ILRI envisions a world where all people have access to enough food and livelihood options to fulfill their potential.
ILRI’s mission is to improve food and nutritional security and to reduce poverty in developing countries through research for efficient, safe and sustainable use of livestock— ensuring better lives through livestock
ILRI works in partnerships and alliances with other organizations, national and international, in livestock research, training and information. ILRI works in all tropical developing regions of Africa and Asia.
ILRI is a member of the CGIAR Consortium that conducts food and environmental research to help alleviate poverty and increase food security while protecting the natural resource base
Lessons from facilitating dairy producers organizations development in East Africa-Dr. Isabelle Baltenweck
1. Lessons from facilitating dairy producers
organizations development in East Africa
Isabelle Baltenweck
International Livestock Research Institute
2. ILRI Mission and Strategy
ILRI envisions a world where all people have access to enough
food and livelihood options to fulfill their potential.
ILRI’s mission is to improve food and nutritional security and to
reduce poverty in developing countries through research for
efficient, safe and sustainable use of livestock— ensuring better
lives through livestock
ILRI works in partnerships and alliances with other organizations,
national and international, in livestock research, training and
information. ILRI works in all tropical developing regions of Africa
and Asia.
ILRI is a member of the CGIAR Consortium that conducts food
and environmental research to help alleviate poverty and increase
food security while protecting the natural resource base.
3. Strategic objectives
• ILRI and its partners will develop, test, adapt and promote
science-based practices that—being sustainable and scalable—
achieve better lives through livestock.
• ILRI and its partners will provide compelling scientific
evidence in ways that persuade decision-makers—from farms
to boardrooms and parliaments—that smarter policies and bigger
livestock investments can deliver significant socio-economic,
health and environmental dividends to both poor nations and
households.
• ILRI and its partners will work to increase capacity amongst
ILRI’s key stakeholders and the institute itself so that they can
make better use of livestock science and investments for better
lives through livestock.
4. Strategic objectives
• ILRI and its partners will develop, test, adapt and promote
science-based practices that—being sustainable and
scalable—achieve better lives through livestock.
• ILRI and its partners will provide compelling scientific
evidence in ways that persuade decision-makers—from farms
to boardrooms and parliaments—that smarter policies and bigger
livestock investments can deliver significant socio-economic,
health and environmental dividends to both poor nations and
households.
• ILRI and its partners will work to increase capacity amongst
ILRI’s key stakeholders and the institute itself so that they can
make better use of livestock science and investments for better
lives through livestock.
5. East Africa Dairy Development
Project
Partners
Heifer - lead
TNS - business
ILRI – knowledge-based
learning
ABS – genetics & breeding
ICRAF – feeds & feeding
EADD1: Jan 2008- June 2013 in
Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda
EADD2: Dec 2013, for 5 years in
Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania
Facilitation
Private
sector
7. EADD1 achievements
• About 200,000 farmers registered, although only 1/3 active
suppliers at any given time
• Increase in household dairy income in all 3 countries
• 82 hubs supported, 17 hubs being ‘graduated’
124%
164%
64%
8. Stage gate Tool
Stage Gate is a tool to assess Producers Organization progress
towards sustainability using 11 dimensions based on production
(5) and business (6).
Each dimension has several indicators and is scored according to
perceived importance to dairy business as follows.
Aspect Dimension Maximum score (%)
Business
Governance 28
Value Proposition to Farmers 24
Value Proposition to Market 18
Financial Health 15
Capital Structure 10
Business start-up 5
Production
Nutrition 25
Genetics 19
Herd Health 19
Milk Quality 10
Extension 27
Site scores determine
stages:
Stage 1: below 20%
Stage 2: 21% to 40%
Stage 3: 41% to 60%
Stage 4: 61% to 80%
Stage 5: above 80%
9. 2014 POs distribution by stage
and country
Majority of Kenya POs were in Stages III and IV. In
Uganda, majority of POs were in Stage II.
10. Annual performance trend
(overall score)
Kenya PO performance has been on an increasing trend
while Uganda performance improved between 2011 and
2012 and later declined between 2012 and 2013.
Source: Stage gate data (2010, 2011, 2012
& 2013)
11. Business PO performance trend
(2010-2013)
Generally PO performance declined in 2013. On average
Kenya POs can be said to be in stage 3 while Uganda POs
are in stage 2.
Source: Stage gate data (2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013)
12. Production PO performance
trend (2011-2013)
There was an
overall
improvement in
performance
between 2011 and
2012
Kenya recorded an
improvement
between 2012 and
2013 but Uganda
recorded a decline
13. Kenya business dimension-wise
trend across years
Capital structure improved greatly while FH improved
marginally. The other 4 dimensions declined with VP market
declining most.
Source: Stage gate data (2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013)
14. Uganda business dimension-wise
trend across years
Overall there was fluctuation in scores for all dimensions
between 2010 and 2013. Performance in all the dimensions
declined.
Source: Stage gate data (2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013)
15. Kenya production dimension-wise
trend across years
• An overall
improvemen
t in
dimension
score was
observed
between
2011 and
2013, apart
from milk
quality
16. Uganda production dimension-wise
trend across years
• General
increase in all
dimensions
between 2011
and 2012,
especially
extension
• Decrease in
most
dimensions,
except quality
between 2012
and 2013
17. Stage Gate- lessons from EADD1
• A useful tool for both the PO and the facilitator to assess progress (or
lack of), and identify remedial measures
• Progress toward ‘graduation’ takes time: on average for the 3
countries, the annual rate of change is 8.3 points per year, which
translates into a site reaching stage 4 (or 60 points) in 7.3 years
• Sites in Kenya and Rwanda progress significantly faster than
Uganda sites.
• Kenya sites move on average at the rate of 9.8 points per year,
Rwanda 9.4 and Uganda 7.5.
• Pre-existing sites progress significantly faster than all the other
hub types
• With clear understanding at the beginning of the engagement
between the facilitator and the PO, this duration could be shortened.
This is being tested in EADD2
18. 12 Overall lessons from EADD1
1. EADD: a facilitator not an implementer
2. Hub model not a ‘one size fits all’
3. Sustainability
4. Governance / leadership key driver of sustainability
5. Raising farmers equity a challenge
6. Invest in enhancing value proposition to farmers
7. Incorporate hub graduation and exit strategies earlier on
8. Paradigm shift from traditional M&E to MLE system!
9. Increase engagement with private sector
10.Encourage a pro-poor value chain
11.Gender considerations are key
12.Consider systems and scale
19. Acknowledgments to the EADD consortium staff, in particular
- Julie Kariuki and Joseph Ndwiga from TechnoServe
- Rakesh Kapoor and Onesmo Shuma from Heifer
- Susan Atyang and Egesa Mangeni, CPM Uganda and
Kenya
- Nathaniel Makoni from ABS- TCM
- Josephine Kirui from ICRAF
- Immaculate Omondi and Emmanuel Kinuthia from ILRI
Editor's Notes
Mention who are decision makers
What practices
Metrics: Over a 5–10-year time period, livestock-related real income for 2.8 million people is increased by 30%, the supply of safe animal-source foods in ILRI’s target sites/countries1 is increased 30%, and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of livestock product produced are reduced. Simultaneously, in partnership with others, these results are scaled to tens of millions more people.
Metrics: Within a 10–15-year time frame, the share of agricultural budgets invested in livestock in ILRI’s target countries are brought at least 20% closer to livestock’s contribution to agricultural GDP. Increased investor contributions to the livestock sector should drive greater representation of livestock commodities in development efforts. Metrics to assess the underpinning changes in attitudes and behaviour will be defined based on learning from taking pilot studies to scale in target countries.
Metrics: ILRI has not previously articulated capacity at this level or covering such a diversity of engagement, spanning both institutions and individuals from farmers to local and global decision-makers. ILRI will therefore conduct a baseline assessment before specifying the exact metrics for this third strategic objective; the metrics will specify the number of individuals and key institutions to have developed greater capacity to make greater use of livestock research results—be it for better productivity on farms, improved environmental management or more strategic use of development resources
ILRI’s use of the terms ‘practice’ and ‘decision-makers’ in this strategy encompasses a wide range of scales and
groups. The following are examples of these wide ranges in livestock systems with high potential for growth and
in those where increasing resilience rather than productivity is paramount.
Where there exists high potential for economic growth in mixed crop-and-livestock systems of developing
countries, ‘inclusive growth’ for poverty reduction and food security can often be achieved through the
development of pro-poor livestock value chains. Here, improving practice refers to the uptake of technologies
and institutional innovations that (1) increase on-farm livestock productivity in smallholder production
systems as well as (2) efficiencies in their associated market channels, (3) improve the equitable distribution of
benefits generated through more livestock employment and income, and (4) minimize livestock threats to the
environment and public health. The men and women decision-makers who adopt these practices include not
only the livestock keepers and market agents who handle livestock and their products, but also the individuals,
businesses and government agencies that support the value chain through the products and services they supply
such as feed, veterinary care and public health regulation.
In dryland pastoral and agro-pastoral systems, where harsh and highly variable climates pose considerable risk
of loss of livestock assets, both household income and food security can be protected against climate shocks by
improved practices. In the case of drought, these might include making index-based livestock insurance available
to livestock herders, conducting early de-stocking in conjunction with private traders, and making better use
of functioning livestock markets. In the case of flooding, which can trigger outbreaks of economically important
livestock and zoonotic diseases such as Rift Valley fever, better practice might entail more reliable predictive
climate models used in conjunction with early livestock vaccination campaigns to prevent regional market
closures able to devastate the livelihoods of livestock producers, traders and others. Changes in practice here
would depend on choices made by decision-makers including local men and women livestock pastoralists and
agro-pastoralists, market agents and slaughterhouse personnel as well as those at regional and global levels whose
actions, policies and investment decisions impact small-scale dryland livestock systems and enterprises.
Changes in practice thus spans a range of choices made by decision-makers at all levels, from livestock producers
(men and women in both small scale and extensive production systems), to market agents and others intimately
engaged with raising, selling and consuming animals and their products, through to those at local, regional and
global levels whose development actions, policy and investment decisions impact the livestock sector.
Mention who are decision makers
What practices
Metrics: Over a 5–10-year time period, livestock-related real income for 2.8 million people is increased by 30%, the supply of safe animal-source foods in ILRI’s target sites/countries1 is increased 30%, and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of livestock product produced are reduced. Simultaneously, in partnership with others, these results are scaled to tens of millions more people.
Metrics: Within a 10–15-year time frame, the share of agricultural budgets invested in livestock in ILRI’s target countries are brought at least 20% closer to livestock’s contribution to agricultural GDP. Increased investor contributions to the livestock sector should drive greater representation of livestock commodities in development efforts. Metrics to assess the underpinning changes in attitudes and behaviour will be defined based on learning from taking pilot studies to scale in target countries.
Metrics: ILRI has not previously articulated capacity at this level or covering such a diversity of engagement, spanning both institutions and individuals from farmers to local and global decision-makers. ILRI will therefore conduct a baseline assessment before specifying the exact metrics for this third strategic objective; the metrics will specify the number of individuals and key institutions to have developed greater capacity to make greater use of livestock research results—be it for better productivity on farms, improved environmental management or more strategic use of development resources
ILRI’s use of the terms ‘practice’ and ‘decision-makers’ in this strategy encompasses a wide range of scales and
groups. The following are examples of these wide ranges in livestock systems with high potential for growth and
in those where increasing resilience rather than productivity is paramount.
Where there exists high potential for economic growth in mixed crop-and-livestock systems of developing
countries, ‘inclusive growth’ for poverty reduction and food security can often be achieved through the
development of pro-poor livestock value chains. Here, improving practice refers to the uptake of technologies
and institutional innovations that (1) increase on-farm livestock productivity in smallholder production
systems as well as (2) efficiencies in their associated market channels, (3) improve the equitable distribution of
benefits generated through more livestock employment and income, and (4) minimize livestock threats to the
environment and public health. The men and women decision-makers who adopt these practices include not
only the livestock keepers and market agents who handle livestock and their products, but also the individuals,
businesses and government agencies that support the value chain through the products and services they supply
such as feed, veterinary care and public health regulation.
In dryland pastoral and agro-pastoral systems, where harsh and highly variable climates pose considerable risk
of loss of livestock assets, both household income and food security can be protected against climate shocks by
improved practices. In the case of drought, these might include making index-based livestock insurance available
to livestock herders, conducting early de-stocking in conjunction with private traders, and making better use
of functioning livestock markets. In the case of flooding, which can trigger outbreaks of economically important
livestock and zoonotic diseases such as Rift Valley fever, better practice might entail more reliable predictive
climate models used in conjunction with early livestock vaccination campaigns to prevent regional market
closures able to devastate the livelihoods of livestock producers, traders and others. Changes in practice here
would depend on choices made by decision-makers including local men and women livestock pastoralists and
agro-pastoralists, market agents and slaughterhouse personnel as well as those at regional and global levels whose
actions, policies and investment decisions impact small-scale dryland livestock systems and enterprises.
Changes in practice thus spans a range of choices made by decision-makers at all levels, from livestock producers
(men and women in both small scale and extensive production systems), to market agents and others intimately
engaged with raising, selling and consuming animals and their products, through to those at local, regional and
global levels whose development actions, policy and investment decisions impact the livestock sector.