NAIP Pig production in tribal areas


Published on

pilot approach to improve pig production in remote communities of the North east of India

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

NAIP Pig production in tribal areas

  1. 1. ELKS Enhancing livelihoods through livestock knowledge systems KM 4 Results<br />Knowledge Management for: “Effective Service Delivery for Increasing Benefits from Pig Rearing in the North East”<br />Development of an Experiential Framework for Planning <br />INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY FOR PROMOTION OF PIGGERY IN REMOTE RURAL AREAS of NAGALAND<br />By: Ram Deka<br />Gowahati, 7-9 April 2010<br />
  2. 2. Context/Background <br /><ul><li>Implementing organisation: ILRI
  3. 3. Organisational mandate and mission: Livestock Research for Development in Developing countries around the globe
  4. 4. Project History: Project started under WB sponsored NAIP project in partnership with ICAR-Nagaland Centre & SASARD (NU)
  5. 5. Type of intervention : Capacity strengthening, integrated input & ouput service delivery & policy advocacy
  6. 6. Geographical Areas of Intervention: Mon district of Nagaland
  7. 7. Objective of the intervention: To improve the efficiency of current production system through incremental changes in production system
  8. 8. Funding : World Bank & IFAD</li></ul>Logo of the presenting organisation<br />
  9. 9. Project Stakeholders and Structures<br /><ul><li>End beneficiaries of the project : Smallholder pig producers
  10. 10. Actors/ service providers: Community identified members from own community
  11. 11. State level actors : SASARD & Vety. Deptt., Nagaland/ Assam
  12. 12. Others actors: ICAR & ILRI
  13. 13. Project steering mechanism: SHGs, Village Councils & Pastor </li></ul>Logo of the presenting organisation<br />
  14. 14. Service Model Features<br /><ul><li> Step I: Screened of local best practices in the NE region
  15. 15. Step II: Screened local resources, level of skill, market opportunity, need and interest of the target community
  16. 16. Step III: Designed the draft intervention plan and discussed with the target community</li></ul>Logo of the presenting organisation<br />
  17. 17. <ul><li>Step IV: Suggested the community to identify the beneficiaries / actors
  18. 18. Step V: Assessed, designed & delivered training through participatory mode
  19. 19. Step VI: Mobilised & built the capacity of the target community to run the programme by them
  20. 20. Step VII: Provided guidance & refresher training as & when required</li></li></ul><li>Improving breeding stock in the village: Hands on Gift (HoG) scheme <br />Components of Integrated services<br />
  21. 21. Poor veterinary & input services: Community lead Veterinary First Aid practitioners<br />
  22. 22. Address the problem of feed: Demonstration of food-feed crops<br />
  23. 23. Poor housing: Improved housing by the beneficiaries with locally available resources<br />
  24. 24. Poor sanitation & disease risk: Community lead hygiene & sanitation drive<br />
  25. 25. Poor access to market: Buyers sellers meet<br />
  26. 26. Policy Advocacy: Followed evidence based approach<br />
  27. 27. Achievements attained: <br /><ul><li>Community capacity strengthening :
  28. 28. Community become more eager to learn, they prefer to attend the training without expecting any fee
  29. 29. Community is adopting the practices without and financial support from the project
  30. 30. Efficiency/Effectiveness of (district )services :</li></ul>-Services are community lead and running without much effort from ILRI<br /><ul><li>Village Council, Pastor are guiding the people to run the programme
  31. 31. Peer pressure is working with the SHG to move the programme</li></ul>Logo of the presenting organisation<br />
  32. 32. <ul><li>Institutional strengthening </li></ul>- SHGs realized the importance of collective approach<br /><ul><li>Economic benefits for end –beneficiaries:</li></ul>-Yet to come up<br /><ul><li>Sustainability & replicability of scheme:
  33. 33. Built the capacity of the community members to continue the good work
  34. 34. Build the network of F.A. practitioners with all the relevant stakeholders
  35. 35. Nearby villages approached ILRI to build their capacity to run the programme without expecting any financial benefit </li></li></ul><li>Challenges/Key Issues/Obstacles <br /><ul><li>Organisational level</li></ul>- SHGs were formed without motivating and capacity building of villagers as an overnight process to distribute the benefits from the project<br /><ul><li>Stakeholder cooperation:</li></ul>- Faced lot of problems as project partners/ govt. / local NGOs are distributing lot of materials as gift and paying money to community for their time<br /><ul><li>Household/ farmer/ community level:
  36. 36. Villagers are too poor to buy any inputs/ services for livestock
  37. 37. Villagers are not able to pay for First Aid services
  38. 38. Animal production/marketing
  39. 39. Very poor access to the market by road
  40. 40. - Poor demand within the village
  41. 41. - Villagers are quite dispersed to organize the market</li></ul>Logo of the presenting organisation<br />
  42. 42. Lessons learnt/best practices <br /><ul><li>Approach used:
  43. 43. Should not be supply driven
  44. 44. Institutional/organisational aspects :
  45. 45. Implementing partners should have better coordination
  46. 46. Implementers should have well understanding on participatory approach of livelihood improvement
  47. 47. Animal production/marketing
  48. 48. Implementing any livelihood programme is much more difficult in a very remote areas that too with very poor people
  49. 49. Stakeholder involvement /cooperation
  50. 50. Stakeholders should involve right from the planning stage
  51. 51. Individual farming unit is better than group unit</li></ul>Logo of the presenting organisation<br />
  52. 52. THANK YOU<br />Thank You for your Attention !<br />