 This is Barbara Szkowski from Addis Ababa. I would like to present an opinion on the nature of focus for results. What have we focused on so far and why did we choose to focus on these areas? One focus was clearly on key technology areas, animal health, feed and forages and animal genetics, to a lesser extent also on system sciences. So what were the reasons for focusing on these key technology areas? From our earlier experience it's very clear that these key technologies are main drivers for increased productivity. They also align quite well with the center expertise and funding opportunities and they build on the long-term research in our partner centers. We also focused on a limited set of value chain. We made choices on key commodities and a few countries. So the reason for that was that the CGIR reform actually promised a long-term convincing strategy of international agricultural research, which is results-oriented and that will have impact on the ground. So LNF translated this commitment to impact on the ground by wanting to generate impact at scale through these selected value chains, by setting very clear impact goals, by catalyzing research and development investments and efforts and by working directly with development and private sector partners to achieve scale. So should we continue to pursue these focus areas? The advantage is that we are now concentrating efforts on a limited number of outputs and a limited number of sites and the idea behind this is to achieve quicker progress. The spatial focus also allows us to bring together technology and institutional innovations and it provides the space for integration of a number of different disciplines and for the centers. A disadvantage of focusing is that it forces you to justify your choices. Why did we not include chicken value chains? The big questions asked to us. Another question always was, why in this country, why not in another country? Another disadvantage is that fixed choices also tend to hinder you to take advantage of new opportunities if these new opportunities do not lie in the areas of your focus. So how should we now answer the question if we should pursue these focus areas? I would suggest that we look at three questions. The reasons that we had to focus on these areas are still valid. Has this focus been successful? And our focus areas, the right ones. So are the reasons for focusing on a limited number of value chains and on specific technology areas still valid? If we look at our direct CG environment, a key document is the new strategy and results framework. And this actually commits the CG and the CRPs to contribute to development outcomes. And a new establishment is the sub-intermediate development outcomes to make it clearer of how we want to contribute with our different CRPs to these development outcomes. And this should happen through clearly defined theory of change pathways and impact pathways. The SRF also promotes deliberate prioritization of research efforts to target constraints of wide applicability and to prioritize regions of concentrated poverty and hunger. And it also promotes a close alignment of the efforts of the centers and CRPs in selected area to actually capture synergies. So in my view, this reinforces a commitment to achieve impact on the ground to foster real changes. It also reinforces prioritization of research efforts and special alignment. So I think the focus of our program on key technology areas and a limited number of value chain sites seems to be quite well aligned with the recommendations made by the SRF. Now, are our focus areas the right ones? A hard question to answer after three years. But I really think this needs further debate for planning the second phase. We don't need much discussion on the key technology areas in their role as productivity drivers. I think that is pretty clear. But we also have realized that within some of these technology areas some pieces were missing, especially pieces demanded by the value chains like Hurt Health, but our forge work is still quite limited and also the synergies between centers are still quite small. The CRP commissioned external evaluation on the value chain approach also showed quite clear gaps in some key areas, especially on integrating technologies. What are the big institutional innovations in promoting and business models for transforming value chains? And actually the progress in the value chain transformation is slower than expected, I would say, and it is still quite dependent on bilateral funding and legacy projects. But the reason for the small progress might also be that we are concentrating on researching the processes and researching the technologies and not on pure action to get value chains transformed. The other reason might be also that we target poor value chains which are more difficult to transform than those that are already more commercialized. Has focusing proved to be successful for us? Well, the focus on key technology areas really brought together the centers quite well and we are aligned around a common research agenda and we also experienced some synergies in the work of the different partner centers. We should compare this actually with the results from the first day review. The technology work, business as usual, has in my view overshadowed the system sciences and these system sciences are very important actually for integrating technologies and they were supposed to provide also the conceptual guidance for our value chain work. It also seems to me that the focusing on the nine value chains might have been too ambitious with our current budget and skill sets given that we haven't achieved progress in all these value chains. So should we continue to pursue focus? I would answer this question with a clear yes but we really need to link this focus with very effective mechanisms for integration to take full advantage of focusing especially in selected number of value chains and also for more comprehensive evaluation mechanisms. So in my view we should invest more in getting the science right behind integration and evaluation, we should probably revisit the balance of investment in the program and it is important that we re-validate the focus choices periodically. And one question is maybe we have to focus even more to achieve quicker progress and greater impact. Thank you very much for listening. I hope I have stimulated some interesting discussions and I'm looking forward to your comments.