Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Workshop Proceedings (Full Document)


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Brent Forsman is paralyzed from a hunting accident. He now uses the Demolisher system to generate income. He says: "I believe there is no way this system can fail!" ▲▲▲
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • How to cure your gout in 7 days. GUARANTEED! ◆◆◆
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Workshop Proceedings (Full Document)

  1. 1.  Mauritius Breadfruit Sector Consortium First Partnership Inception Workshop Workshop Report 9th & 10th February 2012 Food and Agricultural Research Council (FARC), Reduit, Mauritius Supported by the PAEPARD Project
  2. 2. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  Table of Contents Introduction ..............................................................................................................................2 Day 1 – Introduction to PAEPARD and establishment of Knowledge Base ......................3  Welcome and Introduction of Participants ............................................................................. 3  Introduction to the PAEPARD Project................................................................................... 3  The Mauritius Breadfruit Sector Consortium ........................................................................ 6  . The Value-Chain Approach ................................................................................................... 7  Participants’ Expectations from workshop ............................................................................ 7  Demonstration of the use of the wiki ..................................................................................... 9  Workshop Activities & Introduction to Group Work .......................................................... 10  Team Building Activity ........................................................................................................ 12  Group work sessions (Part 1) – Participatory development of the knowledge-base ............ 12 Day 2 – Value-chain approach, roles of the stakeholders and way forward ....................14  Recap of Day 1 and continuation of group presentations .................................................... 14  Group work (Part 2) – Consolidation of knowledge, technology and skills assets .............. 14  Group Work (Part 3) - Breadfruit Value-Chain Approach and Analysis ............................. 14  Linkages among themes along the value chain .................................................................... 14  Refining the questions we are asking ourselves ................................................................... 15  Validation of the Breadfruit Value-Chain stakeholders ....................................................... 15 Results of the group work sessions .......................................................................................16 Discussion and Way Forward ...............................................................................................37 Closing remarks .....................................................................................................................38  Annex I – List of Participants ................................................................................................ 39  Annex II – Workshop Programme ........................................................................................ 40  Annex III – List of Stakeholder Institutions of the Breadfruit Sector ................................... 41  Annex IV: Review of the literature ....................................................................................... 42  Annex V: Evaluation of the workshop .................................................................................. 43   1  
  3. 3. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 IntroductionThe Mauritius Breadfruit Sector Consortium organized a two-day Partnership InceptionWorkshop on 9th and 10th February 2012 at the Food and Agricultural Research Council,Reduit. This workshop is supported and is part of the Platform for African-EuropeanPartnership on Agricultural Research for Development (PAEPARD) Project, which isfacilitating this collaboration among various stakeholders in the Breadfruit Sector inMauritius as well as European Partners (African-European Partnership).The stakeholders present at the workshop were from research institutions, the University ofMauritius, farmer organisations, breadfruit exporters, breadfruit growers, the Ministry ofAgro-Industry and Food Security (plant protection and propagation) and the private sector.The workshop was facilitated by two external facilitators who have been selected and trainedby PAEPARD.The overall objectives of the workshop were for stakeholders to:  Get to know each other  Understand the PAEPARD project  Appreciate the importance of partnership within the consortium  Understand and apply the value-chain approach  Participate actively in different group activities  Establish a framework for effective partnershipDuring the two days of the workshop, the participants were exposed to presentations andgroup activities in line with the workshop objectives.The presentations served to increase awareness and understanding of the PAEPARD projectsupport, the proposed concept note and the principles behind the implementation of theConsortium activities. The group activities were formulated to improve mutual understandingamong stakeholders along the breadfruit value chain in Mauritius and promote a collaborativespirit among the participants.This report covers the proceedings of the two-day workshop held on 9th and 10th February2012 as well as the background materials used during the workshop. 2  
  4. 4. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  Day 1 – Introduction to PAEPARD and establishment of Knowledge BaseThe first day of the workshop was focused on getting to know about the PAEPARD project,the Breadfruit Sector Consortium and the establishment of a knowledge base on breadfruit.PowerPoint presentations were delivered by the Facilitators, followed by group activities toestablish the knowledge base in a collaborative and participatory manner.Welcome and Introduction of ParticipantsThe workshop was opened by Mr. K. Bheenick, Programme Manager at the Food andAgricultural Research Council (FARC), lead partner of the breadfruit sector consortium andconvener of the workshop. He welcomed the participants and explained the importance ofholding this workshop. He laid stress on the common visioning aspect of the consortiumpartners who are from different sectors of the breadfruit value chain. He also acknowledgedthe assistance of PAEPARD in the funding of the workshop and added that after this two-dayworkshop another one would follow in about a month’s time. He explained that the FARC’svision was that the consortium activities lead to the elaboration of a National BreadfruitProgramme, which could later be extended to a regional level where breadfruit plantingprogrammes are being implemented. Each participant was then requested to presenthimself/herself and give a brief over-view of the work being done on breadfruit by theirrespective organizations (see list of participants in Annex I). After the introductions, Mr. K.Bheenick went over the Agenda of Day 1 (Annex II) for the participants to have an idea ofhow the day was going to be and wished the participants all the best for the rest for the two-day workshop.Introduction to the PAEPARD ProjectThe first presentation was on introduction to the PAEPARD Project, which was presented byMr. T. Gunesh, one of the workshop facilitators. The presentation was focused on thePAEPARD Project, its context, objectives, expected results, major activities and how theconcept note from Mauritius was selected during the PAEPARD second call for conceptnotes. Mr. T. Gunesh laid accent on the requirement of the PAEPARD project for theinvolvement of non research stakeholders in Agricultural Research for Development. Hetalked on the need for demand-driven partnerships and added that following the Partnership 3  
  5. 5. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 Inception Workshops, PAEPARD would be organizing a write-shop for writing of proposalsfor the themes identified with a view to get funding from financing institutions. It was alsomentioned that among the 69 concept notes that were received by PAEPARD, 10 consortiawere selected based on different criteria and the Mauritius consortium was among the 10selected ones. The federating themes of the European and African partnerships, as well as thelist of concept notes selected by PAEPARD were presented (Fig 1). Figure 1. Introduction to the PAEPARD Project and selection process of concept notes 4  
  6. 6. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 Figure 1(contd). Introduction to the PAEPARD Project and stages in the process of selection of concept notes 5  
  7. 7. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 The Mauritius Breadfruit Sector ConsortiumThe second presentation was made by Mrs. I. Boodhram, the concept note applicant. Shegave a brief overview of the concept note submitted by the Mauritian Consortium, entitled“Micro propagation and cultivation of in vitro breadfruit plants and development of novelproducts from breadfruit as an alternative source of carbohydrates in Mauritius”. Breadfruithas been chosen as it is a crop that provides a lot of opportunities; be it in terms of freshproduce or transformed product, that is, gluten-free flour among others. It has the potential ofbeing an income generating plant for small households as well as for small scale orchards.Mrs Boodhram explained to the participants that the concept note had been submittedfollowing consultations with a few of the stakeholders and partners and that this workshop,with its extended consultation with stakeholders, provided an excellent opportunity to reviewthe proposed activities of the consortium. She also presented the partners currently involvedin the project.Figure 2. Proposed outcomes and partnership arrangements of the Consortium 6  
  8. 8. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 The Value-Chain ApproachThe value-chain approach was presented by Ms. Nawsheen Hosenally, one of the workshopfacilitators. She built on Mrs. Boodhram’s presentation to demonstrate that there are manypartners involved in the consortium and there are multiple linkages among them. However, inorder to work in a partnership, it is important to have a proper understanding of the existingrelationships and an agreed mechanism for interactions. She explained about the value-chainapproach and proposed that, through the workshop activities, the importance of linkagesamong different actors involved at various points in a value chain would be highlighted. Shealso explained the role and responsibilities of the facilitators, which was mainly to act as aneutral partner, to bring the partners together in their discussions and to promote mutualunderstanding among them. Since a facilitator is not a leader, the role of a leader v/sfacilitator was also explained (Fig 3). Stakeholders were reassured that the partners of theconsortium had already been meeting and coordinating some of the activities, especially inthe preparations and organisation of the series of workshops to be supported by thePAEPARD project.Participants’ Expectations from workshopAfter the participants had an overview on the PAEPARD project, the Mauritius breadfruitsector consortium, the value-chain approach and the role of leader v/s facilitator, the floorwas opened for clarifications and discussions. Participants were then asked to describe theirexpectations from the workshop (Box 1). In general, stakeholders had a wide range ofexpectations, each specific to the current issues they were dealing with. This was to beexpected, and hopefully most of their expectations would have been addressed by the end ofthe workshop activities. 7  
  9. 9. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 Figure 3. Introduction to the Value Chain Approach as it would be applied to the breadfruit sector in Mauritius 8  
  10. 10. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  Box 1. Participants’ Expectations from Workshop  Discuss problems being encountered for producing grafts and find solutions  See if partners within the consortium may help in production of the planting materials for farmer organization presently awaiting planting materials to set up a breadfruit village,  See whether it will be possible to introduce planting materials from abroad  Find how the consortium can work together to conserve germplasm in Mauritius and support each other in propagation as well  Get maximum knowledge and information on the whole value-chain  Need a real sharing of information and all partners must collaborate in doing so (value-chain approach and inclusive demand-driven partnerships)  Get new ideas on value-addition, product development and new ventures in the breadfruit sector  Know how we are going to collaborate based on the work that has already started and what we want to do in the future  We have worked as individuals up to now, but time has come to sit together and become a team  Discuss the opportunities that are available and try to make the most of these by working as a team  All collaborators become one (Not just talking, but make it happen)  It is a first-time multi-stakeholder partnership and it is hoped that it will work well such that the workshop acts as a trigger for more interaction  Hope that this workshop does not “die” like those in the past  Get the support of policy makers  Come up with a group project to benefit the country  Make workshop successful, have write-shop and get funding  Hope to get funding through this partnershipDemonstration of the use of the wikiSince the first meeting of the consortium, a wiki was created to facilitate collaboration withinthe multi-stakeholder partnership. The wiki consisted of several pages, each having specificobjectives. A demonstration was made on the use of the wiki and how different partners maycollaborate by sharing their work, participate in discussion forums, upload files and commenton the different pages. The wiki is accessible at http://paepardmauritius.pbworks.comFurthermore, there was another page on the wiki which consisted of an editable map ofbreadfruit trees in Mauritius using Google Maps. The objectives of this map are (a) to test if‘crowd-sourcing’ is a viable method of gathering information in a spatial and descriptive 9  
  11. 11. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 manner in Mauritius and (b) to provide the members of the breadfruit sector consortium witha map of distribution and quantity of breadfruit trees to work with, to complement statisticsthat may be available. A step-by-step demonstration was also done to show the participantshow they can add breadfruit trees to the map.Participants then discussed the wiki and ways in which it could be useful, not only to thepartners in the consortium, but to all stakeholders. There was an immediate need expressedfor a tutorial to be made available about the use of the wiki and also on the procedure to editthe map of breadfruit trees in Mauritius. Participants likened the wiki to a one-stop shop ofinformation, where at institutional level each member of the consortium or each stakeholderwould have a clear idea of the work being done by each partner. Furthermore, the wiki wouldbe a place to gather other information related to the consortium. Participants also expressedtheir appreciation of the breadfruit mapping is being done, which will benefit many of thestakeholders in the breadfruit in Mauritius. In addition, importers and exporters who are notin the consortium will still get valuable information through the map. Finally, it was alsohoped that the map would provide a proper framework of the breadfruit sector andcharacterize the agglomerations of breadfruit trees into backyard production or mini-orchards. Thus, a lot of hope was placed on the development of the map, but its successwould depend on the contribution of the stakeholders and the public at large.Workshop Activities & Introduction to Group WorkThe workshop objectives and activities were explained to the participants through aPowerPoint Presentation (Figure 4). 10  
  12. 12. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  Figure 4. Presentation of the group work activities during Day 1 of the workshop 11  
  13. 13. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 Team Building ActivityPrior to the group activity, following the lunch break, the participants were exposed to a teambuilding activity called “The Human Knot”. The participants were divided into 2 groups andeach group had to form a circle. In each group, the participants were required to hold thehands of each other (except the person next to oneself). Without releasing their hands, theyhad to untangle themselves to form a perfect circle.This team building activity had 2 objectives; (a) to make the participants realize the essenceof collaboration in a team, and (b) to act as an energizer. The team building activity may beviewed work sessions (Part 1) – Participatory development of the knowledge-baseThe second part of Day 1 of the workshop consisted of a group activity with the objective tocreate a knowledge base on breadfruit. To facilitate the process, a review of literature onBreadfruit, based on 7 key documents identified, had been carried out by Research Assistantsat the Food and Agricultural Research Council (FARC) prior to the workshop. In thisLiterature Review, 11 themes were identified along the value chain, and the contentsorganised by theme (Table 1) Table 1. Themes identified for Group Activity 1. Origin and distribution of breadfruit 2. Germplasm 3. Environmental requirements 4. Propagation methods and planting materials 5. Agronomy and cultural practices 6. Fruiting 7. Harvest and post -harvest 8. Product development and marketing 9. Market/Exports 10. Uses of plant parts other than the fruit 11. Consumer preferences, education and productsThe participants were divided into 4 groups according to their interests to the themes. Eachgroup was comprised of 3-4 members and was allocated 1 to 3 themes to work upon(depending on the number of pages and the content). Each participant was handed a copy ofthe Literature Review on Breadfruit, which included the theme which they had to work on. 12  
  14. 14. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 After going through the reading material on their respective themes, members of each groupwere required to discuss among themselves and address the following questions for eachtheme;(a) What do we know? – Green (establishing the knowledge assets)(b) Where are we now? – Yellow (establishing the current status)(c) Where should we be? – Blue (establishing objectives for the theme)(d) What is missing to get there? – Pink (establishing what is required to achieve the objective)(e) What questions are we are asking ourselves? – White Figure 5: Questions to be answered for each theme (establishing the information needs)The answers to the above questions were written on cards of corresponding colours for eachquestion and these were stuck on the wall according to the theme. Each group was given atleast 1hr30mins to cover the review of the literature, to discuss the issues and to address theissues adequately.After the group activity, the group leaders presented their outputs during the plenary session(Figs. 6-8). During the different presentations, other participants also had the opportunity topost any new ideas/ questions on the given themes, thus enriching the existing knowledgealready gathered by the group members or identifying areas that required more clarificationor detailed information. Since there was not enough time to complete all the presentations,the last group would present their work the following day. The work carried out by thegroups would serve for the following group activity sessions the next morning. Figure 6. Group Presentations at the end of Day 1 13  
  15. 15. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 Day 2 – Value-chain approach, roles of the stakeholders and way forwardRecap of Day 1 and continuation of group presentationsDay 2 started off with the welcoming of the participants by the facilitators of the workshop.Members of the last group, who worked on the last 3 themes, presented their work followingwhich ideas/ questions from the floor were added to the flip-chart (like the previous day).The facilitators then did a quick recap of the activities of Day 1 (about PAEPARD, theconsortium, value-chain approach, role of facilitators, workshop objectives, group activity)before explaining what was expected from the participants on Day 2 (Annex II).Group work (Part 2) – Consolidation of knowledge, technology and skills assetsThe next group activity built on what had been done the previous day. Participants wererequired to validate the knowledge, technology and skills assets by reassessing the statementsand qualifying them as based on (a) literature available (b) documented research orinformation from other organisations and (c) indigenous knowledge. This process wouldensure that knowledge assets that the groups had identified were already documented or thesources of information were known. This would facilitate compilation of information and thegeneration of knowledge products, at a later stage, to guide the research and developmentprocess.Group Work (Part 3) - Breadfruit Value-Chain Approach and AnalysisLinkages among themes along the value chainThe second group work was based on the value-chain approach, whereby the participantswere asked to have a look at the themes of different groups and to find linkages and discusshow components from other themes are inter-connected. If there are links, they had to locatewhere these links are, and how do they see them connected.The objective of the activity was to enable the consortium stakeholders to see the connectionof roles/ components in the different themes that were selected.After each group had a look at the other themes and found connections, two groups werechosen at random to present the linkages they found both upstream and downstream along the 14  
  16. 16. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 value chain. After the presentations, it was agreed by the stakeholders that they couldcollectively identity several linkages among the themes all along the value-chain. Thefacilitators explained that further Value Chain Analysis, for which methods have beendeveloped, would be carried out at the next workshop, when more information about thethemes and their linkages had been gathered.Refining the questions we are asking ourselvesFollowing the activity of Day 1 listing the “questions we are asking ourselves” and thepresentations thereon, there were many questions which had been generated by participants.However, some of the questions were duplicated while others were not well formulated orunclear. Therefore, the group work consisted of clustering of questions while also re-visitingthe list of questions after the value chain linkages had been established during the previoussession. The objective was to come up with a clear set of questions that would have to beanswered and the information further analyzed at a later stage.The facilitators explained that the next step would consist of synthesizing a draft of the outputof the group activities, which would be further discussed on the consortium wiki and duringthe next Partnership Inception Workshop.Validation of the Breadfruit Value-Chain stakeholdersThe last group activity for the workshop consisted of identifying the stakeholders involved inaddressing each theme along the breadfruit value-chain. Participants were provided with a listof partners/ stakeholders involved in the Mauritius Breadfruit Consortium (Annex III).Considering the 11 themes identified in the breadfruit value-chain, they were required to:  Locate who are the different stakeholders involved (Who?)  Why they are involved in that specific theme (Why?)  How are they involved – their roles (How?)Flip-charts and markers were provided to the participants and they divided the questions in 3columns (who, why, how) and they located which stakeholder is involved where for eachtheme. While the participants were provided with a list of stakeholders, they were allowed toadd stakeholders who they thought might have an important role in the value chain (Fig.7).One group was chosen at random to present its work to validate that all other groups had alsocompleted the exercise in a similar manner (Fig. 8) 15  
  17. 17. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  Figure 7. Group Discussion on stakeholders present in value-chain  Figure 8. Group presentation on stakeholders and their roles Results of the group work sessions Results of the group work sessions are shown below: the cumulative results of the groupwork carried out during the workshop for each of the 11 themes. The literature review,presented in Annex V, is referred to in each of the thematic sections.  16  
  18. 18. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  1. Origin and Distribution of BreadfruitReview of the literature:Annex IV, pages 1-3What do we know?  Origin (from literature)  Tropical Distribution worldwide (from literature)Where are we now?  Do not know the number of varieties locally  Do not know about the distribution of varieties locallyWhere should we be?  Number of varieties introduced  Number of trees  More exhaustive review of literature  Other sources of information?What is missing to get there?  Eco-geographical survey on breadfruit treesWhat questions are we asking ourselves?  What is the Geographical distribution of breadfruit trees in Mauritius?  Should we do a Tree census in Mauritius?  Can we use a GIS system?  Breadnut - number of trees and distribution?  Is a census of breadnut trees required?  Can there be other sources of information?Stakeholders involved in issues related to Origin and Distribution of breadfruit Who? Why? How?1. CSO Involved in census Include breadfruit on household survey2. All stakeholders in the To map distribution of On consortium wiki breadfruit sector breadfruit trees across the island3. Documentation centres Involved in documentation More exhaustive review of (MAIFS/ AREU/ MSIRI/ literature FARC) 17  
  19. 19. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  2. GermplasmReview of the literature:Annex IV, pages 4-8What do we know?  Twenty varieties identified as core varieties (literature)  Can be conserved by tissue culture(literature)  Seem to have two varieties or phenotype locally (round & oblong)(observation)  Breadnut can be used as root-stock for grafting (local validated practice)  Breadnut has an edible seed (high protein)(literature)Where are we now?  Propagating only two seedless varieties locally  In vivo production of plants using root only (Literature Revue agricole)Where should we be?  Characterisation of our varieties (morphological & molecular)  Any development project for which we need new germplasm  Introduction of new varieties if there is a need  In-vitro propagationWhat is missing to get there?  Breadfruit to shift from an under-utilized crop to a commercial crop  Collaboration with international and local institution dealing with BreadfruitWhat questions are we asking ourselves?  Which varieties exist in Mauritius?  Is there a possibility of extension of production season particularly with increasing urbanization  Has there been genetic erosion or drift in our local varieties?  Should we increase our genetic pool?  Can we look for germplasm of dwarf varieties to facilitate harvest?  Is there a need to promote conservation of existing germplasm?  Do Reunion, Comores and Seychelles, for example, have the same varieties?  Are we having any pest/disease problems?  Are bats a problem with breadfruit?  Breadnut - is there a demand for it? What do we know about it?  Why breadnut as a root stock? 18  
  20. 20. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012   Is breadfruit a suitable alternative to breadfruit in Mauritius? Why bother about breadnut?  How to differentiate between young plants of breadnuts and breadfruit?  Which institutions will be involved in this? Or has capacity? Private labs or propagators?Stakeholders involved in issues related to germplasm Who? Why? How? 1. UoM  Studies on general  Student projects erosion or drift in local varieties  Research existent and facilities available 2. AREU  Varieties existing in  Survey by extension Mauritius services  Introduction of new  Evaluation trials varieties  Collaborative programs  On-going research on (UoM?) breadfruit  Research on usefulness of breadnut regarding nutritional properties and on a rootstock 3. MAIFS (NPPO &  Facilitate introduction of  PRA & Disease/ pest Entomology) new germplasm surveillance 4. MAIFS (Horticulture  Already involved in  In-vitro and In-vivo division) conservation collections 5. FARC  Already involved in  In-vitro collections conservation of germplasm 6. Research organizations  Already involved in  Collaborative programs in different countries Research and development 19  
  21. 21. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  3. Environmental RequirementsReview of the literature:Annex IV, pages 9-11What do we know?  Wide range of adaptation (literature)  Agro-climatic requirements (literature)Where are we now?  Distribution is nearly all over the island  Not clear if there are concentration zones of treesWhere should we be?  Mapping of trees distribution  Identifying agro-climatic zones suitable for optimal productionWhat is missing to get there?  Agronomic studies that report on adaptation in Mauritius  Experimental trialsWhat questions are we asking ourselves?  Are there specific micro-climates that are ideal for breadfruit?  Tolerance to drought with relation to climate change?  Tolerance to cyclones?  What is the yielding period in different zones and where to obtain the general yield data?  Check germplasm with different production & harvesting time to extend period of supply?  Is it possible to extend the production season?  Can breadfruit be grown in super-humid regions of Mauritius?  Is soil pH and high rainfall limiting factors to breadfruit tree growth in Mauritius?  Is breadfruit an invasive species?Stakeholders involved in issues related to environmental requirements Who Why How 1. AREU  On-going research  Trials in different locations 2. Meteorological  Meteorological data  Provision of Services available meteorological data 20  
  22. 22. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  4. Propagation methods and planting materialsReview of the literature:Annex IV, pages 12-14What do we know?  Can be propagated by root cuttings , air layering, stem cutting, grafting, T.C methods, seedsWhere are we now?  Studies already started  Selected clones being propagated  Root cuttings main method, higher success rate  In-vitro propagation (under experiment)  Air-layering(under experiment)  GraftingWhere should we be?  Should have already mastered vegetative propagation methods  Should have already large number of breadfruit plants for sale  Planting material at affordable price (current price at Barkley Rs 185/unit)What is missing to get there?  Research facilities and funds  Skilled labour  Need more starting materialsWhat questions are we asking ourselves?  Tapping funds (from where)?  Training for propagation required?  Pros and cons of propagation method  Is any method of propagation highly recommended  What are the success rates of the different propagation methods?  Do we have facilities for mass propagation (large scale)?  What are the problems encountered for different propagation methods  Is it easy to propagate by in-vivo methods  What if someone use root cuttings from grafted plants?  Is there any subsidized price for large scale?  What are the current prices?  Cost effective method of propagation 21  
  23. 23. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012   Where to get readily available planting materials?  Do we have enough planting materials and root stock?  Which rooting system/ propagation method is suitable against cyclone?  Who is and how to coordinate gathering of information on amount of planting materials available, rate of production?  Which institutions have capacity to do this? Private sector?  Can people /farmers/ students be trained on grafting techniques?  Who can/will train producers on propagating methods?Stakeholders involved in issues related to propagation methods and planting materials Who? Why? How?1. MAIFS (Barkly ES)  Propagation  Propagation and sale by  Sale of planting material conventional means  Adapt protocol for Tissue culture method for sale2. AREU  Research and Development  Research and  Information Dissemination Development on different  Training methods of propagation of breadfruit  Sale of breadfruit planting material  Training of Extension Officers and growers3. FARC (Tissue  Research and Development on  Research on in-vitroCulture Lab) protocol development propagation of breadfruit  Production and sale of planting  Sale of tissue-culture materials plants  Research on Tissue culture in collaboration with UoM4. UoM  Research  Research on Tissue culture in collaboration with FARC5. Labourdonnais and  Propagation and sale of planting  Propagation byother private sectors materials conventional means and  Production and sale of sale agricultural produce  Collaborate in on-farm trials (OFT’s) 22  
  24. 24. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  5. Agronomy and cultural practicesReview of the literature:Annex IV, pages 15-20What do we know?  Fast growing/long life  Hardy  Productive  Well adapted to local conditions  Old trees can be rejuvenatedWhere are we now?  Evaluation plots set up at AREU  Rejuvenation under observationWhere should we be?  Germplasm (local) characterization completed (molecular/phenotypic)  Establish local clones conservatory  Map of growing areas should have been availableWhat is missing to get there?  Funds  Insufficient planting materials  Absence of guidelines  No training to growers  Using elevators for plucking  Mechanized techniquesWhat questions are we asking ourselves?  What are the factors responsible for fruit drops?  What are the production constraints?  Can we go for high density planting materials  Can reports on the evaluations be made available( preliminary)  How does pruning affect yield?  Recommendations on pruning  Are the training materials/leaflets suitable? Is there need to revise/updates  Do we have agro-climatic maps?  What are the known production seasons in Mauritius?  Are there any appropriate tools for harvesting 23  
  25. 25. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012   Can tall trees be pruned?  What are irrigation requirements?  Should we have specific varieties for fresh and processing?  Bearing time for different planting materials(stem cuttings, root cuttings, grafting)  Can we do intercropping?  Can fruiting be enhanced like litchis?  What is the recommended pathway ‘to move from under-utilized crop to commercial crop’Stakeholders involved in issues related to Agronomy, Cultural practices & Fruiting Who? Why? How?1. AREU  Research and  Agronomic evaluation Development  Production of  Information recommendation sheets dissemination  Workshops/ Field days/  Training visits2. SFWF  Provide support to  Identify constraints faced farmers (insurance, by growers in schemes etc.) collaboration with AREU3. Private firms  Importer of machinery/  Make available tools appropriate harvest tools for breadfruit4. Growers/ MAMCF/  Producers of breadfruit  Collaborate with AREU Ministry of cooperatives for on-farm trials5. MAIFS  Schemes for pest control  Support/ incentives for  Control of pests control of bats 24  
  26. 26. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  6. FruitingReview of the literature:Annex IV, pages 21-25What do we know?  Seasonal  Large trees can be regenerated  Maturity indices easy  Fruit production capacityWhere are we now?  Production season known  Fruit drop high  Tall trees difficult to harvest  Production capacity of local accessions(yield) knownWhere should we be?  Less fruit dropWhat is missing to get there?  Local agronomic studiesWhat questions are we asking ourselves?  In case of attacks by fruit bats, bird-netting needed?  What are the post harvest losses?  Have the fruits got good preservation qualities?  What are the approved pesticides on breadfruit?  What are the pest and diseases affecting breadfruit?  When do we know that the fruits are ready for harvest?  Can it be grown in super humid zones?  How to produce off season fruits?  Introduction and evaluation of new clones?  Support from NPPO for introduction? 25  
  27. 27. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 Stakeholders involved in issues related to Agronomy, Cultural practices & Fruiting Who? Why? How? 1. AREU  Research and  Agronomic evaluation Development  Production of  Information recommendation sheets dissemination  Workshops/ Field days/  Training visits2. SFWF  Provide support to  Identify constraints faced farmers (insurance, by growers in schemes etc.) collaboration with AREU3. Private firms  Importer of machinery/  Make available tools appropriate harvest tools for breadfruit4. Growers/ MAMCF/  Producers of breadfruit  Collaborate with AREU Ministry of cooperatives for on-farm trials5. MAIFS  Schemes for pest control  Support/ incentives for  Control of pests control of bats 26  
  28. 28. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  7. Harvest and Post HarvestReview of the literature:Annex IV, pages 26-32What do we know?  Grading/sorting  Waxing  Water Treatment  Traditional minimal processing (e.g water treatment)  Rod Plucking  Climbing using ladder  Picking up falling fruits  Quality index at harvest  Packing (Leno bags, gunny bags, bamboo baskets)Where are we now?  No information on existing varieties  Using traditional harvest technique  International post-harvest practices existWhere should we be?  Develop quality parameters (Norms/Standards)  Pruning activities  Early and late varieties  Develop dwarf and early maturity plants disease  Packing to reduce post-harvest losses (e.g agricultural crates)What is missing to get there?  Schemes/loans for post-harvest/harvest facilities  Effective collaboration between partners  No existing protocols for harvesting/post-harvest  Sharing of information  More research and development funding  International collaborationWhat questions are we asking ourselves?  At which stage to harvest? (Maturity index – optimum and actual)  Is the practice of placing fruit in water documented and justified?  Do we have appropriate tools for harvest in Mauritius? E.g. Aluminum poles 27  
  29. 29. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012   After harvest (green) No. of days kept (Stored) for local marketing?  What can be done (Backyard/for local market) to increase shelf-life of breadfruit?  What are the recommended packaging/storage materials for Mauritius?  Appropriate methods to increase shelf-life?  Effect of pruning on yield/quality?  Develop protocol – Responsibility?  Can we put breadfruit in under cool conditions to increase shelf-life?  Which type of wax can be used? Available?Stakeholders involved in issues related to harvest and post-harvest Who? Why? How? 1. Cooperatives  To achieve economies of  Regrouping of farmers scale 2. Associations and  Better management  Training companies (SMEDA)  Incentive schemes  Appropriate funding mechanisms 3. AREU  Harvest and post-harvest  Research and trials protocol  Norms and standards  Literature and research  Shelf-life improvement  Literature and research  Improvement in  Training/ information harvesting techniques kits/ grants/ schemes for  Pest and disease equipments management  Awareness campaigns/  Improved cultural information materials/ practices identification of pests and diseases 4. UoM/AREU  Harvest and post-harvest  Research protocols 5. MSB/ UoM/ AREU  Norms and standards  Literature and research 6. Private companies/  Improvement in  Training/ information AREU harvesting techniques kits/ grants/ schemes for equipments 7. SFWF/ Meteo/ Private  Risk management  Support/ assistance/ companies insurance schemes 8. AREU/MAIFS  Pest and disease  Awareness campaigns/ management information materials/ identification of pests and diseases 28  
  30. 30. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  8. Product development and marketingReview of the literature:Annex IV, pages 33-43What do we know?  Marketing channel – local/export  Animal feed (Pigs)  Processing awareness exist (chips, canned, flour, boiled)  Human consumption (boiled, chips, curry, snacks)  High potential for export  High risk crop (cyclone prone)  High land requirementWhere are we now?  Export of product (approx. 100mT)  Development and research on flour production  Long-term storage (freezing) shelf-life studies  Development of frozen French fries, wedgesWhere should we be?  Increase usage as staple food side dishes  Unacceptable fruits, waste from processing as animal feed  Resource material for composting  Substitute for current bad eating habits (e.g. oily foods, saturated foods)  Tap on outer island resources (Rodrigues)What is missing to get there?  More research and development and funding  Lack of information on product  Critical mass to invest in commercial production  Loans/incentive schemes  Setting up of food parksWhat questions are we asking ourselves?  How do we think we are going to increase usage as staple?  Regarding increasing consumer awareness, what is being done?  What is the demand for breadfruit on the local market?  Can it be used for baby foods?  For flour making, are there any specific requirements (varietal, stage of maturity)? 29  
  31. 31. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012   Fresh products or processed?  Market consumption?  Is there scope for development of SME (Processing)?  Is there any kind of risk management strategy in place?  Land availability for setting up orchards?  When is the next fruit tree census?Stakeholders involved in issues to product development and marketing Who? Why? How?1. FARC/SFWF  Demand for fresh and  Survey processed breadfruit  Breadfruit festival2. AREU/ UoM  Consumer preferences/  Survey/ sensory New products evaluation3. Enterprise Mauritius  New markets  International exhibitions/ partnerships4. AREU/ UoM/ NPPO  Type of varieties  Literature  Trials  Research5. Land use division/ AS/  Land availability  Land bank MAIFS6. APAU/ MAIFS  Census on breadfruit  Survey trees in the Republic of  Complete enumeration Mauritius  Editable/clickable map7. Food security fund/  Access to capital  Schemes DBM/ Private banks  Grants  Loan facilities8. MAIFS/ MAMCF/  Continuous/ Reliable  Partnerships/ Bi-lateral Private stakeholders/ supply of breadfruit agreements SFWF9. AMB/ Freeport  Storage facilities  Provide storage facilities 30  
  32. 32. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  9. Markets/ExportReview of the literature:Annex IV, pages 44-46 What do Where are we Where should we be? What is missing to get we know? now? there?Different  Fresh breadfruits  Wider range of  Identify localtypes of for export products and germaplasm/ Accessproducts  Breadfruit flour breadfruit varieties other germplasm  Other usages at  Develop  R&D on processed level of commercial products household e.g. production  Identify interested chips, cakes entrepreneursDifferent  E.U  Regional and  Data on volume andmarkets international value of exports and markets country of destination  Identify new export markets  Identify competitors in export marketsMarket  E.U and local  Australia, USA,  Determine currentdemand markets Canada and New annual production in Zealand Mauritius  Tourist industry  Work with hotel chef  Domestic markets  Local market e.g. frozen chips, intelligence canned, flour  Market intelligence for  Gluten free Gluten free products productsMarket  Fulfilling SPS  Infrastructure for  Financial Resources forAccess requirements for commercially investment E.U processing  Identify SPS  Food safety requirements for requirements potential export markets  SPS requirements (e.g. fruit flies) for other  Develop packaging international  Develop certification markets (Market system for food safety barriers) and allergens free  Logistics for packaging and export (Perishable)  Certification (evidence for Gluten free products) 31  
  33. 33. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 What questions are we asking ourselves?Types of products What is current production volume? What is current export volume? To which markets are breadfruit exported? What are other potential markets?Different Markets In these export markets, what are customs duties applied? In these export markets what are SPS requirements? Can Mauritius abide by these SPS requirements? Market intelligence in current and potential export markets: Who are the buyers? Price? Need specific varieties? Potential for market development? How consumed?Market demand Who are our competitors? Their Prices? Cost analysis including freight cost? Seasonality of supply from Mauritius v/s others? Development of other products; Processed; Pulp/ canned/ frozen / possible? Cost?Market access Export markets potential for these processed products? What inputs are needed: Infrastructure, technology, packaging, storage conditions, transport conditions, cold-chain? (processed) Forecast of production volume in next 5-10 years? What are requirements to import/ propagate varieties? What is shelf life of varieties? What are current standards for export? Size/ type of packaging? Determine regularity of supply for export markets? Are breadfruit destined for export coming from orchards or backyards? Any orchard project? Can orchard be certified global gap? If marketed as Gluten free, who will certify? What are health and nutritional advantages and How can these be used for marketing? Sensitization of farmers on gap to produce good quality breadfruit, Who/How? What is potential for absorption on local market? 32  
  34. 34. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  Market intelligence: Who are buyers? Preferred way of consuming? Price? Potential for processed products and prioritize? Hotels: Potential? Should new recipes be developed? Marketing of breadfruit on local market: How? Who? For both processed and fresh? What time of the year are competitors exporting? What are the conditions for import of new breadfruit accession? Any strategy to market breadfruit as potential candidates for food security? What are the priorities for Mauritius? Should we have a brand name- branding breadfruit of Mauritius? What are storage conditions of breadfruit before export? What are the requirements for export? (size, weight, type and so on) What is the current practice for sale of breadfruit (whole/ whether semi processed?) Are there any post harvest treatments for breadfruit before export? Which sources of information exist on international trade of breadfruit?Stakeholders involved in issues related to markets and export Who? Why? How?1. APEXHOM  Involved in export policies  Information on export and information standards, market access  Facilitation2. Exporters  Know export markets  Information on export data and constraints3. Producers/ Processors  Need markets to sell  Production information4. AREU  Post-harvest for exports  Research and Development on shelf-life, post-harvest, storage, packaging, Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) etc.5. Enterprise Mauritius  Know export markets  Participation in trade fairs to present breadfruits6. NPPO  SPS for imports and  Allow import of germplasm exports and information on SPS of export matkets7. Laboratories (Food  Testing of pesticides  Testing of pesticide residuesTech Lab)8. Women entrepreneurs  Capacity to produce/  Start processing process9. Chefs/ hotels  Use in restaurants  Use breadfruits – new recipes10. Media  Communicate  Inform public about breadfruit11. Consumer  Inform consumers  Inform consumers aboutorganizations benefits 33  
  35. 35. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  10. Uses of Plant parts other than the fruitReview of the literature:Annex IV, pages 47-49 What do we know? Where are we Where should we be? What is now? missing to get there?Different parts of use of the other use of the other parts R&D on thebreadfruit tree, plant parts at of breadfruit other medicinalmultipurpose tree household than at household value level level, e.g. handicraft for tourism industry/exportCan use timber, fruits, Using onlyseeds, peel bark, latex, fruitsbuds, leaves, flower,spike, treesFood Developing flourUsed for animal FeedUsed for medicinalpurposesUsed for clothingAgro-forestry shadeCaulking for canoesAdhesivesUsed for constructionof buildings,handicrafts, surfboardsWhat questions are we asking ourselves? What are the possible uses of by-products from breadfruit processing? Is there any economic importance of plant parts other that fruit for Mauritius?Stakeholders involved in issues related to uses of plant parts other than the fruit Who? Why? How? 34  
  36. 36. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  11. Consumer preferences, Education and ProductsReview of the literature:Annex IV, pages 50-53 What do we Where are we Where should we what is missing to know? now? be? get there? Most people are People should find itPreferred by discovering how normal that Peoples’ awarenessAsian niche to use breadfruit breadfruit forms part of nutritional valuemarkets in their menu of their diet Develop breadfruit asPreference for a disaster relief foodfresh fruits (food security)Wide range ofproducts Awareness on gluten(international free productsmarkets) e.g.canned Support from the governmentWhat questions are we asking ourselves? Is breadfruit also consumed by Europeans in replacement of potato? In what forms consumers would like to eat breadfruit? Fresh or frozen? Are products demand driven? How has the perception/status of breadfruit changed over the years? Nutritional analysis of derived products (w.r.t. snacking at school)? Need for educating consumers? Survey on consumer preferences? What need to be done to increase consumer? Awareness on importance of breadfruit? Concept of breadfruit festival? Which countries are producing breadfruit flour? Quantity of flour exported and where? How many breadfruit need to replace 1kg of wheat? Cost of production of flour? 35  
  37. 37. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 Stakeholders involved in issues related to Consumer preferences, Education andProducts Who? Why? How?1. Exporter (Sarjua?)  Already have access to  Provide information on export market consumers from international markets and their requirements2. Producers and Processors  Customer Satisfaction  Development of new products3. MoA/ Producers  Create awareness  Breadfruit festivals  Breadfruit consumption campaigns  World Food Day4. Consumer Protection  Platform for local  Consumer acceptance/ Association consumers consumer awareness5. CSO, AREU  Data on breadfruit  Surveys consumption locally  Data on per capita consumption of breadfruit6. Media  Consumer education  Radio talks, TV programs 36  
  38. 38. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 Discussion and Way Forward The last part of the workshop was a plenary session whereby the consortium partnersreflected on that had been achieved during those two days and discussed proposals for theway forward. The aspects that guided the discussions included the role of each partner in thepartnership, expectations from each other and from the facilitators; the means ofcommunication considered appropriate for the consortium members, and planning for futureactivities, including the next workshop.The main conclusions of the discussion sessions are as follows:-  A summary of the workshop will be written up and shared with the participants and stakeholders (through the wiki)  All partners in the consortium and those who are present in the workshop will be required to share the work that they are presently doing (a summary) with respect to breadfruit on the wiki  Various partners are already working in collaboration, but this should be strengthened further by communicating more with each other  Communication will be done through emails and on the wiki, but regular physical meetings will also be arranged at FARC, whereby all important discussions and activities will take place  Frequency of the meetings will depend on the speed at which we are working and how much of the work has been done in a given time-frame  Next workshop is expected to be around mid-March (depending on how fast we are working on the output from workshop 1)  Before next workshop, we are expected to have a meeting on 2nd March 2012, during which a representative from Cole-ACP will be in Mauritius and will join us  Between the 1st and 2nd workshop, we will try to find answers to the questions that were generated during 1st workshop on the wiki and during physical meetings  During the 2nd workshop, a value-chain mapping and analysis will be done    For the questions that remain unanswered, they will be used to generate research questions in the different aspects of the value-chain that had been identified (Also done during second workshop)   In the medium-term, we will try to establish a National Breadfruit Program, under which there will be several project proposals on breadfruit   After the 2nd workshop, a write-shop will be organized by PAEPARD in Nairobi, Kenya   When the project proposals are ready, we will apply for funding at local, regional and international level   Since the idea of using breadfruit as a staple crop is already on the agenda on the government, we will request funding on breadfruit from the government (given that the consortium has already been formed and partners involved are already working on the subject)  37  
  39. 39. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012   The Consortium will participate in events like the Breadfruit Day (organized by the Agricultural Research and Extension Unit), Breadfruit festival and Breadfruit village (Organized by Farmer Organization – MAMCF)   Research will continue for years, but the partners are expected to be in touch throughout the process and contribute to the value chain   This whole process may take years, but without collaboration, it will not be possible Closing remarks Prior to closing the workshop, participants were asked to fill in the evaluation forms for theFirst Partnership Inception Workshop. Mr K Bheenick, Programme Manager at the FARCthanked the participants for their presence and their active participation. He reminded themthat the workshop had been a very productive and exhaustive one as the participants had tothink and probe a lot to compile as much information as possible. This has contributed to theconsortium members having a clearer idea of the current status of the breadfruit sector inMauritius, a joint vision of where we should be, and areas where gaps exist, which may befilled up through Research and Development. He also thanked the facilitators for their effortsand their success in maintaining the level of interaction during the workshop. Finally herequested participants to remain in touch through email and through the wiki, and tocontribute with additional information to answer the questions being asked, as thisinformation will be used in the planning process for the next workshop and the generation ofthe research project proposals. 38  
  40. 40. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012   Annex I – List of Participants Name Institution Job Title Tel Fax EmailMr. Yann Labourdonnais Assistant 266 9533 266 6415 pepiniere.ciaglabo@Goblet Diversification ManagerMr. Yacoob Horticulture Scientific 464 5517 Division Officer (MAIFS)Mrs. AREU Research 670 8249 smyovana@gmail.comSaraspadee ScientistSubramaniamDr. Arvind University of Associate 403 7695 465 5743 Mauritius ProfessorMrs. Sachita National Plant Scientific 464 4872 465 9591 moa-pathology@Jawaheer – Protection Office Officer (MAIFS)Mr. Krit MAMCF/ SFWF Chairman Krit169annu@yahoo.comBeeharryMr. Prithiviraj Small Farmers Technical 433 3249 spwfsp@intnet.muDookithram Welfare Fund OfficerMr. Devanand AREU Extension 261 9216 2619216 mjankee@grays.muBhurtun OfficerMrs. Babita AREU Research 466 1090 ScientistMr. Dharam Independent Agronomist dybachraz@intnet.muBachraz (Farmer Organization)Mrs. Indira FARC Laboratory & 465 1011 465 3344 Indirab.farc@intnet.muBoodhram Nursery ManagerMr. Krishan FARC Programme 465 1011 465 3344 ManagerMs. Varsha FARC Assistant 465 1011 465 3344 sheilajad@hotmail.comJadoo Research ScientistMs. Anishka FARC Trainee 465 1011 465 3344 Anisun24@yahoo.comRamkhalawanMs. Pratima FARC Assistant 465 1011 465 3344 farc@intnet.muGreedharry Research ScientistMr. Kaylasson FARC Assistant 465 1011 465 3344 farc@intnet.muMaistry Research ScientistMrs. Raifa APEXHOM Secretary 433 4906 4334862 apexhom@intnet.muBundhun GeneralMs. Nawsheen Independent PAEPARD 910 1841 nawsheen.hosenally@Hosenally Facilitator gmail.comMr. Toolsee Farmers Service PAEPARD 726 3393 Centre Facilitator 39   
  41. 41. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  Annex II – Workshop Programme Partnership Inception Workshop ProgrammeDAY 1 Thursday 09 February 201209.00 – 09.30 Welcoming Address; Introduction to participants09.30 – 10.00 Introduction to PAEPARD10.00 – 10.30 Concept Note/Presentation of partnerships10.30 – 11.00 TEA BREAK11.00 – 12.00 Workshop Activities; Role of leader/facilitators; Introduction to group work12.00 -13.00 LUNCH13.00 – 14.00 Group Work14.00 – 14.30 TEA BREAK14.30 – 15.30 Group Work / Presentations15.30 – 16.00 Debriefing SessionDAY 2 Friday 10 February 201209.00 – 09.15 Recap of Day 109.15 – 10.15 Group Work/Presentations10.15 – 10.30 TEA BREAK10.30 – 11.30 The Breadfruit Value Chain Analysis Group Work11.30 – 12.00 Presentations12.00 -13.00 LUNCH13.00 – 14.30 Discussion and way forward14.30 – 15.30 Debriefing Session 40  
  42. 42. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  Annex III – List of Stakeholder Institutions of the Breadfruit Sector List of Stakeholder institutions as identified by Consortium partners:  Food and Agricultural Research Council (FARC)  Agricultural Research and Extension Unit (AREU)  University of Mauritius (UoM)  Conserverie Sarjua Ltee  Mauritius Agricultural Marketing Cooperative Federation (MAMCF)  Partner from European Union  Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security (MAIFS)  Association des producteurs et exportateurs horticoles de Maurice (APEXHOM)  Other Exporters  Les Moulins de la Concorde (LMLC)  Producers (Large Scale and Small Scale)  Mouvement Autosuffisance Alimentaire (MAA)  National Plant Protection Office (NPPO)  National Women Entrepreneur Council (NWEC)  Agricultural Policy Analysis Unit (APAU)  Agricultural Marketing Board (AMB)  Ministry of Finance (MOF) 41  
  43. 43. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  Annex IV: Review of the literature Breadfruit Sector Consortium (Mauritius, 2012) Review of Literature (8 Feb 2012)Key: 1. Source 1; Breadfruit: Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops (Diane Ragone, 1997) 2. Source 2; Artocarpus atilis (Diane Ragone, April 2006) 3. Source 3; Breadfruit. Morton, J.1987 4. Source 4; Regeneration guidelines for breadfruit (Ragone D. 2008) 5. Source 5; Postharvest handling Technical Bulletin (New Guyana Marketing Corporation, 2004) 6. Source 6;Farm and Forestry Production and Marketing Profile for Breadfruit(Diane Ragone, 2011) 7. Source 7; Report of First International Symposium on Breadfruit Reasearch and Development (Taylor.M & Ragone. D, 2007, Nadi, Fiji) (This Annex is presented as a separate document) 42  
  44. 44. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  Annex V: Evaluation of the workshop 43  
  45. 45. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  44  
  46. 46. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012  What I liked the most about the workshop  The purpose of the workshop was well explained.  The willingness of all stakeholders to provide maximum information to consortium. The spirit within workshop.  Les interactions entre les différents intervenants qui ont été très intéressantes. Chacun a apporté et partagé les connaissances de la culture du fruit à pain.  The participants were all contributing for the success of the workshop, willing to share all information about their activities; mutual trust; co-operation / team spirit  Discussion / Interaction; New knowledge on breadfruit ; Positive approach of each participant  New methods of brainstorming and analysis  It was very interactive.  Very interactive, lots of new ideas and new information  Work groups, Interactive sessions  The groupwork session and the issues to work upon  Interactive workshop; Group work was interesting  Information exchange.  New ideas about use of breadfruits  (3 blank returns) What I did not like the most about the workshop  Un aspect que l’on ne connait toujours pas, c’est ‘quantifier la demande’  The venue  There was some discussion that was not relevant to the theme  Some information was not relevant  The food  The meal was not balanced, not tasty  (10 blank returns) 45  
  47. 47. First Partnership Inception Workshop Report February 2012 What is the most important lesson I take with me at the end of the workshop  Existence of the project and its coherence on Breadfruit  Spirit of collaboration  Work as a team  Working in groups, with different opinions can help to find better solutions  Working in such a group with people from different sectors / organization where we feel there is a sharing of information increase in knowledge.  Many institutions are working at their level on breadfruit. Collaborative work, sharing of information essential  We should not be working on our own: this leads to duplication of work. We should work in collaboration for a fruitful objective.  Different organisations have different types of information that can be used (information which were not known before)  The importance of value chain approach  Importance of sharing ideas with other institutions  To understand what is the position of our institution in the value chain  La viabilité de la filière dépendera grandement de la volonté du consomateur ; chaque maillon (stakeholder) de la filière est interdépendent. Un travail collectif est un “must”.  (4 blank returns) 46  
  48. 48. Annex IV: Review of the literature (part of the First Partnership Inception Workshop Report)  Breadfruit Sector Consortium (Mauritius, 2012) Review of Literature (8 Feb 2012)Key: 1. Source 1; Breadfruit: Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops (Diane Ragone, 1997) 2. Source 2; Artocarpus atilis (Diane Ragone, April 2006) 3. Source 3; Breadfruit. Morton, J.1987 4. Source 4; Regeneration guidelines for breadfruit (Ragone D. 2008) 5. Source 5; Postharvest handling Technical Bulletin (New Guyana Marketing Corporation, 2004) 6. Source 6;Farm and Forestry Production and Marketing Profile for Breadfruit(Diane Ragone, 2011) 7. Source 7; Report of First International Symposium on Breadfruit Reasearch and Development (Taylor.M & Ragone. D, 2007, Nadi, Fiji) i 
  49. 49. Table of Contents1. Origin and Distribution of breadfruit 1-3  Historical distribution 1-3  Introduction in Mauritius 32. Germplasm 4-8  Varieties in the world 4-6  Varietal characterization 6-7  Genetics3. Environmental requirements 9-11  Weather 9-10  Soil suitability 10-114. Propagation Methods and Planting Materials 12-145. Agronomy and Cultural practices 15-20  Inter-cropping 16-17  Planting density & methods 17-18  Cultural practices 18-19  Pest and Diseases 19-206. Fruiting 21-25  Pollination 21-22  Seasonality 22  Fruit production capacity 22-23 7. Harvest and Postharvest 26-32  Preservation 29-30  Shelf-life 31-328. Product Development and Marketing 33-43  Processing 33-34  Value-added products 34-37  Uses of the fresh fruit 38-40  Nutritional value of fruit 40-429. Markets/Export 44-4610. Uses of Plant parts other than the fruit 47-4911. Consumer Preferences, Education & Products 50-53 ii 
  50. 50. 1. Origin/ Distribution of BreadfruitBreadfruit is an ancient domesticated cultigen and its origin, domestication and distributionmust be considered within a geographic and cultural context. It was first domesticated in thewestern Pacific and spread by humans throughout the region beginning 3000 years ago. Thebreadfruit is believed to be native to a vast area extending from New Guinea through theIndo-Malayan Archipelago to Western Micronesia. The Bismarck Archipelago being thecentre of diversity for wild seeded forms of Artocarpus altilis(Parkinson) Fosberg. Few-seeded and seedless forms occur throughout the Pacific Islands, with the greatest diversityfound in the eastern Pacific in Polynesia. Seedless breadfruit has been widely distributedthroughout the tropical world.Another related species, seeded Artocarpus mariannensisTrécul, is endemic to Belau and theMariana Islands in the western north Pacific. This species has been involved in introgressionwith A. altilis in Micronesia, and numerous seeded and seedless hybrid forms are cultivatedthroughout these islands.The wild, seeded, ancestral form of breadfruit, Artocarpus camansi Blanco, or breadnut, isnative to New Guinea, and possibly the Moluccas (Indonesia) and Philippines. Breadfruit,both seeded and seedless forms, does not naturally occur in the Pacific islands, although long-abandoned plantings are sometimes mistaken for wild trees.Jarrett’s (1959) revision of breadfruit placed it with a group of species thought to naturallyoccur in the Moluccas, New Guinea and the Philippines. Most of the cultivars (seeded andseedless) of breadfruit in Micronesia east of the Mariana Islands exhibit characteristics ofboth A. altilisand A. mariannensis. Artocarpus mariannensis grows wild on the uplifted rockislands of Belau and on the limestone ridges of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands(Fosberg 1960; Coenan and Barrau 1961). Native fruit bats have contributed to its dispersal.It is cultivated throughout the islands of Micronesia and south into Kiribati, Tuvalu andTokelau. Artocarpus mariannensaisnd hybrids are well adapted to atoll conditions and aremore tolerant of salinity than A. altilis.Historical distributionBreadfruit is cultivated on most Pacific islands, with the exception of New Zealand andEaster Island. It is now pantropical in distribution. It is said to have been widely spread in thePacific area by migrating Polynesians, and Hawaiians believed that it was brought from theSamoan island of Upalu to Oahu in the 12th Century A.D. It is said to have been first seen byEuropeans in the Marquesas in 1595, then in Tahiti in 1606.The dissemination of seedless breadfruit beyond Oceania is well documented and involvesonly a handful of cultivars, primarily Tahitian. Breadfruit has been an evocative symbol ofOceania since Europeans first ventured into the region in the late 1600s. After the long, oftenarduous, sailing voyage from Europe to the islands, ship-worn sailors were amazed anddelighted by a tree that produced prolific fruits that, when roasted, resembled fresh bread.They were especially impressed by the ease with which this abundant food was produced.Numerous accounts were published about this wonder fruit, beginning with Quiros whosailed with Mendana on voyages during 1595-1606. He described seedless breadfruit in theMarquesas and seeded breadfruit in the Solomon Islands (Markham 1904). The Spanish mayhave introduced seedless breadfruit to Guam from elsewhere in the Pacific in the 1600s tohelp provision their new colony. They did introduce seedless breadfruit to the Philippines in Literature Review Page 1  Source 1; Breadfruit ( Ragone, 1997); Source 2; Artocarpus atilis (Ragone, 2006); Source 3; . Breadfruit. Morton, J.1987; Source 4; Regeneration guidelines for breadfruit(Ragone 2008); Source 5; Postharvest handling Technical Bulletin(New Guyana Marketing Corporation, 2004) ; Source 6: Farm and Forestry Production and Marketing Profile for Breadfruit(Ragone,2011); Source 7; First International Symposium on Breadfruit Research and Development (Taylor.M & Ragone. D, 2007, Nadi, Fiji)
  51. 51. the 17th century (Wester 1924). Dampier (1729) was the first to document the use ofbreadfruit in the Mariana Islands. He was particularly enthusiastic about breadfruit’s use andpotential, crediting it for saving the lives of his starving, scurvy-ridden crew in 1686.At the beginning of the 18th Century, the early English explorers were loud in its praises, andits fame, together with several periods of famine in Jamaica between 1780 and 1786, inspiredplantation owners in the British West Indies to petition King George III to import seedlessbreadfruit trees to provide food for their slaves. Various accounts by participants of CaptainJames Cook’s first voyage to Tahiti in 1768 had a major impact and focused much attentionon breadfruit. The botanist John Ellis (1775) summarized the accounts of early voyagers andwas one of the first to suggest in writing that the breadfruit be most useful to all theinhabitants, especially the slaves.In the late 1700s several seedless varieties were introduced to Jamaica and St. Vincent fromTahiti, and a Tongan variety was introduced to Martinique and Cayenne via Mauritius. ThesePolynesian varieties were then spread throughout the Caribbean and to Central and SouthAmerica, Africa, India, Southeast Asia, Madagascar, the Maldives, the Seychelles, Indonesia,Sri Lanka, and northern Australia. Breadfruit is also found in south FloridaThere is good evidence that the French navigator Sonnerat in 1772 obtained the seededbreadfruit in the Philippines and brought it to the French West Indies. It seems also that someseedless and seeded breadfruit plants reached Jamaica from a French ship bound forMartinique but captured by the British in 1782. There were at least two plants of the seededbreadfruit in Jamaica in 1784 and distributions were quickly made to the other islands.. Thereis a record of a plant having been sent from Martinique to the St. Vincent Botanical Gardenbefore 1793. The story of Captain Blighs first voyage to Tahiti, in 1787, and the loss of hiscargo of 1,015 potted breadfruit plants on his disastrous return voyage is well known. He setout again in 1791 and delivered 5 different kinds totaling 2,126 plants to Jamaica in February1793. On that island, the seedless breadfruit flourished and it came to be commonly plantedin other islands of the West Indies, in the lowlands of Central America and northern SouthAmerica. In some areas, only the seedless type is grown, in others, particularly Haiti, theseeded one is more common. Jamaica is by far the leading producer of the seedless type,followed by St. Lucia. In New Guinea, only the seeded type is grown for food.It has been suggested that the seeded breadfruit was carried by Spaniards from the Philippinesto Mexico and Central America long before any reached the West Indies.In recent years, some breadnut trees have been planted in French Polynesia, New Caledonia,Palau, Pohnpei, and Hawai‘i, mainly by Philippine immigrants.Effect of high winds on plantsBreadfruit trees are prone to damage or destruction from high winds and the accompanyingsalt spray and intrusion of salt water into the water table during severe storms. The low-lyingatolls, such as the Marshall Islands, Tokelau and parts of the Federated States of Micronesia,have been repeatedly inundated by storm generated tides, resulting in uprooting ordestruction of numerous breadfruit trees. In the past decade, many atolls and high islandshave experienced destructive storms of hurricane strength. The same applies to the Caribbeanwhere many islands were hard hit by hurricanes during the 1990s. The impact of storms onislands that rely heavily on breadfruit for a staple food is devastating. For example, in 1990,Hurricane ‘Ofa’ destroyed as much as 100% of the breadfruit crop in Samoa, and between 50and 90% of big; mature trees were blown over, depending on location (Clarke 1992). A Literature Review Page 2  Source 1; Breadfruit ( Ragone, 1997); Source 2; Artocarpus atilis (Ragone, 2006); Source 3; . Breadfruit. Morton, J.1987; Source 4; Regeneration guidelines for breadfruit(Ragone 2008); Source 5; Postharvest handling Technical Bulletin(New Guyana Marketing Corporation, 2004) ; Source 6: Farm and Forestry Production and Marketing Profile for Breadfruit(Ragone,2011); Source 7; First International Symposium on Breadfruit Research and Development (Taylor.M & Ragone. D, 2007, Nadi, Fiji)