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?