ILRI’s experience with PPPs in pro-poor
livestock development research and its uptake
and application
Derek Baker
14th Annual Meeting of the Inter-Agency Donor Group (IADG) on pro-poor livestock
research and development
“Development of Livestock Value Chains through strengthened Public-Private
Cooperation”
May 22-24, 2013, Berlin

Outline
1. PPP and research for development
2. PPP in livestock projects
3. Challenges for/in/with PPPs
4. Selected ILRI experience
5. Conclusions

PPP and R4D
Anandajayasekeram and Puskur (2009) offer
classifications of PPPs involving research organisations.
Based on purpose:
• Research partnership—cooperative agreement for
conducting joint research
• Exchange partnership— information, materials,
staff, intellectual property
• Service partnership — legal environment

PPP and international R4D organisations
Spielman et al. (2007) identified & examined CGIAR PPPs in
research:
Few partnerships:
• are explicitly designed to facilitate joint innovation
• provide for effective management of risks
• provide effective analysis of their poverty-targeting strategies.
Authors advocate:
• combining explicit knowledge exchange processes
• communication platforms to assign roles, responsibilities
• comprehensive risk management and mitigation strategies
• improved quality of analysis of the impact pathways

PPP and livestock development
Rich and Narrod (2010) identified possible PPP roles in
enhancing smallholder access in High Value markets.
Examined numerous roles of PPP (production, inputs,
logistics, credit,….. and research)
Identified PPP roles in supply chain co-ordination

PPP and institutional roles in the supply chain
management of high-value agriculture
Research:
traditional institutional roles
Roles for PPP in
Supply Chain
Management
Market failures
observed
Possible entry
point for PPPs and
NGOs
Public R&D and
production for
seeds, inputs,
varieties; input
price policies
Private R&D
and
production for
seeds, inputs,
varieties
Development of
new technologies to
raise productivity of
high-demand
commodities
Private
profitability of
varieties with
low or negative
social benefits
Research
partnerships to
develop socially
beneficial inputs to
production
PPP roles in support processes in the value chain
Extension Infrastructure Information
services
Certification, grades
and standards
Co-ordination
mechanisms
To leverage
public and
private
delivery of
specific
types of
services
To jointly
finance and
maintain roads,
storage
facilities, etc.
To integrate
public and
private actors
To distribute
market
information
3rd party
certification
agencies that jointly
manage quality and
food safety
3rd party underwriting
and monitoring of
contracts
To promote contract
enforcement

What makes a livestock project work?
Baker and Wanyoike (2013) measured and analysed the success of
pro-poor livestock development projects:
Sample of 60 livestock projects
Highly
successful,
39%
Moderately
successful,
37%
Largely not
successful,
24%

Variable Coeff. P>z
Intercept term* -8.67 0.06
Project
objective
Improved human nutrition / food security -2.32 0.46
Reduction in poverty/vulnerability 1.41 0.64
Project
activities
Institutional development** 3.15 0.02
Research component** 4.34 0.04
Project also had an agriculture component** -3.60 0.04
Risks
encountered
Market Dysfunction 2.73 0.39
Reliability of government partners* -3.51 0.05
Species Small ruminants 0.27 0.86
Pigs 1.33 0.67
Poultry* -4.85 0.06
Other
variables
Project financed through a loan -2.50 0.33
Size of project budget (millions of US$)* 1.99 0.06
Number of types of beneficiaries* 1.79 0.06
Logit analysis of determinants of success

Factors influencing success (by various defn.s)
Success by
activity-
output-
objective
Sustain
ability
of
benefits
No. of HH
with
increased
sales
No. of HH
with
increased
buyers
No. HH
getting
higher sales
prices
Type of model OLS LOGIT Ordered Probit
Project Objectives
Food security *
Improvements in marketing
Technical livestock production *
Partners roles
Intern. NGO leads coordination
Intern. NGO works with farmers
National gvt. leads coordination *
National gvt. works with farmers *
Yellow=Negative; Purple=positive; The asterisks show the level
of significance of coefficients

Factors influencing various individual aspects
of project success
Success by
activity-
output-
objective
Sustain
ability
of
benefits
No. of HH
with
increased
sales
No. of HH
with
increased
buyers
No.
HHgetting
higher sales
prices
Type of model OLS LOGIT Ordered Probit
Budget Holder
International actor **
Non governmental agency **
Funding agency **
Risks encountered
Price and cost changes
Market dysfunction *
Political change
Reliability of govt. partners
Yellow=Negative; Purple=positive; Stars show the level of
significance of coefficients
Factors influencing success (various defn.s -2)

Success by
activity-
output-
objective
Sustain
ability
of
benefits
No. of HH
with
increased
sales
No. of HH
with
increased
buyers
No. HH
getting
higher sales
prices
Species
Cattle **
Small ruminants **
Pigs *
Poultry *
Others *
Other project features
Whether project is participatory *
Institutional components *
Research component ** **
Success in activity completion **
Project size *** *
Factors influencing success (various defn.s -3)

Examples of PPP in ILRI research
Feeds development
• Partnership between Novus
and ILRI + development
partners on BMGF-funded
East Africa Dairy
Development Project
• Improving dairy production
through:
• Calf diet (Kenya)
• Dry season supplement
block (Uganda)
• Proof of concept + capacity
building
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
BodyWeight(kg)
Week
Milk Replacer Pellet Meal

Examples of PPP in ILRI research
East Coast Fever Vaccine
development
• Multiple governments + ILRI +
university and national
research partners, across
several tasks in vaccine
development + treatment
protocol development
• Private sector encountered
difficulties with
approval/registration in several
countries

Examples of PPP in ILRI research (on-going)
Maximising smallholder benefits from export sales
• Three contrasting countries (approaches):
• Botswana (parastatal + government) (ACIAR-funded)
• Swaziland (private sector exporters + banks + government
support agencies) (IFAD-funded)
• Somaliland (quasi-government organisations and NGO Terra
Nuova) (Danida-funded)
Engaging the private sector in CAADP process
• Roles for private sector (via ReSAKSS):
• Policy advocacy
• Delivery of appropriate technologies
• Improvement of distribution systems for products and inputs

Examples of PPP in ILRI research
Fodder genebank interaction with private companies
• Purchase and supply of seeds from private producers/firms:
• Ensures survival of seed production capacity despite fluctuating
markets
• Corrects for lack of private sector interest due to many fodder
plants’ clonal propagation or long reproductive cycle
• Collaboration in research and information campaigns
• Promotes genetic conservation
• Promotes feed solutions

Examples of PPP in ILRI research
Organisational development
in smallholder dairy
• Addressing jointly public
health and smallholder
incomes: DFID-funded;
included government
partners
Milk Trader
Training
Service
Providers
(BDS)
Regulatory
Authority
Accreditation & monitoring
Reporting
Training
guides
Hygienic
cans
• Use of Business
Development
Services (BDS)
to mobilise
stakeholders

Conclusions
PPP is present in livestock development, some evidence
that it contributes to project success
Few guidelines on when/where it might be appropriate
PPP has been slow to develop in R4D, and lacks some
intuitively desirable functions
PPP plays a market failure-correcting role in technology
delivery and organisational development, but
• PPPs have not generally emerged as 3rd party actors
• PPPs’ potential for risk management is not widely exploited
• PPP role in capital mobilisation is largely not examined
• Policy development does not necessarily accompany PPPs
• PPPs cross frontiers awkwardly

The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.
better lives through livestock
ilri.org