Advertisement
Check these out next
Lessons from facilitating dairy producers organizations development in East Africa
Oct. 7, 2014•0 likes•969 views
1 likes
Be the first to like this
Show More
views
Total views
0
On Slideshare
0
From embeds
0
Number of embeds
0
Download to read offline
Report
Technology
Presented by Isabelle Baltenweck at the 10th African Dairy Conference, Nairobi, Kenya, 24 September 2014
ILRIFollow
-- at ILRIAdvertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Recommended
Using dairy hubs to improve farmers’ access to milk markets in Kenya: Gender ...ILRI
Dairy hubs in East Africa: Lessons from the East Africa Dairy Development pro...ILRI
Agricultural research for crop and livestock value chains development: The IP...ILRI
Lessons from facilitating dairy producers organizations development in East A...African Dairy Conference and Exhibition
Highlights from impact assessments ILRI and Livestock and Fish CRP ILRI
More meat, milk and fish by and for the poor: How the Livestock and Fish rese...ILRI
Lessons from facilitating dairy producers organizations development in East Africa
- Lessons from facilitating dairy producers organizations development in East Africa Isabelle Baltenweck, ILRI 10th African Dairy Conference, Nairobi, Kenya, 24 September 2014
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTEERRSS TTEESSTTIINNGG FFAARRMMEERRSS FFIIEELLDD DDAAYYSS FFEEEEDD SSUUPPPPLLYY OOTTHHEERR RREELLAATTEEDD MMEEss VVIILLLLAAGGEE BBAANNKKSS AAII && EEXXTTEENNSSIIOONN HHAARRDDWWAARREE SSUUPPPPLLIIEERRSS CCHHIILLLLIINNGG oorr BBUULLKKIINNGG FFAACCIILLIITTIIEESS The Hub approach
- 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%
- 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%
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- Kenya production dimension-wise trend across years • An overall improvemen t in dimension score was observed between 2011 and 2013, apart from milk quality
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- The usual EADD slide
Advertisement