Background Current Status Outlook

1. 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. MilkIT Background Current Status Outlook 1st Advisory Council Meeting Dehradun 01/06/2012 Nils Teufel

2. 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

3. Background – ILRI in South Asia • Feed improvements (fodder, food-feed crops, processing) • Market development • Work on innovation

4. Background – History of MilkIT • Fodder Innovation Project/Fodder Adoption Project • OPEC dairy feeding & marketing project • EU/IFAD call

5. 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

6. 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

7. Status – Site selection, districts • Ajeeveeka activity • Either Kumaon or Garhwal • Mid-hills • Dairy dynamics

8. Status – Partners 1 HIMMOTHAN IFAD • Which type of partners (December workshop)? INHERE LCM (Lokechetnamanch) CHIRAG CHEA

9. 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? • Perhaps not yet • CHIRAG in Bageshwar

10. Status, block selection - ILSP Partner activities

11. Status, block selection, market access

12. Status, block selection,land use

13. Status, block selection,bovine density

14. Status, block selection,intensified livestock

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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?

18. Preparations for implementation • Office • Secondary data collection • Local contacts • Detailed work-plans • Partner agreements • Value chain assessment tools

19. Outlook – activities 2012(work plan)

20. Outlook – activities 2013

21. Thank You!

22. 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.

23. 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).

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. Group discussions • Innovation platforms: • “How can innovation platforms support development and dissemination of new technologies for dairy development?” • Himmothan, GBPIHED, Elks, AHD • Marketing constraints: • “What are you most interested in for overcoming institutional and marketing constraints in the dairy sector?” • Aanchal, Ajeeveeka, ULDB, Chirag • Feeding constraints: • “What should MilkIT produce to help with improving productivity of dairy animals among small holders through better feeding, breeding & health?” • GBPUAT, FD, VPKAS

27. Grp 1: Innovation platforms M. Chauhan R.S. Negi R.S. Rawat S. Jarial R.C. Rajaguru

28. Grp1 Innovation platforms Most important • 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

29. 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.

30. Grp2: Inst. & mrktng constraints Atul Shah Pankaj Kumar Pawan Kumar A.K. Negi

31. Grp 2: Institutional constraints • Baseline survey • Market research (Milk production groups) • demand/supply gap • production, status/potentialTiwari: 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 Most important

32. 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-scaling Most important

33. Grp 3: Feed constraints J.K. Bisht S.T.S. Lepcha T.P. Tiwari V. Padmakumar T. Ravichandran

34. 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). Most important

35. Chairman’s conclusions • In livestock development consider 3 types • Milk animals (5l milk/d) • Teaanimals (1l milk/d) • Dung animals (no milk/d)