As mentioned in the recent process update, the strategy development Task Force has developed a ‘storyline’ to set out the overall concept that underpins our new strategy. This is very much work in progress, it is very draft, and it needs further tightening up.
We need your feedback on this document [download here or read the full text below]:
- Do you agree with the starting diagnosis – that we need to expand our scope, focus and targets, and the reasons why? Tell why you disagree and what you disagree with!
- How about the three approaches and the system typologies underpinning them – ‘inclusive growth’, ‘low growth’ and ‘growth with externalities’. Is this an appropriate way to generally organize and conceptualize our work? Are there any missing elements we overlooked? Would you be comfortable with this characterization? What would improve it?
- Are there any gaps or failures in the logic, the examples given, that need to be addressed? Please suggest any specific examples or cases we might use to support our arguments.
Share your feedback – Click this link
ILRI strategy storyline
‘Solutions for a Transforming Livestock Sector’
Version 1, April 2012
- Pathways out of poverty has been a useful framework
ILRI’s strategy for the preceding ten years has been based on a simple but insightful conceptual framework for understanding the potential roles of livestock in poverty reduction. That framework describes three main opportunities for enhancing the role of livestock in providing a pathway out of poverty, summarized as securing critical assets to the livelihoods of the poor, sustainably improving their livestock productivity for food and income, and linking livestock keepers to markets to increase the value from their production. These pathways were particularly relevant in the context of the rapidly rising demand for animal-source foods in the developing world, termed the Livestock Revolution. The challenge of ensuring these three pathways could reduce poverty while responding to the Livestock Revolution has helped to put ILRI’s research into context and to identify opportunities by which its agenda could better support the pathways.
- But this framework needs to take into account changes ongoing and projected in the global context and in target regions
Pursuing the pathways out of poverty has sharpened ILRI’s research focus on interventions and institutional strategies for pro-poor livestock development. Experience over the past decade, however, has highlighted the challenges if research is to achieve impact across the pathways. In addition, the context for livestock development has been evolving driven by the continued Livestock Revolution particularly evident in Asia, along with a greater recognition that the ongoing transformation needs to be nuanced, in particular in relation to the roles of smallholders (and thus the pathways out of poverty) diverse economic situations and different livestock commodities. Meanwhile, the food price crisis and heightened volatility has raised concern about having sufficient food supplies into the future and renewed threats of food insecurity for the poor, particularly in the face of increasing land and water constraints. The private sector in developing country food economies has become much more dynamic, creating new types of opportunities for smallholder livestock production and marketing systems and means for market development, but also causing rapid structural changes in scales and quality of livestock commodity production, marketing and consumption. And pressure to raise animal production is increasingly weighed against its impact on the environment, health issues and the need to anticipate the impact of and on climate change. The combined challenges of growing food demand, continued rural poverty, climate change, and scarcity of land, energy and water require changes in livestock production systems, i.e. livestock production that is not only highly productive but also highly sustainable.
- Requiring expanding the scope of the pathways out of poverty and its focus on the poor livestock keeper, to a wider vision of livestock commodities in developing country food systems and how they can evolve to improve food security while reducing poverty in a way that is environmentally sound and has positive human health outcomes
The sum of these trends is redefining the target for ILRI’s research. Our past strategy has focused on poor livestock keepers and using their livestock assets as a means out of poverty. The focus must now expand to meet the future challenges of addressing the role of livestock to address food security, poverty, environmental and health issues – it must be inclusive. Based on the diversity of livestock systems and their likely transformation in the coming decade, three main approaches emerge, characterized in relation to the potential livestock sector growth scenarios.
Inclusive Growth Systems
The first approach is to develop sustainable food systems that deliver key animal-source nutrients to the poor, while facilitating the structural transition from a majority of smallholder households keeping livestock in low-productive systems to a livestock sector raising productive animals in more efficient, intensive and market-linked systems. These are the systems that currently provide significant animal and crop products in the developing world and where there is likely to be the most growth, and the greatest opportunity to influence and empower that growth. In some regions, this transition is occurring relatively quickly through the development of more specialized livestock farms, but in many areas of Africa and Asia, the transition is happening slowly and will be long term. Likewise, marketing systems associated with smallholder systems are largely informal, even though elements of modern supply chains exert an increasing influence. When viewed as value chains, opportunities can be identified to improve production and supply chain efficiency, employment creation and benefits captured by the poor.
The goal is for the transition to be as broad-based as possible, allowing for those who can to continue on the path to sustainable, highly productive and resource efficient small-holder systems, including in some cases, intensification and specialization to do so, and for others to participate in different non-production elements of the value chain (such as trading, processing, input or service provision) or to accumulate sufficient capital to exit from agriculture without falling back into poverty. The role of research is to inform, devise and enable the up-scaling of interventions, organizational strategies and policies that will support such inclusive growth and agricultural transition that maximizes the well-being of people now and in the future, addresses the growing threat of a supply gap whilst addressing environmental and human health challenges.
Low Growth Systems
But it is not likely to be feasible to create the same levels of opportunities for all poor livestock keepers, especially in areas where productivity growth may be limited by remoteness or ecological and social constraints, such as in some pastoral systems or areas with slow demand growth or chronically low market access. In these situations where smallholder livestock systems may face few incentives or possibilities to improve productivity or market participation, a second more nuanced approach will still look for incremental growth and productivity options within the constraints, but more emphasis will be given to enhancing the role of livestock for resilience, both in terms of ecosystems and household/community livelihoods. Livestock will continue to play a strategic role for household food security and social protection, and research can support this role through technologies and institutions to protect livestock assets of the poor and their contribution to stewarding the natural resources upon which they rely.
Growth with externalities
A third approach recognizes that in some intensifying small-scale livestock systems, dynamic markets and increased human resource capacity are already driving strong growth in productivity and livelihoods, but may give rise to negative impacts on environmental services, or human health, and may also be leading to a highly stratified structure of production, with the resource poor being left behind . For example, many smallholders raising pigs in Vietnam may create pollution problems for local water supplies, while also rapidly intensifying production and marketing in ways which expose themselves and consumers to increased health risks. In these areas, zoonotic diseases may also be of importance. The approach in these settings will also be multi-faceted, with strong emphasis on understanding and anticipating the potential negative impacts of small-scale livestock intensification, and conducting research will address the incentives, technologies and strategies for market-driven options for mitigation risks to health and environment, but also organisational and product innovations to allow the resource poor to play some part in changing markets and to comply with increasing market standards.
ILRI will devote the greater share of its research resources to the first challenge of supporting inclusive growth and transition as this has the potential of benefiting the largest number of poor, both poor producers and poor consumers, as smallholder production increases. The second and third challenges remain important, very strategic components of the ILRI research portfolio. Regional variation in economies, policy environments, and production systems will determine the relative emphasis among the three approaches in specific regions.
These three challenges align directly to the System Level Objectives of the CGIAR Consortium, and map well to the current portfolio of CGIAR Research Programs.
ILRI Announcements 
Only read the summary so perhaps the issues are addressed in the main paper;
Targeting – while poor for the poor may be ok for more subsistence oritnted farmers I think we should also target entrepreneurial smallholders who produce for the market (poor and middle class)
The summary does not indicate the type of research ILRI should be engaged in. The description of the previous strategy seems to suggest that the emphasis was on better understanding (diagnostic). While such research is important for policy makers to show the need for action – the development world is also asking us for solutions. We can contribute through action research, testing innovations. Such research can also be complemented by impact research based on action – gender, climate, nutrition, health etc.
Hope this is useful
A bit related to Dirk’s comment, I think that the part of inequity related to gender, resources access, etc. could be more explicit. I also agree on looking at action research a bit more, where participation, facilitation and capacity building become important components.
1. I agree with the change of focus from poverty and smallholders only to a more inclusive focus paying attention to transforming the whole system, this can be in relation to market/value chain systems, but also in relation to ecosystem services. There is a risk however that we want to do too much, and we need to ask ourselves what our objectives are, what our role is, and how we can work with others to reach those objectives. This last issue is something not addressed yet.
2. Initially I was not so enthusiastic about the the different typologies, although having thought about it longer, they do make sense and they fit in the overall CG research framework. Maybe it has to do with the way they are presented, e.g. the second scenario is called ‘low growth’, but they may prove crucial with regard to the delivery of ecosystem services – which in my mind is a more positive way of presenting this second scenario. I also find it strange to to make a typology (resulting into three growth-scenarios), and immediately say that most research resources will go to the first one. it seems to suggest that the other two are less important (at the moment) for ILRI (and what does ‘strategically important’ mean!?). Also wonder if in that case a further typology should be made within the first growth scenario to help guide ILRI’s research strategy.
Some elements which are missing – of which some suggested by others than me – are the role of gender, equity, and the role of partnerships, but also R4D and action-research. Some may argue that action-research is captured under the name ‘research’, but it may help to make the added contribution of action-research explicit; diagnostic and impact research are needed, but also need to understand how systems operate in action (which is often not in line with what was envisioned), and what lessons we can draw from that for design and implementation.
3. The third and especially the second scenario can be supported better; for the second scenario the contribution to resilience and ecosystem services can be emphasized much more (is that ‘low growth?’….in terms of what?), also wonder whether the anticipation of the impact of climate change should not be made much more explicit (especially in scenario 2?).
Re: Dirk’s comments – I agree regarding the targeting aspect, I think the ‘entrepreneurial’ farmer is implied in the longer document in the 1st approach but could be made more explicit.
The description of the approaches focuses on the goals. I think this is correct but a summary of ‘how’ we’ll do it (as suggested by others above) for each approach would be useful. I don’t think that ‘action research’ has to be explicitly stated but the principles Diego lists would be useful.
I like the Vietnam pig example in the 3rd approach but it’s the only one so sort of sticks out. Better to not include or have comparable examples for each of the other approaches – possibly EADD example for approach 1, possibly IBLI for approach 2 but do we have a more ‘eco-system’ research of more relevance?
Following on Kees’ comments I’d like to suggest that we expand the “inclusive growth” concept with an explicit sustainability dimension. The storyline already points out that we need “livestock production that is not only highly productive but also highly sustainable”. So we could say that we aim at growth that:
(i) Aims at broad-based improvement of well-being (which can be defined along the SRF framework dimensions of increased food security, reduced poverty, health and nutrition),
(ii) operates within environmental limits (the fourth SRF dimension: environment) and
(iii) is capable of coping with or adapting to global change.
Maybe we can then even combine 1 and 3 and talk about 2 main pathways:
1. “Supporting sustainable inclusive growth” in which we combine 1 and 3, i.e.
1a. increasing productivity, efficiency, market linkages,…
1b. while also looking at the potential negative aspects
2. “Protecting ecosystem services for long-term resilience”
Or one main pathway: “Good, green, growth”.
Before the focus was on pro-poor livestock that is livestock supporting people in poverty and helping then get out of poverty. What is new is recognition a lot more food is needed to feed 3 billion people and hence focus on production and productivity for food, and also a recognition delivering this food will put unparalleled stress on ecosystems ability to provide human life support systems including damping of “emerging disease”.
Hence a new focus on increasing livestock production and productivity (which was somewhat secondary before) and more emphasis on a) the externalities of growth and b) the low-growth or no-growth islands.
My comment is in line with some of the above. I agree with Kees that I also don’t understand the logic of having 3 approaches but immediately saying that in fact only 1 is important. Maybe it’s just a question of wording but I suggest you revise this.
The document mentions: “Experience over the past decade, however, has highlighted the challenges if research is to achieve impact across the pathways”. It is not clear to me what ILRI will do differently this time to make it work. We largely depend on NARS that in some countries continue to be extremely weak. In addition, ILRI has a serious problem recruiting and retaining senior economists, a position that seems to be key to this strategy… of course this should not be included in a strategy document but it has implications on implementing the plan.
Last comment: now 3 out of 7 replies are from Dutch persons, which is of course totally overrepresented given that we are only 5 in total in the entire organization… why are other persons not replying?
The three approaches should at this stage be presented as opportunities on which strategic choices (focus) will be made. Such choices will have to be informed by ILRI’s strengths. In addition to the many factors that will influence the final choices, it is also expected that the areas of research in which ILRI shall be involved will also be decided on following premise:
a) Proportion of research that will be based on the existing facilities with present high levels of investment and funding and that depend to a high degree on common organisational resources.
b) Research that does not depend on a high degree on the common organisation resources.
Borrowing from ILRI’s Mario Herrero and his colleagues at CIAT, you might call this strategy refresh of ILRI’s ‘LivestockPLUS’ for its focus on ‘inclusive growth’, ‘green growth’ and ‘healthy growth’ of developing-world livestock systems.
If I understand the storyline developed so far, ILRI’s agenda will expand its focus on enhancing pathways out of poverty—principally by securing the LIVESTOCK ASSETS of the poor (largely through better animal health and genetics), sustainably increasing LIVESTOCK PRODUCTIVITY (through better animal production), and enhancing LIVESTOCK MARKETS of the poor (through better access to animal markets).
Query: If ILRI is expanding rather than replacing its current long-term strategy, how do all the components of the current strategy fit into the expanded strategy?
Some rephrasing to consider:
ILRI’s new agenda will focus on enhancing:
(1) INCLUSIVE GROWTH and smart, sustainable transitions in fast-changing livestock systems of the poor
(2) GREEN GROWTH (or RESILIENT GROWTH) for better resilience and environmental stewardship in pastoral and other slower growth livestock systems of the poor
(3) HEALTHY GROWTH of intensifying livestock systems of the poor to reduce risks of environmental damage and human disease.
A few suggestions:
Consider replacing references to ‘low-growth livestock systems’ with ‘slower growth’ livestock systems’ (e.g., the ‘low-growth’ pastoral systems of the Horn provide 90% of the meat consumed in this region—and some would argue that in some respects the pace of change occurring in these pastoral systems can match that of many intensifying systems).
Consider adding improving the efficiencies (EFFICIENT GROWTH) of livestock systems of the poor to improve productivity while simultaneously reducing environmental damage.
Consider including, as central to the storyline, changes in how we do research as well as in what research we do.
I also agree that we should broaden the scope of the research beyond productivity and technical aspects.
The IAR4D, mentioned also by some of you, seems to provide a complete approach which looks at productivity, markets, policy, NRM, product development, nutrition and gender.
Another important element that IAR4D considers are constraints, which are linked with issues of feasibility of implementation and which also contextualise opportunities within a specific system and in the context of a specific technological, institutional and infrastructural ‘ground’.
I agree we should speak ‘green’, we should speak ‘climate smart agriculture’.
Such as Delia pointed out, in view of a growing world where the need to feed people will lead to an increase of pressure on the environment, we must have such a new focus underpinning an environmental angle.
I strongly support the comprehensive ‘Livestock PLUS’ view Susan mentioned.
And finally, we should explore what are the tools and means to merge the various components.