supporting development processes through livestock innovation systems research
DESCRIPTION
Presented by Ann Waters-Bayer (ETC Foundation) and Wolfgang Bayer (Agrecol Association) at Tropentag 2014: Bridging the gap between increasing knowledge and decreasing resources, Prague, 17−19 September 2014TRANSCRIPT
Supporting development processes through livestock innovation systems research
Ann Waters-Bayer (ETC Foundation) and Wolfgang Bayer (Agrecol Association)
Tropentag 2014: Bridging the gap between increasing knowledge and decreasing resources, Prague, 17−19 September
2014
ILCA started with livestock systems research (LSR)
1972 Tribe report: role of new research centre ILCA
• Integrate sociological, economic & biological research & development related to livestock in Africa
• Study existing livestock systems to understand why people do what they do
• Examine responses of traditional systems to development interventions
• Test potential improvements to see what worked and how livestock-keepers adapted the ideas
• Research in smallholders’ reality
LSR: an approach that needed to mature
At that time:
• More multi- than inter-disciplinary
• Focus on production (less on processing and marketing)
• Focus on biological and technical aspects (less on sociopolitical and institutional)
ILCA results relevant for development
• Explanation of rationale behind existing practices helped to re-orient development
• Research methodology for understanding and improving existing livestock systems
• Key contextual information on livestock systems in different ecological zones in Africa
• Overviews of specific aspects of livestock systems central not to Western science but to African farmers, e.g. browse
• Increased capability of researchers to think in systems terms & to see what type of research is relevant for development
Battling a paradigm of linearity, simplification & disciplinarity
Mid-80s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) advice: • Do component research on animal health, nutrition & genetics• Technical opportunities in drylands “too little to warrant a major
research effort” • Focus remaining systems research on mixed crop-livestock farming
Pressure from conventional Science did not allow innovative, complex and challenging LSR to mature
Social scientists – except economists – dropped
Merger ILCA + ILRAD = ILRI: clashing of cultures (upstream vs field-based) meant setback for systems-oriented research
But still some outcomes relevant for livestock systems development
For example:
• Characterisation of indigenous livestock breeds confirmed their value in prevailing systems
• Networks on livestock policy, forage, small ruminants etc helped inform scientists and development practitioners worldwide
Renewed attention to development impact in livestock innovation systems
2002: New era with new Director General• Strong senior management support for work with development
partners with more explicit focus on poverty reduction
• Work in drylands recommenced
• A few more social scientists
• New theme: Enabling Innovation – enhancing adaptive capacity “on the move”
• 2007: Innovation Works Unit set up multi-stakeholder co-learning platforms
Some roles of ILRI in innovation systems research through transdisciplinary partnerships in CRPs
• Developing & testing mechanisms to enhance joint learning & action in livestock-related innovation
• Contributing relevant scientific findings to IPs
• Engaging in place-based participatory research to enhance innovation capacities
• Synthesising lessons for policymakers andengaging in policy dialogue
• Generating information & learning to empower women in livestock innovation
Highlight on …
Policy• Early recognition that
livestock policy important: Policy Unit since 1982
• Influenced policy towards pro-poor development
• Example: Kenyamilk-marketingpolicy to supportinformal sector
Gender• Early recognition of women’s
key roles: most resource-poor livestock-keepers are women
• Ongoing campaign to keep gender issues at forefront of livestock research & development
Some results of ILRI’s innovation systems research
• Improved communication & collaboration leading to better access of smallholders to input & output markets (value chain IPs)
• Enhanced capacity to innovate in forage husbandry in different ecological & institutional settings
• Policy influence related to food safety in milk & meat markets
• Much greater awareness of gender issues and of impact of technologies & policies on women
Conclusions and outlook
ILRI can contribute hugely to improving the livelihoods of poor people by scaling up transdisciplinary research in the midst of development action