preinception_day1

=**MilkIT pre-inception meeting; Nairobi 24-25 Jan 2012**=

Day One: Tuesday 24th January 2012 Room 720, ILRI Campus, Nairobi 9.00am – 5.00pm


 * 1. Introductions **


 * 2. Introducing the MilkIT project - Alan Duncan **


 * Introduction to project – why MilkIT?
 * Funding mechanism: Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)
 * Designed to //provide research support to IFAD investment projects//
 * Think about how MilkIT relates to wider goals and how it links to what IFAD are doing
 * Building on FAP – chance to bring in ILRI expertise
 * Working through innovation platforms to achieve objectives
 * Tools (meeting scheduled for March 5 in Nairobi)


 * 3. Introducing Irish Aid project - Amos Omore **


 * Addresses all of the issues in original concept note, plus additional requests by Sokoine University [SUA] (e.g. capacity building activities)
 * Designed as //support to CGIAR 3.7//
 * Potential link with Irish universities/visit to make connections (potential limitation: little experience of working in developing countries?)
 * Short-term objectives (during the year) and longer-term objectives (over 5 years)
 * Addressing inter-related problems faced by resource-poor milk producers
 * Choosing the appropriate dairy milk hub model: community-based hub, based on Kenyan model
 * Activities: Plan to work together with MilkIT (explore synergies later in afternoon session )

// Discussion //
 * Stress on “pro-poor” – marginalised communities with commercial potential
 * Trying to push the frontiers of dairy development


 * 4. How do these projects fit within CRP3.7? - Tom/Michael **


 * The ‘hook’ – //measurable, significant impact// by focusing on only a select few dairy chains (India and Tanzania - MilkIT)
 * Idea is to stimulate and catalyse
 * Phased approach: stakeholder engagement, identifying starting point, trial the intervention, initiate research projects and secure funding
 * Drawing on EADD traditional hub and building on it to strengthen new projects
 * Difficulty in FAP: integration of activities across the three countries
 * New challenge: standardising practice – //strong local partners needed//
 * Report by component
 * Spreadsheet -- 3.7 emphasis is not on specific activities, but on deliverables

// Discussion //
 * MilkIT is activity-based, so should activities be listed in spreadsheet in addition to the project deliverables?


 * 5. Coffee **


 * 6. Briefing on scoping missions to India and Tanzania - Brigitte and Nils **


 * Tanzania (August 2011) **
 * Familiarising with efforts, meeting potential partners, exploring
 * Visited Arusha/Tanga/Morogoro/Dar es Salaam [see ppt. presentation for further info.]
 * Tanga //very// appealing – the number one area, has already had extensive input (open to criticism?) and has an efficient milk processor (Tanga Fresh)
 * IFAD Tanzania currently works with a different target group (support for pastoral and agro-pastoral development)
 * IFAD requested MilkIT to work in both, or either, Zanzibar or Manyara region

// Discussion //
 * ** Need to seriously consider Manyara area ** (visit to Manyara needed)
 * Focus on __feed__


 * India (December 2011) **


 * Visited Uttarakhand – Dehradun / Almora [see ppt. presentation for further info.]
 * State with most IFAD livestock linkages (project office in Dehradun)
 * Many projects start on technical support and then move to institutions – but other way round in this instance
 * IFAD only working in 5 of the 15 districts (the poorest areas)
 * Current MilkIT stage - partner and site selection – multiple issues on site selection (to be discussed tomorrow)


 * 7. Change in Schedule [See no.11]**


 * 8. Innovation platforms - philosophy and practice – Alan **


 * Traditional linear pathway to the farmer – i.e. research à extension à farmer
 * Modern innovative systems approach focuses on the actors rather than technologies
 * Research is now //inside// the chain of communication
 * Who are the stakeholders within the system? And, how can they be brought together?
 * Improving efficiency of the value chain
 * Innovation process in Ada’a, Ethiopia (2008 – 2009) – sustainable as system is able to continue once the project is completed

// Discussion //
 * Innovation platforms need quick benefits – therefore a lot less challenges around dairy projects
 * Providing pull for technologies
 * Success in stimulating feed is only the beginning, production must also be stimulated


 * 9. Value chain analysis - experience from EADD and ideas for MilkIT – Ben **

– Step 2: Developing methodology & approach – Step 3: Identifying & developing tools – Step 4: Planning (involving all actors)
 * Process used – Step 1: Identifying key value chains
 * Need for in-depth study of each value chain

// Discussion //
 * Determining factor for technology = milk marketing (whether farmers were able to market their milk). Less developed hubs face lower adoption of technology
 * Condition for technologies, such as pulverizing / chopping, to succeed is currently still a process of trial and error
 * Technology is helping farmers save money (pulverizing process increases input, eases storage, etc.)
 * ** Need to clarify what is meant by “value chain analysis” ** – can develop map to gain a better picture and to involve stakeholders (focus on the commodity, but also on the feed elements of that)


 * 10. Activity plan for MilkIT - brainstorm on what each activity is about and what might be done in year 1 - led by Alan **



// Discussion //
 * Other issues will be raised, such as livestock theft. Therefore, start with **milk** and feed will inevitably crop up.
 * Frame the question is such a way that it is //compelling//
 * Two main challenges = formation and sustainability (we need an ‘innovation challenge’ and need the project to eventually become self-sustainable after ILRI leaves)


 * 11. Where are the synergies between MilkIT and Irish Aid projects and how do achieve them strategically and on the ground? – Amos **


 * Individual performance measures & whole chain performance measures
 * Map out **what** gets traded and **where** (What are the main products? What route is taken? Seasonal interruptions? How much money is exchanging hands? Is there any spare cash in the chain?)
 * Such questions can be used to organize a structured conversation within an innovation platform
 * Mapping tool leads to more fruitful questioning
 * Mapping tool à rapid assessment à survey (look at most recent surveys for guidance)
 * Irish Aid looking for factors to try out market hubs. Where is the market failure at a horizontal level where we could run a hub and solve some of the problems. Horizontal tools would be useful for MilkIT.


 * Irish Aid – what can be done together with MilkIT? **

Output 1. //Institutional Strengthening//
 * Rough information will be fed into stakeholder meeting, providing background for rapid assessment
 * Some of the broad analysis will be useful to both IA and MilkIT and rapid assessment will be the same
 * Irish Aid will be trying to make an inventory from the output side (dairy market), and will use MilkIT’s findings from the input side (feed)
 * Situational analysis – Irish Aid may advise MilkIT on technologies and legal rights by studying the output

Output 3. //Baseline survey//
 * Avoiding overlap between household survey and rapid assessment

// Site selection //
 * Two contrasting sites, each with two hubs.
 * One EADD 2 site was 50km radius with two hubs, whereas MilkIT would have one hub per larger site

// Effective cross-project communication //
 * Methods wiki would be good so that people can go online and download maps
 * Meeting in March will also be a good platform for further discussion and communication
 * Yammer
 * Google Docs?

// Steering groups //
 * **Irish Aid and MilkIT both keen to adopt steering groups at national level**

// Additional discussion //
 * Gates Project Tanzania (Derek) **
 * Constraints analysis
 * Extensive household level database (nationwide)
 * Funding confirmed for workshops that will validate situational analysis data and question which constraints are measurable
 * People needed to head up ‘feed’ at these workshops: domestic specialists (Ministry of Agriculture) and MilkIT team members


 * Technoserve **
 * Amos to forward email to everyone


 * 12. Partner roles and modus operandi - discussion led by Nils **


 * We have good partners and want to continue working with them
 * It is a long process, however **.**
 * Most successful partnerships are those who use ILRI to their own advantage (came up with own ideas and have a known interest so come up with own agenda and are relatively independent)
 * FAP example – one major partner appointed for each site (in-country workshop held to discuss timeline, deliverables, budget mirrored main project plan)
 * To what extent would IFAD be involved?
 * One or two major partners in each country (NGO in Uttarakhand, VPKAS and Universities have potential)
 * Logical to single out someone in order to have an institution leading the process
 * Good to think about what criticism site selection might face by prospective partners
 * A pilot site in Zanzibar (lower scale) should reflect work being done on the other two sites
 * Second choice would be Southern Islands if not Manyara. Manyara would only be possible if Arusha is chosen.
 * ** Next step for partner selection -- ** in India: Nils speak to IFAD; Tanzania: Brigitte speak to _

// Discussion //
 * Do we know enough about the record of potential partners to make an informed decision?