Background, current status and outlook

1st Advisory Council MeetingDehradun 01/06/2012

Nils Teufel

MilkIT in India

This is based on the presentation given at the advisory council meeting, but block selection data and conclusions have been updated based on new milk procurement data.Notes on plenary and group discussions have also been added.

Topics

• Background– ILRI’s activities in South Asia– History of the MilkIT proposal– Major structure

• Current status– Collaboration with Ajeeveeka/IFAD– Selection of sites & partners– Detailed work-plans– Preparations for implementation

• Outlook– Next activities in 2012– Plans for 2013

01/06/2012 2/35

Background – ILRI in South Asia

• Feed improvements (fodder, food-feed crops, processing)

• Market development• Work on innovation

01/06/2012 3/35

Background – History of MilkIT

• Fodder Innovation Project/Fodder Adoption Project

• OPEC dairy feeding & marketing project• EU/IFAD call

01/06/2012 4/35

Background – major structure

• Institutional strengthening– Value chain assessments– Stakeholder involvement– Innovation platforms for improved dairy marketing

• Productivity improvements– Feed assessments– Technology matching– Innovation platforms for productivity improvements focussing on

feeding• Knowledge sharing

– Communication outputs– Meetings between partners, stakeholders, countries

01/06/2012 5/35

Status – Collaboration Ajeeveeka

• IFAD aim of linking loan programmes to grants• Building on base laid by ULIPH• Alignment with development of ILSP

– Site selection– M&E framework (base-line survey)– Support for value chain activities

• Comparison with Tanzania

01/06/2012 6/35

Status – Site selection, districts

01/06/2012 7/35

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

DUNDA

TIUNAHATAR

JADAR

POKHRI

KAPKOT

LAKSAR

PUROLA

BAIJRO

BHARKOT

THARALI

CHAMOLI

DIDIHAT

KHATIMA

CHHOLMI

TILWARA

ROORKEE

KOTDWARA

HALDWANI

SRINAGAR

OKHIMATH

PHURKIYA

MUNSYARI

KASHIPUR

RAMNAGAR

RANIKHET

GANGOTRI

BHATWARIRAJGARHI

HARKIDUN

BHATWARI

DHUMAKOT

CHAKRATA

SITARGANJ

THALISAIN

RISHIKESH

DHARCHULA

GHANSYALI

BADRINATH

JOSHIMATH

LANSDOWNE

GANGOLIHAT

VIKASNAGAR

DEVAPRAYAG

PRATAPNAGAR

BHIKIYASAIN

KARNAPRAYAG

NARENDRANAGAR

CHAURANGI KHAL

CHAMOLI

UTTARKASHI

GARHWAL

PITHORAGARH

NAINI TAL

ALMORA

DEHRA DUNTEHRI GARHWAL

HARIDWAR

BAGESHWAR

CHAMPAWAT

UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

RUDRAPRAYAG

BHATWARI

JOSHIMATH

LANSDOWNE

PAURI

MUNSYARI

PUROLA

DHARCHULA

NAINI TAL

RANIKHET

TEHRI

BAGESHWAR

CHAMOLIDEHRA DUN

KASHIPUR

ALMORA

HALDWANI

DEVAPRAYAG

CHAMPAWAT

KARNAPRAYAG

OKHIMATH

CHAKRATA

DIDIHAT

DUNDA

KICHHA

KHATIMA

PITHORAGARH

ROORKEE HARIDWAR

PRATAPNAGAR

RAJGARHI

SITARGANJ

Districts

IFAD

0

IFAD_ILSP

• Ajeeveeka activity

• Either Kumaon or Garhwal

• Mid-hills• Dairy

dynamics

Status – Partners 1

01/06/2012 8/20

HIMMOTHAN

IFAD

INHERE

LCM (Loke chetna manch)

CHIRAG

CHEA

• Which type of partners (December workshop)?

Status – Partners 2

• Medium NGO with – local experience and– capacity for research– INHERE in Almora

• Would new federations be a more sustainable structure?– Bageshwar – Chamoli?– CHIRAG in Bageshwar

01/06/2012 9/20

Status, block selection - ILSP

01/06/2012 10/35

Partner activities

Status, block selection,intensified livestock

01/06/2012 11/35

Syaldey

Chaukhutiya

Bhikiyasain Sult

Bhageswar

Garud

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

BuffFem/BovFem %

Syaldey

Chaukhutiya

Bhikiyasain Sult

Bhageswar

Garud

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

CbFem/BovFem %

Status, block selection,conclusion

• Bageshwar– Chirag only active in Bageshwar block– Dairy development indicators (milk procurement,

forest share) also support Bageshwar block• Almora

– Chaukutia excluded: high forest & irrigation– Syaldeh excluded: low milk procurement– Bhikyasen and Sult both possible – more data

required

01/06/2012 12/35

Status, site selection, clusters

• Bageshwar block – Chirag is active in two clusters– Kathpuryachina– Dewaldar

• Bhikyasen & Sult – Inhere has links to both blocks– Cluster overviews for Bhikyasen & Sult

01/06/2012 13/35

Status, site selection, sub-clusters

• Village census at cluster level• Classification of sub-clusters by milk marketing

(formal/informal)• Defined by field facilitator reach (4-6 villages)• Base for feed innovation platform?• Dairy innovation platform at cluster level?• Control sites within cluster?

01/06/2012 14/35

Preparations for implementation

• Office• Secondary data collection• Local contacts• Detailed work-plans• Partner agreements• Value chain assessment tools

01/06/2012 15/35

Outlook – activities 2012(work plan)

Steps Topics Tools TimeSite selection Block data for cluster Secondary data June

Cluster data for sub-cluster Village census JuneCharacterisation Villages Village survey July

Value chains VCA SeptemberDevelopment Actor mapping AugustFeeding & feed gaps FEAST October

Innovation Dairy market platform formed OctoberFeeding platform formed NovemberMarket interventions identified DecemberFeed interventions identified January ‘13

01/06/2012 16/35

Outlook – activities 2013

01/06/2012 17/35

Steps Topics Tools Time

Innovation Intervention trials round 1 Jan-Apr

Intervention trials round 2 May-Aug

Moving on Scaling-up of interventions Jul-Oct

Platform sustainability Sep-Nov

Documentation Reports Sep-Nov

Publicity WorkshopsDemonstrationsMedia

Sep-Nov

Impact assessment Oct-Nov

Thank You!

01/06/2012 18/35

• Notes on plenary and group discussions during the meeting

01/06/2012 19/35

Discussion on presentation - 1• What is the meaning of “innovation platform”?

– It’s about to bringing together experiences of a variety of stakeholders on– dairy marketing, feed support , knowledge sharing and innovation/change– regarding how to test & adapt these innovations.– Innovation platforms are not only a discussion forum and not just an extension activity.

• What will be the project output in Dec 2013 and who will receive it?– As a research project, papers and reports will be major outputs, with IFAD being the

first recipient.– Research outputs will be aligned with the demands of donors and partners. – Documentation of processes and results will enable global and local use. – Documentation of establishment and success/failure of innovation platforms will be a

major output. Induced changes will be a main indicator.• What will be language of dissemination?

– Main audience will be institutions. Therefore, first language will be English. – However, for local institutions documents in Hindi will also be prepared.

01/06/2012 20/35

Discussion on presentation - 2• What will be done to reduce livestock impact on forests?

– Feed requirements, current sources & opportunities will be assessed with FEAST– General land-use change will not be a focus of MilkIT because of its short

duration– More efficient use of existing resources will probably emphasise farm products

and labour efficiency (reducing forest use)– Himmothan has already experience with introducing winter fodder. Forest use

has already decreased.• How can MilkIT improve green fodder supply when the project is only 20

months and most green fodder comes from trees which yield only after 3-5years?– MilkIT will prioritise technologies (with the help of Techfit) which yield fast

effects (no planting campaigns, no focus on breed improvement).– More efficient use of existing feeds will be focus (supplementation, chopping)

and wider use of under-utilised resources (grass-lands).

01/06/2012 21/35

Discussion on presentation - 3• How will feed-related problems be identified? How will local capacity &

willingness for adoption be considered?– Innovation platforms will improve communication.– Specific tools (e.g. Techfit) will enable efficient discussion.

• What will be main project indicators, milk yield?– Milk yield will be important, but profitability and labour returns will also be main

indicators.– Improved productivity will decrease pressure on forests.

• How will other aspects of productivity be considered (breed, health) and who will be doing this?– Within the project period no major breed improvement effects can be expected.– But we know that local cows are being replaced with buffaloes.– Feed improvements offer greater effect in improved animals with less labour.– Where health issues are important we include local institutions in platform.

01/06/2012 22/35

Discussion on presentation - 4• How will the variation between households and animals be

considered?– MilkIT will only target groups (e.g. SHGs), not individual households/animals– At the platform level discussions will have to consider for which type of

households/animals technologies are suitable.– When documenting effects we will have to collect household/animal data.

• How is MilkIT going to compete with strong local dairy organisations?– We will map which institutions are working on which issues.– The innovation platforms will bring all relevant and willing actors together as

a complementary activity.– We are aware that compared to local institutions MilkIT will only show a

brief appearance and cannot compete.

01/06/2012 23/35

Group discussions1. Innovation platforms:

– “How can innovation platforms support development and dissemination of new technologies for dairy development?”

– Himmothan, GBPIHED, Elks, AHD

2. Marketing constraints:– “What are you most interested in for overcoming institutional

and marketing constraints in the dairy sector?”– Aanchal, Ajeeveeka, ULDB, Chirag

3. Feeding constraints:– “What should MilkIT produce to help with improving productivity

of dairy animals among small holders through better feeding, breeding & health?”

– GBPUAT, FD, VPKAS01/06/2012 24/35

Grp 1: Innovation platforms

01/06/2012 25/35

M. ChauhanR.S. Negi

R.S. Rawat S. JarialR.C. Rajaguru

Grp1 Innovation platforms• Value of innovation platforms

– Contribute by bringing in technologies, pilot them, scale it up– By creating platform at different levels, knowledge sharing at right levels– By creating awareness, demonstration wider audience, feedback, knowledge

documentation– Difficulties & risk:– Sustainability, ownership, scope – Compendium of successful experiences– Malavika: Ownership for sustainability (who owns)– Negi: What about the costs for maintaining platform– Malavika: which scale?

block level officers/ paravets/ ext. workers don’t talk to each other, maybe that would be useful

– NGOs do talk to each other– Padma: what is the actual income contribution of milk, what can actually be

improved through more milk

01/06/2012 26/35

Most important

Additional input on innovation platforms (later)

• Padma: expand the innovation platforms to include other actors who work in different fields (e.g. breeding, health, small ruminants etc.). Offer the platform as a useful and efficient approach to get collaboration & knowledge exchange going.

• Malavika: Support communication between local government officials and practitioners. They have only few opportunities for exchange.

01/06/2012 27/35

Grp 2: Inst. & mrktng constraints

01/06/2012 28/35

Atul Shah Pankaj Kumar

Pawan Kumar A.K. Negi

Grp 2: Institutional constraints• Baseline survey

– Market research (Milk production groups)• demand/supply gap• production, status/potential

Tiwari: consider own consumption requirements (nutritional security)Others: but we are just talking about selling surplus

• Awareness of group formation– Benefits– Approach (evaluation of form of organisational structure)– Business plan (economics of group activities for sustainability)

Malavika: Use federations to market more products.Pawan: Develop a variety of successful business models; MilkIT can bring together knowledge of successful innovations, compendium (specific examples)

– Marketing– Incentives

• Capacity building– NGOS can be roped in

01/06/2012 29/35

Most important

Grp2: Marketing constraints• Infrastructure

– cold-storage/chain– collection points (suggestions for linking remote villages)

• Value addition (Amul example)(Lepcha: think of cheese as in Sikkim)(Malavika: Minimum amount is so low that any processing is difficult, starting dairies with 50l/d) as soon as area is increased, transport becomes too expensive)

• Pricing (amount, quality)• Identification of markets• Collection process• Standardisation• Up-scaling01/06/2012 30/35

Most important

Grp 3: Feed constraints

01/06/2012 31/35

V. PadmakumarT. Ravichandran

S.T.S. LepchaT.P. Tiwari

J.K. Bisht

Grp 3: Feed constraints• Feeding

– Choice of fodder • For lean period (Apr-Jun, Dec-Feb)• Fodder trees (Bhimal, oak)• Perennial grasses (broom, napier, congo)

– Dual purpose crops: wheat, barley, paddy (suitability), depends on area– Use of weeds (Natal grass?)– Improvement of existing feeds

• Urea treatment, UMB, suppl green fodder, concentrates, suppl with area specific minerals

– Reduce wastage/feeding– Fodder banks (Negi: GoU is putting fodder banks in each block)

• Breeding– cross-breeding– red. calving interval– red. AFC

• Health– Deworming, ext. parasites– Promotion of EVM (ethnoveterinary system)– Vaccination (FMD, HS) (Negi: cold chain); Negi: improve evidence-based veterinary services, not

effectively targeted, also information links (helpline).01/06/2012 32/35

Most important

Chairman’s conclusions• In livestock development

consider 3 types– Milk animals (5l milk/d)– Tea animals (1l milk/d)– Dung animals (no milk/d)

01/06/2012 33/35