Livestock Goods and Bads Implications

From ilriapm2010 ilriwikis

Session Title

Livestock bads and goods - what does it mean for ILRI?

Session Organiser(s)

Elaine Grings, Lucy Lapar, Boni Moyo



The objective of the session will be to use joint thinking to develop a pitch as to why a specific topic is the one ILRI should be taking forward to fill a research gap. The outcome of the session is a 3 minute pitch for the afternoon Dragon’s Den session on Filling the gaps.

Process/format details

A Saturday afternoon session will be patterned after the “Dragon’s Den” program on BBC (see with REAL money on the line! That session will require a pitch to be presented to a panel of experts.

  • The ‘pitch’ will be an attempt to convince the experts (Dragon’s) that a particular research idea centered on a livestock ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is the one most needing additional research by ILRI.
  • The prize will be USD 10,000 to be used by a group to further advance the idea.
  • An interactive session is planned for Saturday morning to help develop the pitches.

Group facilitators tasks

  • Each group facilitator is asked to facilitate a Saturday morning breakout session (see below) where the group will work at developing pitches.
  • Information generated in earlier sessions can be used to kick-start the break-out session. This will require some note-taking by the facilitator and co-organizer.
  • Facilitators will need to introduce their area in one minute to plenary so people can join their group
  • They will need to pitch their groups’ idea (or delegate someone in your group to do this) to the Dragon’s on Saturday afternoon and answer questions from them with support from their team.
  • The winning group will need some organization and facilitation to further advance the idea after APM and responsibility for this can also be worked out within groups.
  • Be flexible to allow incorporation of information gained throughout earlier APM sessions
  • The criteria to be used by the Dragons to critique each pitch include:

attractiveness to funders creativity mega-program relevance potential for outcomes and impact

Assigned sessions/groups are as follows:

Each group has a primary leader plus co-facilitator/organiser

  • Climate Change and Other Drivers of Change – Mario Herrero and An Notenbaert
  • Land degradtation, grazing and plant biodiversity and soils etc - Jan de leeuw and Mohamed Said
  • Erosion of animal genetic resources/biodiversity - Okeyo Mwai and Steve Kemp
  • Disease – Jeff Mariner and Phil Toye
  • Social Issues/Poverty – Nancy Johnson and Jemimah Njuki
  • Contributions to Nutrition – Isabelle Baltenweck and Ayele Gelen
  • If another group emerges during APM that can also form

Using discussions earlier in the week, the facilitator selects 3 – 5 areas for further discussion (some input from group allowed here in case someone has a burning issue they think has been overlooked?). The number of topic areas may depend on size of group and number of points raised in earlier discussions The group breaks into tables (3-5??) and each table takes one of the topics and develops a 3 minute pitch that addresses key points relative to research needs. Each table then presents the pitch to the whole group. Group votes on which pitch they want to develop further for the afternoon session. Group spends remainder of time developing the final concept.

Suggested Session Schedule 10:30 – 12:00

10:30 – 10:40: Settle in, Facilitator explains process and describes the topics arising from earlier discussions

10:40 – 11:00: Table work

11:00 – 11:30: Pitch presentation, questions and voting (Time assumes 5 tables/topics)

11:30 – 12:00: Whole group works together to refine final pitch.


  • These presenters need to be given instructions on what is required - Elaine
  • Arrange breakout rooms - assign based on size - on the day

Facilitator/ Presenter

- need someone to facilitate room allocations - Acho?

Logistics/ equipment requirements

Meeting rooms with flip charts