learning-workshop_Intro-IP

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

Why do you use IPs? (Participants' perspective)

 * Helps reporting issues at village level
 * All the different actors are present at the IP
 * Requires needs of wider society (vet, finance)
 * Helps solve different issues identified by the IP
 * Create awareness of some issues that need to be cracked within the stakeholders (capacity building)
 * Reduces the project role -- establishes linkages, and becomes a wider thing than the project itself
 * Identifies key issues for field activity planning
 * Reduces the timeline between raising an issue and finding a solution
 * In what way is IP different from a VC meeting?

Why do we use IPs? (Kees's perspective)


At ILRI, we are questioning when we call something an IP, and when we call it something else.

Innovation platforms are inclusive, they are participatory. There's a common vision, which ensures everyone is focused on reaching the same goal. Members are diverse, and they are committed. Communication is efficient and effective. Participants learn by doing and there is an appreciation for learning.

Today, we are looking back at the design of the IP and what we want to get out of it.

What do the innovation platforms look like in your country / how do they function?
Consistency in participation during coming 3-4 meetings. || * Identified local stakeholders (goat keepers, traders, input suppliers, chemist) (list prepared) through focus group meetings in villages Invite all the actors to share their expectations from the IP || * Each actor expressed their respective needs and interests
 * || **Jharkhand** || **Rajasthan** || **Mozambique** ||
 * **Participation**: Actors are clearly identified, include all relevant actors, are engaged and committed || On the basis of the experience of working in the area since 5 years. Area of IP: 5-6 villages (30-35 groups) . infrastructure available in the vicinity
 * Defined area (clusters) for forming it
 * Identified other institutions for establishing linkages and interacted with concerned people (animal husbandry, traders, insurance agent)
 * CONCERNED ABOUT: consistent participation of actors (traders, women) in the IP meeting [Assigning clear roles and responsibilities may change this] || * Producers were selected on the basis of being influential CONCERN: Didn’t address vulnerable groups (women and HIV positive people)
 * CONCERN: Limited involvement of community leaders at start (only after 10m)
 * Other participants were selected on role in VC, also influential people
 * For first IP meeting, invitations by letter
 * At start, lack of clarity about benefits to participants. They started to understand and see the value of the IP better after concrete activities were conducted (after 3rd IP) ||
 * **Vision/tasks**: Objectives, goals, roles, tasks are clear and agreed || Share the overall goal of the IP with the department (animal husbandry) and other stakeholders viz butcher-trader (especially) || Shared the common objective/goal of having the IP at the beginning || * During the first IP meeting common objectives were established (after identification of constraints) --> improve production and marketing of goats
 * IP secretariat with different roles and responsibilities agreed upon by groups
 * PROUD ABOUT: Creation of IP secretariat (including reviewing of performance) ||
 * **Information sharing and communication**: Diverse knolwedge, skills, interests and needs are acknowledged and used. Information flowsw within and beyond IPs || Sharing of views (nearest market / transportation / potential area of goat/transfer of technologies)
 * Field guides and supervisor/goat keeper/group representative key link for information and knowledge flow between the IP and goat keepers
 * PROUD OF: All value chain actors are participating in IP, sharing the information they have and communicating beyond the IP. Bringing information from IP to goat keepers’ groups and providing feedback || * Example: community leader gave input in communal pasture areas
 * Beyond IP: was identified as constraint after first 2-3 IP meetings --> field visit of CARE M&E officer --> next IP
 * PROUD OF: Explanation of CARE to IP how information works and its importance ||
 * **Problem-solving**: Joint identification of constraints and opportunities to address them. Systematic process planning, action and reflection || Meeting with members of IP and on the basis of decisions of meeting. Line of action to be developed. || * Issues identified/discussed with concerned actors based on issues coming up in monthly focus group meetings taken up for discussion
 * Action plans prepared jointly
 * Follow-up activities in the interval between IPs based on action plans prepared, in close coordination with related actors
 * Review the follow-up actions in the subsequent meeting

PROUD OF:
 * Participation by goat keepers and field guide, government dept.
 * Follow-up actions have been encouraging
 * This is very important for running IP in future (actors recognize importance of IP) || * First IP meeting: identification of 3 main constraints. Next IPs: follow-up actions identified
 * Every meeting: reflections on actions last 2 months; new actions identified for coming 2 months
 * Looking for options to maintain IP (by participants) ||
 * **Facilitation**: Clear agreement on who facilitates (and how s/he has been selected). Mutual respect and openness. Partnership and stakeholder management || Initially, project team while further FG and goat keeper representative. || * Started with BAIF project team, in the context of facilitation. Encouraging the field guides to take the role of facilitating and coordination
 * Two FGs selected/nominated by IP members based on their activeness and capacity to communicate
 * Partnership/stakeholder management largely by BAIF team as it is still early stages of IP
 * CONCERNED ABOUT: Inconsistent participation by some actors such as traders makes it difficult for involving them in organizational aspects of IP.
 * PROUD OF: There has been increased demand for training from field guides and community representatives after attending the IPs || * It was agreed that the Vice President would facilitate meetings of secretariat
 * Project team works closely with VP to build capacity
 * Openness: everybody participates and speaks
 * PROUD OF: capacity building of IP president to facilitate IP meetings ||

Q&A and open discussion after the exercise
Q: Any eye-openers during this exercise? A: Regular and consistent flow of meetings will lead to success of the innovation platform.
 * Jharkhand**

Q: How many villages in the area. A: 59 villages in total but there are 30-35 potential groups that have a good number of goats. The plan is to start small, gauge response and then grow later. There are 12 butchers/traders.

Q: Are there any other platform or process that brought actors together before the IP? A: Such a concept is new with regard to small ruminants. But there is multi-level structuring of involvement of farmers.

Q: How would you ensure that there is feedback from the IP to community members who are not attending the IP, and also beyond the five targeted communities. Have you thought about that? A: There is need to share with the community and with line department since they are the policymakers. The information would help in policymaking.

Q: Does the innovation platform add value, under these existing conditions? A: It will help develop linkages with animal husbandry department. Participation will give traders a voice during sale of their animals. Comment: The main constraint was animal health so now having identified this, it would be a good time to start the IP to establish those linkages with the animal health department and traders.

Q: Any eye openers during the exercise? A: We could see planned activities as separate from the IP so incorporated BAIF activities into the IP so as to establish the link. Planning is happening at the IP meeting.
 * Rajasthan**

Q: In Mozambique, CARE provided transport and lunch and this led to some problems. Any comment? A: We were not consistent but we offered tea and snacks as a cultural courtesy. Initially transport was not provided but we gave the participants lunch and then we realized the cost. So to deal with the it, we planned the meetings so that we completed before lunch but then provided transport. The cost of transport in India is comparatively lower. Comment by Saskia: The villages in Mozambique are remote and there are no means of public transport. At the previous meeting it was agreed participants would arrange their own transport but we would still give lunch, especially considering that they have to leave home very early (by 0400) to make it on time for the IP meetings. Producers travel, on average, 6-7 km while the provincial head has to travel 300km

Q: What is your expectation for the continuation of IP after the project and what is your plan of action? A (Ramkumar): We have identifid two field guides with good speaking skills so we are training them how to run meetings. For IP meetings, we want to show the actors that there are benefits associated with IPs so that they can buy in, and strengthen capacities within the IP. Outputs generated from the IP should be associated with the IP so that people can see the benefit; we are racing against time to achieve this.

Q: Did you explore traders’ problems or only producers? A: We have different levels of traders: local traders and trader/butchers. Problems include: a long time to get animals; no space to carry out trade (though this is for the municipal government and beyond the scope of the IP).

Q: Any eye openers? Birgit: The exercise allowed us to reflect on IP participation and to see that the membership was based on the initial decision to choose mainly influential leaders. This is how the group came to be mostly male-based. It's important to ensure that producer groups have vulnerable groups and incorporate these in the IP. However, goat keeping in Inhassoro District is not a main source of livelihood thus membership of producers in the IP may not be a critical criterion.
 * Mozambique**

Comment by Kees: You could have separate meetings for community leaders and keep the IP meetings for the VC actors. A: Agree. This was done where initially we had separate meetings for community leaders but due to communication breakdown at the subsequent IP meeting, the community leaders showed up and we couldn't tell them not to attend.

Q: Is there any guidance from ILRI on IPs with respect to how their duration? This is a question that was asked previously but the answer has not been forthcoming. A (Kees): A lot is happening on IPs and collective action. Some of these questions will be addressed in this program on collective action. The question is: Do we need to sustain the IP or do we stimulate innovation? Some would argue that there is no need for the IP if the linkages are established and sustained.