CoP-PPLD Inception Workshop. Workshop report. 12-13 January 2009 IFAD Headquarters, Rome, Italy
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


CoP-PPLD Inception Workshop. Workshop report. 12-13 January 2009 IFAD Headquarters, Rome, Italy



Worshops, trainings and e-learning material.

Worshops, trainings and e-learning material.

[ Originally posted on ]



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 4 4



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

CoP-PPLD Inception Workshop. Workshop report. 12-13 January 2009 IFAD Headquarters, Rome, Italy Document Transcript

  • 1. “Communities of Practice for pro-poor livestock and fisheries/aquaculture development” Workshop report 12-13 January 2009 IFAD Headquarters, Rome, Italy
  • 2. Table of ContentsAcronyms ...................................................................................... 31. INTRODUCTION.................................................................... 4 1.1 Rationale for the workshop..................................................... 4 1.2 Organization of the workshop ................................................. 52. OPENING PRESENTATIONS................................................... 8 2.1 The livestock industry: Global opportunities and challenges……... 8 2.2 Research and innovations in pro-poor livestock development…..…9 2.3 Global pro-poor fisheries and aquaculture development ........... 10 2.4 Innovative and inclusive approaches to global livestock development ...................................................................... 11 2.5 Participants’ experiences in Networking Initiatives in Fisheries and Aquaculture development..................................................... 12 2.6 Report on the findings from the needs assessment for livestock development ...................................................................... 13 2.7 Introduction to the CoP Concept ........................................... 15 Plenary discussion – key issues………………………..……………………………………163. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK..... 19 3.1 Summary of Working Group 1............................................... 19 3.2 Summary of Working Group 2............................................... 204. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: OPERATIONALIZATION ....... 22 Plenary discussion – key issues…………………………..……..…………………………23 4.1 Summary of Working Group 1 (livestock) ............................... 23 4.2 Summary of Working Group 2 (fisheries and aquaculture)........ 25 Plenary discussion – key issues………………………..……………………………………275. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: THE WAY AHEAD.................. 28 5.1 Summary of Working Group 1 (Livestock) .............................. 28 5.2 Summary of Working Group 2 (Fisheries and Aquaculture)……….286. CONCLUDING REMARKS ..................................................... 29Appendix 1: Programme………………………….………………………………………………31Appendix 2: List of Participants………………………………….……………………………33Funding for this workshop was provided by the Innovation Mainstreaming Initiativeand the Governments of Italy and Finland. 2
  • 3. AcronymsARD Agricultural Research for DevelopmentCOFI Committee on FisheriesCoP Community of PracticeCSO Civil society organizationDFID UK Department for International DevelopmentFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGMO Genetically modified organismIADG Inter-Agency Donor GroupILRI International Livestock Research InstituteNARS National agricultural research systemNEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentNGO Non-governmental organizationPPLD Pro-Poor Livestock DevelopmentSPADA Special Programme for Aquaculture Development in Africa 3
  • 4. “Communities of Practice for pro-poor livestock and fisheries/aquaculture development”1. INTRODUCTION1.1 Rationale for the workshopCommunities of Practice (CoPs) are formed by like-minded peoplewho engage in a process of collective learning in a shared area ofinterest. A CoP is characterized by three key elements: • Domain: area of common interest which shapes the identity of the CoP; • Community: relationships which enable collective learning among knowledgeable practitioners; • Practice: outcomes of the interactive learning process which build on the catalogue of existing and newly developed knowledge resources (e.g. tools, case studies, implementation practices, etc.) of the members.CoPs impact and enrich thinking and processes within theirrespective domains and are hence considered to contribute to thedevelopment of social capital and to stimulate innovation. Theycontribute to problem solving, the efficient use of knowledgeresource assets, to coordination and synergies and to mapknowledge and identify gaps. As a connection and coordinationmechanism the CoPs intend to facilitate technical advisory servicesthrough strengthened strategic partnerships/collaborations with in-country and international organizations at all levels, from producerorganizations to development practitioners and decision makers.The CoP is understood as a global strategic and inclusivepartnership of development practitioners, project managers,academia and other key stakeholders which contribute to the bi-directional flow of learning with the overarching objective to providea new business model for enhanced quality of developmentoperations at all levels.Increasing availability of knowledge from a wide variety of sourcesneeds a systematic effort to facilitate its collection and sharing, and 4
  • 5. to promote connectivity between individuals as well as betweeninstitutions. Connectivity obtained through knowledge managementfacilitates the further generation, sharing and application ofknowledge and contributes to more efficient developmentprocesses. Through collective learning processes, the performanceof practices and institutions constantly improve.The goal of the workshop is to contribute to an “InnovativeKnowledge Management Approach for Technical Advisory Services”which aims to connect “committed and interested” people throughCommunities of Practice (CoP). The CoPs objective is to strengthenthe connections among like-minded persons who seek to enrichknowledge and practice to improve the effectiveness of ruraldevelopment and poverty reduction efforts. The workshop will alsoprovide an opportunity to: identify common priority needs, strategies and areas of actions among CoPs stakeholders; enable participants to share views and experiences on livestock/fisheries and aquaculture related issues; provide a common ground for building new partnerships and establishing new strategic working relationships among development partners to promote livestock as a commodity for poverty reduction.1.2 Organization of the workshopThe workshop was organized around three topics:• CoP Strategic Framework• CoP Sustainability• The Way AheadEach theme was explored in two parallel working groups. Eachworking group presented a summary of its main discussion points inplenary, followed by discussion and question-and-answer session.(For the complete agenda of the workshop, see Appendix 1:Programme.)Approximately 50 people attended the workshop. For a detailed listof participants, see Appendix 2: List of Participants.In addition, an “online” workshop was opened to participants whowere unable to attend the conference in Rome. It hosted (and 5
  • 6. continues to host) real time presentations, working papers and podcasts of the single sessions. Presentations and audio files areregularly uploaded on the IFAD web site – Livestock andRangelands Knowledge Base – and were made available fordownloading. Blog, Skype (IFAD.CoP) and an email account( enabled the involvement of onlineparticipants in the workshop, while a moderator regularly capturedcomments and questions. A total of 30 people formally registered asonline participants and many others accessed the Workshop subsite.Comments from some of the online participants included: • “Ornamental fish culture is an area that can be introduced for poverty alleviation and to develop the socio-economic status of the rural population." Dr Anna Mercy (College of Fisheries, India) • “I have missed an opportunity to engage in an important discussion with some very key resource people…however the documentation is excellent, well written and informative.” Dr. Jonathan M. Davies (International Union for Conservation of Nature, Kenya) • “The trend is now to put a major focus on access to the market to buy inputs and hopefully sell products, prior to providing low input/budget techniques to improve livelihood without risks. This trend in the technical assistance has been increasing since the 1980s. I believe it is one of the causes of increasing poverty and poor results of poverty alleviation programmes. Philippe Leperre (Independent Consultant)EXCERPTS OF OPENING REMARKS BY KEVIN CLEAVER,ASSISTANT PRESIDENT OF IFAD“Thank you for coming. IFAD just had in mid-Decemberreplenishment where we sought the international community to givemoney for the next three years. We had the most successfulreplenishment in IFAD history and of any IFI in terms ofpercentage. That reflects the interest in agriculture and ruraldevelopment, including livestock and fisheries. In part it isconnected to price volatility, and part to events like the World Bankrural development report, which put the spotlight on the importanceof this sector. So there is a lot of money. A lot of money meansresponsibility to use it well. In our sectors, we haven’t done a very 6
  • 7. good job of that. None of the IFIs or bilaterals have been stellar.Why? The quality of many projects that donors have done has beenpoor. At least the few studies that we have consulted and thatbilaterals don’t publish often, have shown that the results are notalways very good. Improving quality is critical, especially if there ismore money. We are in the spotlight and will not get away withslovenly work...“What is the purpose of this workshop today? Why are we at IFADso keen on CoPs? To share knowledge. We won’t be able to do whatwe need to do without improving our knowledge, and that meanssharing it. Each of us has some knowledge, and if we share itbetter, we should e able to do better. That is the purpose here. Butit is more than knowledge management. It is sharing information,knowledge, analyses and experience with our partners. We hope todo these workshops for other groups in the future.” 7
  • 8. 2. OPENING PRESENTATIONSAntonio Rota, Senior Technical Advisor on Livestock and FarmingSystems, IFAD, welcomed the participants to the workshop and toRome. He thanked the IMI and the governments of Finland andItaly for their support and also welcomed the online participants.Following the opening remarks by Kevin Cleaver (see box above),six presentations were given. A summary of each presentationfollows. (The full presentations may be viewed at The livestock industry: Global opportunities andchallenges (Jimmy Smith, Livestock Team Leader, World Bank)Mr Smith first spoke about the expanding demand and supply,noting that world meat consumption is increasing and that growthin demand is taking place most in the developing world and inindustrial systems. The drivers of these trends are populationgrowth, income and urbanization, which will continue for some timeto come. Mr Smith then went on to speak about food-feed-energycompetition. He mentioned that high-quality grains are being usedmore for livestock, so there is competition for food and for feed. Theissue is how to meet the needs for livestock feed without being incompetition for food. He also explained that per capita production ofgrains is not keeping up with population growth, which means thatcompetition will continue to increase. Competition is also driven byethanol and biodiesel production. Projected cereal prices are goingto increase. Meat prices are also trending upwards. Therefore theSo this food-feed issue is one that needs to be addressed.Mr Smith then spoke about livestock diseases, and the enormouscost of epidemics such as SARS and Avian Flu is enormous. Heexplained that the disease mortality rate is very high and thatanimal diseases and those that are active at the animal-human-environmental interface are very important. He added that moreanimals and humans are crowded in small spaces, thus creatingpathogen possibilities and contributing considerably to theintensification and spread of disease. Mr Smith also discussedlivestock and the environment, stating that the livestock sectorcontributes as much as the transport sector to greenhouse gasemissions. He added that there will be changing cropping patters,which will result in fewer residues, which are the dominant feedsource. In addition, availability of range lands will be encroachedupon, and the availability of and access to water is diminishing,which will have an effect on livestock keeping and livestock 8
  • 9. systems. As temperatures change, the demographics of vectors andpathogens will change as well. He highlighted that much researchneeds to be done in these areas, which are not well understood. MrSmith went on to speak about quality, safety and consumerstandards, especially the cost of meeting changing regulatory andprivate standards and how this will affect smallholders. He addedthat consumers themselves are stepping in for issues about foodthat must be produced in environmentally friendly ways, animalwelfare issues, and issues of fair trade. These are new issues for thelivestock sector.Mr Smith concluded his presentation by describing some of theWorld Bank’s activities in the livestock sector. He emphasized thatwe can only work effectively if we work horizontally, which poseshuge challenges. We need to build national capacity, we have tolearn and share, and a great deal of research must be conducted.There are many blind spots that we need to explore. There is lots ofwork to be done.2.2 Research and innovations in pro-poor livestockdevelopment (Shirley Tarawali, Theme Director, People, Livestockand the Environment, International Livestock Research Institute -ILRI)Ms Tarawali opened her presentation by speaking about the keydrivers impacting the livestock productions systems of poor people:economic and global (population, gross domestic product increaseand urbanization); markets (demand for livestock/products andfood quality and safety); the environment (climate change andincreased competition for natural resources); and knowledge andinformation (access and use). She then spoke about the greatdiversity in terms livestock systems, institutions and capacities, anddeveloped vs. developing countries perspectives. The drivers anddiversity have a number of important implications for pro-poorlivestock research and development: • The need to be responsive and inclusive • The need for solutions to be context-specific • The need to work in new ways • The need for diverse partners • The need for enhanced capacities for diverse actors to respond individually and collectively • The need for a strategy for learningMs Tarawali explained that research and development will need tomove beyond traditional technology research, addressing processesas well as issues. In addition, diverse partners will need to be able 9
  • 10. to both implement and deliver, with attention to incentives andnorms that shape the interactive processes. Moreover, appropriatedelivery and presentation media will need to be considered. Shethen described two case studies: smallholder dairy systems in EastAfrica and South Asia; and improving productivity and marketsuccess of Ethiopian farmers. In both examples, she highlightedthat innovation is the organizing principle.2.3 Global pro-poor fisheries and aquaculture development (Ann Gordon, Regional Director, West and Central Africa, WorldFish Center)Ms Gordon opened her presentation by emphasizing that small-scalefisheries are very important as a safety net and as an economicdriver, but that there are enormous challenges: • Wider changes in the environment – especially water management and climate change • Insecure access rights and rights that are difficult to enforce and manage • Social exclusion of fishing populations that don’t have a strong voice in decision making • Poor access to servicesShe stated that aquaculture is the fastest growing food productionsector and accounts for one third of the world’s fish supply. Themain challenge for aquaculture is to increase food production whilemaintaining ecosystem resilience and reducing poverty – resilience(social and ecological) and sustainability. She explained thatsustainable aquaculture produces fish in ways that do not store upenvironmental problems for the future. In addition it uses land,water, food and energy wisely and efficiently and is integrated intonational economies in ways that maximize its development impact.Ms Gordon then described the results of a participatory mappingexercise that was conducted with fishers and fish workers in EastAfrica in order to understand their perceptions of the risks to theirlivelihoods. Surprisingly, the issue of too much fishing and thedecline in fish stocks ranked 11 on their list. The first issue ofconcern was malaria and other illnesses; the second issue was geartheft and personal insecurity. With respect to disease and illness,Ms Gordon explained that in many countries, the incidence ofHIV/AIDS is much higher among fishers than among other groups.She went on to describe the context of responsible fisheries andecosystem-based management. In particular: reducing vulnerabilityand strengthening rights; reforming fisheries governance; buildingassets and capabilities; developing new technologies and markets; 10
  • 11. and assessing resources and environmental status. Ms Gordonconcluded her presentation by describing how communities ofpractice can help maximize development impact. In particular, shestated that a linear world view must shift to a networked worldview, and that the approach must shift from “thinking for” to“thinking with”.2.4 Innovative and inclusive approaches to global livestock development (Wyn Richards, Director, Communications & Knowledge Management, NR International)Mr Richards opened his presentation by stating that it is generallyaccepted that the investments made in publicly funded agricresearch have not had the expected benefits on the livelihoods ofresource-poor farming communities in the developing world. Thefundamental reasons are due to: lack of donor coordination;unrealistic expectations from research; variance and short-termismof political targets and Agricultural Research for Development (ARD)policies; inflexible bureaucratic agendas; minimal resources tomarket research knowledge; redundant or inappropriate researchinto use processes; and narrow sectoral approaches. He thendescribed the Inter-Agency Donor Group (IADG), an informal CoPformed in 2000. It’s main successes have been: • increased sharing of knowledge and experiences on livestock research for development • increased information/awareness about on-going public and private donor activities • promoted trust (and friendship) between donor representatives, • increased levels of knowledge on current livestock development issues and research developments • shared potential collaborative opportunities.In addition, the IADG has: • Collated/published information on the research activities of the global donor organisations (public and private) in the livestock sector • Identified the priority livestock ‘disease’ conditions of relevance to the poor; • Mapped global livestock density and poverty; • Predicted the influence of livestock on/by climate change; • Developed a public/private initiative on global animal livestock vaccines (GalvMed) funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID)/Gates Foundation. 11
  • 12. Mr Richards pointed out a number of missed opportunities as well.We have not been so successful in harnessing the corporatepotential of the donors in addressing and implementing initiativeson priority issues, neither in animal health nor in livestockhusbandry issues and policy change. This remains an opportunityand a challenge which needs to be addressed. The reasons for thisare many and varied but include: the short-termism of the majorityof research initiatives often dictated by political rather thandevelopment agendas; the dominant political will and narrowinterests of donors based on geo-political, thematic, economic,philosophical, trade, historical etc; and thebureaucratic/administrative difficulties associated with multi-donorfunding.Mr Richards then spoke about the lack of investment in marketing,citing the marked differences between public and private sectorapproaches and the need for a new CoP in livestock research fordevelopment to market research findings. He also said there was aneed for adequate funding and professional resources andapproach, as well as a need to accept information as a valuable andmarketable commodity which is required by and customized forinclusive chains/networks of institutions involved in agriculture –not solely the farmer. He concluded his presentation by highlightingthe redundant and inappropriate processes for getting research intouse, including a traditional linear vs. inclusive approach toextension.2.5 Participants’ experiences in Networking Initiatives in Fisheries and Aquaculture development (Hiramoto Watanabe, Fishery Liaison Officer, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – FAO)Mr Watanabe explained that he would provide information on twoinitiatives taken by FAO’s Fisheries and Aquaculture Department:the Global Conference on Small-scale Fisheries; and the SpecialProgramme for Aquaculture Development in Africa (SPADA). Heexplained that these initiatives could be potential areas forcollaboration.FAO and the Department of Fisheries of Thailand convened theglobal conference Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries:Bringing together responsible fisheries and social development inBangkok, Thailand from 13-17 October 2008. The conference wasorganized in collaboration with the Southeast Asian FisheriesDevelopment Center and the WorldFish Center. IFAD also 12
  • 13. supported the participation of fishers, and Ms Nicole Franz attendedthe conference from IFAD. The conference was quite successful interms of participation of fishers: more than one third of participantswere small-scale fishers and fish farmers. He stated that it isobvious that the problems surrounding small-scale fisheries andaquaculture cannot be solved in one conference, but it couldfacilitate the on-going process to tackling the issues. He added thatthe next opportunity is the forthcoming session of the FAOCommittee on Fisheries (COFI 28), to be held in March 2009. FAOshould respond appropriately to the requests made by the fishersand fish farmers during the conference.Mr Watanabe then spoke about SPADA, which represents theFisheries and Aquaculture Department’s strategic approach toaddressing aquaculture development in its member countries inAfrica in view of the high importance given by the 27th Session ofCOFI as well as the 2007 High-Level Event on Aquaculture duringthe 32nd FAO Conference. This new and innovative programme hasbeen established to provide assistance to African countries toenhance aquaculture production, to facilitate producers’ access tofinancial services and markets, to boost investment in aquacultureas well as to exchange knowledge. The programme closely followsthe priorities set by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development(NEPAD) Action Plan for the Development of African Fisheries andAquaculture (2005). The partnership is essential for theprogramme. For example, at national level the programme will workwith public and private institutions, service providers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)/civil society organizations(CSOs) and the private sector to establish sustainable andresponsible aqua-business which will, in turn, increase employment,fish supply and investment opportunities.Mr Watanabe emphasized that one of the main reasons for hisparticipation in the workshop was to seek an appropriate wayforward to promote the partnership between IFAD and FAO, forwhich there is a lot of commonality between the initiativesundertaken by IFAD and FAO.2.6 Report on the findings from the needs assessment for livestock development (Silvia Sperandini, Consultant, Knowledge Management and Learning, IFAD)Ms Sperandini explained that her presentation would highlight thekey findings of the needs assessment and then link the findings tothe workshop. The methodology consisted of an electronic surveythat was sent to 166 resource people, including representatives of 13
  • 14. universities and research institutes, farmers organizations,international organizations, Regional networks and other consortia,development practitioners and decision makers. A total of 85resource people (52 per cent) from 45 different organizationsresponded to the survey, and 79 per cent of them expressed theirinterest in joining the CoP.Ms Sperandini presented some of the key highlights of the survey: • Livestock merits a better position in the international agenda Multi-stakeholders partnerships can raise this awareness embracing the importance of livestock development; • An effective sustainable livestock development passes through: Better designed/better targeted programmes, and better implementation support; Concrete focus on poor farmers and on their socio- economic empowerment; Innovative activities; Better partnerships and knowledge sharing (of what works and doesn’t work); Demand-driven and participatory interventions; Institutional support and pro-poor policies.She then described some of the key priorities, including: • Empowering poor livestock keepers to secure their assets; • Improving productivity and competitiveness of livestock products with a sustainable use of the available natural resources; • Improving market access and market opportunities; • Assuring poor livestock keepers inclusion and participation in the development process; • Investing in capacity building; • Supporting pro-poor adaptive research.Ms Sperandini concluded her presentation by stating theexpectations of the respondents. They included: identifying andpiloting innovative interventions; improving mechanisms forachieving better results; supporting learning for achieving betterresults; securing financial resources in support of a pro-poorlivestock development; and improving the effectiveness of existingpractices. 14
  • 15. 2.7 Introduction to the CoP Concept (Antonio Rota, Senior Technical Advisor on Livestock and Farming Systems, IFAD)Mr Rota opened his presentation by discussing IFAD’s goal,operations, the activities it supports, and its new operating model.He emphasized the importance of working with partners to identifyand develop innovative solutions. He then quoted Carlos Sere,Director of ILRI: “We need to learn how to connect all the dots –how to integrate the work of science groups with that of the manyother players in developing-country agriculture in ways that deliverall the given specific pieces needed to support, improve and sustainAfrican farming in specific circumstances.This will require allresearch institutions to start talking to development institutions, tostart building new kinds of partnerships, and to start taking onsome radical new ways of doing business. It’s bound to be a messyprocess. But a necessary one.”Mr Rota then explained that the concept of “CoP” has emergedwithin development communities as a way of strengthening theconnections among like-minded persons who seek to improve,through joint actions and collaborations, both knowledge andpractice for improving the effectiveness of rural development andpoverty reduction programs. The main scope of a CoP is to identifykey problems and opportunities in order to develop collectivestrategies and priorities on how to promote livestock, fisheries andaquaculture as tools for poverty reduction and on how to effectivelyempower poor farmers/livestock keepers/fisherfolk to activelyparticipate in decision-making processes and in the management oftheir livelihoods. The three key features are: continuous interaction,a multi-stakeholder approach and convergence towards commonobjectives.Mr Rota then described IFAD’s comparative advantage: • Relevant cross-sectoral knowledge on a wide variety of rural development issues (e.g. microfinance, gender, institution development) • Catalyst role: test innovations and replicate and scale up successful innovative approaches. • Advocating role: make sure that poverty eradication issues are included into international agendas of governments, donors and funding institutions • Work directly with poor rural communities and grassroots organizations to enhance their access to assets, services and opportunities they need to overcome poverty. • International financial institution (i.e. support to research programmes and technology transfer) 15
  • 16. .The expected outputs of the CoP would be: • A common ground for building new partnerships and establishing new strategic working relationships among development partners to promote livestock, fisheries and aquaculture as tools for poverty reduction; • Identification of national (international) expertise/ “champions” for supporting in-country participatory process for project design, project implementation and supervision support at country level; • Exchange experiences/relevant knowledge, share innovative solutions, best practices/lessons learnt, and support learning across institutions/ countries; • Opportunities and facilitation for the elaboration of common strategies/policies/operations/advocacy for pro-poor livestock/fisheries/aquaculture development; • Access to technical backstopping/advisory services for Quality Enhancement of project design, implementation and supervision.He concluded his presentation by stating that all these aspects mustbe arranged by the CoP members and should be in line with theirexpectations and interests. Therefore appropriate workingmodalities and organizational arrangements need to be discussedand worked out in detail by its membersA sustainable multi-stakeholder knowledge management system,with an overarching identity and overall common purposes, need tobe established to support stakeholders’ needs, and in particular offarmers who can benefit from more appropriate and effectivepractices. He emphasized that without “committed” people it willnot be possible to move forward and build a concrete and powerfulCommunity.Plenary discussions – key issuesUncommon seeds bring uncommon harvests. – Kibaue MichaelNjau, Vice President of Advocacy and Global Initiatives, HeiferInternationalAfter each presentation, the floor was opened up for comments andquestions. Below are the main points that emerged in plenary.Livestock and energy. A paradigm change will be necessary ifpastoralists are to provide environmental services. Moreover, theethanol issue needs to be addressed. Livestock inherently produce 16
  • 17. methane, and research and development needs to explore thisissue, in particular biogas digesters.Intensification vs. concentration. Most increases in productivitycome from intensification. However, problems come fromconcentration. How can livestock be brought closer to the croppingsystems, away from peri-urban areas? In addition, should there bepublic policies that force farmers to confront externalities oflivestock raising? There are also technologies that can help withintensification and minimize concentration.Informal vs. formal systems. It is difficult to change the informalsystem (for milk) to a formal system that works with the privatesector. However, the Hubs are a way of linking, and of assuring thetwo-way flow of information. It’s not a way of turning the informalinto a formal sector, but of strengthening the informal sector.A focus on people vs. commodities. Research is still focusing oncommodities, the more traditional and comfortable academic side ofdevelopment. Many national research systems are commodity andsector oriented. International research is more people oriented. Thereal challenge is to focus on people – on the farmers themselves,the pastoralists. The people should be at the centre of agenda, withtheir social, economic and material demands and returns. Atuniversities, no one is trained in participatory approaches. If theCoPs are going to go down the commodities or sector field, animportant opportunity is being missed. At the same time, researchand development must look at the entire value chain.Research with impact. The policy makers are the main critiquesof research. They say that we have done all this work but theyhaven’t they heard about it. Are research findings ever transformedfor policy makers? No, research is often written for otherresearchers. The national agricultural research system (NARS)focuses entirely on incentives that are career oriented. Unless thischanges, we will not progress. The key is what impact the researchhas had on the livelihoods of the poor.CoP ingredients for success. How we are going to organizeourselves as a CoP?. In the past 15 years, many networks and CoPshave appeared and disappeared after a few months. Others, like theIADG, are successful. What are the principles, the learned lessonsthat make it successful? If the set-up and mechanisms are notmanaged and facilitated, if the “silos” are not broken up andreassembled, the CoP will not be successful, and the participantswill not stay interested. In addition, participants should come withtheir skill base but not their institutional cap. This would certainly 17
  • 18. facilitate dialobue around more sensitive issues, like geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs). If this grouping is to achievesomething, it is the professionalism of the individuals and not theinstitutions they represent. Furthermore, the CoP should not beencumbered by secretariats and procedures, and its expectationsshould be managed, starting slowly and growing as confidence isgained. A CoP of livestock and fisheries/aquaculture might be toobroad. What are the two or three major issues that this CoP at thistime could identify and work on? What issues will keep themtogether until we can fulfil this task? But the issue is that we don’tsay that now we have a CoP. One or two activities need to beidentified, around which to begin, which allows the kind ofinteraction and dialogue to start to form the core of the CoP.Let’s walk before we run. And we need a champion to lead us.CoP commitment vs. involvement. The conceptual limits are thesky, but there are also the opportunity costs of time and money. Akey question is: What would get me excited? The differencebetween involved and committed? What would get me involved?Excite would come from knowing where to find the most successfullivestock projects – the actual development outcome, not just whatwas done. That would be a capturing of knowledge that wouldinspire involvement. Another important piece of information wouldbe creating a list of the livestock people around the world are and adescription of their skills and expertise. 18
  • 19. 3. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: STRATEGIC FRAMEWORKThe next session of the workshop was introduced by RanjithaPuskur, Global Project Leader, Innovation in Livestock Systems,International Livestock Research Institute. She opened up thesession by acknowledging the complexity of the developmentchallenges that the group wanted to address. She alsoacknowledged that the participants had knowledge and informationabout different pieces of the development puzzles. At the sametime, many people beyond the workshop participants also havepieces of this puzzle, and idea is to bring it all together, to makeknowledge bear on development. The main questions are: How dowe make knowledge and research efforts more effective, moreefficient, more relevant? Is a CoP a part of the solution? If so,expectations need to be defined, as well as an understanding ofwhat is feasible.In order to come to a common understanding and agreement – andto become excited and involved – the participants were requestedto form two groups to review and discuss the draft strategicframework that had been drafted and distributed to participantsbefore the workshop. In particular, the groups were to focus on thekey features, values, strategies and objectives, and activities.Following is a summary of the key discussion points andsuggestions that emerged during the working groups.“The fact that I am here means I believe the CoP is necessary. Herewe have donors, NGOs, research institutions. There is a goodconvergence of individuals. I believe we need a CoP. We need tolook at activities, at resources. We also need to look at ownershipand commitment. Who is going to be involved in this in the longterm? And we need to be proactive. Let’s leave agreeing on who ison board, what activities we will be undertaking, and with whatresources.” – Karanja Swaleh, Director of Programs, Africa Program,Heifer International3.1 Summary of Working Group 1Under “key features” • Spell out all relevant institutions.. • Add “access tacit information from CoP members” • The word “inclusive” should be present, and perhaps the word “global” • Place emphasis on NARS 19
  • 20. • Should the CoP be managed or unmanaged? Formal or informal? Such a body would need a champion who would take the concept and promote it and advocate, someone who can open doors. • The CoP should provide a platform for users of information but should not be managed in such a way that it would not allow opportunistic approaches to be takenUnder “values” • The working group agreed that this section should be kept as is.Under “strategies and objectives”, the CoP should • be a facility to enable more efficient use of resources for research • address the inadequacy of research findings to be put into practice • enhance professional practice and skills in livestock and fisheries development • benefit from lessons learned from others’ experiences • play an advocacy role • be complementary information pool (e.g. information related to a livestock keeper)Under “activities” • Capture and share the lessons from previous experiences on both process and practice (negative and positive) • Promote a culture of information and lesson learning within the CoP • Identify the thematic issues to focus the work of the CoP (two or three to start – e.g. issues that address the MDGs, impact of smallholders producers on the environment, enhanced access of small producers in value chains, access to feed resources, integrated production systems, water and water productivity)The working group also agreed on the following definition of CoP –should provide like-minded people with a platform for interaction,knowledge sharing, dissemination, problem solving and capacitybuilding.3.2 Summary of Working Group 2Under “features” • First bullet should include policy makers 20
  • 21. • Third bullet should express the idea of very focused issues and small groups, at least to start with, and then filtering into subgroups. • Add a feature of flexibility, that it is dynamic and can adapt and evolve • Add that members contribute substantively and benefit substantively as an incentiveUnder “values” • The point about being demand-driven could be removed • Respect for diversity and differences of opinion should be emphasized. • Third bullet should be about livelihoods and natural resources; remove the word “always” and not “the” way but “a” wayUnder strategies and objectives • Overall goal: To strengthen the connections among like- minded persons who seek to improve, through joint actions and collaborations, both knowledge and practice, for improving the effectiveness... • Remove “Identify common practices and strategies” since this is part of the “how” • Remove “identify” in bullet 3 • Remove bullets 6 and 7 • Bullet 8 is problematic; is more of a “how”. And top-down should not be completely eliminated • One question as an objective – should the CoP be recognized outside of itself as a valuable entity?Under activities • Move activity to the end • Eliminate activity 4 and 5 • Activity 6: the form of this “archive” is critical and needs to be developed.The working group agreed that “the ‘symphony’ approach is fine butit needs a conductor.”After the presentations of the working groups, it was agreed thatthe changes and suggestions would be incorporated into theStrategic Framework, and the new draft would be distributed forreview. 21
  • 22. 4. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: OPERATIONALIZATION“Something is needed that will enable us to do our jobs better andwith practical implications on the ground. There is a degree ofstructure, and a minimum set of formality to make it work.” –Shirley Tarawali, Theme Director, People, Livestock and theEnvironment, International Livestock Research InstitutePlenary discussionBefore the participants broke into two working groups to discussissues of operationalization, a plenary discussion was held to reviewthe previous day’s work and to clarify any outstanding issues.Following are some of the main issues that emerged during theplenary discussion.CoP informality vs. formality. It was largely felt that in order tobe successful and sustainable a CoP should be informal. Forexample, the experience of IADG group shows the strength ofinformality, of people coming to meetings without the institutionalbaggage, which does add value. However, there are disadvantages,particularly in practical matters such as funding and bringing peoplein without the funding. At the same time, some of the activitiesproposed in the strategic framework are almost incompatible withan informal approach. For example, the provision of technicaladvisory services requires quality control over that service, whichrequires a formal structure. Group advocacy also requires a formalstructure. Therefore, the activities undertaken may determinewhether the CoP is formal or informal. The question arose as towhether there could be a semi-formal approach, a “halfway” houseto assure that development professionals from organizations withfunding would come without their institutional baggage.Existing CoPs. Another issue discussed at length was whethersimilar CoPs already exist and, if so, how they could bestrengthened. There are bodies and networks that work quiteeffectively already, but maybe whose constituent parts could bestrengthened by bringing in new players. In order to move forward,it was felt that existing networks need to be mapped. However, ifthere are already CoPS that address what we want to address, thenis another CoP really necessary? The idea behind this CoP is that itwould enable different groups of stakeholders to interact and learnabout what works and what does not work in their areas ofexpertise, and with a pro-poor lens. In that, there is definitelyroom. Still, we need to know what is already out there. 22
  • 23. The role of IFAD. The role of IFAD was discussed at length,particularly in terms of its funding capacity. Can IFAD have a smallproject that can fit into the exiting CoPs that can allow a morestructured annual gathering, wider opportunities for farmers andother groups who cannot finance? At the same time, if IFAD hasresources to gather people, this doesn’t mean IFAD should havemore say. FAO would be another possible place for housing the CoP.Livestock and fisheries/acquaculture as one CoP. If the CoP isto include both sectors, the issue of how to harmonize such a broadCoP comes into play. Is it an advantage or disadvantage to havethem together? Although two different communities (livestock andfisheries) are involved, there are generic issues that relate to both.The priorities might then be different for the two communities, butat the strategic level they are quite similar. During the workshop,participants agreed on the need to have two CoPs.Global vs. regional/national scope. Having a CoP at the globallevel will restrict the kind of participation that can be achieved andthe kind of learning mechanisms; regional or national chapterscould be an alternative, although one does not exclude the other.Practical role. The CoP needs to not just consolidate but alsoenrich. That requires a certain amount of work and analysis. To takethis further, it is not only to come up with a series of lessons thatare holistic and inclusive. It must also have practical operationaladvice. The key word is practice. In addition, the nomenclature isimportant. To be people-centred, the CoP should use the terms“livestock keepers” and “fisherfolk” rather than “livestock” and“fisheries”.“You don’t establish a CoP in one meeting like this. You talk aboutit. But the CoPs grow organically, by staring with a thematic reviewsthat are led by different organizations, which forms the basis forinteractions and gets a dialogue going.” – Jeroen Dijkman, LivestockDevelopment Officer, Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations4.1 Summary of Working Group 1 (livestock)The working group started by identifying two themes or challenges:how to enhance the access of smallholder to the value chain; andhow to promote the sustainability of livestock production indrylands. The group then discussed about a CoP could deliver onthese challenges. The immediate response was to conduct a 23
  • 24. mapping exercise (e.g. reviewing papers, workshops, websites,networks) in order to identify any existing responses. The mappingexercise would enable the CoP to assess available knowledge andsuccess stories, in order to distil this knowledge and generate andexchange new knowledge with added value.To define the challenges, the group used three criteria: • Impact on a critical mass of people • Raise the interest of donors • Doable and feasibleIn terms of sustainability, the group agreed that the CoP shouldbegin with a pilot phase that would be characterized by thedefinition of the following outputs: • Development of a proposal for funding • Results of a test challenge • Mapping of existing CoPs and networksThese outputs would be achieved by the following activities: • Create a working group • Set up information and communication technology support • Identify a coordinator • Identify a challenge and criteria • Address the challenge • Identify people to undertake the mapping exercise • Identify a proposal writerThe group believed that these actions would be necessary todemonstrate the viability of the CoP, and to receive funding tocontinue its work.The group also believed that it would be more appropriate if the CoPhad an independent virtual home, rather than be housed within aninstitution, although during the pilot phase the latter option wouldbe acceptable. Advertising the existence of the CoP was anotherissue that the group believed was necessary, as well as the need foroccasional face-to-face meetings among the CoP members.The group concluded by highlighting that IFAD funding for the pilotphase cannot be assumed. IFAD’s goal is to bring together people todetermine whether there is interest in and a need for creating a CoPand, if so, to find an independent way of doing so. This is not anIFAD-led process. IFAD is simply creating the opportunity for thediscussion, and could be one of many potential donors for a pilot. 24
  • 25. 4.2 Summary of Working Group 2 (fisheries and aquaculture)The group started by conducting a quick mapping of CoPs or similarnetworks, with the idea of completing the mapping exercise morecomprehensively, finding linkages and identifying areas that neededto be strengthened. It was suggested that the One Fish site, wereviewed to gain an understanding as to why the site is not beingused. The group agreed that it would be important to have aseparate website for the CoP rather than be under the umbrella ofan institution like FAO or IFAD. The group recognized that thewebsite would need a moderator and that there would be issuesaround participation in different languages. The module suggestedfrom the Sanissa experience presented one viable option: differentdiscussions are held in different languages, but a moderator isperiodically able to pick up key points from one language andinserts them into the other discussions. The group agreed that inthe initial stages, perhaps for a year or two, it would be useful tohave a steering group to propose discussion themes and newthemes as they emerged, although in a very demand-driven way.The issue of sustainability was largely focused on funding, althoughthe group believed that setting up and moderating a website wouldnot be particularly expensive, and once the website was running,the costs would be even lower. There are start-up costs, but once itis running the costs are modest. Nevertheless, funding would needto be sought in the form of donor funding or member funding fromcertain larger institutions. Some group members suggested thatusers could pay for certain services, although the majority believedthat this would be a complicated route to go. One group membersuggested that the website be implemented in Casablanca to reducecosts, and others recommended that the web page be joint with thelivestock page, but somehow integrated, to reduce costs. The groupacknowledged that there was a bit of a “vacuum” in IFAD in termsof supporting a CoP for fisheries and aquaculture, but that FAO andWorldFish had mandates and capacity for supporting a CoP. At thesame time, the group was willing to take the discussion forward asan informal group over the next few months.After much discussion, the group decided it would be useful to haveopen access to the website, but contributors would need to log on,which implies a registering process and the provision of basicinformation such as the type of organization the member works for.This type of information would be extremely useful for evaluatingthe CoP, in terms of determining whom it is reaching and who isparticipating. Themes would need to be revised and updated as 25
  • 26. discussions emerged, and mechanisms would need to be created toaccommodate the different subgroups that might be formed.Plenary discussion – key issuesAfter each of the working group presentations, the floor was openfor comments and questions. Following is a summary of the mainissues that emerged.Importance of demonstrating value added. The idea of pilotingwill demonstrate the involvement and commitment of people, andwill show or identify the best way to communicate and worktogether. In this regard, the pilot proposal, and the selected theme,must be attractive to donors, of which IFAD is a potential one. whywe have to come up with a proposal that is attractive to donors,and IFAD is one of the potential donors. A theme like livestockinsurance could bring value added and demonstrate that this CoP isable to generate a public good with added value. The other valuewould come from our experience, our knowledge, our capacity toidentify the right stakeholders, members, who can deliver.Independence vs. dependence. In the beginning, the CoP mayneed an institution and its environment to support and empower it.But even more important is the need for the dedication andcommitment of one champion, complemented by the dedication andcommitment of at least a core group. These are key ingredients forsuccess.Selecting the appropriate pilot. It is important to select pilotsthat are relatively easy, appeal to most members, and generatebenefits quickly, before moving on to more difficult topics.IFAD support. IFAD would probably be committed to hosting thepilot experience for the Livestock group. However, it might bedifficult for IFAD to manage, coordinate and facilitate two groups,i.e. Livestock and Fisheries/Aquaculture. The latter group could besupported by FAO or WorldFish.Operationalization issues and commitments. • IFAD will initially house and be the nurturer of the livestock node and WorldFish will be the nurturer of the fisheries node. • A champion is needed for both groups. Institutions do not champion. People champion, and two people should be chosen before the workshop concludes. Antonio Rota was nominated as champion for the Livestock CoP and was requested to make a progress report in Belgium. Ann Gordon was nominated as champion for the Fisheries/Aquaculture CoP. 26
  • 27. • Both groups came up with the need for some kind of steering group that can take the process forward and support. A body should be in place before the workshop concludes. • Livestock insurance emerged as one possible theme. If, in the next several days, no one suggests another theme, then livestock insurance will be the theme. • In practical terms, the expectation should be that over a defined time period (e.g. two or three months), a general approach could be determined and communicated, donor contacts could be made aware about the emergence of the idea, some feedback received, and then something put on the table for funding to get a website. A timeline is needed to move forward systematically.The plenary discussion concluded with a decision to divide into twogroups to determine concrete actions and time frames for the shortterm. 27
  • 28. 5. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: THE WAY AHEAD5.1 Summary of Working Group 1 (Livestock)The livestock working group agreed on three resolutions andcorresponding actions. • Resolution 1 – Antonio Rota will coordinate the activities of the pilot phase of the CoP on Livestock . • Resolution 2 – How livestock insurance will reduce vulnerability of poor smallholder livestock producers will be the initial challenge addressed in order to prepare a pilot phase to be submitted to donors for possible funding. • Resolution 3 – Mr Rota will be assisted by a working group that will be set up for this specific pilot group. Members are diversified, representing different institutions: Ranjitha Puskur (ILRI), Michael Njau Kibuame (Heifer International), Ahmed Sidahmed (University of California Davis), Wyn Richards (NR International) and David Ward (Consultant).5.2 Summary of Working Group 2 (Fisheries and Aquaculture)The working group reinforced its position to push on withdeveloping a CoP around fisheries and aquacultures. Funding wouldbe needed at some level, with contributions in kind from differentsources. The key is to understand donor interest in the concept andwhat form and timing. The group assured all participants that allprogress would be communicated by e-mail. 28
  • 29. 6. CONCLUDING REMARKSAntonio Rota presented a summary of the two-day workshop.Following are excerpts of his presentation. “This initiative was launched to see if the idea of a different way ofworking together was a viable way of working together and wasalso needed for other institutions. It seems to have borne somefruit. We started yesterday with an overview of the two sectors,with examples of CoPs that exist. We saw good examples of thedifferent institutions and sectors contributing to pro-poor livestockand poverty reduction. Then we started reviewing the strategicframework that had been drafted. Some changes made, but inprinciple people agreed with the framework that we proposed. Thisdocument, which has IFAD’s logo, will now be without the IFADlogo. It is owned by all of us, since we validated it and it is what willguide our work.“Then we started talking about what a CoP is and why there is aneed for establishing this way of working together. It was richdiscussion...and thanks to the experience of a lot of people we werereassured that if we are here it is because we believe in thisprocess...We realized that having a CoP that covered both Livestockand Fisheries/Aquaculture was a challenge that was too great. Sowe divided the two sectors and talked about the “how” – how weare going to work, how are we going to implement the activities –and we came out with two different approaches, equally viable,equally good. Then we concluded by taking some resolutions andprogrammatic steps. I am very satisfied with this process, in thesense that although here have been some up and downs, I couldfeel the commitment and interest of the people involved.“We are people who carry a rich knowledge in ourselves, and thiswillingness to share this knowledge is what is going to make thisCoP approach a successful one. We gave ourselves some targets,some objectives. Let’s see if this is a good way, and maybereconvene next year and see what progress we have made on bothinitiatives.” 29
  • 30. Concluding Remarks(Rodney Cook Director, Technical Advisory Division)One or two people are concerned about the degree of IFAD’scommitment. Let me just underline that IFAD is in the business ofcountry programmes, which takes us through the gamut, but thesixth element is promoting the involvement of rural people inplanning and policy processes. That is why IFAD has a knowledgemanagement strategy, of which the discussions you have beenhaving are a manifestation. If we don’t have effective knowledgemanagement, how do we influence things? IFAD is very muchcommitted to knowledge management and CoPs in the keysectors of rural development. Next week, with FAO, we areparticipating in the Knowledge Share Fair as anothermanifestation of that.Antonio is very much playing to a central theme of IFAD. Thecase for livestock and fisheries is very strong and often notappreciated by policy makers and decision makers ingovernments and in collaboration agencies. We are committed totaking the thinking forward, and doing so in a focused way. I amdelighted to hear and to see the “red” changes [made in thestrategic framework] and the discussions. Let me say on behalf ofthe Programme Management Department, we will be looking tosupporting your initiatives and taking forward your CoPinitiatives. Thank you for taking the time to come to Rome. 30
  • 31. Appendix 1: Programme Day 1Time Speaker/Facilitator Plenary8:30 Registration Mr. Kevin Cleaver, IFAD9:00 Welcome and opening remarks Assistant President, PMD Presentation on The livestock industry: Global opportunities Jimmy Smith (World9:30 and challenges Bank)10:00 Presentation on Research and innovations in PPLD Shirley Tarawali (ILRI) 10:30 - Coffee Break Presentation on Global pro-poor fisheries and aquaculture Ann Gordon (WorldFish11:00 development Center) Presentation on Innovative and inclusive approaches to global Wyn Richards11:30 livestock development (NRInternational) Participants’ experiences in Networking Initiatives in Fisheries12:00 Hiromoto Watanabe (FAO) and Aquaculture development 12:30 Lunch Report on findings from the need assessment for livestock14:00 Silvia Sperandini (IFAD) development14:20 Introduction to the CoP concept Antonio Rota (IFAD)14:40 Plenary discussions 15:30 - Coffee Break Parallel Sessions – Working Groups Theme: CoP Strategic Frameworks15:50 WG1 and WG2 - The CoP strategic framework: revision and validation Plenary17:15 Working group summaries WG rapporteurs17:45 Q&A Facilitator18:00 Closing remarks Day 1 Antonio Rota 31
  • 32. Dinner Day 2 Plenary9:00 Summary of Day 1 and introduction to Day 2 Antonio Rota9:15 Plenary discussion 10.30 - Coffee Break Parallel Sessions: WG 1 Livestock; WG 2 Fisheries and Aquaculture Theme: CoP Operationalization WG1/WG2 - Organizational arrangements, including10:50 communication and sharing mechanisms Plenary12:00 Working group summaries WG rapporteurs12:20 Plenary discussion 12:40 - Lunch Parallel Sessions: WG 1 Livestock; WG 2 Fisheries and Aquaculture Theme: The way ahead WG1 - Building a plan of action for the CoP on PPLD14:00 WG2 - Building a plan of action for the CoP on PPFA 16:00 - Coffee Break Plenary16:40 Working group summaries WG rapporteurs17:25 Wrap-up Day 2 Antonio Rota Rodney Cooke, Director17:40 Closing remarks Technical Advisory Division 32
  • 33. Appendix 2: List of Participants External Participants Food and AgricultureAnkers Philippe Organization of the United Nations (FAO)Bachmann Felix Swiss College of Agriculture Infosamak: Centre forBelkouch Abdellatif Marketing Information & Advisory ServicesBosma Roel Wageningen University Food and AgricultureBennett Tony Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Infosamak: Centre forBougouss Nada Marketing Information & Advisory ServicesCambridge Tracy MRAG Ltd. Food and AgricultureDe Haan Nicoline Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Food and AgricultureDijkman Jeroen Organization of the United Nations (FAO)Floribert Beloko INFODEV - Peuples Solidaires floriber1@yahoo.frTakanaki BelgiqueGordon Ann WorldFish Center Food and AgricultureJosupeit Helga Organization of the United Nations (FAO)Karanja Swaleh Heifer International swaleh.karanja@heifer.orgKibaue Michael Njau Heifer International Club du Sahel et de lAfriqueKhadidja Salah de lOuest/OECD Department for InternationalLeyland Tim Development (DFID)Muir James University of Stirling 33
  • 34. International LivestockPuskur Ranjitha Research Institute (ILRI)Richards Gareth CABI g.richards@cabi.orgRichards Wyn NRInternational Axel CIAT Ahmed E. University of California Davis asidahmed@ucdavis.eduSmith Jimmy W. World Bank International LivestockTarawali Shirley Research Institute (ILRI) Food and AgricultureThieme Olaf Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Agronomes et VétérinairesTourette Diop Isabelle sans frontièresTriquet Marion GERES info.india@geres.euWard David Consultant Food and AgricultureWatanabe Hiromoto Organization of the United Nations (FAO) WHO/FAO CollaboratingWillingham Arve Lee Center for Parasitic Zoonoses. University of Copenhagen International LivestockWright Iain Research Institute (ILRI) 34
  • 35. IFAD Participants Consultant, IFAD Technical M.Abukari@ifad.orgAbukari Moses Advisory Division Consultant, IFAD Technical T.Boditsis@ifad.orgBoditsis Theodoros Advisory Division Consultant, IFAD Western andCalvosa Chiara Central Africa Division APO, IFAD Technical AdvisoryChuluunbaatar Delgermaa Division Asst. President – IFAD K.Cleaver@ifad.orgCleaver Kevin Programme Management Dept. Senior Technical Adviser, R.Cleveringa@ifad.orgCleveringa Rudolph IFAD Technical Advisory Division Director, IFAD Technical R.Cooke@ifad.orgCooke Rodney Advisory Division Innovation Mainstreaming K.ElHarizi@ifad.orgEl Harizi Khalid Initiative (IMI) Manager, Policy Division Associate Technical Advisor I.Firmian@ifad.orgFirmian Ilaria NRM, IFAD Technical Advisory Division Senior Technical Adviser, M.Hamp@ifad.orgHamp Michael IFAD Technical Advisory Division Country Programme Manager,Merzouk, Abdelaziz IFAD Near East & North Africa Division Senior Technical Adviser, S.Mwanundu@ifad.orgMwanundu Sheila IFAD Technical Advisory Division Country Programme Manager, M.Nourallah@ifad.orgNourallah Mounif IFAD Near East & North Africa Division Programme Manager, IFAD S.Pallas@ifad.orgPallas Sabina Land Coalition Country Programme Manager, T.Rath@ifad.orgRath Thomas IFAD Asia & Pacific Division 35
  • 36. Consultant, IFAD Policy P.Remy@ifad.orgRemy Philippe Division Senior Technical Adviser,Rota Antonio IFAD Technical Advisory Division Country Programme Manager, C.Sparacino@ifad.orgSparacino Cristiana IFAD West & Central Africa Division Consultant, Technical AdvisorySperandini Silvia IFAD Division Country Programme Manager, B.Thierry@ifad.orgThierry Benoît IFAD East & Southern Africa Division 36
  • 37. Contact:Mr. Antonio RotaSenior Technical Adviser on Livestock and Farming 37