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

1. ELKS Enhancing livelihoods through livestock knowledge systems KM 4 Results Knowledge Management for: “Effective Service Delivery for Increasing Benefits from Pig Rearing in the North East” Development of an Experiential Framework for Planning INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY FOR PROMOTION OF PIGGERY IN REMOTE RURAL AREAS of NAGALAND By: Ram Deka Gowahati, 7-9 April 2010

3. Organisational mandate and mission: Livestock Research for Development in Developing countries around the globe

4. Project History: Project started under WB sponsored NAIP project in partnership with ICAR-Nagaland Centre & SASARD (NU)

5. Type of intervention : Capacity strengthening, integrated input & ouput service delivery & policy advocacy

6. Geographical Areas of Intervention: Mon district of Nagaland

7. Objective of the intervention: To improve the efficiency of current production system through incremental changes in production system

8. Funding : World Bank & IFADLogo of the presenting organisation

10. Actors/ service providers: Community identified members from own community

11. State level actors : SASARD & Vety. Deptt., Nagaland/ Assam

12. Others actors: ICAR & ILRI

13. Project steering mechanism: SHGs, Village Councils & Pastor Logo of the presenting organisation

15. Step II: Screened local resources, level of skill, market opportunity, need and interest of the target community

16. Step III: Designed the draft intervention plan and discussed with the target communityLogo of the presenting organisation

18. Step V: Assessed, designed & delivered training through participatory mode

19. Step VI: Mobilised & built the capacity of the target community to run the programme by them

21. Poor veterinary & input services: Community lead Veterinary First Aid practitioners

22. Address the problem of feed: Demonstration of food-feed crops

23. Poor housing: Improved housing by the beneficiaries with locally available resources

24. Poor sanitation & disease risk: Community lead hygiene & sanitation drive

25. Poor access to market: Buyers sellers meet

26. Policy Advocacy: Followed evidence based approach

28. Community become more eager to learn, they prefer to attend the training without expecting any fee

29. Community is adopting the practices without and financial support from the project

31. Peer pressure is working with the SHG to move the programmeLogo of the presenting organisation

33. Built the capacity of the community members to continue the good work

34. Build the network of F.A. practitioners with all the relevant stakeholders

36. Villagers are too poor to buy any inputs/ services for livestock

37. Villagers are not able to pay for First Aid services

38. Animal production/marketing

39. Very poor access to the market by road

40. - Poor demand within the village

41. - Villagers are quite dispersed to organize the marketLogo of the presenting organisation

43. Should not be supply driven

44. Institutional/organisational aspects :

45. Implementing partners should have better coordination

46. Implementers should have well understanding on participatory approach of livelihood improvement

47. Animal production/marketing

48. Implementing any livelihood programme is much more difficult in a very remote areas that too with very poor people

49. Stakeholder involvement /cooperation

50. Stakeholders should involve right from the planning stage

51. Individual farming unit is better than group unitLogo of the presenting organisation

52. THANK YOU Thank You for your Attention !