18maynotes
From ilristrategy ilriwikis
18 May Addis Science Feedback on the new ILRI Strategy On 18 May a group of scientists (from ICARDA, ILRI and CIMMYT) met to reflect on the questions posed. Here are the main comments, in bullet format.
Overall – on the Storyline
- Need to show what’s already been done … does not draw enough on lessons. Do we really know what impact the past strategy had, and why/where to change?
- Need to show how the new approach works in to ‘integrate’ the things we all do
- How does this link to CRP strategies – this is ‘bigger’? On the CRPs, how much do we follow or lead? What are our messages vis a vis CRPs. Don’t be completely CRP driven. The strategy needs to ‘collate’ CRP efforts and not ‘dilute’ them
- Do the three scenario’s link to ‘pastoral’, ‘semi-commercial’ ‘commercial’?
- Role of knowledge in each scenario is different – more indigenous in ‘pastoral’; more external in ‘commercial’?
- Use the scenario’s to identify gaps
- How to scale is the big challenge
- Before, the ILRI approach seemed more ‘inward’ and ‘diagnostic’; this is a welcome opening – towards more development actions/partners, to a wider scope
- Be clear in the priority setting; Where will we really make a difference?
- More attention needed on environment – the negative impacts
- The Matrix/Table illustrating the scenarios/trajectories – like it (the vertical); but wonder if the horizontal is too silo’d. This table works for ICARDA as well – they see themselves in it
- Would be useful to map/illustrate some current activities on to the table?
- Need to be MUCH clearer what is ‘growth’ in the storyline and table? Production? Productivity? Potential? Market orientation? What are we measuring/characterizing?
- Does VC approach work so well in ‘low growth’ scenario? Or is the VC just much more confined?
- Is a ‘by the poor, for the poor’ essentially a ‘low growth’ scenario?
- This is very much an ‘approach’, a ‘tool’, part of the ‘how’; and so should not be so upfront in the thinking. Should not be a determining or guiding approach
- VC very useful as a way to help facilitate getting to desirable trajectories/scenario’s
- Beware … we as research are very small to try and steer markets
- VC approach most useful in market-oriented situations…; but don’t forget there is an element of market orientation always!
- VC not necessarily best for all situations; too narrow sometimes – eg on environmental issues?
- However, if done well, VC approach should take account of all issues
- Currently: It seems that ILRI wants to ‘sell animals not produce them’
- Need to get a balance, what’s our niche? Much of this work is better done by others
- Niche is perhaps broker role between high end science and farmer application? Is this mainly ‘up’ or ‘down’?
- Important is to connect on the ground technology service delivery with technology development; get the technologies into use, a lot about extension, KM … Key bottleneck is delivery of technologies
- Many NARS still need connecting to advanced research institutes (ARIs); we may also need to help them find their balance between higher end research and farm-oriented application/uptake
- Do we ‘just’ broker?
- We need to be ‘ahead’ of the game …. Which game? – the development game (rather than the high science game!)
- Cutting edge science – we can’t compete, but we need to make sure it is applied (through eg. alliances)
- We observe that a lot of the productivity research is not well documented from an analytic/science perspective; there’s a lot of ‘process’ research on making things work… which is often a bit lost.
- On platforms – these only work if they have good content and real added value
- The bottom line: impact plus appropriate and relevant technologies and approaches. Too much technology is already not used. Must understand the application environment; really understand the real adoption rates/reasons behind so-called ‘successes’
- Technologies are tricky, sometime systems are not yet ready so we need to accept some ‘waste’ until time is right. Some playing and experimenting is ok
- We tend to research what is needed now … how can we be forward looking?
- It’s not obvious how much ILRI should really get into human nutrition issues. So many others already
- In onehealth/zoonosis/health areas, there is MUCH we can borrow from elsewhere – especially developed countries.
- Product quality an important aspect to add to issues of food safety
- Again, brokering role important; need to pick partners very carefully - with a view to influencing others and other larger agendas
- Is ILRI thinking to do anything with disease forecasting/early warning?
