Fodder Adoption and Innovation Projects (FAP and FIP)

Presentation by Ranjitha Puskur and Alan Duncan (ILRI) to the CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme Livestock Policy Group Meeting, 1 December 2009

1. 1
Fodder Adoption and Innovation
Projects (FAP and FIP)
Ranjitha Puskur and Alan Duncan
International Livestock Research Institute
December 2009
Presentation: CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme
Livestock Policy Group, 1 December 2009

2. 2
Enhancing livelihoods of livestock
dependant poor people through
increasing use of fodder

FAPIFAD CIAT, ICARDA, ILRIEthiopia,
Syria &
Vietnam
FIPDFID UNU/MERIT –
CRISP, ICRISAT, IITA
India &
Nigeria

3. 3
FIP Phase-I (2003-2006)
Approach- Identification and dissemination of
improved varieties of fodder
LESSONS
Promoting fodder technologies is not enough
Need to shift from a technology transfer to
capacity strengthening approach-(Requires the
building of local systems for change --- an
innovation system)
Understand the importance of institutions,
interactions and policies

4. 4
Aims of the Projects
FAP - Strengthening capacity of poor
livestock keepers to select and adopt
fodder options and access market
opportunities to enable them to improve
their livelihoods and the sustainability of
their farming systems
FIP - Enhancing fodder innovation
capacity in equitable ways in India and
Nigeria

5. 5
Emphases in IS thinking
Actors
Linkages
Habits and practices
Policy environment
How does it help?

6. 6
A new paradigm in agricultural
development?
What’s the old paradigm?

7. 7
Adoption of new technologies by
smallholders is generally low
New technologies developed by researchers do
not find their way into mainstream practice very
easily
Picture of UMB Picture of maize lablab
Urea straw treatment
UMB
Images from FAO
Cereal/legume
intercropping

8. 8
Historical approaches to fodder
development
Research Extension Farmer
Linear thinking

9. 9
Value chain and innovation
systems
Urban
wholesaler
Rural
Farmer
Collector
Urban dairy
producer
Urban
consumer
Sorghum
Rural
farmer
Chopped
stover
Collector
Bagged
stover
Urban
wholesaler
Raw milk
Urban
dairy producer
Proc. Milk
Urban
consumer

10. 10
Embedding research and
extension in a wider system
Urban
wholesaler
Rural
Farmer
Collector
Urban dairy
producer
Urban
consumer
Urban
wholesaler
Rural
Farmer
Collector
Urban dairy
producer
Urban
consumer
Research Extension
Urban
wholesaler
Rural
Farmer
Collector
Urban dairy
producer
Urban
consumer
Urban
wholesaler
Rural
Farmer
Collector
Urban dairy
producer
Urban
consumer
Research
Extension

11. 11
What does it mean in practice?
Establishment
of stakeholder
networks
Focus on
promising
technologies
(labour, economics,
demand-driven)
Establishment
of stakeholder
networks
Focus on
promising
technologies
(labour, economics,
demand-driven)
Focus on
promising
technologies
(labour, economics,
demand-driven)
Establishment
of stakeholder
networks
Focus on
promising
technologies
(labour, economics,
demand-driven)

12. 12
FAP
IPMS
Ministry
(extension)
NARSFAP
IPMS
Ministry
(extension)
NARS
Fodder
options
identified
Seed
sourced
44 farmers
plant on
own fields
X-bred cows
sourced
Farmers
purchase
seed
60 farmers
plant on
own fields
Milk transport
issues voiced
May 2008
Oct 2009
Dairy co-op
formed
FAP
IPMS
Ministry
(extension)
NARS
Ethiopian
Meat & Dairy
Tech Inst.
Eden Field
Seeds
Land o Lakes
FAP
IPMS
Ministry
(extension)
NARS
Ethiopian
Meat & Dairy
Tech Inst.
Eden Field
Seeds
Land o Lakes
Milk transport
negotiations
ongoing
FAP
IPMS
Ministry
(extension)
NARS
Ethiopian
Meat & Dairy
Tech Inst.
Eden Field
Seeds
Land o Lakes
Ada’aDairy
Co-op
Crop Grow
plc
GodinoDairy
Co-op
FAP
IPMS
Ministry
(extension)
NARS
Ethiopian
Meat & Dairy
Tech Inst.
Eden Field
Seeds
Land o Lakes
Ada’aDairy
Co-op
Crop Grow
plc
GodinoDairy
Co-op
O
r
g
a
n
is
a
t
io
n
a
l in
n
o
v
a
t
io
n
T
e
c
h
n
ic
a
l in
n
o
v
a
t
io
n
Innovation processes in Ada’a Ethiopia

13. 13
Fodder Innovation Project (FIP)

14. 14
Phase-II (2007-2009)
Approach/Research Design:
–Explore ways of strengthening fodder innovation
capacity
•action research with selected partner organisations
(India and Nigeria)
•institutional and policy analysis
•develop an “interface” between research and
policy making through establishing a policy
working group (FIPWG)
Key question to be answered- What is required
to strengthen capacity for innovation and
change?

15. 15
Fodder Innovation Capacity
We argue that
Fodder innovation capacity will be
strengthened when institutional and policy
change enable a continuous process of
framing and reframing of the way fodder-
relevant knowledge is created, diffused,
adapted, shared and put into use
Or, to put it more simply,
if we could improve networking among the
wide range of organisations having fodder-
livestock relevant knowledge, it could enable
institutional and policy changes needed for
innovation to happen.

16. 16
FIP2
Worked with a range of KPOs
–Government (RAGACOVAS – a traditional veterinary
university)
–Semi-government (SG2000 – extension and technology
focused)
–Non-Government (FES, WOTR, JDPC – broader rural
development agenda, community empowerment and
collective action focus)
In each site, action was based on context-specific
themes - ranging from fodder focus to
commercialization of smallholder goat farming.
This led to very context and theme-specific network
building process, with different entry points (ranging
from forest seeding with fodder species to animal
vaccination camps).
Different trajectories are beginning to evolve.

17. 17
Project components
Development of
conceptual framework
and research design
Landscaping exercise
for partner selection
(KPOs)
Livestock practice and
socio-economic
benchmarking
Fodder innovation
capacity diagnosis
shared understanding of the new
approach
sympathy, diversity, poverty focus,
scale and links to policy and social
science expertise
to understand change in impact
(before and after)
rapid for identification of research
themes specific for each KPO
location
detailed for benchmarking and
tracking changes in capacity – the
focus was on analysis of actors,
institutions, patterns of interaction
and policies

18. 18
Project components-cont’d
Development and
implementation of rolling
action plans
Development of
monitoring and learning
system
Institutional and policy
study at national level
Innovation mentoring or
coaching to partners
Formation of Fodder
Innovation Policy Working
Groups (FIPWG)
ongoing to deal with new
challenges and opportunities
primarily to track changes in
behaviour of individuals,
organisations and networks
to understand macro-level issues
that impinge on local innovation
processes
help the KPOs/networks to
appreciate the value of their
actions, analyse outcomes and help
redefine action plans
Link research and policy

19. 19
Immediate outcomes
Farm level outcomes
Some changes in farm and livestock feeding practices
(JDPC, Ragacovas), but at a very early stage.
New arrangements for fodder supply (Ragocovas)- dairy co-
operative emerged as the intermediary between fodder
entrepreneurs and livestock keepers
New fodder production initiatives in WOTR with forest
department, agricultural university and department of
Animal husbandry.
Better coverage in vaccination through organising animal
health camps collaboratively (FES)
More efficient and co-ordinated service provision to
farmers (FES, SG-2000)
Retrieving a portion of encroached grazing lands (SG 2000)
Increased demand for inputs and services - fodder seeds,
knowledge on balanced feeding

20. 20
Immediate outcomes
System level behavioural changes
Unusual partnerships- Goat producer and goat
merchants(JDPC); Agricultural University and Forest
Department (WoTR)
Collaboration in vaccine supply and african swine fever
research (JDPC and NVRI); new demands for research
support-improved goat breeds
Taking on new responsibilities: From training on fodder
aspects to co-ordinating fodder platform and liaising with
different actors (Ragacovas)
Attempts at mainstreaming innovation systems approach
(FES)
Invitation to contribute to national fodder planning and
policy discussions (Planning Commission, India)
Better co-ordination and streamlining activities by 3
different organisations-KNARDA, LGA, FADAMA-III (SG-2000)
Articulation of emerging problems, and collective search for
solutions

21. 21
Some lessons..
Appropriate technology (e.g. planted fodder)
introduced through existing stakeholders is
useful catalyst for raising and addressing
broader system constraints
However, fodder is too narrow a theme for
building networks
Building networks around crop- livestock
value chains and building innovation capacity
at that level seems more appropriate
Working with stakeholder platforms means
technological focus soon gives way to
organizational issues

22. 22
Some lessons..
 Facilitating stakeholder platforms is time-
consuming and monitoring change is not
trivial.
Highlights the critical role of
broker/connector/catalyst organisations
-depending on ground situation (history of
partners and the degree of social capital
they bring is critical)

23. 23
Some lessons..
Implications for how R4D projects are
designed and managed – both for research
managers and donors.
–traditional logframes and M&E systems may
not be very appropriate.
–project financial management and planning
needs to be untied, flexible and nimble to
accommodate actions to address emerging
opportunities and challenges effectively

24. 24
Some lessons..
Engaging policy actors from the beginning
helps in finding windows for influence and
ownership for research results
Feedback from policy stakeholders is that the
evidence is very valuable, but the evidence
base is narrow/small.
Processes and lessons need longer timeframe
to mature before they have currency in policy
debates and changes.

25. 25
FIP-FAP Meta analysis
Why and how?
To distil lessons on effective ways of
developing systems and capabilities to
innovate in different contexts in the
smallholder livestock sector, and
respond to challenges and opportunities
Draws on empirical evidence emerging
from the FIP and the FAP projects, and
literature in the relevant fields

26. 26
Objectives
compare and contrast different
approaches and contexts that impinge
on innovation network formation and
performance
document and share good and replicable
practices
develop guidance on innovation network
formation and performance
Identify mechanisms for making
innovation networks sustainable and
pro-poor

27. 27
Where do we go from here….
Networks have formed and are beginning to
perform..
Sites set up to be effective learning laboratories –
opportunity to follow the innovation trajectories
and how innovation capacity evolves
Building on this, we could form innovation
platforms around C-L value chains
Test different kinds of organisations to play the
brokerage role
Testing strategies to make innovation pro-poor
and pro-women
More vigorous and systematic engagement with
policy
Opportunity to design and test appropriate and
effective M&E systems

28. 28
ILRI is creating and integrating
knowledge to enable diverse partners to
find innovative solutions to make
livestock a sustainable pathway out of
poverty