Upload
ilri
View
326
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presented by Brigitte Maass (CIAT), Fred Wassena (CIAT), Julius Bwire (TALIRI), Germana Laswai (SUA), Walter Mangesho (TALIRI) and Abiliza Kimambo (SUA) at the MilkIT Final Project Workshop, Lushoto, Tanzania, 9-10 December 2014
Citation preview
Brigitte Maass (CIAT), Fred Wassena (CIAT), Julius Bwire (TALIRI), Germana Laswai (SUA), Walter Mangesho (TALIRI) and Abiliza Kimambo (SUA)
MilkIT Final Project Workshop, Lushoto, Tanzania, 9-10 December 2014
Outline
MilkIT implementation process in Tanzania
Achievements along MilkIT project objectives
o Institutional strengthening
o Productivity enhancement
o Knowledge sharing
Lessons learned
o Outlook beyond 2014
MilkIT implementation process Trying to link to IFAD grant policy
o Work in Pemba or Manyara?
Joining the CRP Livestock & Fish process (in 2012) driven by MoreMilkiT, under the common goal ‘Maziwa Zaidi’o Site selection
o Dairy value chain (DVC) assessment (during 2012)
o Baseline survey
o Choosing partners
Working via innovation platforms (IP) towards improving feeds and feeding (since 2013) o Feed assessment with FEAST (in early 2013)
o Setting up village IPs
o Participatory implementation of interventions
Component 1. Institutional strengthening
Site selection
Integration into CRP Livestock & Fish Tanzania Dairy Value Chain development
o Participatory dairy value chain assessment
Implementing Innovation Platforms
o Village IPs
o Regional IP
Selection of regions + sites o Ruling out of Pemba island + Manyara Region
o Integration into CRP Livestock & Fish Tanzania Dairy Value Chain (DVC) development—Morogoro + Tanga Regions selected
Sites selected o In each Region, 4 villages selected
from 2 Districts, respresentingRural-to-Urban and Rural-to-Rural DVCs
o Agreed village Innovation Platform structure
30 participants
Producers (60%) &
Other VC stakeholders (40%)
Site selection in Tanzania
Tanga Region: TALIRI
MorogoroRegion: SUA
MilkIT action sites
Dairy Value Chain assessment
Extensive and intensive feeding systems are practiced in the villages
Milk production pattern is seasonal with high production at beginning of long wet season from March to June
Most milk is sold locally to neighbours + restaurants
Limited processing of milk at local level to add value
Lack of reliable market for milk, especially in long wet season is major constraint to developing the DVC
End of dry season, Mvomero
Collecting forage in Lushoto
Average milk prices received per litre
Daily average milk produced /household
Rainfall pattern
Seasonal milk production
• Milk production + prices highly seasonal
• Closeness to urban markets higher prices
• Proximity to milk collection centres for dairy processing factories (Tanga Fresh & TANDAIRY) lower prices
Milk production & sales in selected districts of Morogoro & Tanga Region
DistrictMilk produced (litre/day/HH)
Milk price (TSh/litre)
Mean Range Mean Range
Kilosa 23.8 a 0.25-48 450 c 200- 700
Handeni 28.7 a 0.50-53 425 d 200-1000
Mvomero 7.9 b 1.00-12 708 a 400-1000
Lushoto 4.1 b 0.50-27 491 b 300- 600
Districts with extensive/pastoral systems (Handeni, Kilosa + partly Mvomero) had
substantially higher average milk produced per household than with semi-
intensive/ zero grazing systems (Lushoto) due to the large number of cows milked.
1 USD = 1600 TSh
Opportunities for DVC development
Include formalization + strengthening of farmer associations
o For efficient collective action
o Use them for education and access to various inputs
o Other opportunities along the DVC
Village IPs in Morogoro + Tanga Regions
Training on functioning of IPs by a consultant
o Identification of specific challenges
o Development of specific village IP workplans
o Development of general guidelines about the functioning of an innovation platform or 'Jukwaa' (in Swahili)
Photos © WE Mangesho
Village IPs in Morogoro + Tanga Regions
Establishing IPs
o Decision on composition + election of leaders
o Establishing sub-committees according to identified challenges
o Registration at District level, opening bank accounts
Some IPs request fees from participants
o Purpose of holding regular meetings to address identified challenges
Partly getting very big (>80 participants, often strong women participation!)
Innovation challenges identified (rank) leading to sub-committees of village IPs, Morogoro &Tanga Innovation challenges Manyinga Wami
SokoineMbwade + Twatwatwa
Ubiri + Mbuzii
Kibaya + Sindeni
Feeds/lack of grazing land 1 1 6 1
Livestock breeds 2 4 1
Knowledge animal husbandry 1 2
Water 2 2 3
Milk price/Market 5 3 4 5
Animal health 4 5 3
Housing 3 5
Animal routes 2
Gender imbalance 3
Pastoral./farmer conflicts 4
Range management 4
Extension service 5
Data summarized from reports 2013 by G Bwana
Morogoro
Tanga
R-to-U
R-to-R
R-to-R
R-to-U
Meetings of the village IPs in Morogoro and Tanga regions, including training events (2013-14)
Objectives of village IP meetings
Actions agreed on during village IP meetings
Participation in village IP meetings (called by SUA) in Morogoro Region (2013-14) by gender
Kilosa District (R-to-R)Mvomero District (R-to-U)
Overview of village IPs: Morogoro Region (2014)Mvomero District (R-to-U) Kilosa District (R-to-R)
Manyinga Mbwada
IP status Relatively strong Weak
Actors involved Farmer groups, extension officer, input supplier, micro-credit
Farmers coop only; from outside: SUA, HiMWA, Heifer, Faida MaLi
Main achievements
Registered, established cattle/ livestock database, focal point for livestock issues, self-operating
None
Received forages None, only training 5 farmers
Wami Sokoine Twatwatwa
IP status Intermediate Intermediate
Actors involved Farmer group, extension staff, milk trader, input supplier; from outside:Heifer, HiMWA, Faida MaLi, SUA
Farmer group, extension officer, milk trader; from outside: Heifer, HiMWA, SUA, Faida MaLi
Main achievements
Registered; Shamba Kubwa source of buffel grass splits for other farmers
Removal of Acacia trees in Ololili; Establishing land registry office
Received forages 5 farmers 7 farmers
Participation in village IP meetings (called by TALIRI) in Tanga Region (2013-14) by gender
Handeni District (R-to-R)Lushoto District (R-to-U)
Overview of village IPs: Tanga Region (2014)Lushoto District (R-to-U) Handeni District (R-to-R)
Ubiri Kibaya
IP status Active Relatively weak
Actors involved Farmer groups, extension officer; Heifer, Faida MaLi, TALIRI
Farmer groups, extension officer; Heifer, Faida MaLi, TALIRI
Main achievements
Self-operating, registered, use of box baling to conserve feeds
Managed to establish by-laws on livestock routes, control of water source (natural spring) destroyed by grazing animals (in Feb’14) nothing there after
Received forages 80 farmers 3 farmers
Mbuzii Sindeni
IP status Active Relatively weak
Actors involved Farmer groups, extension officer; Heifer, Faida MaLi, TALIRI
Farmer groups, extension officer, milk traders; Heifer, Faida MaLi, TALIRI
Main achievements
Self-operating, registered, use of box baling to conserve feeds
Registration only
Received forages 21 farmers 3 farmers
Agreed composition of village innovation platforms
Skin processor group
Input suppliers
Producers
Producer group
Village governance
Village Innovation Platform
Land committee
Livestock extension
Milk processor group
Credit (Village Saccos)
Membership of the innovation platform in Wami Sokoine village, Mvomero District, Morogoro Region
IP Member
Male
20
15
IP Secretary
Female
10
5 Village Chairman
Village Executive officer
Input Supplier Land Committee
IP treasurer Milk Producer Group Livestock Extension Officer
IP Chairwoman Skin Processor Group Village Sacos
0 Stakeholders
Livestock keepers Value Chain actors Network Partner
Membership of the innovation platform in Wami Sokoine village, Mvomero district, Morogoro region
Drawing by Diep Pham
Issues at village level in Morogoro & Tanga Regions – Lessons learned
Small participation of other actors than producers
o Multi-stakeholder IPs may be better at District level
Some village IPs managed to show a way towards resolving common challenges within their villages
o In most villages, still lack of understanding of the power of collective action
Waiting until they are told to do something
IP participation
o Level of fees + regulation that non-paying people are not admitted to meetings could hamper the functioning of a pro-poor oriented village IP
Confusion between village IPs + MoreMilkiT producer groups
o Substantial overlapping of participants
o Coaching/mentoring by consultant may help clarify + organize towards future
Few well-functioning village IPs may resist change in their constitution + way of doing things
Institutional strengthening by Innovation Platform approach
At village level
o Overall 8 village Innovation Platforms
At regional level
o Tanga Dairy Platform
o Morogoro Dairy Platform
At national level
o Dairy Development Forum (DDF)
Model of interaction between different platform levels in Tanzania
MilkIT Tanzania
District District
Village IP
Regional Dairy Platform
Village IP
Village IP
Village IP
Action research
Inter-vention
Tanzania DDF
District Council
Management Team
Morogoro Dairy Platform
Stakeholder meeting in April 2013
Platform launched in April 2014 o Facilitation by a consultant
o Identification of main challenges + training on functioning of an innovation platform (IP)
Platform meetingso June 2014
Facilitation from within the platform
Sub-committees formed along identified challenges
o October 2014 Less diversity in stakeholder groups
Confusion in setting date
Need for further mentoring
Morogoro Dairy Platform: Identified challenges
Gap/Challenge Solution(s) proposed
Low knowledge in best practices in animal husbandry (need for capacity building)
• Train on how to select best milk production breeds• Train on breed production• Investing production of right breed for milk prod.
Lack of pasture (not reliable and seasonality)
• Have reserve areas for pasturing• Proper land use plan; setting aside grazing area• Train on production, protection, and developing
grazing areas• Set aside land for pastoralists which they can own
Diseases • Have vaccination programs• Increase extension services to producers• Provide working tools to extension officers
Low milk production-productivity
• Seek support on accessing right breed for milk prod. • Apply Artificial Inseminations (AI)
Lack of inputs • Increase access to inputs, drug stockists
Reliable markets for milk • Establish production groups and strengthen them• Campaign for building more milk processing plants• Train marketing skills + milk quality improvement
Morogoro Regional Dairy Platform meetings in 2014 by DVC stakeholder category
= 31 participants
(21 m +10 w)
= 23 participants
(17 m + 6 w)
= 24 participants
(19 m + 5 w)
Participation in meetings of the Morogoro Dairy Platform during 2014 (total of 3 meetings)
About 75% men +
25% women each
Morogoro Dairy Platform
Achievements
o Sub-committees established along identified challenges
o Approached Ministry for veterinary drugs + services
Issues + challenges
o Only 2 out of 8 districts are represented (due to MilkIT project facilitation) – how will future engagement be?
o Feeling too powerful – lack of diplomacy
o Keeping variety of actors interested in the process (input suppliers, processors)
Key result from research on village IP performance in Tanga
Performance indicator ‘Access to larger variety and better feeds’
o Significantly related to frequency and quality of communication and
o Increased exposure to different information sources of interviewees, including training particularly
o May serve as a baseline study for future follow up – if IPs continue to exist
Key informant interviews
Component 2. Productivity enhancement
Feed assessment
Review of past interventions – successes + failures
Interventions
o Planting forages in demo plots + providing farmers with planting materials
o Training on forage husbandry, utilization + conservation
o Dry season reserve study ‘Ololili’
o Forage plots in semi-intensive systems
Participatory variety assessment
Feed assessment
Feed assessment
o Training on FEAST tool in Morogoro& Tanga regions 26 participants were trained
o FEAST surveys in all 8 villages 104 Farmers for individual interviews
306 Farmers in FGDs
o FEAST reports compiled from 4 districts Challenges identified and solutions
proposed are possible entry points and mark the pillars for IP functioning
Individual interview
Focus Group Discussion
FEAST key results Seasonality of feed results in seasonal
milk production
Grazing is main feed source in extensive system; higher diversity of feed stuffs in semi-intensive/ intensive system
FEAST participants did not perceive feeds or feeding as key constraints
Principle constraints identified were land, water and markets for livestock and milk; genetic potential of cattle and livestock diseases; lack of knowledge on animal husbandry Seasonal feed availability in Twatwatwa
village, Kilosa District, and Manyinga village, Mvomero District, Morogoro Region
Constraints of past feed interventions
Limited number of adopted feed technologies
High resource costs of technologies in terms of labourand accessibility
Proper packaging and dissemination of technologies is needed
Mostly limited to intensive smallholder dairy production
Fodder garden technology introduced in the 1960s and 1980s to small-scale farms in Kilimanjaro Region
Molasses urea storage tanks built in villages as supply depots in Kilimanjaro Region in mid-1980s (now unutilized)
Compounding home-made dairy concentrates
Identification of intervention strategies
Possible reasons for low adoption of past feed interventionso Short duration of promotional
projects
o Relatively high capital investments
o Technical versus socio-economic dimensions of the technologies, neglecting gender issues
o Minimal foundation for trans-generational transfer of technologies
Identified technical interventions at MilkIT sites o Pasture establishment +
management
o Demonstration plots
o Pasture seed supply
o Forage conservation
o Training on feeds and feeding
o Study feeding routine (Manyinga)
o General cattle husbandry (incl. housing)
Interventions to enhance productivity in Morogoro and Tanga Regions
Planting forages in demo plots and providing farmers with planting materials o Napier grass splits (Pennisetum purpureum) for semi-intensive/ intensive
system
o Buffel grass splits (Cenchrus ciliaris) for agro-pastoral system
o Stylo (Stylosanthes hamata + S. scabra) and Butterfly pea (Clitoriaternatea) for dry season reserve grazing (‘Ololili’)
o Water melon (Citrullus vulgaris) for agro-pastoral system
Training on forage husbandry, utilization + conservation, animal feeding, nutrition + husbandry (incl. housing)
Planting forages in MorogoroPlanting forages in Tanga
Introduction of improved forages: issues
Forage seeds and planting materials
o Availability very limited, regarding quantity + quality Buffel grass (fungus) / Napier grass (stunting)
Weather conditions are challenging
o Pasture areas depend on rainfall only
o Forage establishment in pastoral areas partly poor due to effects of planting material, soil condition (e.g. water logging) and irregular rainfall Need for optimizing planting
techniques , especially with pastoralists + in pastoralist area
Experiences with agro-pastoralists
Morogoro no data on forages
Failures in establishment due to o Weather (drought, water logging)
o Lack of control of animals
In Sindeni animals also found inside dry season reserve
o Planting on communal land
o Lack of reinforcement of regulations
Lack of reliable establishment method under variable weather conditions
Stylosanthes seedlings outgrazed by goats
Outside of ‘Ololili’Fenced ‘Ololili’
Dry season grazing reserves in pastoral system –end of rainy season (June’14)
Opportunity for interventions to empower women and improve household food + nutrition security?
Preliminary results from ‘Ololili’ scoping study
Some numbers
o Estimated 40% have Ololili
o Majority has 1 (-2) Ololili
o Majority about 10 acres as Ololili
o Big herd goes 6+ months away
Observations
o Women less in charge than assumed
o Further data analysis needed
38 interviews
Ubiri farmers appreciating hay made by their fellow Mbuzii farmers
Farmers discussing issues at Ubiri forage demo plot
Photos © WE Mangesho & BL Maass
Farmers discussing issues at Mbuzii demo plot
Visiting Mbuzii forage demo plot
Napier grass yield on farm in Lushoto (May’14)
Napier grass variety
Mean tillers (no./plant)
Mean leaf DM yield (t/ha)
Mean stem DM yield (t/ha)
Mean total DM yield (t/ha)
Hybrid
Mean (N=4) 11.00 3.15 3.11 6.26
Stdev 1.41 1.17 0.82 1.89
Kakamega II
Mean (N=4) 11.00 3.18 3.70 6.88
Stdev 0.82 0.46 0.40 0.84
Data from WE Mangesho
Samples for nutritive quality taken, lab analysis under way
Participatory variety selection in Lushoto Characteristics Ubiri (N=16) Mbuzii (N=14)
Interviewed farmers 12 men + 4 women 8 men + 6 women
Mean distance of fodder crop from homestead (km)
1.14 (± 1.44) 0.91 (± 0.63)
Estimated size of fodder crop (acre)
0.33 (± 0.12) [1335 m2] 0.36 (± 0.21) [1457 m2]
Farmers with previous knowledge of forages (no.)
6 (38%) 4 (29%)
Data still being analyzed
Other interventions
Training on o Forage husbandry and utilization
o Forage conservation Hay making, use of box baler
Silage making
o Animal feeding, nutrition and husbandry, housing
Preliminary highlights after technical training
Mbuzii village/Lushoto
o Some farmers have applied manure to grasses
o Two farmers have prepared silage on their own – in plastic bags as instructed during previous technical training
Farmers from Lushoto appreciated new Napier grass cultivars (a hybrid and Kakamega II) as compared to their traditional local variety
o They liked the new ones better because of faster growth, higher tiller number, more leafiness as well as broader and softer leaves when ready to harvest
Component 3. Knowledge sharing
Assessment
Integration into major initiatives
o Maziwa Zaidi
o Tanga Dairy Platform
o Dairy Development Forum
Farmer exchange visits
o Farmer-to-farmer
o Farmer to TALIRI + Tanga Fresh factory
Information sharing within project + beyond
Knowledge sharing through integration into major initiatives
Integration with other actors under Maziwa Zaidi goal o Participation in various meetings of CRP
Livestock & Fish Tanzanian Dairy Value Chain development
o Joint review + planning meetings with MoreMilkiT project
o Joint steering committee with MoreMilkiTproject
Tanga & Morogoro dairy platforms
DDF – Tanzania Dairy Development Forum
TangaPlatform
Maziwa week
Dairy Development Forum (DDF)
National dairy platform o ‘Born’ in stakeholder mtg. March’12
o Participation in 4 meetings since inception
o Participation in advisory committee –to prepare DDF meetings
o Support of DDF Wiki
Feeds/forages & feeding o Special event in Aug’14
o Task forces formed:
Information & capacity building
Technical issues
Policy & regulations
Forage seed systems
Participants of the 4th DDF meeting
(Photo © BL Maass)
o Issue:
Over-dominance of researchers
Almost absence of private sector
Tanga Dairy Platform
Founded in December 2008 by a group of dairy enthusiasts and facilitated by the British NGO Research Into Use (RIU)
o Development of the platform documented by Cadilhon et al. (2014)
o Some video clips – Tanzanian Dairy Film – developed by IRLI around the functioning and actions of the Platform
o MilkIT project is a platform participant
Purpose: To better use the income opportunities in the dairy sector through enhancing production, processing and marketing of milk in the smallholder sector in Tanga(farmers and pastoralists)
Farmer exchange visits within & to Tanga
Show dairy husbandry practices
Importance of forage production, utilization + conservation for increased milk production
Explore opportunities along DVC to encourage improving dairy farming practices
Create linkages with other actors along DVC, e.g. o Forage seeds/planting materials
o Training skills
o Dairy processors + other (successful) farmers Farmers from Manyinga visiting the MILK HUB – collection center and agro-shop in Amani village
(Photo © FJ Wassena)
Village Men (no.) Women (no.)
Ubiri 9 7
Mbuzii 9 7
Manyinga 6 3
Farmers from Ubiri and Mbuzii visiting the milk processing at Tanga Fresh Ltd.
Farmers from Manyinga visiting Amani village: Milk collection center
Photos © WE Mangesho & FJ Wassena
Farmers from Manyinga visiting Tanga Fresh milk factory in Tanga
Farmers from Manyingaobserving forage varieties at TALIRI-Tanga
Sharing information within project & beyond
Sharing common tools with MilkIT in India
Shared MilkIT Wiki: http://milkit.wikispaces.com/o Space to share process with partners + interested ‘outsiders’
o Online database for our reports
o Partners are encouraged to use
Annual regional review + planning meetings o Across MilkIT project – India + Tanzania
o Across Tanzania Dairy VC development projects
Invitation of radio + print media to events o Radio in Kilosa
o Mwananchi Communications limited (mwananchi & the citizen)
Participation in scientific conferences, fairs & exhibitions: Oral presentations & posters
Scientific presentations at conferences o Tanzanian Society of Animal Production (TSAP) in Arusha, Tanzania (2012
& 2013—1 oral + 1 poster)
o 6th all African Conference on Animal Agriculture in Nairobi, Kenya (2014—1 oral + 2 poster)
o Tropentag in Hohenheim, Germany (2013—1 poster)
Tanzanian fairs & exhibitions o Tanzanian Milk Week in Moshi, Songea + Musoma (2012-14)
Including National Dairy Conference (oral + poster)
o ‘Nane Nane’ agricultural exhibition in Morogoro, Dodoma + Arusha(2012-14)
Planned articles for international journals
o Some incipient drafts, no article ready for submission
Lessons learned
Diversity of science and development partners is important for such a D4R project
o Too many animal scientists, lack of social science
o Too few interaction with development partners
Limited NGO landscape/participation
Division of labour among Maziwa Zaidi projects sometimes challenging
o Assuming that some partner would do things, in time
o MilkIT was not in charge of the whole value chain
o Attribution vs. contribution
Lessons learned
Farmers not used to collective action
o More development partners would have been needed
o Slow process to achieve change, especially with pastoralists –requiring intensive interaction
Technical solutions not sufficiently developed
o Lack of reliable seed/planting materials – quantity + quality
o Establishment in pastoral area challenging
Outlook beyond 2014
Village IP sustainability? Action research implemented in villages
Further interventions identified and initiated
Attached students conducting research
Regional platforms Morogoro
Research opportunity? Scaling up IP model vs. dairy business hubs?