writeshop

= MilkIT feed innovation writeshop = 3-6 March 2015 Zanzibar, Tanzania

Some blogposts from the project (also december meetings)


 * ILRI feeds blog


 * ILRI clippings blog

Collated rough notes from the Lushoto discussions:



Participants

 * **Name** || **Institution** || **Location** || **Arrive date** || **Arrive flight** || **Arrive time** || **Depart date** || **Depart flight** || **Depart time** ||
 * Brigitte Maass || CIAT || Nairobi || 2-Mar || KQ 6710 || 0950 || 14-Mar || KQ 6713 || 1635 ||
 * Amos Omore || ILRI || Dar-es-Salaam || 2-Mar ||  || 1705 || 6-Mar ||   || 1600 ||
 * Thanammal Ravichandran || ILRI || Hyderabad || 2-Mar ||  || 0950 || 6-Mar ||   || ===== 0535 ===== ||
 * Nils Teufel || ILRI || Nairobi || 2-Mar ||  || 1010 || 6-Mar ||   || 1040 ||
 * Ben Lukuyu || ILRI || Nairobi || 2-Mar ||  || 1010 || 6-Mar ||   || 1040 ||
 * Fred Wassena || Independent || Morogoro, Tz || 2-Mar ||  || 1705 || 6-Mar ||   || 1600 ||
 * Birthe Paul || CIAT || Nairobi || 2-Mar ||  || 1010 || 6-Mar ||   || 1040 ||
 * Peter Ballantyne || ILRI || Addis || 2-Mar || ET815 || 1440 || 6-Mar || ET814 || 1545 ||
 * Saskia Hendrickx || ILRI || Maputo || 2-Mar || KQ6712 || 2025 || 6-Mar || KQ6715 || 1935 ||
 * Julius Bwire || TALIRI || Tanga, Tz || 2-Mar ||  || 1705 || 6-Mar ||   || 1430 ||
 * Germana Laswai || SUA || Morogoro, Tz || 2-Mar ||  || 1705 || 6-Mar ||   || 1600 ||
 * Katherine Snyder || CIAT || Nairobi || 2-Mar ||  || 1010 || 6-Mar ||   || 1040 ||
 * Alan Duncan || ILRI || Addis || 2-Mar || ET815 || 1440 || 6-Mar || ET814 || 1545 ||
 * Annet Mulema || ILRI || Addis || 2-Mar || ET815 || 1440 || 6-Mar || ET814 || 1545 ||
 * Paul Mundy || Independent || Cologne || 1-Mar || PW437 || 2345 || 6-Mar || KL567 || 1945 ||
 * Mercy Becon || ILRI || Dar-es-Salaam || 2-Mar ||  || 1705 || 6-Mar ||   || 1600 ||
 * Godfrey Bwana || Independent || Dar-es-Salaam || 2-Mar ||  || ==== 1705 ==== || 6-Mar ||   || ====1600==== ||

**Products**
If your name is not listed, 'edit' page and put it next to the product that most interests you. Click on the link in the **Product** column for guidelines on how to write the document draft. Brigitte/Peter || Current structure: =Introduction= Single farmer story of how MilkIT changed his life from being a migrant worker to a dairy entrepreneur
 * ~ Code ||~ Product ||~ Authors (lead in bold) ||~ Key messages ||
 * 01 || Cross-country working paper on innovation platforms/institutional strengthening/value chains || **Nils**/Thanammal/Alan/Amos/

How did this happen? =Intro into MilkIT=

Main messages with explanations

**1. Market pull creates interest and initiative with producers and organisations**
 * Types of VC interventions (IP documentation: sequence of discussions – comparison of sites; Chhona experience?)
 * Examples of initiative, examples? Jeganath coop (shop, transport), women’s groups / taboos, Aanchal study
 * Sequencing of VC – production (Amos)

**2. Open and collaborative communication amongst stakeholders is needed to bring various organisations together to address different issues**
 * Communication in IPs (IP documentation: types of participants; IP products, role of trials, local voices; visits; difficulties faced) –
 * Role of documentation for IP progress (documented issues, activities, responsibilities, time lines; revisiting progress and correcting direction if necessary)
 * Peter’s piece
 * Sequence of organisation types getting involved – focus on which issues, type of involvement (evidence?)

3. Combined efforts by many stakeholders lead to considerable change in a short time & beyond the innovation platform boundaries.

 * Technical change (Records of change uptake?)
 * Institutional change (Almora meeting notes)
 * Sustainable change characteristics (Alan' text)

Previous suggestions:
I suggest here a policy brief for each country that draws upon the cross-country working paper if that is also needed. For Tanzania, we could work around a brief that ties the DDF to regional (Morogoro and Tanga) and village innovation platforms and draws lessons from them - the key points of which could be along the lines... feed innovation development process,
 * The Dairy Development Forum (DDF) is taking root as an informal and neutral space where dairy value chain actors and other stakeholders meet regularly to co-innovate to overcome identified key challenges in Tanzania’s dairy industry, which is among the most promising agricultural pathways for greater wealth, health and the overall economy of the country
 * The identified challenges that need to be urgently addressed and around which working groups have been formed include: 1) strategies for expanding the national dairy herd and 2) business solutions for year round availability of quality feeds. A third cross-cutting challenge being addressed across these two challenges is filling gaps in dairy technology and agribusiness skills
 * To deepen its reach in Tanzania, some DDF participants are nurturing local area innovation platforms at regional (e.g., in Morogoro), following lessons of the Tanga dairy platform that has thrived since its formation in 2008, and in villages
 * Key lessons from these platforms indicate that….. ||
 * 02 || Cross-country working paper on productivity enhancement || **Ben**/Brigitte/Thanammal/Julius/ Germana || why don't we combine this with above?

What are constraints and opportunities? What are the entry points? ||
 * 03 || Cross-country working paper on scaling and knowledge exchange || **Alan**/Nils/Amos || Draft [|here]

Key points: The research was a lot about the developing **processes** for designing improved feed and value chain interventions for dairy. Those looking on often miss this point and focus on the outcomes and want to scale those outcomes. We need to find a way of communicating that fact that there are only limited shortcuts to engaging in the process. The process (FEAST, IP's etc) help us to design good context-relevant interventions and help to build the local ownership essential to their success. Leaving out the process misses the whole point and returns us to business as usual. On knowledge exchange, we found both IP's and the FEAST process as well as their combination to help get the right issues on the table quickly and to spread the word about what the key constraints were and what needed to be done about them. The paper will offer reflections on this.

An alternative broader pitch we could consider that also includes the above (suggestion by Amos): **Motivation:** 1. results: knowledge pathway impact results, IP document analysis results, relationship with IP meeting and impact, 2. what factors influenced the impact || (no rocket science, just good targeting e.g. feed trough detail plus cost-benefit analysis. Including Techfit work in TZ) || **Brigitte**/Thanammal/Birthe/Julius?/ Germana?/ Katherine? || **Utilize better what is already there--on farm!** Focus on mixed crop-livestock systems IND & TZA
 * Ask ourselves the key contribution to policy on services delivery that we want to make given experiences from the project
 * To my mind we should pitch this as a contribution that responds to frustrations with designing an appropriate integrated approach to agricultural research and extension which would in turn respond to technologies, knowledge and information needs of farmers and value chain actors in spaces that allow partnerships among them to flourish.
 * Given that continued allocation of resources to agricultural research and extension has barely alleviated the ongoing plight of poor farmers, what could experiences from processes engaged in by MilkIT (FEAST tool and IPs process) contribute?
 * Use this as our ‘entrance’ strategy for where and to whom project results and approaches could be taken up (e.g., ongoing debate of ag extension reform for Tanzania; IFAD in India?)
 * Ingredients:**
 * Review literature on ag research/knowledge and extension services delivery: failures and successes (e.g., models like FFS that haven’t quite worked in livestock!)
 * Summarize the key challenges in livestock extension
 * Explain the experiences from IPs and FEAST interventions in MilkIT (and Maziwa Zaidi linkages) that could contribute to filling gaps.
 * Integrate examples from the other MilkIT papers
 * Identify missing elements (e.g., M&E). We could also look at this from the context of AKIS or ‘communication for innovation’ beyond just receiving messages and adopting the right technologies that hasn’t worked. //Lots have been writes about these ideals but very little on successful practices. I see documents our experiences in MilkIT as useful in filling this gap//
 * Discussion**
 * How could the missing gaps be filled?
 * How could existing agricultural research and extension systems relate or be reformed to better relate? ||
 * 04 || Paper on proof of concept on innovation platform impact || **Thanammal** and Nils || as per Journal structure
 * 05 || Brief on appropriate feed technologies
 * Housing, troughs to avoid wastage
 * Choppers for higher intake
 * Benefiting women

TZA: - appropriate technology depends on livestock production system (different for cut-and-carry then from grazing) - in extensive systems with weak land property rights, regulations need to be in place before improved forage technologies can be introduced - in cut-and-carry systems, superior forage varieties can play a role (variety matters!), especially where Napier stunting disease is a challenge; chopping grass for better feed utilization; silage? we need cost-benefit analysis from Greg here IND: - hay making, chopping grass - troughs to reduce feed wastage || - Generally, village IPs would be at too low level to interest a broad variety of VC stakeholders, especially from private sector --> so district level would be better; if only producers are in the group, you cannot develop the VC - Women empowerment worked especially in Maasai villages - Usefulness of village IP might depend on TZA: empowerment of women and girls to actively participate in village meetings (especially Maasai), speak up at the same table with the regional government by engaged (again!) Maasai woman How to to deal with this? What are the things that we need to take into account? What are the main issues that can recommend government and NGO partners that want to use this approach. Example from India (imGoats) - PROSUL (Mozambique) Other examples? Two aspects of scaling (refer drop box document) (drafted by Paul) ||  || (drafted by Paul) ||  ||
 * Initial brainstorming**
 * 06 || Brief on village innovation platforms – what worked and why? || **Birthe**/Brigitte/Fred/ Bwana || Tanzania:
 * nature of the most pressing constraints
 * level of VC development: gains are lower hanging fruits if starting point is lower (example of influencing local governments for land use regulations)
 * we can also include India, i will come with points in next two days? *** ||
 * we07 || IP practice brief on gender and innovation platforms || **Annet**/Katherine/Thanammal || IND: gender participation (IP documentation analysis) and changes in the dairy value chain, gender role transformation from producer to secretary for milk collection and head load transport of milk etc.
 * In Uttarakhand few innovations have emerged to address women’s issues- women friendly chaff cutters developed (the chaff cutters distributed by government were heavy and require 2 labourers and there is only one women in family as men migrate. this issue addressed through IP).
 * Gender based participation and issues addressed - issues raised by women but not addressed by government department- voice not heard, distance of institution. ||
 * 08 || IP practice brief on scaling and innovation platforms || **Saskia**/Nils/Alan || Taking IP from research project to (larger scale) development projects. From projects with a few hundreds beneficiaries to several thousands.
 * Scaling successful innovations
 * Scaling approach (IP) as Alan says ”struggle-success-scale struggle” or scaling success also can bring changes- debate question? Arguments
 * o Struggle to find the right innovations or making all actors together
 * o But after finding the success- still need for the struggle for scaling
 * o Other hand- context is important for the success- scaling will not yield changes in all context- need for struggle to find right success ||
 * 09 || Whiteboard presentation: innovation platforms to identify (and act on) promising solutions to dairy development - see original flipchart poster from Dar meeting || Thannamal/Brigitte (drafted by Paul) ||  ||
 * 10 || Whiteboard presentation: Linking technical with market interventions - see original flipchart poster from Dar meeting || Nils/Alan
 * 11 || Whiteboard presentation: Using feed diagnostic and prioritization tools to target feed interventions - see original flipchart poster from Dar meeting || Ben/Fred/Birthe
 * 12 || Policy brief: Taking root from multi-stakeholder processes in Tanzania || **Amos**/Brigitte/Bwana/Julius/Fred || DDF, regional and local levels ||

Background resources

 * [[file:MilkIT writeshop guidelines.docx|MilkIT writeshop guidelines]]
 * [[file:Guidelines on document structure d1.docx|Guidelines for structuring all documents]]
 * Notes from the Lushoto and Dar discussions that led to this list of products
 * Previous IP practice briefs
 * Example of the short poster whiteboard we aim to produce scripts for