachment and if we propose ideas that addresses these issues, then it easier to relate to.

Enough for now, let us meet and talk.

Hi Polly and thanks.

In Southern Africa we have two addressing feed project, one in Botswana and one in Swaziland:

– The Botswana project looks at competitiveness on smallholder livestock production applying a value chain approach. The project has a feed component with ongoing research. In partnership with the Department of Agricultural Research, we developed 2 feed technologies (maize stover and sorghum stover) using locally available crop by-products.

We compared the performance of smallholder cattle on being fattened on the three diets: (1) commercial (imported) feeds, (2) Maize stover and (3) Sorghum stover. Results showed that the cattle can meet 250 kg (regardless of ‘breed’) on locally sourced diets. The 250 kg is the minimum weight (cattle) required to access the higher paying export-oriented marketing channel – exports.

Overall, we know that that there are areas in Botswana that too arid for crop production and then there are those areas where farmers grow crops, but most of the time the crop by products are wasted. So the aim to see how to locally produce and manage feed & fodder, and enable value addition by livestock producers, even if it is only when they are ready to sell and would like to fatten the animals. We are now estimating the costs associated in producing these to 2 local feed technologies, and will try get the private sector and farmers themselves interested to pick it. We will share results soon once we done wit the research. Overall, for Botswana, one has to look at rangeland management especially, and combine it with better management and production of fodder/feed where possible.

– Swaziland: This project is about fattening animals through fodder that are locally available and it involves various value chain actors. Cattle farmers (mainly in drier areas), traders who buy the cattle to sell to abattoirs and other marketing outlets, and then there are farmers on cropland areas (producing mainly sugar cane) production) and financial institutions to provide working capital. In this project, we are working on a financial instrument to enable traders (who buy cattle from farmers) to ‘hire’ farmers in the cropland areas to fatten the animals (bought from the farmers), and sell the animals off after fattening for a period of time . It is an interesting project looking at how to an innovative finance scheme to strengthen fodder development and markets for value addition, increase feed availability to livestock farmers and link farmers to markets.

Now in the case of Botswana, the scale may be small Right we are looking at the cost estimate