International Livestock Research Institute

English

CGSpace

International Livestock Research Institute   Training course report   Training on system effects modelling   21-23 May 2019             i   © 2019 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)  ILRI thanks all donors and organizations which globally support its work through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund. This publication is copyrighted by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). It is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. To view this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. Unless otherwise noted, you are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format), adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, under the following condition:  ATTRIBUTION. The work must be attributed, but not in any way that suggests endorsement by ILRI or the author(s).  NOTICE: For any reuse or distribution, the license terms of this work must be made clear to others. Any of the above conditions can be waived if permission is obtained from the copyright holder. Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights. Fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected by the above. The parts used must not misrepresent the meaning of the publication. ILRI would appreciate being sent a copy of any materials in which text, photos etc. have been used.    Written by Kristina Roesel and Luke Craven   Citation ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). 2019. Training on system effects modelling. Report of a training course held on 21-23 May 2019. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.     ii  Contents Project background................................................................................................................................................. 1 Training summary ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Training material .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Training evaluation ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Appendix 1: Agenda ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Appendix 2: List of participants .............................................................................................................................. 7    1  Project background Cambodia has a rich tradition of tasty and nutritious foods. Animal-source foods are an important part of the cuisine with pork, fish, and poultry products widely consumed. The great majority of livestock products are produced by smallholders, many of them women, and sold in traditional wet markets where women also predominate as retailers.  In recent years, Cambodia has seen growing food safety concerns. Development is accompanied by urbanization, rapid increases in demand for livestock products and, consequently, rapid changes in supply chains, which become longer, more complex, and less transparent. Trust in food goes down, often with good reason as the food system develops in a way that provides little rewards for those with good practices, but high rewards for those who carry out bad and unsafe practices.  The project has two major research areas to tackle the above-mentioned issues: (i) to generate evidence on the health and economic burden of foodborne diseases in animal-source food value chains that are important to the poor and women and (ii) to pilot a market-based approach to improving food safety that builds on successfully implemented projects in Africa and India.   Objectives • To generate actionable evidence on the health and economic burden (gender-disaggregated) of foodborne diseases associated with animal-source foods in Cambodia. • To develop, pilot and test a new approach to food safety, which relies on incentives (rewards) and light-touch interventions in close partnership with the private sector.  • With stakeholders, to describe, plan, and monitor how evidence-based recommendations and the tested approach could contribute to the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems (LSIL) theory of change. • To make recommendations for enhanced engagement and benefit sharing for men and women in animal-source food value chains through improving understanding of gender aspects and the gender appropriateness of interventions and by integrating nutrition and food safety. • To develop capacity in understanding food safety risk, its management, and effective communication among stakeholders including the government, private sector, academia, donors, and media.  Expected outcomes • Greater understanding among policymakers, donors, and the private sector of the multiple burden of foodborne diseases and their implications for nutrition security. • Increased openness to promising approaches to improve food safety equitably and sustainably. • Agreement by Cambodian food safety stakeholders on what will be needed to take evidence and innovative approaches to greater scale guided by the LSIL theory of change. • Improved knowledge and understanding of nutrition-gender dynamics in foodborne disease risks and viable options identified for increased gender equity in foodborne disease risk management. • Improved understanding and communication of risks among academics, policymakers, private sector and media. • Improved capacity in researchers, students, government, and non-governmental organization partners and value chain actors.    2  Training summary Organizer/co-organizers: Kristina Roesel, Thanh Nguyen Lecturers/facilitators: Luke Craven, Kristina Roesel In this three-day workshop we explored how to use complex systems approaches to understand and engage with complex policy problems, such as food-borne illness and antimicrobial resistance. The workshop began with an overview of complexity theory and its implications for the social sciences. This included a discussion of how complexity theory can enrich existing research being done by ILRI. We then covered a range of practical tools to assist researchers and practitioners in operationalising complexity, drawing on Luke Craven’s work System Effects. Participants were able to see a new System Effects software that can assist in data collection and analysis. Finally, workshop participants discussed their ongoing work, and engage in a discussion about they could effectively incorporate systems thinking and System Effects into their own projects. By the end of the workshop, participants were able to: • describe a number of different theoretical concepts relating to complexity and systems thinking; • recognize how those theories relate to different social science methodologies and how they may be applied; • think about how to use System Effects in their own research projects; • understand how systems thinking can support the design, implementation and evaluation of interventions and programs; Luke Craven is known for developing the System Effects methodology, which is widely used to analyse complex causal relationships in participatory and qualitative data. He is also involved in number of collaborative projects that are developing innovative solutions to complex policy challenges, which includes work focused on food insecurity, health inequality, and climate resilience. One of the projects is the ILRI-led Safe Food, Fair Food for Cambodia project where we applied the methodology to better understand the impact of foodborne diseases and barriers for accessing safer food (https://hdl.handle.net/10568/98397). The knowledge will help designing intervention strategies. Using the example of the Cambodia work, we held a training/workshop with the ILRI Asia team to discuss findings and further application of the method in ongoing and future projects in CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH). Potential to use the method in other projects: • Pig zoonoses in Laos  • Pork tapeworm in East Africa  o The different stakeholders in Uganda do not seem to be taking up the control options (i.e. vaccine, latrine use, meat inspection) that are well-known to biomedical sciences. The System Effects method could help evaluating the barriers and enablers for uptake. • Using it as part of a participatory diagnostic process o Barriers and enablers to the implementation of interventions that have already been designed. For example, what are the barriers to avoiding floor slaughter in slaughterhouse? • Using it to engage with policymakers about the barriers they perceive to be present in a particular context, e.g. food safety, to compare to the perceived barriers by other stakeholders (i.e. consumers) • Urban livestock keeping and risk of mosquito borne infections o Who are the stakeholders involved in urban livestock.? o What they think are the risks (consequences) associated with urban livestock keeping? o Why are people keeping urban livestock? • Developing an online survey for people in Hanoi for why they are not protecting themselves / using vaccines against preventable diseases (i.e. vaccination prior to vacation)? 3  o Connecting in with a broader survey (how to build demographic data collection into the System Effects survey tool?) o Foreigners visiting, but also locals  • Using it for the evaluation of food safety intervention feasibility and accessibility  o Before the intervention: discuss candidate interventions with the potential end users (Safe Food, Fair Food for Cambodia, Pull-push project) o After the intervention: Asking a group that did not take up the intervention “why didn’t you use the new intervention?” (barriers) o Asking the group that did take it up “why did you take it up?” (enablers) • Motivations for using antimicrobials o Existing tool assesses the motivations and practices (KAP AMUSE)  o Understanding the motivation of drug use better (examples: enablers/barriers to access antimicrobials compared to other animal health interventions; perceived consequences of antimicrobial use – especially with different stakeholders) o Reflect on feasibility of particular interventions (barriers and enablers) • African swine fever o Evaluate the impact of African swine fever in Vietnam (System Effects can be used to identify consequences – potential variables for cost-of-illness study?)  Follow up: At the end of the workshop the group participants were invited to join the Slack-based community of practice where they can easily ask questions in the future as they start using the method in their own projects (Luke Craven and other users are part of this forum).  Training material The lecture notes were shared with all participants during the training.   4  Training evaluation    Results of the evaluation  0123456Strongly disagree -12 3 4 5 Strongly agree - 6Overall I was satisfied with the quality of the trainingThe training has improved my understanding of systems thinkingBecause of the training, I am thinking about applying System Effects in my own work5   What participants liked best about the training: • Understanding the "complexity" in system thinking, the way to quantify in aggregated table and visualize them in the diagrams (thickness and connections) • The software to help visualize the system work. • The training introduced me new model for data collection and analysis. • Illustration of system modelling through various examples really helped the understanding. • Discuss and study a new approach to collect information during an active workshop. • The practical examples and exercises. • Understanding finally the concept of SE modelling and software. • The complex modelling and using programme to analyse info. • Visualising the links between the nodes / learning about the software.  What participants thought could have been improved about the training? • Provide more time for participant to practice with the System Effects software, and understand statistic parameters of the result. • More time for practices regarding developing individual/group maps, using software. • System thinking and the new in-sign to apply to my work. • The practical on Thursday morning was a little bit too long, as we took little part in cleaning the data after submitting our maps. • Have more example to compare the different outcome from each group. • More working on setting up our own study and discuss the suitability. • Take one more example to practice (like health service access). The first session would need some more illustrations. • More time to do the practice.      6  Appendix 1: Agenda  Time Topic  Facilitator Tuesday, 21 May 2019 9:00 Welcome and introduction of meeting participants Hung Nguyen 9:15 Session 1: Introduction to complex systems • Why traditional social science methodologies struggle to engage with complexity   Luke Craven 10:30 Coffee break  10:45 Session 2: Introduction to system effects modelling • Understanding the background to the approach • Different applications • Worked example of Norway  Luke Craven 12:30 Lunch  13:30 Session 3: From understanding to action: using system effects modelling for intervention design • Linking in behavioural economics and nudging • Developing costing models  Luke Craven 15:00 Coffee break  15:15 Session 3 continued Luke Craven  17:30 Closing of the day  Wednesday, 22 May 2019 9:00 Session 4: Using the example of Safe Food, Fair Food Cambodia as a practical example from data collection to analysis and discuss the findings  • Overview of the project activity and its rationale  • Discussing data collection     Kristina Roesel  10:30 Coffee break  10:45 Session 4 continued: • Overall results and presentation of the poster • Break down results by different demographics • Feedback from the group   Kristina Roesel Luke Craven 12:30 Lunch  13:30 Session 5: Discussing the use of this research for intervention design in Safe Food, Fair Food Cambodia  Luke Craven 15:30 Coffee and closing for the day  18:30 Session 6: How to move from here: Discussion on the application of SE modelling in ongoing or new ILRI projects  Luke Craven Kristina Roesel Thursday, 23 May 2019 9:00 Session 6: New (automated) ways of collecting and analysing data and discussion of pros and cons (online vs paper-based)  Luke Craven 10:15 Coffee break  10:30 Session 6 continued: Worked example of data collection and analysis  Luke Craven 12:30 Lunch   7  Appendix 2: List of participants  Name Email contact Affiliation Sex (M/F) Country of origin Chhay Ty chhayty@celagrid.org  CelAgrid Male Cambodia Dang Xuan Sinh xuansinhck@gmail.com ILRI Male Vietnam Fred Unger f.unger@cgiar.org ILRI Male Germany Johanna Lindahl  j.lindahl@cgiar.org ILRI Female Sweden Kristina Roesel k.roesel@cgiar.org ILRI Female Germany Le Trang tranglht.hsph@gmail.com ILRI Female Vietnam Lorraine Chapot LChapot18@rvc.ac.uk ILRI intern/ Royal Veterinary College Female France Luke Craven l.craven@unsw.edu.au  University of Sydney Male New Zealand Marion Bordier marion.bordier@cirad.fr CIRAD Female France Marisa Mitchell M.Mitchell@cgiar.org ILRI/ AVI volunteer Female Australia Ngo Hai nhth@huph.edu.vn Hanoi University of Public Health Male Vietnam Nguyen Thanh T.L.Nguyen@cgiar.org ILRI Female Vietnam Nguyen Thinh T.T.Nguyen@cgiar.org ILRI Female Vietnam Nguyen Tien Thang Thang.T.Nguyen@cgiar.org ILRI Male Vietnam Nguyen Viet Hung H.Nguyen@cgiar.org  ILRI Male Vietnam Pham Thanh Long ptlong.vndah@gmail.com ILRI/Department of Animal Health Male Vietnam Teng Srey tengsrey72@gmail.com CDC/MOH Cambodia Female Cambodia Vu Hue kimhue300887@gmail.com National Institute of Veterinary Research Female Vietnam  

Training on system effects modelling

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/101942/1/SE%20modelling%20training.pdf

Training on system effects modelling

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace