Summary – PTVC

• Comments that stood out include:

  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.

  0

  0

  Be the 1st to vote.

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)