learning-workshop_4_Collaboration

= **imGoats project: Learning and reflection workshop** = == Udaipur, India, 2-6 July 2012 ==

Our lessons learnt about the collaboration between ILRI, NGOs and other parties

 * || **BAIF (viz ILRI)** || **CARE (viz ILRI)** || **ILRI (viz BAIF and CARE)** ||
 * Aha moments (annoying or interesting concrete examples of discovering how the other organization works) || * This is a different project from traditional goat development projects (e.g. including capacity building, distribution of goats, minor support services)
 * It contains a new idea: IPs
 * Outcome mapping generates learning about learning and policy-making || * OM is a new qualitative M&E methodology focusing on behavior change
 * Research: Data collection, analysis, documentation (lacking in Mozambique)
 * Lack of clarity in research activities (e.g. research on socio-cultural planning & communication )
 * Insufficient coordination between ILRI and CARE || * BAIF/CARE are development-oriented. They are very knowledgedable about field reality. They are flexible to adapt to changing conditions e.g. 'How will the IP work?' HH survey --> Not all what ILRI wanted is achievable or logical. In India: alter order of questions
 * Standard approach of working based on past experience: e.g. de-worming, sharing paravet module after training was given, increase in amount of goats shouldn't be the only indicator of success
 * Different educational levels in 1 organization - we have to take this into account in day-to-day work.
 * M&E data collection: Done, but no analysis done.
 * BAIF is not 1 organization (Pune, Rajasthan, Jharkhand....) ||
 * What is positive about working together - which you could not achieve alone (1+1=3) || * Exchange of ideas among partners (BAIF, CARE, ILRI) about new approach;
 * Replicable in other areas;
 * Sharing of experiences with participating countries
 * NAC formation is new concept to help policy making || * Complementarity in research activities (ILRI) and development activities (CARE) and learning;
 * ?? and valuing goat sector in Mozambique || * NGOs have a good knowledge about field reality
 * They have community relationships
 * They are good at converting research findings into practical applications in the field (e.g. info sheet for IP on baseline results)
 * Together we conduct more robust household/village surveys:
 * Removing some questions;
 * Changing some questions;
 * 45' <--> 4h ||
 * Where could the relation grow further and deeper (where is it not mature enough)? || * Global base dynamic project
 * Strengthening the communication system with each other
 * Organizing the workshop in the participatory country || * Improving planning (time and other resources required) at basic level;
 * Coordination meetings among supervisors (gestores?) to harmonize policies/strategies of each institution (lack of clarity in the first two meetings) || * Flexibility from both sides required
 * Willingness to change by both organizations
 * Synchronizing institutional mechanisms to be taken into account during project planning (e.g. coordination committee with decision power) ||