Thanks a lot, Epi, and yes it will be good to revisit some of your previous suggestions. Our strategy has been to focus on reducing risk of aflatoxin production on farm (including with things that can be used in a semi-subsistence context), rather than just empowering larger commercial millers to test for aflatoxin contamination. Otherwise, the amount of aflatoxin in the food system as a whole remains similar, but the formal maize system can become more selective and exclude the more contaminated product. This leaves it in the food system, but more concentrated with those who are more vulnerable to food and nutritional insecurity. Of course, the commercial millers also have millions of customers, including the urban poor, and integrating them in a labelling program can potentially create a pull for safer maize.

As an area of economics of information we understanding it well and can conduct analyses related to asymmetry information problems such as moral hazard, signalling and adverse selection. For the work on innovative finance scheme for the Swazi beef value chain, some PTVC researchers are looking at optimal contract design to deal with moral hazard and adverse selection problems in the pilot of a finance scheme amongst farmers, traders and financial providers (banks). I noted previously at a BeCA Aflatoxin workshop on potential questions that should be considered in the aflatoxin work you are involved. For example, the idea of creating labelled products (e.g. aflatoxin-free maize) as a solution to give consumers more information and choice, but how would one best assure along the maize VC that labeled bags are not re-used for aflatoxin contaminated maize? Please follow up if there are specific input that you would like to collaborate with PTVC on information asymmetry related questions.

I do not understand the second part of your question well, so please clarify. But if one wants to seriously address issues of toxins and their food safety, health and nutritional impacts on consumers, the informal market has to be part and parcel of it. As you know for example, in most East African markets, the informal dairy sector dominates. I think that there is a general serious lack of awareness on this problem at the consumers level (from both in formal and informal) and more work needs to be done at public policy level to create this awareness, and to put measures in place for more accountability from other VC actors.

Thanks again and please clarify second part of your question.

Peter, thanks a lot for your comment.

1. No, I do not think that having “policy” or “value chains” in a program title results in missing out on what other programs are doing in these areas. Other programs may be conducting research using VCA approach or policy analyses specific to their topics, and the recognition of their work is a function how they communicate and share their results with others. PTVC researchers have collaborated with other programs doing value chain analytical work and these outputs were joint outputs for both programs. As a program focusing in these topics, the title is quite appropriate. But yes, better collaboration, communication and sharing of ideas and outputs among programs is still needed.

2. On overall ILRI collaboration: this is an topic that we discussed and elaborated extensively on at the last APM and it keeps following us. I am sure that there is collaboration happening, but the overall sense by many is that programs at ILRI need to collaborate more meaningfully (e.g. writing joint proposals and joint project implementation, co-publications etc.). The ideas are there, but it is more a question of action and perhaps communicating more on collaborations that are taking place, but that folks do not write about.

3. I agree that that it would be great to connect linked work better and enable others (internally and externally) to see and celebrate how our respective and joint programs’ body of work contribute to ILRI’s objectives. More discussion is needed on how to best achieve this.

Colleagues, apologies for not mentioning ASSP. ASSP is not forgotten at all. With ASSP, PTVC intends to create linkages in producing joint value chain analyses work, support the LIVES project in Ethiopia and strengthen their collaboration in West Africa on red meat value chain developments. These are areas that we have already discussed with ASSP program leader Boni.