Burkina sip2014

Burkina Faso small ruminants value chain strategy and implementation planning workshop 14-15 July 2014 Palm Beach hotel, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

---

Objectives

• Take stock of the program’s activities and (preliminary) results in Burkina Faso
• Share information among partners on ongoing and new initiatives and projects
• Develop a Strategy and Implementation Plan for the VC (2015-2023)

Read news about this event.

Agenda

Monday 14 July

• 08.00 Registration
• 08.30 Welcome, objectives and agenda of the meeting, introduction of participants (facilitator)
• 09.15 Update on Livestock and Fish:

The program in a nutshell including Livestock and Fish program update on key changes and developments (Tom Randolph) - See this presentation Progress to date in Burkina Faso and with the Small Ruminant Value Chain project in Burkina Faso (Abdou Fall) - See this presentation Q&A

• 10.00 Break
• 10.30 Preliminary site selection

Presentation (Catherine Pfeifer) - See this presentation Conversation (facilitator)

• 11.30 Visioning & planning towards 2023 (facilitator)

Reviewing what success looks like in the Burkina Faso context - developing a joint vision for pro-poor transformation of the small ruminant value chain. Reviewing the overall value chain objective statement in the Burkina Faso context Introducing flagship clusters of activity necessary to achieve the vision and reviewing important areas of work for each of these flagship clusters.

• 13.00 Lunch break
• 14.00 Working on the vision for L&F in Burkina
• 15.30 Break
• 16.00 Working with the SIP
• 17.00 Stock-taking of progress per group (facilitator)
• 17.15 Close

Tuesday 15 July

• 09.00 Introduction of innovation funds? Introduction of template if not done on the previous day. IFAD program as the implementation backbone...
• 09.14 Group work (continued)
• 10.30 Break
• 11.00 Group work presentations with critical peer feedback
• 12.30 Lunch break
• 13.30 Group work (continued) to fill out the SIP template.

Wednesday 16 July OPTIONAL, depending on progress the previous days

• 09.00 Working in smaller group to fill out the template

Participants

	Name	Organization	Town/ Country
1	MANDE Charles Dieudonné	Vétérinaire Privé (COVEP)	Banfora/ Burkina Faso (BF)
2	SANON Hadja Oumou	INERA	Ouagadougou / BF
3	BOUGOUMA Valérie M. C.	IDR/ Université Polytechnique de Bobo	Bobo Dioulasso/ BF
4	BAYALA Balé	Université de Ouagadougou	Ouagadougou/ BF
5	KABORE Adama	INERA	Koudougou/ BF
6	BAMBARA Aristide J. de Dieu	Vétérinaire Privé	Ouagadougou/ BF
7	BENON G. Théodore	DGPA/ MRAH	Ouagadougou/BF
8	OUOBA / IMA Sidonie	INERA	Koudougou/ BF
9	OUEDRAOGO Souleymane	INERA	Bobo-Dioulasso/ BF
10	GNANDA B. Isidore	INERA	Ouagadougou/ BF
11	ZONGO Moussa	Université de Ouagadougou	Ouagadougou/ BF
12	SIDIBE Amadou	UPB	Bobo-Dioulasso/ BF
13	FALL Abdou	ILRI	Ouagadougou/BF
14	AYANTUNDE Augustine	ILRI	Ouagadougou/ BF
15	DOUXCHAMPS Sabine	ILRI	Ouagadougou/ BF
16	FADIGA Mohamadou	ILRI	Dakar/ sénégal
17	KIARA Henry	ILRI	Nairobi/ Kenya
18	Isabelle BALTENWECH	ILRI	Nairobi/ Kenya
19	Karen MARSHALL	ILRI	Nairobi/ Kenya
20	PFEIFER Cathérine	ILRI	Nairobi/ Kenya
21	ALONSO Sylvia	ILRI	Nairobi/ Kenya
22	Ewen LEBORGNE	ILRI	ADDIS/ Ethiopie
23	Acho OKIKE	ILRI	Ibanda/ Nigéria
24	Delia GRACE	ILRI	Nairobi/ Kenya
25	Tom RANDOLPH	ILRI	Nairobi/ Kenya

---

Meeting notes

Welcome by Abdou

Thank you to all colleagues, partners from Ministries, Universities, NGOs etc. This is the third time we are together and last time we insisted on the first steps on a process that will bring us together. I want to thank everyone for the efforts made in this program. We will come back to the objectives and agenda of this workshop, which are slightly different to what was stated. Welcome to our East African colleagues, from Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Senegal... When we were thinking about this workshop we thought it was going to be postponed but thank you very much for coming to Burkina Faso, it's a reflection of your commitment. The changes in this workshop are quite important. We first planned on focusing on national partners but we think the program must focus on planning within ILRI and then share the results of these reflections with all partners. This first part of the agenda will be with everyone here to share program progress and this afternoon we will split and work internally. I hope we will have fruitful days.

Presentation by Tom Randolph about the L&F program

See this presentation by Tom Randolph

Presentation by Abdou Fall about progress in Burkina Faso

See this presentation by Abdou Fall

Relocation from Mali to Burkina Faso; site selection; preliminary information / research; stakeholder consultation; regional studies on small ruminants value chains by UNECA/CILSS and Heifer International.

Review of key constraints and opportunities: See the document by Abdou Fall about constraints and opportunities (in French).

Questions & Answers

• Q: What link with Heifer International?
• A: No real link for now.
• Q: What happened with planned activities that should have taken place in Jan-Jun 2014?
• A: We talked about the site selection and the studies. We have to finalise this and plan for the future.

Presentation about site selection

See this presentation by Catherine Pfeifer and Isabelle Baltenweck . Q&A:

• Q: Pourquoi ces 3 criteres ? Quels types de marche avez-vous identifies ? Which markets have you identified? Access by the poor to local markets is what we focus on.
• A: On a identifie les villes de + de 50.000 habitants. Les marches sont definis par la grandeur de la ville. En-dessous de 50000 habitants on ne considere pas que c'est un marche. Under 50000 people we don't consider there is a market.

Criteria to decide about the site selection

After the presentation, the participants were invited to reflect as groups about additional criteria (next to % of poor people in the site, density of small ruminants and density of poor people) that would matter. Then we collectively compiled these criteria into a few 'consolidated' criteria to consider. The results [initial long list and shorter list] are presented here). Criteres (liste longue):

• Distance a un marche de consommation locale
• Systemes de production extensifs
• Presence d'intrants
• Distance / presence d'un marche de collecte et de regroupement
• Synergies avec d'autres CRPs
• Potentiel de developpement des petits ruminants (les options sont nombreuses ou pas) pour la securite alimentaire (e.g. Region est)
• Types de marche et leur proximite
• Receptivite (villages habitues a des activites R4D et presence d'ONGs)
• Presence d'ONGs
• Risques pour la securit
• Diversite des races (trois zones distinctes au BF)
• Existence d'une politique d'investissement (nationale / regionale)
• Potentiel d'innovation (capacite de mobilisation des organisations ONGs, associations etc.)
• Potentiel de developpement des ressources d'alimentation

Liste consolidee:

• Presence (ou presence passee) de partenaires
• Presence de marche de collecte & regroupement
• Disponibilite des ressources de base et potentiel d'amelioration (innovation) dans les zones mixtes (agro-pastorales) en zones mixtes et/ou en transition
• Disponibilite d'intrants et de services (lies au marche)
• Risques de securite (rajoute par la suite)

Un dernier critere joue, une fois les sites pre-identifies : garantir une diversite / un equilibre entre les differentes zones agro-ecologiques (et les races qui y correspondent)

Mot de remerciement d'Abdou Fall Beaucoup d'humour et des resultats. Vous nous avez grandement appuye pour la selection des criteres pour faire un choix judicieux de sites. On va poursuivre ce travail avec vous sur ces sites. On a reussi a reflechir a la vision. Avec ces resultats de la premiere matinee nous sommes tres satisfaits et vous remercions beaucoup. A l'origine cet atelier etait prevu pour tout le monde pour 2 jours mais on a reflechi sur comment valoriser cet investissement avec les collegues d'Afrique de l'Est. Cet exercice est la 3e rencontre sur 9 exercices globaux. Il y a des reglages a faire pour la planification pour aboutir a une strategie standardisee et coherente. Il y a toujours des choses a regler et on s'est accordes sur le produit de la programmation qu'on doit avoir. On doit continuer cette concertation en interne a ILRI et utiliser vos reflexions pour faire des reglages internes, tirer des lecons des resultats des 2 autres pays pour arriver a qqch de coherent et acceptable. Ce groupe global va ensemble jusqu'au dejeuner et ensuite les collegues d'ILRI vont continuer ensemble. Votre contribution et participation active refletent votre engagement. On va continuer. On vous tiendra informe et on partagera les rapports de cette premiere matinee et on va vous annoncer les prochaines etapes pour aboutir a une vision partagee.

---

Internal program (ILRI group):

Presentation by Tom

See presentation Tom.

Q&A:

• Q: How integrated are the 3 teams (animal genetics, animal health, feeds)?
• A: The Value Chain Transformation flagship brings it all together. And we need to think about integration at the level of choosing technologies. We are talking about integration at VC level within countries. SASI is where the full theories give it a system outlook. E.g. if we consider a PPR vaccine, what happens if we bring more feeds to this? They carry the message together and they discuss whether the solution is environmentally friendly etc. and see if integration will work. We start with what we know our best bets are, find out what we test (based on literature review, success & failures of previous development experiences and the use of a best bet protocol that questions the validity of testing this or that technology and the financial feasibility etc. a sort of checklist before we draw money).
• Comment: Animal management is missing in the picture (but it's partly covered under animal health)
• Q: How does economic feasibility fit in here?
• A: We address that in real time in value chain transformation and hope there will be more feedback loops in real time on economic feasibility etc. It didn't automatically happen though.
• Q: Are we doing enough on cross-value chain learning?
• A: No, not quite, but the restructuring will try and do this. But we lack leadership on some of these issues (e.g. innovation systems)...

Feedback from this morning's work

• Not the right ratio of partners / ILRI staff - how can we do this better in the future? In the 2nd working group there were too few partners. When L&F is about working with partners instead of extracting information from them...
• I liked the site selection discussion here - I wish we had had more time for that. These eight people were probably not in a position to select the sites...
• We need to think how to present the two events. It felt odd to present this and hear that they were not going to stay in the afternoon.
• There is an issue with the communication. Originally we talked about a stakeholder workshop and now this became an ILRI planning meeting. Now it feels like it might be a torture for them to stay here.
• The way we engage with the people here: they can all talk but they are so used to protocol etc. that they are banging out their conversation.
• There is a lot of interest and experience from that group of stakeholders. They also do not necessarily document experiences etc. L&F can capitalize on some of that work... In some way we are not just extracting but helping document some of those experiences.
• Parts of this is an initial meeting. Relations are being built. It would have been a bit more helpful to get more introduction. I never really understood who they were representing.
• There isn't a great deal of documentation in Burkina Faso but there is grey literature and if we had done more preparation for this workshop with grey literature. E.g. it would have helped to know what happened in the December meeting.
• How are we going to deal with languages. At least an executive summary would help.

We commissioned some reviews, had some meetings with these partners. We don't want to reinvent the wheel, we want to build on the past. We could have done better and we'll do better next time. It was very short notice and I'm quite happy for the outcomes of this morning even though we could have done better.

What are the next steps in this process?

• SIP
• Site selection...
• VCA...

The objective is to fill in the SIP - what are activities that we see going on in the next 3 years (the IFAD project mainly) and in the longer run. We have a general approach and now it's feeding that into Abdou and putting it in context.

Quick feedback and background information about constraints identified (by Abdou)

See presentation Abdou:

• Q: What do we want
• A:

Finalizing the site selection process

Looking back at the discussion that took place in the morning which ended up with a list of possible site selection criteria, the group reflected on the process to bring this site selection process to completion.

What	When	Who
Summarize this conversation (in French) and review it	18/07	CP, IP, AF
Determine precise indicators for each criterion	18/07	IB, CP
Rank / weigh each criterion with justification for the ranking, for each site (meeting involving a careful selection of participants) in a meeting, with prior information sent to all participants	01/08	AF to organize All partners to attend
Document, complete and clean up the final site selection (in French)	31/08	CP + consultant
Review and provide feedback	Mid-Sept.	All ILRI staff present here
Disseminate the final list of sites to all stakeholders (full report in French and executive summary in English)	End Sept.	AF

Reviewing and finalizinig the vision, objectives, outcomes and people/organizations/initiatives to involve

The smaller group looked back at the stakeholder consultation results and 'cleaned up' the results to agree on the statements and outcomes that need to fit back into the SIP.

Day 2 - Working on the SIP

See the presentation by Tom of the SIP structure And the SIP template to use for working groups: Country SIP planning worksheet template

We ought to map the relationship between activities and (other) flagships... What are the big steps that we want to focus on in the long run, and what detailed activities we will develop in the coming 3 years...

In Burkina Faso, animal consumption is about having more milk, more fish and more pork - not so much more small ruminant meat. If it turns out that we chose the wrong value chain in a given country, we may have to pull out. However, not only consumption matters, but also income. Our starting hypothesis could be that beef, small ruminants, pork are not key in people's animal consumption. But it may have potential... Our point in this program is food security for the poor, not for poor producers. The question of access and availability matters here. We have to test that assumption. If a particular VC is addressing 1 (out of 6) IDO(s): e.g. in Burkina Faso we may focus primarily on the income IDOs? --> No, that's what systems CRPs should be doing. Some species are more productive and we haven't had that conversation.

Presentation by Acho Okike about the SASI and VCT flagships

Acho gave a bit of background information as to the recent conversations on the 'system analysis for sustainable innovation' and 'value chain transformation' flagships so as to inform the working groups. This was based on the recent Ethiopia and Uganda workshops as well as on the Nairobi meeting that zoomed in on the flagship structure. See the presentation by Acho Okike.

Group work on the SIP

Then the participants discussed the logic from the Ethiopia and Tanzania workshops, identified some of the main clusters of activities (introduced under A, B, C and D below) and agreed to split themselves in two groups: one working on stakeholder engagement + value chain assessment, and the other one on best bet technologies and strategies. Scaling up was left aside though it was recognized that research is needed in that field too.

A. R+D stakeholder engagement

1. Stakeholder landscaping
2. Partnership analysis (internal version and public version) - based on a to-be-developed template
3. Alliance building
4. Capacity (gap) development assessment
5. Policy analysis

B. Initial VC assessment

1. VC scoping study (rapid VC assessment)
2. In-depth VC studies
3. Literature review (including herd management)
4. Success / failure study of development interventions and strategies
5. Situational analysis
6. Follow-up on specific studies
7. Site selection

C. Best bet technologies strategies --> 'Piloting' --> Integrated pilot interventions

1. Best bet protocol (making sense economically, tradeoff analysis etc.) with possible SASI ex-ante assessment
2. General assessment for the following key areas:

animal / herd health, public health (food safety, zoonoses), breeding, feeds, producer / market organization + VC economics (including micro finance etc.) human nutrition/consumption adding value / post harvest, policy / animal welfare, innovation systems / lobbying, gender, capacity development, environment D. Scaling up

1. Research issues
2. Pulling together evidence
3. Targeting

Q&A

• Q: What have we committed to IFAD?
• A: IFAD will want quick progress and seeing sthg on the ground. We'll have to go fairly quickly to best bets (and initial best bets e.g. feed trials)... CRP funding could support recruiting staff even before the contract is signed so we can get ready and do some of the work. From experience with other VCs we know now better and can plan better. IFAD will give us more hands to do the work... We need to discuss what is the ideal team on the ground.

Group work results

Best bets group

(Acho Okike, Augustine Ayantunde, Delia Grace, Henry Kiara, Karen Marshall, Silvia Alonso) See results from the best bet group and discover some statistical information that guides these best bets. Under feeds, make a distinction between on-farm and feeds on markets (esp. for fattening schemes)? All of these activities would be used to consider gender and other cross-cutting issues (policy, innovation, gender, cap dev etc.)

• Q: For health, we have the production, mastitis etc. that's fine as priority problems. How about husbandry problems coming out of the assessment as critical problems?
• A: They would be put under health assessment. ADD 'management practices' under output 1.2
• Q: Are we going to look at specific constraints in our environment?
• A: We can offer initial things on CCPP but for other ones we want to generate evidence to find out if they're dangerous... Literature review should bring some information
• Q: On breeds, when we want to compare breeds we need to outsource breeds (they won't all be local breeds)... What about goats? There is a strong sheep bias?
• A: We will give farmers options with different breeds. In some areas (Ouahigouya), people are milking goats. Perhaps do a goat breed study?
• Q: On feeding, the idea of promoting small-medium enterprise...
• A: ??
• Q: Would be nice to include sthg specific on nutrition / consumption / market levels, to keep that as an ambition... "strategies for nutritionally sensitive value chains, strategies for targeting and increasing demand to specific sub-populations"
• A: Yes sure.
• Comment: sometimes the language needs to be tightened e.g. trials etc.
• Q: you said we need to bring the 3 together but where is integration?
• A: In the last column of the table...

Stakeholder engagement / value chain assessment group

(Abdou Fall, Catherine Pfeifer, Fadiga Mohamodou, Isabelle Baltenweck, Tom Randolph) See results from the stakeholder engagement/value chain assessment group.

• Q: What do you mean with adapting scoping tools? Which tools?
• A: There are many tools. We need the rapid VC assessment (which is not rapid so we changed the term). We have 2 sets of tools: a) VC scoping (VC mapping, which actors are in place etc.) and b) in-depth VC assessment looking at all VC actors with a tool for each of them (a survey tool)...
• Q: Is the 'in-depth assessment' stage where you identify constraints?
• A: Already before and we can say sthg about the region with the scoping study (e.g. received wisdom is that there are no vet services etc. but the in-depth assessment will collect evidence about vet services etc.)
• Q: How long is each of these stages expected to take?
• A: A scoping about a week, the other one could take a long time.
• Comment: It's sometimes difficult to find out how useful these assessments are so we might want to revisit the tools and find out what we actually need...
• Q: What tool can we use to tell us where we'll get better value for money?
• A: That's why we have the best bet protocol which will tell us why our candidate best bet is supposed to bring that value? The protocol asks what evidence we have and the rationale for why that best bet should be tested. There is a judgment internally in the team and with stakeholders. SDM (Systems Dynamics Model) can help us. The effort with Wageningen UR and SLU could provide us with an analysis framework for productivity.
• Q: What parameters will we need to assess feeds?
• A: We don't need a framework for that.

Coming back to the generic elements of the SIP

The small group reviewed the work done with the stakeholders the day before and agreed to including the following bits into the final SIP document, under the expected supervision of Abdou Fall.

VISION

By 2023, lower income women and men in Burkina Faso will have been enabled to produce and consume more and safer meat and milk from more inclusive, productive and sustainable small ruminant value chains.

OBJECTIVES

Focusing on the poor, the Livestock and Fish program and its partners aims to transform sheep and goat value chains in Burkina Faso by developing, testing and supporting the scaling up of integrated innovations. (The question of 'with the poor' remains unsolved here).

OUTCOMES

Research outcomes

• Methods and tools to improve productivity of small ruminant systems are owned and used by research partners;
• Livestock & Fish partnership guidelines, approaches (and learning?) are improving agricultural research for development beyond the program;
• Context-specific evidence-based information on best practices and policies is available.
• Gender has been successfully mainstreamed in Livestock and Fish research (change the formulation);
• Something needs to be developed on NRM and on capacity development

Development outcomes

• Livestock & Fish research products are leveraging increased productivity and market performance to improve food and nutritional security [especially children and women];
• Livestock & Fish research products are leveraged to create employment and improve incomes for women, men [especially youth];
• Development partners are using the value chain development approach and products;
• Gender has been successfully mainstreamed in Livestock and Fish impact;
• Natural resources are restored or at least not degraded through value chain development;

QUI IMPLIQUER?

This was left untouched by the group from the stakeholder feedback. Différents types d’abattoirs, supermarchés, collecteurs.

Opportunités à saisir : transformation (processing) et fromages.

Structures de développement et structures de recherche, organisations de producteurs (OP), Partenaires de développement, secteur privé et institutions de micro-finance,

OTHER GENERIC ELEMENTS

Staffing or core competencies required (could be via partners)

What is the ideal team?

1. (#1) Economist
2. (#2) Animal health specialist (with some husbandry focus too, possibly)
3. (#2) Feed specialist
4. (#3) Social scientist / IP specialist etc. / Gender specialist
5. Breeding specialist (not necessary in every country – provide central support)
6. Possibly (human) nutritionist

Hiring research technicians working with supervision…? Current capacity: Fadiga, NARS. Priority persons to hire: see order above Use also partner resources for this… NRM specialists: we work with Humidtropics/Drylands on this.

Geographical focus See site selection – develop rationale for the focus on region xyz.

Partnerships

• People we will HAVE TO work with (developing capacity):

Ministry INERA – many research stations CIRDES (Bobo-Dioulasso) People we would like to work with: * University of Bobo * University of Ouagadougou * Private vet association * NGOs: SNV, Heifer, CARE (?), VSF (?) * Farmer organisations: APESS… * Private sector: probably weak

• Regional organizations we want to work with (and use their facilities):

EISMV: Vet school (CRSA) Animal Health Centre (Bamako) for PPR control CORAF as research collaborator ECOWAS for national food security focus (regional livestock transformation policies + national compacts for national agricultural investment) UEMOA for agricultural policies and funding CILSS (?) WASCAL Centre Suisse de Recherche Scientifique en Côte d’Ivoire (CSRS)

• International players that have some influence/interest:

CIRAD US Universities via USAID (MSU?), Canadian Universities (Laval) Wageningen UR link with Bobo Uni. / (SLU?)

• CRP linkages:
• Dryland Systems, CCAFS, WLE, FTA, Dryland legumes.

è Some data collection and intelligence gathering to do in order to identify possible partners e.g. market groups, processors, exporters…

Which ones will we focus on?

Gender, CapDev, Comms and M&E

• Gender: At what point will there be strategic research on GTA as specific activities? à Informed by initial assessment and more detailed assessment andprobably led by Nairobi/Penang teams. Integrated / mainstreamed research? (e.g. feed trials with gender issues for specific interventions?), integrated as part of the tools (opportunities with KIT’s work on East Africa Value Chains)…

• CapDev: Developing a strategy for how CapDev engages with the program. One of their first activities is the capacity development (gap) assessment of potential partners and internal parties… We should identify partners that can sustainably increase the capacity of actors in the value chain e.g. Universities, colleges etc. to develop curriculums… No research on CD planned (?). Institutional capacity development should be our focus.

• Comms: Until now rather ad hoc, need clarity on the strategy/planning for comms in the country/VC. This concerns also partner/alliance engagement and giving visibility to the program and partners… Internal communication (at the level of the value chain and across VCs)… Regular (bimonthly) Skype calls with live documentation (e.g. MeetingWords) with the flagship focal points?

• M&E: ?? We are developing the M&E system. Until that is done no real M&E but situational analysis works as benchmark. No national survey baseline in place. We will be exploring how we can use existing data collection efforts in BF etc., add a couple of questions on small ruminants etc. and harvest that data.

Resource mobilization strategy

Focusing on IFAD proposal now… Including basic assessment activities + additional assessment activities on animal health, food safety and some work on initial best bet testing… Start breeding trials?

And finding out about any other funding opportunity… USAID Bureau of Africa?

Final words from Abdou and Tom Abdou: We have achieved a lot. We have good guidelines for the completion. The rest is about finalizing this SIP with some iterative feedback process to get additional inputs for you by the end of July for circulation to SPAC early August as draft. Looking forward to seeing you again in the coming months.

Tom: Thank you for coming. We really have an opportunity. We don't need to go through all the iterations from last time. I am very conscious of the issue of communication (and the French barrier adds up)... But we'll have to understand that this requires additional efforts in supporting the VC here. But it's a nice opportunity since Abdou's getting set up, we don't have a long history, we don't have a team that's set in its own ways, we can turn the team around and focus on consumption.

Agenda for organizers

· No good planning for the site selection session è · Put a lot of humour into the sessions