Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Fodder Adoption and Innovation Projects (FAP and FIP)


Check these out next

1 of 28 Ad

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to Fodder Adoption and Innovation Projects (FAP and FIP) (20)


More from ILRI (20)

Recently uploaded (20)


Fodder Adoption and Innovation Projects (FAP and FIP)

  1. 1. Fodder Adoption and Innovation Projects (FAP and FIP) Ranjitha Puskur and Alan Duncan International Livestock Research Institute December 2009 Presentation: CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme Livestock Policy Group, 1 December 2009
  2. 2. Enhancing livelihoods of livestock dependant poor people through increasing use of fodder FAP IFAD CIAT, ICARDA, ILRI Ethiopia, Syria & Vietnam FIP DFID UNU/MERIT – CRISP, ICRISAT, IITA India & Nigeria
  3. 3. FIP Phase-I (2003-2006) <ul><li>Approach - Identification and dissemination of improved varieties of fodder </li></ul><ul><li>LESSONS </li></ul><ul><li>Promoting fodder technologies is not enough </li></ul><ul><li>Need to shift from a technology transfer to capacity strengthening approach-( Requires the building of local systems for change --- an innovation system) </li></ul><ul><li>Understand the importance of institutions, interactions and policies </li></ul>
  4. 4. Aims of the Projects <ul><li>FAP - Strengthening capacity of poor livestock keepers to select and adopt fodder options and access market opportunities to enable them to improve their livelihoods and the sustainability of their farming systems </li></ul><ul><li>FIP - Enhancing fodder innovation capacity in equitable ways in India and Nigeria </li></ul>
  5. 5. Emphases in IS thinking <ul><li>Actors </li></ul><ul><li>Linkages </li></ul><ul><li>Habits and practices </li></ul><ul><li>Policy environment </li></ul><ul><li>How does it help? </li></ul>
  6. 6. A new paradigm in agricultural development? What’s the old paradigm?
  7. 7. Adoption of new technologies by smallholders is generally low New technologies developed by researchers do not find their way into mainstream practice very easily Picture of UMB Picture of maize lablab Urea straw treatment UMB Images from FAO Cereal/legume intercropping
  8. 8. Historical approaches to fodder development Research Extension Farmer Linear thinking
  9. 9. Value chain and innovation systems Urban wholesaler Rural Farmer Collector Urban dairy producer Urban consumer Sorghum Rural farmer Chopped stover Collector Bagged stover Urban wholesaler Raw milk Urban dairy producer Proc. Milk Urban consumer
  10. 10. Embedding research and extension in a wider system Research Extension
  11. 11. What does it mean in practice? Focus on promising technologies (labour, economics, demand-driven) Establishment of stakeholder networks Focus on promising technologies (labour, economics, demand-driven) Establishment of stakeholder networks Focus on promising technologies (labour, economics, demand-driven) Establishment of stakeholder networks Focus on promising technologies (labour, economics, demand-driven)
  12. 12. Innovation processes in Ada’a Ethiopia Seed sourced 44 farmers plant on own fields X-bred cows sourced Farmers purchase seed 60 farmers plant on own fields Milk transport issues voiced May 2008 Oct 2009 Fodder options identified Dairy co-op formed Milk transport negotiations ongoing Organisational innovation Technical innovation
  13. 13. Fodder Innovation Project (FIP)
  14. 14. Phase-II (2007-2009) <ul><li>Approach/Research Design: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explore ways of strengthening fodder innovation capacity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>action research with selected partner organisations (India and Nigeria) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>institutional and policy analysis </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>develop an “interface” between research and policy making through establishing a policy working group (FIPWG) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Key question to be answered- What is required to strengthen capacity for innovation and change? </li></ul>
  15. 15. Fodder Innovation Capacity <ul><li>We argue that </li></ul><ul><li>Fodder innovation capacity will be strengthened when institutional and policy change enable a continuous process of framing and reframing of the way fodder-relevant knowledge is created, diffused, adapted, shared and put into use </li></ul><ul><li>Or, to put it more simply , </li></ul><ul><li>if we could improve networking among the wide range of organisations having fodder-livestock relevant knowledge, it could enable institutional and policy changes needed for innovation to happen . </li></ul>
  16. 16. FIP2 <ul><li>Worked with a range of KPOs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Government (RAGACOVAS – a traditional veterinary university) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Semi-government (SG2000 – extension and technology focused) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-Government (FES, WOTR, JDPC – broader rural development agenda, community empowerment and collective action focus) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In each site, action was based on context-specific themes - ranging from fodder focus to commercialization of smallholder goat farming. </li></ul><ul><li>This led to very context and theme-specific network building process, with different entry points (ranging from forest seeding with fodder species to animal vaccination camps). </li></ul><ul><li>Different trajectories are beginning to evolve. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Project components <ul><li>Development of conceptual framework and research design </li></ul><ul><li>Landscaping exercise for partner selection (KPOs) </li></ul><ul><li>Livestock practice and socio-economic benchmarking </li></ul><ul><li>Fodder innovation capacity diagnosis </li></ul><ul><li>shared understanding of the new approach </li></ul><ul><li>sympathy, diversity, poverty focus, scale and links to policy and social science expertise </li></ul><ul><li>to understand change in impact (before and after) </li></ul><ul><li>rapid for identification of research themes specific for each KPO location </li></ul><ul><li>detailed for benchmarking and tracking changes in capacity – the focus was on analysis of actors, institutions, patterns of interaction and policies </li></ul>
  18. 18. Project components-cont’d <ul><li>Development and implementation of rolling action plans </li></ul><ul><li>Development of monitoring and learning system </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional and policy study at national level </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation mentoring or coaching to partners </li></ul><ul><li>Formation of Fodder Innovation Policy Working Groups (FIPWG) </li></ul><ul><li>ongoing to deal with new challenges and opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>primarily to track changes in behaviour of individuals, organisations and networks </li></ul><ul><li>to understand macro-level issues that impinge on local innovation processes </li></ul><ul><li>help the KPOs/networks to appreciate the value of their actions, analyse outcomes and help redefine action plans </li></ul><ul><li>Link research and policy </li></ul>
  19. 19. Immediate outcomes <ul><li>Farm level outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>Some changes in farm and livestock feeding practices (JDPC, Ragacovas), but at a very early stage. </li></ul><ul><li>New arrangements for fodder supply (Ragocovas)- dairy co-operative emerged as the intermediary between fodder entrepreneurs and livestock keepers </li></ul><ul><li>New fodder production initiatives in WOTR with forest department, agricultural university and department of Animal husbandry. </li></ul><ul><li>Better coverage in vaccination through organising animal health camps collaboratively (FES) </li></ul><ul><li>More efficient and co-ordinated service provision to farmers (FES, SG-2000) </li></ul><ul><li>Retrieving a portion of encroached grazing lands (SG 2000) </li></ul><ul><li>Increased demand for inputs and services - fodder seeds, knowledge on balanced feeding </li></ul>
  20. 20. Immediate outcomes <ul><li>System level behavioural changes </li></ul><ul><li>Unusual partnerships- Goat producer and goat merchants(JDPC); Agricultural University and Forest Department (WoTR) </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration in vaccine supply and african swine fever research (JDPC and NVRI); new demands for research support-improved goat breeds </li></ul><ul><li>Taking on new responsibilities : From training on fodder aspects to co-ordinating fodder platform and liaising with different actors (Ragacovas) </li></ul><ul><li>Attempts at mainstreaming innovation systems approach (FES) </li></ul><ul><li>Invitation to contribute to national fodder planning and policy discussions (Planning Commission, India) </li></ul><ul><li>Better co-ordination and streamlining activities by 3 different organisations-KNARDA, LGA, FADAMA-III (SG-2000) </li></ul><ul><li>Articulation of emerging problems, and collective search for solutions </li></ul>
  21. 21. Some lessons.. <ul><li>A ppropriate technology (e.g. planted fodder) introduced through existing stakeholders is useful catalyst for raising and addressing broader system constraints </li></ul><ul><li>However, fodder is too narrow a theme for building networks </li></ul><ul><li>Building networks around crop- livestock value chains and building innovation capacity at that level seems more appropriate </li></ul><ul><li>W orking with stakeholder platforms means technological focus soon gives way to organizational issues </li></ul>
  22. 22. Some lessons.. <ul><li>F acilitating stakeholder platforms is time-consuming and monitoring change is not trivial. </li></ul><ul><li>Highlights the critical role of broker/connector/catalyst organisations - depending on ground situation (history of partners and the degree of social capital they bring is critical) </li></ul>
  23. 23. Some lessons.. <ul><li>Implications for how R4D projects are designed and managed – both for research managers and donors. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>traditional logframes and M&E systems may not be very appropriate. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>project financial management and planning needs to be untied, flexible and nimble to accommodate actions to address emerging opportunities and challenges effectively </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Some lessons.. <ul><li>Engaging policy actors from the beginning helps in finding windows for influence and ownership for research results </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback from policy stakeholders is that the evidence is very valuable, but the evidence base is narrow/small. </li></ul><ul><li>Processes and lessons need longer timeframe to mature before they have currency in policy debates and changes. </li></ul>
  25. 25. FIP-FAP Meta analysis Why and how? <ul><li>To distil lessons on effective ways of developing systems and capabilities to innovate in different contexts in the smallholder livestock sector, and respond to challenges and opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>Draws on empirical evidence emerging from the FIP and the FAP projects, and literature in the relevant fields </li></ul>
  26. 26. Objectives <ul><li>compare and contrast different approaches and contexts that impinge on innovation network formation and performance </li></ul><ul><li>document and share good and replicable practices </li></ul><ul><li>develop guidance on innovation network formation and performance </li></ul><ul><li>Identify mechanisms for making innovation networks sustainable and pro-poor </li></ul>
  27. 27. Where do we go from here…. <ul><li>Networks have formed and are beginning to perform.. </li></ul><ul><li>Sites set up to be effective learning laboratories – opportunity to follow the innovation trajectories and how innovation capacity evolves </li></ul><ul><li>Building on this, we could form innovation platforms around C-L value chains </li></ul><ul><li>Test different kinds of organisations to play the brokerage role </li></ul><ul><li>Testing strategies to make innovation pro-poor and pro-women </li></ul><ul><li>More vigorous and systematic engagement with policy </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity to design and test appropriate and effective M&E systems </li></ul>
  28. 28. ILRI is creating and integrating knowledge to enable diverse partners to find innovative solutions to make livestock a sustainable pathway out of poverty