Intensification


On 28-29 May we wrapped up the Ethiopian Livestock Feeds Project with a synthesis workshop in Addis Ababa. This brought together the whole project team, the core of which  were colleagues from Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research and Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute. We have been working together on refining various tools including FEAST, Techfit and a simple value chain assessment checklist.

This suite of tools is designed to help with developing ideas and plans for feed interventions at local level. This was our chance to review results of using the tools in the field. Also, we used the opportunity to review the tools themselves and look for ways of improving them.

The results showed that the tools are a rapid way of developing a good overview of the farming system and some of the constraints to improved feeding. Generating ideas for feed intervention was more challenging and probably requires an existing insight into what might work. However the tools were helpful in guiding thinking, and in ensuring that suggestions for feed improvement took into account system constraints such as land and labour availability. These tools are certainly not recipes for generating workable feed interventions but the process of working with the tools at field level could help to arrive at interventions which are more likely to succeed – especially if researchers work with development people in applying the tools.

What struck me at the workshop was the context specificity of successful feed interventions. The presentation from EIAR Holeta on a FEAST assessment in a dairy system showed that two areas in close proximity had completely different constraints. In the village of Robe Gebya there are plenty of cross-bred cows and farmers derive much of their livelihood from sale of milk. In nearby Berffetta Tokkoffa, horticultural crops are the dominant livelihood option and most cows are indigenous and primarily kept for draught purposes. Interestingly when farmers were asked about key solutions to improve their livestock-based livelihoods those relying on indigenous cows suggested various feed-related interventions including backyard forage and improved use of crop residues. Those with cross-bred cows were more concerned about arrangements for milk marketing – they seemed already to have sorted out their feeding. This contrast illustrates the dangers of blanket recommendations to improve feeding strategies and is one reason why many previous efforts to improve feeding have been disappointing.

As I stressed in my closing remarks, I hope that as this work develops we can move to the next stage which is working with farmers to test some of the interventions that the tools are coming up with. Time to get our hands dirty….

View the final day presentations:

Ethiopian Livestock Feed Project – approaches, tools, results

Results and experiences using value chain analysis, FEAST and Techfit tools in the Ethiopian Livestock Feed Project

 

This project is funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR); it is part of the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish.

At last week’s Africa-RISING ‘quick feed‘ project inception meeting, Werner Stür shared some of the reasons why improved animal feeding strategies seem not to be taken up, and some ways to address this.

He started by arguing that current future livestock productivity challenges would benefit significantly from “a little more feed per animal.” He outlined four main ways to get this feed to the animals:

  • Reduce the number of animals, improve herd structure or grow additional feed
  • Introduce forage legumes to improve diet quality; or grasses to increase available feed quantity
  • Grow specific fodder crops
  • Strategic feeding of available feed resources – smarter use

He also explained that these technical solutions are much less simple to accomplish than we might think. Why?

  • Technologies are seldom simple
  • Smallholder farming systems are diverse
  • People and livelihoods differ
  • The incentives to increase production are nor always in place

He concluded that ‘one-size-fits all technologies’ don’t work. Instead we need need a systems-oriented innovation process that

  • includes all relevant stakeholders
  • takes account of the range of farming system and livelihoods in the area
  • places innovation in the context of the value chain to ensure that farmers reap the benefits of innovations

More information on the project

More information on the inception workshop

Uptake of improved feeding strategies to support market-oriented livestock production does not happen readily in the Ethiopian Highlands. Livestock tend to be fed opportunistically with what is available and a large proportion of the diet is composed of low quality material such as crop residues.

There are many valid reasons for this. See for example here. Feed interventions promoted by development people often fail to take account of the hidden constraints faced by smallholder livestock keepers. These constraints often relate to livelihood endowments – things like financial, human and social capitals. For example, the classic example of an oft promoted but consistently unsuccessful feed intervention is the treatment of straw with urea. There are very few cases in Africa where urea treatment of straw is spontaneously adopted by farmers. Why? Because urea and associated inputs (plastic sheeting or concrete) is expensive and beyond the pocket of many farmers (financial capital) and because the practice requires some skill to succeed (human capital).

If feed interventions are to succeed and take root we need a rapid way of assessing farm level livelihoods and targeting interventions based on the findings. Here at ILRI we have gone some way towards this in the development of the Techfit tool. This tool attempts to score intervention sites according to a series of “context attributes” – things like labour availability, land availability, credit availability and so on. The tool then matches those context scores with a list of candidate feed technologies to come up with a short list of promising options.

We plan to take these ideas further through a new project funded under the Africa RISING programme. Africa RISING recently funded an ‘early win’ project in Ethiopia led by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). The project which we are calling Quick Feeds builds on the ongoing Ethiopian Livestock Feed (ELF) Project. This time we will take some of the feed assessment tools we have been developing: FEAST, Techfit and value chain analysis and put them into an overall livelihoods framework. We plan to develop some farm typologies based on livelihood capitals and then apply the feed assessment tools to different farm typologies. We hope this will help to uncover some of the reasons why different feed interventions are suited to different farm types.

The inception meeting for this project will be on 7-8 May on the ILRI campus in Addis Ababa. Watch for further updates after that meeting.

Following completion of the IFAD-funded Fodder Adoption Project, IFAD recently agreed to fund a further project on feed enhancement for dairy value chains in India and Tanzania. The project will be implemented by ILRI with CIAT as a major partner. We are calling the project MilkIT (Milk in India and Tanzania) and the grant agreement was signed in October 2011. We expect activities to start in earnest in early 2012 with a pre-inception meeting in Nairobi. See the project flyer.

We will again be experimenting with innovation and value chain approaches to feed development. The project will be embedded within the new CGIAR Research Programme 3.7: More milk, meat and fish, for and by the poor.

The overall goal of the project will be to contribute to improved dairy-derived livelihoods in India and Tanzania via intensification of smallholder production focusing on enhancement of feeds and feeding using innovation and value chain approaches.

The objectives of the project are three-fold:

1.     Institutional strengthening: To strengthen use of value chain and innovation approaches among dairy stakeholders to improve feeding strategies for dairy cows.

2.       Productivity enhancement: To develop options for improved feeding strategies leading to yield enhancement with potential income benefits.

3.       Knowledge sharing: To strengthen knowledge sharing mechanisms on feed development strategies at local, regional and international levels

Activities on this project will start in earnest in early 2012 but already a number of preparatory steps have been taken to ensure rapid project start up. These have mainly related to scoping missions to the two study countries with a view to identifying project sites and partners. The main activities are summarized below:

Scoping visits:

Tanzania: A project team including Alan Duncan (Project Co-ordinator) and Brigitte Maass (Tanzania Country Co-ordinator) along with Ben Lukuyu and Amos Omore of ILRI visited Tanzania in August and conducted a 5 day tour of potential sites and partners. The visit began in Arusha and went by way of Tanga and Morogoro to Dar-es-Salaam. Meetings were arranged with a wide range of potential partners and stakeholders. The process was useful in raising awareness among potential partners about the incoming project. The visit also provided some pointers to potential project sites and these will be firmed up in a pre-inception meeting in Jan 2012.

Uttarakhand, India: a similar scoping visit was made to Uttarakhand by Alan Duncan and Nils Teufel (India Country Co-ordinator) in December 2012. The visit centred around two main locations, Dehra Dun and Almora. Stakeholder mini-workshops were held in each location introducing the project and gathering information on ongoing dairy activities and key current issues around dairy value chain development.

Meetings with IFAD country staff

During the scoping visit to Tanzania, a meeting was held with Dr Mwatima Juma,  Country Officer for IFAD Tanzania on 26 Aug, 2011. We discussed IFAD country priorities and introduced the MilkIT project to the country office. A similar meeting was held in the IFAD India country office on 23 Sept 2011.  Again the MilkIT project was introduced and its integration with the forthcoming Integrated Livelihood Support Programme in Uttarakhand was discussed.

Planning for implementation

Dates and agenda have been set for a pre-inception planning meeting in Nairobi on Jan 24/25, 2012. The meeting will develop site selection criteria, work on details of initial project activities, agree on partners and explore links with a sister project on dairy in Tanzania funded by Irish Aid.

We will continue to post updates about this project on this blog.


The project is funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). It started in January 2012 and runs for three years

Basic project information

Project brochure

News on the project

Outputs from this project

Project wiki

This project is part of the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish.

Under the title ‘Enhancing Livelihoods of Poor Livestock Keepers through Increased Use of Fodder’, the goal of this IFAD-funded Programme was to improve the livelihoods of poor livestock keepers in Ethiopia, Syria and Vietnam in a sustainable manner through increased access to and adoption of fodder interventions.

With activities in Ethiopia, Syria and Vietnam and linking with a project implemented in Nigeria and India, the project aimed to better understand the factors and processes that determine the success of fodder interventions in developing countries. This understanding was used to strengthen the capacity of poor farmers and service providers to better meet their needs for fodder.

The project completion report has just be published, providing information on four project output areas:

  • Mechanisms for strengthening and/or establishing multi-stakeholder alliances that can enable scaling up and out of fodder technologies.
  • Options for effective delivery systems including innovative communication strategies and on farm interventions to improve fodder supply.
  • Enhanced capacity of project partners to experiment with and use fodder innovations through effective communication, technical information and training in diverse aspects placing fodder interventions in the context of systems of innovation.
  • Generic lessons with wide applicability on innovation processes and systems, communication strategies and partnerships that provide an enabling environment to enhance scaling up and out of fodder innovations.

In addition, outcomes and lessons are drawn together around three major strands: Innovation, Scaling Out and Market Development

Innovation

The assimilation of innovation systems thinking into project activities was an emerging theme of the project and played out in different ways in the three project countries. In Ethiopia, the project pro-actively established and facilitated local innovation platforms at study sites and used these as the central mechanism for bringing about change in farming practice. Innovation platforms were combined with introduction of planted fodder early in the project. This combination of technology introduction and a focus on enhancing stakeholder networking was a hallmark of activities in Ethiopia. The result was modest adoption of forage technologies at farm level accompanied by significant change in stakeholder attitudes and behaviour which we anticipate will lead to more substantial long-term change at farm level.

In Syria the approach was similar although perhaps with greater emphasis on introducing new technologies to farmers. In Syria there was a more challenging external environment with a strong extension service, heavy government intervention in pricing of agricultural commodities and few NGO or private sector actors. This scarcity of non-government actors limited the diversity actors involved in innovation platforms. Within these constraints we noted strong farmer adoption of technologies introduced by the project and a greater connectedness of key actors including the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform and the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme.

In Vietnam we saw widespread system change in farming practice from subsistence based cattle system to a market-oriented system in which breeding and feeding practices were substantially changed with strong benefits for farmer livelihoods. This change was facilitated by the Fodder Adoption Project and, in the case of the more advanced learning site Ea Kar, predecessor projects led by CIAT. In Vietnam a coalition of local key stakeholders was formed at each learning site and these took responsibility for driving and facilitating cattle development. While national project partners were initially instrumental in facilitating local coalitions, this responsibility quickly evolved to local partners, the district extension of agriculture offices. Also, the composition of local coalitions changed as the project progressed. These stakeholder changes were described in detail in a paper by Khanh et al (2009). “Actor-oriented” approaches were a strong element of project activities.

As in Ethiopia, there was an early emphasis on introduction of promising forage technologies using participatory approaches. “Village learning activities” were used to great effect to develop farmer capacity to experiment with new feeding and breeding practices. Following early pockets of success in introducing new technologies there was strong emphasis on working with local government extension workers to bring about sustained change, link farmers with markets and upscale adoption. As the project progressed the range of actors reached by the project widened; actors from across the value chain became involved, notably traders and buyers of cattle from distant markets. The link between promising technologies and linking farmers to markets through facilitation of stakeholder linkages was a key element of success in Vietnam and in many ways, the example of Vietnam provided the project with a flagship model for livestock development, elements of which were tried in the other countries.

In summary, across all three project countries our approach was to combine the introduction of promising technologies with a pro-active emphasis on bringing key actors together at important points in the development process. In Ethiopia and Syria this was done through innovation platforms while in Vietnam the same end was achieved through facilitation of ad hoc interactions among important stakeholders. In Vietnam a tipping point was reached and we saw widespread system change following continuous engagement by CIAT and local partners in project sites for a number of years. In Ethiopia and Syria the tipping point has yet to be reached but we see promising signs of change in actor behaviour which will need to be followed to assess whether they are sustained and lead to widespread change in farmer practice.

Scaling Out

Scaling out activities were somewhat different in the three project countries partly because project activities were at a different point in the development trajectory in each country.

The most advanced scaling out activities were in Vietnam where a strong strategy for scaling out early successes was developed. The general approach was to focus at village level to begin with through introduction of new practices through Village Learning Activities. Some of this had happened before FAP began. Having established early pockets of success local extension workers were brought on board through site visits and interactions with farmers. The project then provided technical support for scaling out of successful technologies but the scaling out was led by the local extension department. Such scaling out approaches were still relatively local involving the local district extension workers. An important activity of FAP was to extend project activities to a completely new site, Ha Tinh. This was achieved through exchange visits early in the project. A key element success was allowing government officials to hear first hand from their counterparts in the advanced learning site about how things had progressed in their site. This led to rapid adoption of new feeding practices in the new learning site over project life.

In Ethiopia, scaling out of technologies did not progress beyond district level (woreda) during the lifetime of FAP. However, the project did have some impact in terms of scaling out of innovation systems approaches to actors beyond project sites. This was achieved through regular meetings of a national Ethiopian Fodder Roundtable at which innovation approaches were presented. At district level we found considerable enthusiasm for scaling out of planted fodder by local extension offices. The scaling out was achieved through conventional government mechanisms rather than through spontaneous adoption and it remains to be seen how sustainable such efforts are and whether they continue beyond the project lifetime. One issue we encountered was the question of what was being scaled out: technologies or innovation approaches. We tended to find that government extension officers were keener on the former and it is too early to say whether we see sustained use of innovation approaches in study districts and beyond.

In Syria, again we saw scaling out of successful technologies at district level but as in Ethiopia it is as yet unclear whether the use of local stakeholder platforms has been taken on by local stakeholders and will persist beyond project life.

Market development

Market development activities varied by country partly because of the different stages of maturity of project efforts in the three locations.

In Ethiopia, the project started by introducing planted forages at district level. Early successes were used to build stakeholder engagement. Towards the end of the project we saw local stakeholders turning attention to marketing issues in at least one of our sites. Thus in Ada’a, by the end of the project local stakeholders were negotiating arrangements for procurement of milk rather than focusing on fodder production issues. In all three countries a similar pattern was observed: using fodder as an entry point but maintaining a strong focus on stakeholder processes led naturally to dealing with bottlenecks further along the value chain.

In Vietnam, this process had reached maturity so that much of the project effort was focused on developing market arrangements with traders, re-orienting production to meet market demands, dealing with credit provision and so on.

In Syria, there was limited work on market development perhaps because livestock production systems are already relatively mature and market linkages for farmers are already well established.

Download the report

Development projects can often point to local pockets of success: examples of where a project has had real impact on smallholder livelihoods through some successful interventions. However the real challenge comes in taking such success to scale – this involves somehow embedding the processes that led to success into the ways of working of local stakeholders who will remain after the project reports have been written.

In this Technical Advisory Note from the Fodder Adoption Project, Werner Stur draws some lessons on how to scale out local success using a case from Ea Kar District in Vietnam. The local success was described in a previous post – it involved using planted fodder as a catalyst to enable subsistence cattle keepers to make the transition into keeping cattle for cash income.

According to Werner Stur “The key to successful up-scaling” was to:

(i) have a convincing example that showed that it was possible for comparable smallholder farm families to produce high-quality cattle competitively

(ii) build local coalitions for development which facilitated the adoption and development process

(iii) strengthen the capacity of local stakeholders in facilitating the fodder and cattle development process, supporting farmers in technical issues, and developing market access, and

(iv) support stakeholders at new sites by linking them with experienced counterparts in a site where things are working as well as linking them with other project participants in an informal network of professionals.

Read the full account here:

and you can watch a video where Werner Stur talks about up-scaling local successes in a previous post.

Feed scarcity in smallholder systems is a key constraint to improved livestock production in developing countries. However, development efforts which have taken a narrow technology-focused approach to dealing with feed scarcity have had limited success. In the Fodder Adoption Project, we experimented with the use of local stakeholder forums in our sites in Ethiopia to bring local stakeholders together to deal with feed scarcity issues.

In this Technical Advisory Note we describe our experiences in combining stakeholder forums with introductions of improved forage varieties at farm level. The note shows how innovation approaches worked well in a site with good market potential for dairy and where diverse actors were present. In a food insecure site dominated by public sector actors things were more challenging.

We draw a number of lessons from our experiences:

  • Local stakeholder forums required some practical action on the ground to stimulate interest and enhance credibility – in our case the “engine of change” was planted forage but other practical entry points could work equally well.
  • Diversity of actors seems to be a key element of successful stakeholder forums.
  • Enhancing productivity at farm level is a good first step but needs to be quickly accompanied by actions to deal with other value chain constraints such as input provision and marketing arrangements.
  • In food insecure environments the use of local stakeholder forums for value chain development can be challenging. In such cases a different thematic focus such as food-security, capacity building or improving livelihoods might be more appropriate; this may also require a different set of actors including social welfare and health actors.
  • Establishing a coherent livestock innovation system requires experimentation, learning from mistakes and careful adaptation. During the pilot phase some external resources may be required to cover the costs of workshops and meetings, training and other support and to underwrite new interventions that carry some risk until proven.

Read the full account here.

See previous posts on cattle fattening and novel arrangements for credit through traders in Vietnam for some parallel similar experiences.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.