Notes from the Final Workshop



Reporting back on Output 1 – Mechanisms for strengthening and/or establishing multi-stakeholder alliances that enable scaling up and out of fodder technologies



Tassilo’s presentation - overview
An extra output –creating linkages between cattle value chain stakeholders
GIS data component could not be integrated fully
Stakeholder analysis centered around cattle value chain
GIS maps as a tool to stimulate discussion..
Dr Kahn’s presentation – output 1
New markets reached/accessed
New product categories/attributes
More farmers engaged in cattle fattening; improved crossbred calves being sold for selling/fattening
Cattle population stable, but number of animals sold increased
More numbers of farmers cultivating forages and average area under production of planted forages increased
Number of cattle per HH increased
Change in feeding practices- moved away from free grazing to cut and carry..
Intention to improve breeds – using AI, keeping bulls for business- number of crossbred animals has increased
Contract farming and 3 Farmer groups sign contract with a company in BMT
Evidence of beginning of a system change
Discussion:
Michael: changes in area produced (700-1300 sq m) and number of animals to be fed..
Forages are only a supplement and not the complete feed..
Concentrate supplement (cassava meal and cassava waste) is used.. 2-2.5 kg is used.
60-70 tons dry matter per year..
Data needs to be checked – area is average for fattening and cow-calf farmers

Syria presentation – Asamoah
Some commercial lamb fattening being initiated

Ethiopia presentation – Alan
Handing over the stick..
Increasing diversity of actors I Ada’a over the project period
M&E- meeting logs; innovation logs;

Questions:
Ranjitha: Exit strategy and implications for sustainability – who is actively involved in linkage creation
Actors involvement vs household coverage in different project sites in Syria
Diversity of forages reducing in Ada’a– is it good or bad?
Is piggy backing on other projects not always beneficial – Vietnam CIAT experience of building on previous work

Active extension in Salameiah, NGO involvement – hence higher each out and coverage
Extension staff actively in Vietnam
Time scale – micro to meso scale in Ethiopia – technology vs innovation processes

Michael: keeping smallholders engaged continuously
Seife: access to and diffusion of technology – are target groups being addressed?
Attribution – evaluate success by putting it into context –
role of farmer groups at the local level in Vietnam – sustainability – actor configuration and who played what role
policy influencing – need not replicate many examples to influence policy – eg Syria – evidence that it is influencing policy at higher level and donors;
research teams crucial in what can be achieved

Bruno: need to work better with investment projects
GIS – use tool as an objective – spatial analysis as a useful tool for influencing
How flexible was the project in addressing emerging demands like breeds and markets etc – should become important research questions? National system not yet oriented in Eth to systems thinking and approach; using stakeholder alliances to help create linkages

Keith: top down program??
Beneficiaries – ‘them and us’ situation
International research teams dominating/at the high table??
Participatory approaches – including market actors, researchers and a whole host of other actors

Antonio: difficulties linking with IFAD investment projects common to many grant projects.
Investment projects not designed to include what a grant project would develop and vice versa- time of design different – potential synergies exist – new generation of grants is trying to facilitate this interaction.
Young people being groomed/mentored to link both kinds of projects – to facilitate communication amongst projects – this seems to work well.
Alan and Werner: Site selection in Vietnam aimed to link with IFAD projects – has it worked?? IFAD IMPP project was successful in getting linkages going- personality issues as well.. they have funded work for scaling out in other areas.. but not an easy thing.
AR: this experience needs to be documented, as it is successful
Asamoah: Involving IFAD projects from inception workshop helped in Syria. Invited projects with livestock component. Training/capacity building program – invitations were sent for inviting particpation. Workshops were organized and, joint planning and implementation.
Tassilo: lessons learnt on how to integrate in the institutional environment. Started in Ki-an?? In 2009.. took off much faster than in Ea Kar as we had knowledge in how to go about it.. Vietnam- hierarchical country and organizations.. not possible to work only with farmers. Have to go down the institutional structure..
Asamoah: Syria – district officials to be informed to work
Kebebe: policy involvement – meso and macro levels – fodder round tables and advisory committees tried – try differently next time?? May not be adequate/best way to achieve the objectives- we should have talked about IPs and processes – junior staff deputed to round tables
Asamoah: structural set up – most directors are university professors – allows interaction; access to policy makers and also research
Kahn: participation from famer group to national level.. 80% of research is wasted. Started with 1 farmer using cassava waste for fattening..when one farmer group is successful, extension organized visits and then interested groups took it up.. provincial workshop organized- invited IFAD projects to visit.

AR-do fattened cattle get premium price? About 25-30%.
Benchmarking – criteria developed for farmers to meet..
Quality characteristics in local markets have not changed- new markets (provincial/restaurant) being accessed.. meeting quality requirements..
Access to markets- slow process of developing good quality animals for market



PeterB:

Vietnam
Report by Tassilo and others
2 ppts - 1 general 1 case study - Dr Kan


Syria
report by larbi

Overall aim to reduce the 'feed gap' between projected demand and actual availability

3 sites

site selection - needed to follow national to local process. national workshop, selected provinces; then provincial workshops to districts to learning sites in villages.

alliance building/strengthening - issues: diversity, gender, involving policy makers. national level project advis committee.
mechanisms: discussion/meetings; site committee; outreach with women groups; joint meetings with ifad dev projects; meetings with policymakers; joint planning with other actors;

site id: lessons
long and tedious process.
what worked? stakeholder participation and partnership with 'everybody around the table"
what could have been better? more engagement with ifad projects and the women groups (especailly getting the women in from the beginning, with specific activities for them)

actors, linkages, ...
aim to increase interaction between the various actors.
outcomes/behavioral changes;
- stronger ngo (aga khan) -extension linkages

lessons:
site and partner selection lessons
promotion of actor interactions contributes to innovation capacities


Ethiopia - Alan

4 sites

site selection

qiote a lot of variaion in the sites

site characteristics influencing success:
market pull
diversity of actors
'chemistry' with key actors (relationships)
food insecurity
proximity to addis

other site selection lessons:
piggy-bcking on ipms - useful at start, less at end - attribition issues? too much sense of competition between the projects
too many sites? (4?)
lack of NARS partners/institutes close to sites
connect with ifad dev/investment projects not obvious

establishing core stakeholder platforms
guiding principles: marriage of tech intro with enhahed networking; less and less direct project implementation as time went on

forages as entry point
different farmer engagement by sites

tech intor of forages important at start, over time markets, breeds, other issues came in over time; also as other actorrs joining,

from tech innnov to the start to institutioinal innovation processes later
used an 'innmovation log' in each site

innovation diagnosis

research orgs relatively isolated in the system

post-diagnosis action:

M-S platforms at 3 learning sites

as we realized the real bottleneck ws in terms of stakeholder and stakeholder intractions, we paid less attention to GIS use to track fodder ...

rapid market appraisals by ethiopian partners; fodder prices increasing over time


key messages:
need to link practical tech options with proactive focus on stakeholder networks
practical tech options (planted fodder) is th engine that drives stakeholdee interest
avoid 'pure' stakeholder push or 'pure' focus on stakeholders / the combination of both is whatled to our success
in relation to stakeholder platforms, need to allow the agenda to move wider than the main entry point.


Discussion:

Ranjitha: this is all about alliance building.... Who should do this / did do this? and what kind of exit strategy do we have. This is all key to sustainability. What is the association between lots of engagement (and of an NGO) in one site and all stakeholders being involved (syria). What about piggybacking with other projects? In vietnam, the project sites build on longterm prior ciat engagement; in ethiopia, issues perhaps more due to individuals?
tassilo: the success of the project ofgten depended on the commitment and support of a single individual who pulled and pushed the process forward.
alan: on sustainabilty and timescale. "it takes a long time to bed in those innovation processes," as compared to introducing technologies (is a choice .... take onger on IS, or do the tech intro quick, and maybe less sustainable?). if we do again, would do things more arms length on the beginning so that IS facilitation is done by local partners. Instead of trying, as now, to devolve this later in the process. The end-point is that the community is responsive and agile to respond to change
Seifa: Policy Influence is possible on the basis of evidence.
Bruno: lesson? better coordination with dev partners needed; In relation to the innovation platform agendas: How flexible could you be to do the different research (on issues not seemingly fodder-related).
Keith: presentations came over as more top-down than I thought. I expected more MS approach. Women and local devolution almost as afterthoughts? [alan .. we are looking at all kinds of participation, not just of/with farmers]
Antonio: vital to see differences between ifad projects to do dev and grants to to do research. Need to look for synergies and means to increase interactions across the different project/grant types.To bridge and increase communication.
Alan: in VN, site selection was made to feed into other IFAD dev projects. How successful? In the end it's often about personality and how easy people working together.These interactions and upscalings are very important, not an easy thing to do (timings, etc).
Asamoah: Have the right national involvement in, eg steering committeee, can help get the various partners together (dir of extension, dir of animal research).
Tessilo: what make the diffrnce is whether you are already integrated into the local institutional environment.
Tessilo: Sometime it is not possible to avoid some elements of top-down (depends on the way a country is organized)..
Asamoah: you can't just go out and work in a village [alan: these 3 countries are characterized by quite top-down governance]
Kebebe: need to find ways to bring the bottom-up messages from roundtables eg, towards more formal advisory policies. What are the angles that capture the interest of the policy people....?
Kan: farmers groups have important role to catalyze communication and innovation sharing among farmers.