“Communities of Practice for pro-poor livestock and fisheries/aquaculture development” Workshop report 12-13 January 2009 IFAD Headquarters, Rome, Italy
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
“Communities of Practice for pro-poor livestock and
fisheries/aquaculture development”
Workshop report
12-13 January 2009
IFAD Headquarters, Rome, Italy
2
Table of Contents Acronyms ...................................................................................... 3
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................... 4
1.1 Rationale for the workshop..................................................... 4 1.2 Organization of the workshop ................................................. 5
2. OPENING PRESENTATIONS................................................... 8
2.1 The livestock industry: Global opportunities and challenges……... 8
2.2 Research and innovations in pro-poor livestock development…..…9 2.3 Global pro-poor fisheries and aquaculture development ........... 10 2.4 Innovative and inclusive approaches to global livestock
development ...................................................................... 11 2.5 Participants’ experiences in Networking Initiatives in Fisheries and
Aquaculture development..................................................... 12 2.6 Report on the findings from the needs assessment for livestock
development ...................................................................... 13
2.7 Introduction to the CoP Concept ........................................... 15
Plenary discussion – key issues………………………..……………………………………16
3. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK..... 19
3.1 Summary of Working Group 1............................................... 19 3.2 Summary of Working Group 2............................................... 20
4. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: OPERATIONALIZATION ....... 22
Plenary discussion – key issues…………………………..……..…………………………23 4.1 Summary of Working Group 1 (livestock)............................... 23
4.2 Summary of Working Group 2 (fisheries and aquaculture)........ 25
Plenary discussion – key issues………………………..……………………………………27
5. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: THE WAY AHEAD.................. 28
5.1 Summary of Working Group 1 (Livestock) .............................. 28 5.2 Summary of Working Group 2 (Fisheries and Aquaculture)……….28
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS ..................................................... 29
Appendix 1: Programme………………………….………………………………………………31 Appendix 2: List of Participants………………………………….……………………………33 Funding for this workshop was provided by the Innovation Mainstreaming Initiative and the Governments of Italy and Finland.
3
Acronyms
ARD Agricultural Research for Development COFI Committee on Fisheries CoP Community of Practice CSO Civil society organization DFID UK Department for International Development FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GMO Genetically modified organism IADG Inter-Agency Donor Group ILRI International Livestock Research Institute NARS National agricultural research system NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NGO Non-governmental organization PPLD Pro-Poor Livestock Development SPADA Special Programme for Aquaculture Development in
Africa
4
“Communities of Practice for pro-poor livestock and
fisheries/aquaculture development”
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale for the workshop
Communities of Practice (CoPs) are formed by like-minded people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared area of
interest. A CoP is characterized by three key elements:
• Domain: area of common interest which shapes the identity of the CoP;
• Community: relationships which enable collective learning among knowledgeable practitioners;
• Practice: outcomes of the interactive learning process which build on the catalogue of existing and newly developed
knowledge resources (e.g. tools, case studies, implementation practices, etc.) of the members.
CoPs impact and enrich thinking and processes within their respective domains and are hence considered to contribute to the
development of social capital and to stimulate innovation. They contribute to problem solving, the efficient use of knowledge
resource assets, to coordination and synergies and to map knowledge and identify gaps. As a connection and coordination
mechanism the CoPs intend to facilitate technical advisory services through strengthened strategic partnerships/collaborations with in-
country and international organizations at all levels, from producer organizations to development practitioners and decision makers.
The CoP is understood as a global strategic and inclusive partnership of development practitioners, project managers,
academia and other key stakeholders which contribute to the bi-directional flow of learning with the overarching objective to provide
a new business model for enhanced quality of development
operations at all levels.
Increasing availability of knowledge from a wide variety of sources needs a systematic effort to facilitate its collection and sharing, and
5
to promote connectivity between individuals as well as between
institutions. Connectivity obtained through knowledge management facilitates the further generation, sharing and application of
knowledge and contributes to more efficient development processes. Through collective learning processes, the performance
of practices and institutions constantly improve.
The goal of the workshop is to contribute to an “Innovative
Knowledge Management Approach for Technical Advisory Services” which aims to connect “committed and interested” people through
Communities of Practice (CoP). The CoP's objective is to strengthen the connections among like-minded persons who seek to enrich
knowledge and practice to improve the effectiveness of rural development and poverty reduction efforts. The workshop will also
provide an opportunity to:
� identify common priority needs, strategies and areas of actions
among CoPs stakeholders;
� enable participants to share views and experiences on livestock/fisheries and aquaculture related issues;
� provide a common ground for building new partnerships and establishing new strategic working relationships among
development partners to promote livestock as a commodity for poverty reduction.
1.2 Organization of the workshop
The workshop was organized around three topics:
• CoP Strategic Framework • CoP Sustainability
• The Way Ahead
Each theme was explored in two parallel working groups. Each working group presented a summary of its main discussion points in
plenary, followed by discussion and question-and-answer session.
(For the complete agenda of the workshop, see Appendix 1: Programme.)
Approximately 50 people attended the workshop. For a detailed list
of participants, see Appendix 2: List of Participants.
In addition, an “online” workshop was opened to participants who were unable to attend the conference in Rome. It hosted (and
6
continues to host) real time presentations, working papers and pod
casts of the single sessions. Presentations and audio files are regularly uploaded on the IFAD web site – Livestock and
Rangelands Knowledge Base – and were made available for downloading. Blog, Skype (IFAD.CoP) and an email account
([email protected]) enabled the involvement of online participants in the workshop, while a moderator regularly captured
comments and questions. A total of 30 people formally registered as online participants and many others accessed the Workshop sub
site.
Comments from some of the online participants included:
• “Ornamental fish culture is an area that can be introduced for poverty alleviation and to develop the socio-economic status
of the rural population." Dr Anna Mercy (College of Fisheries,
India)
• “I have missed an opportunity to engage in an important discussion with some very key resource people…however the
documentation is excellent, well written and informative.” Dr. Jonathan M. Davies (International Union for Conservation of
Nature, Kenya)
• “The trend is now to put a major focus on access to the market to buy inputs and hopefully sell products, prior to
providing low input/budget techniques to improve livelihood without risks. This trend in the technical assistance has been
increasing since the 1980s. I believe it is one of the causes of increasing poverty and poor results of poverty alleviation
programmes. Philippe Leperre (Independent Consultant)
EXCERPTS OF OPENING REMARKS BY KEVIN CLEAVER, ASSISTANT PRESIDENT OF IFAD
“Thank you for coming. IFAD just had in mid-December
replenishment where we sought the international community to give money for the next three years. We had the most successful
replenishment in IFAD history and of any IFI in terms of percentage. That reflects the interest in agriculture and rural
development, including livestock and fisheries. In part it is connected to price volatility, and part to events like the World Bank
rural development report, which put the spotlight on the importance of this sector. So there is a lot of money. A lot of money means
responsibility to use it well. In our sectors, we haven’t done a very
7
good job of that. None of the IFIs or bilaterals have been stellar.
Why? The quality of many projects that donors have done has been poor. At least the few studies that we have consulted and that
bilaterals don’t publish often, have shown that the results are not always very good. Improving quality is critical, especially if there is
more money. We are in the spotlight and will not get away with slovenly work...
“What is the purpose of this workshop today? Why are we at IFAD
so keen on CoPs? To share knowledge. We won’t be able to do what we need to do without improving our knowledge, and that means
sharing it. Each of us has some knowledge, and if we share it better, we should e able to do better. That is the purpose here. But
it is more than knowledge management. It is sharing information, knowledge, analyses and experience with our partners. We hope to
do these workshops for other groups in the future.”
8
2. OPENING PRESENTATIONS Antonio Rota, Senior Technical Advisor on Livestock and Farming
Systems, IFAD, welcomed the participants to the workshop and to Rome. He thanked the IMI and the governments of Finland and
Italy for their support and also welcomed the online participants.
Following the opening remarks by Kevin Cleaver (see box above), six presentations were given. A summary of each presentation
follows. (The full presentations may be viewed at http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/events/cops/index.htm).
2.1 The livestock industry: Global opportunities and challenges (Jimmy Smith, Livestock Team Leader, World Bank)
Mr Smith first spoke about the expanding demand and supply,
noting that world meat consumption is increasing and that growth
in demand is taking place most in the developing world and in industrial systems. The drivers of these trends are population
growth, income and urbanization, which will continue for some time to come. Mr Smith then went on to speak about food-feed-energy
competition. He mentioned that high-quality grains are being used more for livestock, so there is competition for food and for feed. The
issue is how to meet the needs for livestock feed without being in competition for food. He also explained that per capita production of
grains is not keeping up with population growth, which means that competition will continue to increase. Competition is also driven by
ethanol and biodiesel production. Projected cereal prices are going to increase. Meat prices are also trending upwards. Therefore the
So this food-feed issue is one that needs to be addressed.
Mr Smith then spoke about livestock diseases, and the enormous
cost of epidemics such as SARS and Avian Flu is enormous. He explained that the disease mortality rate is very high and that
animal diseases and those that are active at the animal-human-environmental interface are very important. He added that more
animals and humans are crowded in small spaces, thus creating pathogen possibilities and contributing considerably to the
intensification and spread of disease. Mr Smith also discussed livestock and the environment, stating that the livestock sector
contributes as much as the transport sector to greenhouse gas emissions. He added that there will be changing cropping patters,
which will result in fewer residues, which are the dominant feed source. In addition, availability of range lands will be encroached
upon, and the availability of and access to water is diminishing, which will have an effect on livestock keeping and livestock
9
systems. As temperatures change, the demographics of vectors and
pathogens will change as well. He highlighted that much research needs to be done in these areas, which are not well understood. Mr
Smith went on to speak about quality, safety and consumer standards, especially the cost of meeting changing regulatory and
private standards and how this will affect smallholders. He added that consumers themselves are stepping in for issues about food
that must be produced in environmentally friendly ways, animal welfare issues, and issues of fair trade. These are new issues for the
livestock sector.
Mr Smith concluded his presentation by describing some of the World Bank’s activities in the livestock sector. He emphasized that
we can only work effectively if we work horizontally, which poses huge challenges. We need to build national capacity, we have to
learn and share, and a great deal of research must be conducted.
There are many blind spots that we need to explore. There is lots of work to be done.
2.2 Research and innovations in pro-poor livestock
development (Shirley Tarawali, Theme Director, People, Livestock and the Environment, International Livestock Research Institute -
ILRI)
Ms Tarawali opened her presentation by speaking about the key drivers impacting the livestock productions systems of poor people:
economic and global (population, gross domestic product increase and urbanization); markets (demand for livestock/products and
food quality and safety); the environment (climate change and increased competition for natural resources); and knowledge and
information (access and use). She then spoke about the great
diversity in terms livestock systems, institutions and capacities, and developed vs. developing countries perspectives. The drivers and
diversity have a number of important implications for pro-poor livestock research and development:
• The need to be responsive and inclusive • The need for solutions to be context-specific
• The need to work in new ways • The need for diverse partners
• The need for enhanced capacities for diverse actors to respond individually and collectively
• The need for a strategy for learning
Ms Tarawali explained that research and development will need to move beyond traditional technology research, addressing processes
as well as issues. In addition, diverse partners will need to be able
10
to both implement and deliver, with attention to incentives and
norms that shape the interactive processes. Moreover, appropriate delivery and presentation media will need to be considered. She
then described two case studies: smallholder dairy systems in East Africa and South Asia; and improving productivity and market
success of Ethiopian farmers. In both examples, she highlighted that innovation is the organizing principle.
2.3 Global pro-poor fisheries and aquaculture development (Ann Gordon, Regional Director, West and Central Africa,
WorldFish Center)
Ms Gordon opened her presentation by emphasizing that small-scale fisheries are very important as a safety net and as an economic
driver, but that there are enormous challenges: • Wider changes in the environment – especially water
management and climate change
• Insecure access rights and rights that are difficult to enforce and manage
• Social exclusion of fishing populations that don’t have a strong voice in decision making
• Poor access to services
She stated that aquaculture is the fastest growing food production sector and accounts for one third of the world’s fish supply. The
main challenge for aquaculture is to increase food production while maintaining ecosystem resilience and reducing poverty – resilience
(social and ecological) and sustainability. She explained that sustainable aquaculture produces fish in ways that do not store up
environmental problems for the future. In addition it uses land, water, food and energy wisely and efficiently and is integrated into
national economies in ways that maximize its development impact.
Ms Gordon then described the results of a participatory mapping
exercise that was conducted with fishers and fish workers in East Africa in order to understand their perceptions of the risks to their
livelihoods. Surprisingly, the issue of too much fishing and the decline in fish stocks ranked 11 on their list. The first issue of
concern was malaria and other illnesses; the second issue was gear theft and personal insecurity. With respect to disease and illness,
Ms Gordon explained that in many countries, the incidence of HIV/AIDS is much higher among fishers than among other groups.
She went on to describe the context of responsible fisheries and ecosystem-based management. In particular: reducing vulnerability
and strengthening rights; reforming fisheries governance; building assets and capabilities; developing new technologies and markets;
11
and assessing resources and environmental status. Ms Gordon
concluded her presentation by describing how communities of practice can help maximize development impact. In particular, she
stated that a linear world view must shift to a networked world view, and that the approach must shift from “thinking for” to
“thinking with”.
2.4 Innovative and inclusive approaches to global livestock
development (Wyn Richards, Director, Communications & Knowledge Management, NR International)
Mr Richards opened his presentation by stating that it is generally
accepted that the investments made in publicly funded agric research have not had the expected benefits on the livelihoods of
resource-poor farming communities in the developing world. The
fundamental reasons are due to: lack of donor coordination; unrealistic expectations from research; variance and short-termism
of political targets and Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) policies; inflexible bureaucratic agendas; minimal resources to
market research knowledge; redundant or inappropriate research into use processes; and narrow sectoral approaches. He then
described the Inter-Agency Donor Group (IADG), an informal CoP formed in 2000. It’s main successes have been:
• increased sharing of knowledge and experiences on livestock research for development
• increased information/awareness about on-going public and private donor activities
• promoted trust (and friendship) between donor representatives,
• increased levels of knowledge on current livestock
development issues and research developments • shared potential collaborative opportunities.
In addition, the IADG has:
• Collated/published information on the research activities of the global donor organisations (public and private) in the
livestock sector • Identified the priority livestock ‘disease’ conditions of
relevance to the poor; • Mapped global livestock density and poverty;
• Predicted the influence of livestock on/by climate change; • Developed a public/private initiative on global animal livestock
vaccines (GalvMed) funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID)/Gates Foundation.
12
Mr Richards pointed out a number of missed opportunities as well.
We have not been so successful in harnessing the corporate potential of the donors in addressing and implementing initiatives
on priority issues, neither in animal health nor in livestock husbandry issues and policy change. This remains an opportunity
and a challenge which needs to be addressed. The reasons for this are many and varied but include: the short-termism of the majority
of research initiatives often dictated by political rather than development agendas; the dominant political will and narrow
interests of donors based on geo-political, thematic, economic, philosophical, trade, historical etc; and the
bureaucratic/administrative difficulties associated with multi-donor funding.
Mr Richards then spoke about the lack of investment in marketing,
citing the marked differences between public and private sector
approaches and the need for a new CoP in livestock research for development to market research findings. He also said there was a
need for adequate funding and professional resources and approach, as well as a need to accept information as a valuable and
marketable commodity which is required by and customized for inclusive chains/networks of institutions involved in agriculture –
not solely the farmer. He concluded his presentation by highlighting the redundant and inappropriate processes for getting research into
use, including a traditional linear vs. inclusive approach to extension.
2.5 Participants’ experiences in Networking Initiatives in Fisheries and Aquaculture development (Hiramoto
Watanabe, Fishery Liaison Officer, Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – FAO)
Mr Watanabe explained that he would provide information on two
initiatives taken by FAO’s Fisheries and Aquaculture Department: the Global Conference on Small-scale Fisheries; and the Special
Programme for Aquaculture Development in Africa (SPADA). He explained that these initiatives could be potential areas for
collaboration.
FAO and the Department of Fisheries of Thailand convened the global conference Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries:
Bringing together responsible fisheries and social development in Bangkok, Thailand from 13-17 October 2008. The conference was
organized in collaboration with the Southeast Asian Fisheries
Development Center and the WorldFish Center. IFAD also
13
supported the participation of fishers, and Ms Nicole Franz attended
the conference from IFAD. The conference was quite successful in terms of participation of fishers: more than one third of participants
were small-scale fishers and fish farmers. He stated that it is obvious that the problems surrounding small-scale fisheries and
aquaculture cannot be solved in one conference, but it could facilitate the on-going process to tackling the issues. He added that
the next opportunity is the forthcoming session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI 28), to be held in March 2009. FAO
should respond appropriately to the requests made by the fishers and fish farmers during the conference.
Mr Watanabe then spoke about SPADA, which represents the
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department’s strategic approach to addressing aquaculture development in its member countries in
Africa in view of the high importance given by the 27th Session of
COFI as well as the 2007 High-Level Event on Aquaculture during the 32nd FAO Conference. This new and innovative programme has
been established to provide assistance to African countries to enhance aquaculture production, to facilitate producers’ access to
financial services and markets, to boost investment in aquaculture as well as to exchange knowledge. The programme closely follows
the priorities set by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Action Plan for the Development of African Fisheries and
Aquaculture (2005). The partnership is essential for the programme. For example, at national level the programme will work
with public and private institutions, service providers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)/civil society organizations
(CSOs) and the private sector to establish sustainable and responsible aqua-business which will, in turn, increase employment,
fish supply and investment opportunities.
Mr Watanabe emphasized that one of the main reasons for his
participation in the workshop was to seek an appropriate way forward to promote the partnership between IFAD and FAO, for
which there is a lot of commonality between the initiatives undertaken by IFAD and FAO.
2.6 Report on the findings from the needs assessment for livestock development (Silvia Sperandini, Consultant,
Knowledge Management and Learning, IFAD)
Ms Sperandini explained that her presentation would highlight the key findings of the needs assessment and then link the findings to
the workshop. The methodology consisted of an electronic survey
that was sent to 166 resource people, including representatives of
14
universities and research institutes, farmers organizations,
international organizations, Regional networks and other consortia, development practitioners and decision makers. A total of 85
resource people (52 per cent) from 45 different organizations responded to the survey, and 79 per cent of them expressed their
interest in joining the CoP.
Ms Sperandini presented some of the key highlights of the survey: • Livestock merits a better position in the international agenda
Multi-stakeholders partnerships can raise this awareness embracing the importance of livestock development;
• An effective sustainable livestock development passes through:
Better designed/better targeted programmes, and better implementation support;
Concrete focus on poor farmers and on their socio-
economic empowerment; Innovative activities; Better partnerships and knowledge sharing (of what works and doesn’t work);
Demand-driven and participatory interventions; Institutional support and pro-poor policies.
She then described some of the key priorities, including:
• Empowering poor livestock keepers to secure their assets; • Improving productivity and competitiveness of livestock
products with a sustainable use of the available natural resources;
• Improving market access and market opportunities; • Assuring poor livestock keepers' inclusion and participation in
the development process;
• Investing in capacity building; • Supporting pro-poor adaptive research.
Ms Sperandini concluded her presentation by stating the
expectations of the respondents. They included: identifying and piloting innovative interventions; improving mechanisms for
achieving better results; supporting learning for achieving better results; securing financial resources in support of a pro-poor
livestock development; and improving the effectiveness of existing practices.
15
2.7 Introduction to the CoP Concept (Antonio Rota, Senior Technical Advisor on Livestock and Farming Systems, IFAD)
Mr Rota opened his presentation by discussing IFAD’s goal,
operations, the activities it supports, and its new operating model. He emphasized the importance of working with partners to identify
and develop innovative solutions. He then quoted Carlos Sere, Director of ILRI: “We need to learn how to connect all the dots –
how to integrate the work of science groups with that of the many other players in developing-country agriculture in ways that deliver
all the given specific pieces needed to support, improve and sustain African farming in specific circumstances.This will require all
research institutions to start talking to development institutions, to start building new kinds of partnerships, and to start taking on
some radical new ways of doing business. It’s bound to be a messy
process. But a necessary one.”
Mr Rota then explained that the concept of “CoP” has emerged within development communities as a way of strengthening the
connections among like-minded persons who seek to improve, through joint actions and collaborations, both knowledge and
practice for improving the effectiveness of rural development and poverty reduction programs. The main scope of a CoP is to identify
key problems and opportunities in order to develop collective strategies and priorities on how to promote livestock, fisheries and
aquaculture as tools for poverty reduction and on how to effectively empower poor farmers/livestock keepers/fisherfolk to actively
participate in decision-making processes and in the management of their livelihoods. The three key features are: continuous interaction,
a multi-stakeholder approach and convergence towards common
objectives.
Mr Rota then described IFAD’s comparative advantage:
• Relevant cross-sectoral knowledge on a wide variety of
rural development issues (e.g. microfinance, gender, institution development)
• Catalyst role: test innovations and replicate and scale up successful innovative approaches.
• Advocating role: make sure that poverty eradication issues are included into international agendas of governments,
donors and funding institutions • Work directly with poor rural communities and
grassroots organizations to enhance their access to assets, services and opportunities they need to overcome poverty.
• International financial institution (i.e. support to research
programmes and technology transfer)
16
.
The expected outputs of the CoP would be:
• A common ground for building new partnerships and
establishing new strategic working relationships among development partners to promote livestock, fisheries and
aquaculture as tools for poverty reduction; • Identification of national (international) expertise/
“champions” for supporting in-country participatory process for project design, project implementation and supervision
support at country level; • Exchange experiences/relevant knowledge, share innovative
solutions, best practices/lessons learnt, and support learning across institutions/ countries;
• Opportunities and facilitation for the elaboration of common strategies/policies/operations/advocacy for pro-poor
livestock/fisheries/aquaculture development;
• Access to technical backstopping/advisory services for Quality Enhancement of project design, implementation and
supervision.
He concluded his presentation by stating that all these aspects must be arranged by the CoP members and should be in line with their
expectations and interests. Therefore appropriate working modalities and organizational arrangements need to be discussed
and worked out in detail by its members A sustainable multi-stakeholder knowledge management system,
with an overarching identity and overall common purposes, need to be established to support stakeholders’ needs, and in particular of
farmers who can benefit from more appropriate and effective practices. He emphasized that without “committed” people it will
not be possible to move forward and build a concrete and powerful
Community.
Plenary discussions – key issues
Uncommon seeds bring uncommon harvests. – Kibaue Michael Njau, Vice President of Advocacy and Global Initiatives, Heifer
International
After each presentation, the floor was opened up for comments and questions. Below are the main points that emerged in plenary.
Livestock and energy. A paradigm change will be necessary if
pastoralists are to provide environmental services. Moreover, the ethanol issue needs to be addressed. Livestock inherently produce
17
methane, and research and development needs to explore this
issue, in particular biogas digesters.
Intensification vs. concentration. Most increases in productivity come from intensification. However, problems come from
concentration. How can livestock be brought closer to the cropping systems, away from peri-urban areas? In addition, should there be
public policies that force farmers to confront externalities of livestock raising? There are also technologies that can help with
intensification and minimize concentration.
Informal vs. formal systems. It is difficult to change the informal system (for milk) to a formal system that works with the private
sector. However, the Hubs are a way of linking, and of assuring the two-way flow of information. It’s not a way of turning the informal
into a formal sector, but of strengthening the informal sector.
A focus on people vs. commodities. Research is still focusing on
commodities, the more traditional and comfortable academic side of development. Many national research systems are commodity and
sector oriented. International research is more people oriented. The real challenge is to focus on people – on the farmers themselves,
the pastoralists. The people should be at the centre of agenda, with their social, economic and material demands and returns. At
universities, no one is trained in participatory approaches. If the CoPs are going to go down the commodities or sector field, an
important opportunity is being missed. At the same time, research and development must look at the entire value chain.
Research with impact. The policy makers are the main critiques
of research. They say that we have done all this work but they
haven’t they heard about it. Are research findings ever transformed for policy makers? No, research is often written for other
researchers. The national agricultural research system (NARS) focuses entirely on incentives that are career oriented. Unless this
changes, we will not progress. The key is what impact the research has had on the livelihoods of the poor.
CoP ingredients for success. How we are going to organize
ourselves as a CoP?. In the past 15 years, many networks and CoPs have appeared and disappeared after a few months. Others, like the
IADG, are successful. What are the principles, the learned lessons that make it successful? If the set-up and mechanisms are not
managed and facilitated, if the “silos” are not broken up and reassembled, the CoP will not be successful, and the participants
will not stay interested. In addition, participants should come with
their skill base but not their institutional cap. This would certainly
18
facilitate dialobue around more sensitive issues, like genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). If this grouping is to achieve something, it is the professionalism of the individuals and not the
institutions they represent. Furthermore, the CoP should not be encumbered by secretariats and procedures, and its expectations
should be managed, starting slowly and growing as confidence is gained. A CoP of livestock and fisheries/aquaculture might be too
broad. What are the two or three major issues that this CoP at this time could identify and work on? What issues will keep them
together until we can fulfil this task? But the issue is that we don’t say that now we have a CoP. One or two activities need to be
identified, around which to begin, which allows the kind of interaction and dialogue to start to form the core of the CoP.
Let’s walk before we run. And we need a champion to lead us.
CoP commitment vs. involvement. The conceptual limits are the
sky, but there are also the opportunity costs of time and money. A key question is: What would get me excited? The difference
between involved and committed? What would get me involved? Excite would come from knowing where to find the most successful
livestock projects – the actual development outcome, not just what was done. That would be a capturing of knowledge that would
inspire involvement. Another important piece of information would be creating a list of the livestock people around the world are and a
description of their skills and expertise.
19
3. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
The next session of the workshop was introduced by Ranjitha
Puskur, Global Project Leader, Innovation in Livestock Systems, International Livestock Research Institute. She opened up the
session by acknowledging the complexity of the development challenges that the group wanted to address. She also
acknowledged that the participants had knowledge and information about different pieces of the development puzzles. At the same
time, many people beyond the workshop participants also have pieces of this puzzle, and idea is to bring it all together, to make
knowledge bear on development. The main questions are: How do we make knowledge and research efforts more effective, more
efficient, more relevant? Is a CoP a part of the solution? If so, expectations need to be defined, as well as an understanding of
what is feasible.
In order to come to a common understanding and agreement – and
to become excited and involved – the participants were requested to form two groups to review and discuss the draft strategic
framework that had been drafted and distributed to participants before the workshop. In particular, the groups were to focus on the
key features, values, strategies and objectives, and activities.
Following is a summary of the key discussion points and suggestions that emerged during the working groups.
“The fact that I am here means I believe the CoP is necessary. Here we have donors, NGOs, research institutions. There is a good convergence of individuals. I believe we need a CoP. We need to
look at activities, at resources. We also need to look at ownership
and commitment. Who is going to be involved in this in the long term? And we need to be proactive. Let’s leave agreeing on who is
on board, what activities we will be undertaking, and with what resources.” – Karanja Swaleh, Director of Programs, Africa Program,
Heifer International
3.1 Summary of Working Group 1
Under “key features”
• Spell out all relevant institutions.. • Add “access tacit information from CoP members”
• The word “inclusive” should be present, and perhaps the word “global”
• Place emphasis on NARS
20
• Should the CoP be managed or unmanaged? Formal or
informal? Such a body would need a champion who would take the concept and promote it and advocate, someone who
can open doors. • The CoP should provide a platform for users of information
but should not be managed in such a way that it would not allow opportunistic approaches to be taken
Under “values”
• The working group agreed that this section should be kept as is.
Under “strategies and objectives”, the CoP should
• be a facility to enable more efficient use of resources for research
• address the inadequacy of research findings to be put into
practice • enhance professional practice and skills in livestock and
fisheries development • benefit from lessons learned from others’ experiences
• play an advocacy role • be complementary information pool (e.g. information related
to a livestock keeper)
Under “activities” • Capture and share the lessons from previous experiences on
both process and practice (negative and positive) • Promote a culture of information and lesson learning within
the CoP • Identify the thematic issues to focus the work of the CoP (two
or three to start – e.g. issues that address the MDGs, impact
of smallholders producers on the environment, enhanced access of small producers in value chains, access to feed
resources, integrated production systems, water and water productivity)
The working group also agreed on the following definition of CoP –
should provide like-minded people with a platform for interaction, knowledge sharing, dissemination, problem solving and capacity
building.
3.2 Summary of Working Group 2
Under “features”
• First bullet should include policy makers
21
• Third bullet should express the idea of very focused issues
and small groups, at least to start with, and then filtering into subgroups.
• Add a feature of flexibility, that it is dynamic and can adapt and evolve
• Add that members contribute substantively and benefit substantively as an incentive
Under “values”
• The point about being demand-driven could be removed • Respect for diversity and differences of opinion should be
emphasized. • Third bullet should be about livelihoods and natural resources;
remove the word “always” and not “the” way but “a” way
Under strategies and objectives
• Overall goal: To strengthen the connections among like-minded persons who seek to improve, through joint actions
and collaborations, both knowledge and practice, for improving the effectiveness...
• Remove “Identify common practices and strategies” since this is part of the “how”
• Remove “identify” in bullet 3 • Remove bullets 6 and 7
• Bullet 8 is problematic; is more of a “how”. And top-down should not be completely eliminated
• One question as an objective – should the CoP be recognized outside of itself as a valuable entity?
Under activities
• Move activity to the end
• Eliminate activity 4 and 5 • Activity 6: the form of this “archive” is critical and needs to be
developed.
The working group agreed that “the ‘symphony’ approach is fine but it needs a conductor.”
After the presentations of the working groups, it was agreed that
the changes and suggestions would be incorporated into the Strategic Framework, and the new draft would be distributed for
review.
22
4. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: OPERATIONALIZATION
“Something is needed that will enable us to do our jobs better and with practical implications on the ground. There is a degree of structure, and a minimum set of formality to make it work.” –
Shirley Tarawali, Theme Director, People, Livestock and the
Environment, International Livestock Research Institute
Plenary discussion
Before the participants broke into two working groups to discuss issues of operationalization, a plenary discussion was held to review
the previous day’s work and to clarify any outstanding issues. Following are some of the main issues that emerged during the
plenary discussion.
CoP informality vs. formality. It was largely felt that in order to
be successful and sustainable a CoP should be informal. For example, the experience of IADG group shows the strength of
informality, of people coming to meetings without the institutional baggage, which does add value. However, there are disadvantages,
particularly in practical matters such as funding and bringing people in without the funding. At the same time, some of the activities
proposed in the strategic framework are almost incompatible with an informal approach. For example, the provision of technical
advisory services requires quality control over that service, which requires a formal structure. Group advocacy also requires a formal
structure. Therefore, the activities undertaken may determine whether the CoP is formal or informal. The question arose as to
whether there could be a semi-formal approach, a “halfway” house
to assure that development professionals from organizations with funding would come without their institutional baggage.
Existing CoPs. Another issue discussed at length was whether
similar CoPs already exist and, if so, how they could be strengthened. There are bodies and networks that work quite
effectively already, but maybe whose constituent parts could be strengthened by bringing in new players. In order to move forward,
it was felt that existing networks need to be mapped. However, if there are already CoPS that address what we want to address, then
is another CoP really necessary? The idea behind this CoP is that it would enable different groups of stakeholders to interact and learn
about what works and what does not work in their areas of expertise, and with a pro-poor lens. In that, there is definitely
room. Still, we need to know what is already out there.
23
The role of IFAD. The role of IFAD was discussed at length, particularly in terms of its funding capacity. Can IFAD have a small
project that can fit into the exiting CoPs that can allow a more structured annual gathering, wider opportunities for farmers and
other groups who cannot finance? At the same time, if IFAD has resources to gather people, this doesn’t mean IFAD should have
more say. FAO would be another possible place for housing the CoP.
Livestock and fisheries/acquaculture as one CoP. If the CoP is to include both sectors, the issue of how to harmonize such a broad
CoP comes into play. Is it an advantage or disadvantage to have them together? Although two different communities (livestock and
fisheries) are involved, there are generic issues that relate to both. The priorities might then be different for the two communities, but
at the strategic level they are quite similar. During the workshop,
participants agreed on the need to have two CoPs.
Global vs. regional/national scope. Having a CoP at the global level will restrict the kind of participation that can be achieved and
the kind of learning mechanisms; regional or national chapters could be an alternative, although one does not exclude the other.
Practical role. The CoP needs to not just consolidate but also
enrich. That requires a certain amount of work and analysis. To take this further, it is not only to come up with a series of lessons that
are holistic and inclusive. It must also have practical operational advice. The key word is practice. In addition, the nomenclature is
important. To be people-centred, the CoP should use the terms “livestock keepers” and “fisherfolk” rather than “livestock” and
“fisheries”.
“You don’t establish a CoP in one meeting like this. You talk about it. But the CoPs grow organically, by staring with a thematic reviews
that are led by different organizations, which forms the basis for interactions and gets a dialogue going.” – Jeroen Dijkman, Livestock
Development Officer, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations
4.1 Summary of Working Group 1 (livestock)
The working group started by identifying two themes or challenges:
how to enhance the access of smallholder to the value chain; and how to promote the sustainability of livestock production in
drylands. The group then discussed about a CoP could deliver on
these challenges. The immediate response was to conduct a
24
mapping exercise (e.g. reviewing papers, workshops, websites,
networks) in order to identify any existing responses. The mapping exercise would enable the CoP to assess available knowledge and
success stories, in order to distil this knowledge and generate and exchange new knowledge with added value.
To define the challenges, the group used three criteria:
• Impact on a critical mass of people • Raise the interest of donors
• Doable and feasible
In terms of sustainability, the group agreed that the CoP should begin with a pilot phase that would be characterized by the
definition of the following outputs:
• Development of a proposal for funding
• Results of a test challenge
• Mapping of existing CoPs and networks
These outputs would be achieved by the following activities:
• Create a working group
• Set up information and communication technology support • Identify a coordinator
• Identify a challenge and criteria • Address the challenge
• Identify people to undertake the mapping exercise • Identify a proposal writer
The group believed that these actions would be necessary to
demonstrate the viability of the CoP, and to receive funding to continue its work.
The group also believed that it would be more appropriate if the CoP had an independent virtual home, rather than be housed within an
institution, although during the pilot phase the latter option would be acceptable. Advertising the existence of the CoP was another
issue that the group believed was necessary, as well as the need for occasional face-to-face meetings among the CoP members.
The group concluded by highlighting that IFAD funding for the pilot
phase cannot be assumed. IFAD’s goal is to bring together people to determine whether there is interest in and a need for creating a CoP
and, if so, to find an independent way of doing so. This is not an IFAD-led process. IFAD is simply creating the opportunity for the
discussion, and could be one of many potential donors for a pilot.
25
4.2 Summary of Working Group 2 (fisheries and aquaculture)
The group started by conducting a quick mapping of CoPs or similar networks, with the idea of completing the mapping exercise more
comprehensively, finding linkages and identifying areas that needed to be strengthened. It was suggested that the One Fish site, we
reviewed to gain an understanding as to why the site is not being used. The group agreed that it would be important to have a
separate website for the CoP rather than be under the umbrella of an institution like FAO or IFAD. The group recognized that the
website would need a moderator and that there would be issues around participation in different languages. The module suggested
from the Sanissa experience presented one viable option: different discussions are held in different languages, but a moderator is
periodically able to pick up key points from one language and
inserts them into the other discussions. The group agreed that in the initial stages, perhaps for a year or two, it would be useful to
have a steering group to propose discussion themes and new themes as they emerged, although in a very demand-driven way.
The issue of sustainability was largely focused on funding, although
the group believed that setting up and moderating a website would not be particularly expensive, and once the website was running,
the costs would be even lower. There are start-up costs, but once it is running the costs are modest. Nevertheless, funding would need
to be sought in the form of donor funding or member funding from certain larger institutions. Some group members suggested that
users could pay for certain services, although the majority believed that this would be a complicated route to go. One group member
suggested that the website be implemented in Casablanca to reduce
costs, and others recommended that the web page be joint with the livestock page, but somehow integrated, to reduce costs. The group
acknowledged that there was a bit of a “vacuum” in IFAD in terms of supporting a CoP for fisheries and aquaculture, but that FAO and
WorldFish had mandates and capacity for supporting a CoP. At the same time, the group was willing to take the discussion forward as
an informal group over the next few months.
After much discussion, the group decided it would be useful to have open access to the website, but contributors would need to log on,
which implies a registering process and the provision of basic information such as the type of organization the member works for.
This type of information would be extremely useful for evaluating the CoP, in terms of determining whom it is reaching and who is
participating. Themes would need to be revised and updated as
26
discussions emerged, and mechanisms would need to be created to
accommodate the different subgroups that might be formed.
Plenary discussion – key issues
After each of the working group presentations, the floor was open for comments and questions. Following is a summary of the main
issues that emerged.
Importance of demonstrating value added. The idea of piloting will demonstrate the involvement and commitment of people, and
will show or identify the best way to communicate and work together. In this regard, the pilot proposal, and the selected theme,
must be attractive to donors, of which IFAD is a potential one. why we have to come up with a proposal that is attractive to donors,
and IFAD is one of the potential donors. A theme like livestock
insurance could bring value added and demonstrate that this CoP is able to generate a public good with added value. The other value
would come from our experience, our knowledge, our capacity to identify the right stakeholders, members, who can deliver.
Independence vs. dependence. In the beginning, the CoP may
need an institution and its environment to support and empower it. But even more important is the need for the dedication and
commitment of one champion, complemented by the dedication and commitment of at least a core group. These are key ingredients for
success.
Selecting the appropriate pilot. It is important to select pilots that are relatively easy, appeal to most members, and generate
benefits quickly, before moving on to more difficult topics.
IFAD support. IFAD would probably be committed to hosting the
pilot experience for the Livestock group. However, it might be difficult for IFAD to manage, coordinate and facilitate two groups,
i.e. Livestock and Fisheries/Aquaculture. The latter group could be supported by FAO or WorldFish.
Operationalization issues and commitments.
• IFAD will initially house and be the nurturer of the livestock node and WorldFish will be the nurturer of the fisheries node.
• A champion is needed for both groups. Institutions do not champion. People champion, and two people should be chosen
before the workshop concludes. Antonio Rota was nominated as champion for the Livestock CoP and was requested to
make a progress report in Belgium. Ann Gordon was
nominated as champion for the Fisheries/Aquaculture CoP.
27
• Both groups came up with the need for some kind of steering
group that can take the process forward and support. A body should be in place before the workshop concludes.
• Livestock insurance emerged as one possible theme. If, in the next several days, no one suggests another theme, then
livestock insurance will be the theme. • In practical terms, the expectation should be that over a
defined time period (e.g. two or three months), a general approach could be determined and communicated, donor
contacts could be made aware about the emergence of the idea, some feedback received, and then something put on the
table for funding to get a website. A timeline is needed to move forward systematically.
The plenary discussion concluded with a decision to divide into two
groups to determine concrete actions and time frames for the short
term.
28
5. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: THE WAY AHEAD
5.1 Summary of Working Group 1 (Livestock)
The livestock working group agreed on three resolutions and
corresponding actions.
• Resolution 1 – Antonio Rota will coordinate the activities of the pilot phase of the CoP on Livestock
. • Resolution 2 – How livestock insurance will reduce
vulnerability of poor smallholder livestock producers will be the initial challenge addressed in order to prepare a pilot
phase to be submitted to donors for possible funding.
• Resolution 3 – Mr Rota will be assisted by a working group
that will be set up for this specific pilot group. Members are diversified, representing different institutions: Ranjitha Puskur
(ILRI), Michael Njau Kibuame (Heifer International), Ahmed Sidahmed (University of California Davis), Wyn Richards (NR
International) and David Ward (Consultant).
5.2 Summary of Working Group 2 (Fisheries and Aquaculture)
The working group reinforced its position to push on with
developing a CoP around fisheries and aquacultures. Funding would be needed at some level, with contributions in kind from different
sources. The key is to understand donor interest in the concept and
what form and timing. The group assured all participants that all progress would be communicated by e-mail.
29
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS Antonio Rota presented a summary of the two-day workshop.
Following are excerpts of his presentation.
“This initiative was launched to see if the idea of a different way of working together was a viable way of working together and was
also needed for other institutions. It seems to have borne some fruit. We started yesterday with an overview of the two sectors,
with examples of CoPs that exist. We saw good examples of the different institutions and sectors contributing to pro-poor livestock
and poverty reduction. Then we started reviewing the strategic framework that had been drafted. Some changes made, but in
principle people agreed with the framework that we proposed. This document, which has IFAD’s logo, will now be without the IFAD
logo. It is owned by all of us, since we validated it and it is what will
guide our work.
“Then we started talking about what a CoP is and why there is a need for establishing this way of working together. It was rich
discussion...and thanks to the experience of a lot of people we were reassured that if we are here it is because we believe in this
process...We realized that having a CoP that covered both Livestock and Fisheries/Aquaculture was a challenge that was too great. So
we divided the two sectors and talked about the “how” – how we are going to work, how are we going to implement the activities –
and we came out with two different approaches, equally viable, equally good. Then we concluded by taking some resolutions and
programmatic steps. I am very satisfied with this process, in the sense that although here have been some up and downs, I could
feel the commitment and interest of the people involved.
“We are people who carry a rich knowledge in ourselves, and this
willingness to share this knowledge is what is going to make this CoP approach a successful one. We gave ourselves some targets,
some objectives. Let’s see if this is a good way, and maybe reconvene next year and see what progress we have made on both
initiatives.”
30
Concluding Remarks
(Rodney Cook Director, Technical Advisory Division)
One or two people are concerned about the degree of IFAD’s commitment. Let me just underline that IFAD is in the business of
country programmes, which takes us through the gamut, but the sixth element is promoting the involvement of rural people in
planning and policy processes. That is why IFAD has a knowledge management strategy, of which the discussions you have been
having are a manifestation. If we don’t have effective knowledge management, how do we influence things? IFAD is very much
committed to knowledge management and CoPs in the key sectors of rural development. Next week, with FAO, we are
participating in the Knowledge Share Fair as another
manifestation of that. Antonio is very much playing to a central theme of IFAD. The
case for livestock and fisheries is very strong and often not appreciated by policy makers and decision makers in
governments and in collaboration agencies. We are committed to taking the thinking forward, and doing so in a focused way. I am
delighted to hear and to see the “red” changes [made in the strategic framework] and the discussions. Let me say on behalf of
the Programme Management Department, we will be looking to supporting your initiatives and taking forward your CoP initiatives. Thank you for taking the time to come to Rome.
31
Appendix 1: Programme
Day 1
Time Speaker/Facilitator
Plenary
8:30 Registration
9:00 Welcome and opening remarks Mr. Kevin Cleaver, IFAD
Assistant President, PMD
9:30 Presentation on The livestock industry: Global opportunities and challenges
Jimmy Smith (World Bank)
10:00 Presentation on Research and innovations in PPLD Shirley Tarawali (ILRI)
10:30 - Coffee Break
11:00 Presentation on Global pro-poor fisheries and aquaculture
development
Ann Gordon (WorldFish
Center)
11:30 Presentation on Innovative and inclusive approaches to global
livestock development
Wyn Richards
(NRInternational)
12:00 Participants’ experiences in Networking Initiatives in Fisheries
and Aquaculture development Hiromoto Watanabe (FAO)
12:30 Lunch
14:00 Report on findings from the need assessment for livestock
development Silvia Sperandini (IFAD)
14:20 Introduction to the CoP concept Antonio Rota (IFAD)
14:40 Plenary discussions
15:30 - Coffee Break
Parallel Sessions – Working Groups
Theme: CoP Strategic Frameworks
15:50 WG1 and WG2 - The CoP strategic framework: revision and
validation
Plenary
17:15 Working group summaries WG rapporteurs
17:45 Q&A Facilitator
18:00 Closing remarks Day 1 Antonio Rota
32
Dinner
Day 2
Plenary
9:00 Summary of Day 1 and introduction to Day 2 Antonio Rota
9:15 Plenary discussion
10.30 - Coffee Break
Parallel Sessions: WG 1 Livestock; WG 2 Fisheries and Aquaculture
Theme: CoP Operationalization
10:50 WG1/WG2 - Organizational arrangements, including
communication and sharing mechanisms
Plenary
12:00 Working group summaries WG rapporteurs
12:20 Plenary discussion
12:40 - Lunch
Parallel Sessions: WG 1 Livestock; WG 2 Fisheries and Aquaculture
Theme: The way ahead
14:00 WG1 - Building a plan of action for the CoP on PPLD
WG2 - Building a plan of action for the CoP on PPFA
16:00 - Coffee Break
Plenary
16:40 Working group summaries WG rapporteurs
17:25 Wrap-up Day 2 Antonio Rota
17:40 Closing remarks
Rodney Cooke, Director
Technical Advisory Division
33
Appendix 2: List of Participants
External Participants
Ankers Philippe Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Bachmann Felix Swiss College of Agriculture [email protected]
Belkouch Abdellatif Infosamak: Centre for Marketing Information & Advisory Services
Bosma Roel Wageningen University [email protected]
Bennett Tony Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Bougouss Nada Infosamak: Centre for Marketing Information & Advisory Services
Cambridge Tracy MRAG Ltd. [email protected]
De Haan Nicoline Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Dijkman Jeroen Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Floribert Beloko Takanaki
INFODEV - Peuples Solidaires Belgique
Gordon Ann WorldFish Center [email protected]
Josupeit Helga Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Karanja Swaleh Heifer International [email protected]
Kibaue Michael Njau Heifer International [email protected]
Khadidja Salah Club du Sahel et de l'Afrique de l'Ouest/OECD
Leyland Tim Department for International Development (DFID)
Muir James University of Stirling [email protected]
34
Puskur Ranjitha International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
Richards Gareth CABI [email protected]
Richards Wyn NRInternational [email protected]
Schmidt Axel CIAT [email protected]
Sidahmed Ahmed E. University of California Davis [email protected]
Smith Jimmy W. World Bank [email protected]
Tarawali Shirley International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
Thieme Olaf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Tourette Diop Isabelle Agronomes et Vétérinaires sans frontières
Triquet Marion GERES [email protected]
Ward David Consultant [email protected]
Watanabe Hiromoto Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Willingham Arve Lee WHO/FAO Collaborating Center for Parasitic Zoonoses. University of Copenhagen
Wright Iain International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
35
IFAD Participants
Abukari Moses Consultant, IFAD Technical Advisory Division
Boditsis Theodoros Consultant, IFAD Technical Advisory Division
Calvosa Chiara Consultant, IFAD Western and Central Africa Division
Chuluunbaatar Delgermaa APO, IFAD Technical Advisory Division
Cleaver Kevin Asst. President – IFAD Programme Management Dept.
Cleveringa Rudolph Senior Technical Adviser, IFAD Technical Advisory Division
Cooke Rodney Director, IFAD Technical Advisory Division
El Harizi Khalid Innovation Mainstreaming Initiative (IMI) Manager, Policy Division
Firmian Ilaria Associate Technical Advisor NRM, IFAD Technical Advisory Division
Hamp Michael Senior Technical Adviser, IFAD Technical Advisory Division
Merzouk, Abdelaziz
Country Programme Manager, IFAD Near East & North Africa Division
Mwanundu Sheila Senior Technical Adviser, IFAD Technical Advisory Division
Nourallah Mounif Country Programme Manager, IFAD Near East & North Africa Division
Pallas Sabina Programme Manager, IFAD Land Coalition
Rath Thomas Country Programme Manager, IFAD Asia & Pacific Division
36
Remy Philippe Consultant, IFAD Policy Division
Rota Antonio Senior Technical Adviser, IFAD Technical Advisory Division
Sparacino Cristiana Country Programme Manager, IFAD West & Central Africa Division
Sperandini Silvia Consultant, Technical Advisory IFAD Division
Thierry Benoît Country Programme Manager, IFAD East & Southern Africa Division
37
Contact:
Mr. Antonio Rota Senior Technical Adviser on Livestock and Farming Systems [email protected]
Related Documents
