The SDP Case Study 1 Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change SDP STAKEHOLDERS, HISTORICAL TIME LINES & THE CHANGES Tuesday, 22nd February 2005.

The SDP Case Study 1

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change

SDP STAKEHOLDERS, HISTORICAL TIME LINES &

THE CHANGES

Tuesday, 22nd February 2005


INTRODUCTION • SDP is an integrated R&D

development project - Started in 1997 (Oct ’96)

• Designed to have 2 phases (2 & 4 years respectively - to end in July 2003 but has been extended to March 2005

• DFID & GoK-funded


• Collaboratively implemented by MoLFD (lead), KARI & ILRI

• Works closely with dairy industry stakeholders, key players & partners

• Consumption to production – all aspects of dairy systems


Stakeholders grouping• Dairy industry wide players –

smallholder dairy farmers and the small traders

• Steering committee • Collaborating institutions• Chore staff and management• Key players• Partners


PRE-PROJECT ACTIVITIES • KARI & ILCA (ILRI) established a

programme based at KARI’s Mtwapa RRC, from 1988 to 1994

• This was in response to the government’s (MoLD) need to improve smallholder dairy in the coastal region (to meet milk demand & improve incomes of rural community at coast)


• Program was to identify and resolve biological, social and economic constraints to the development, adoption and increase in productivity of the smallholder dairying in the coastal lowlands

• designed along a production-to-consumption system approach


• Planned to be implemented in an integrated research and development approach - in close collaboration with MoLD through NDDP (Dutch) and with the participation of other institutions (KETRI, etc.)

• This ensured research-extension-farmer linkages - resulting in farmer managed technology trials


• On station proven technologies also tested systematically with farmers through:– Farmer/extension staff visits to the

long-term on-station experiments;– Research-extension managed

demonstration plots on selected farms;

– Field days held on these farms and those of early adopters; and

– Farmer-managed trials on some 300 farms in 4 districts of the coastal lowlands.


• Planning and review processes established between researchers, extension staff and farmers were institutionalized into “cluster” consultative meetings

• As a result the “cluster” mechanism for strengthening research-extension-farmer linkages was naturally replicated through KARI centres


FROM COAST TO HIGHLANDS • From lessons of integrated &

collaborative approaches to resolving smallholder dairy farmers’ problems at the coast, it was decided the experiences could benefit other parts of the country

• This led to discussions (1993 - between MoLD, KARI, ILCA and ODA ) to seek further support and resources to extend coastal experience and model of research-extension-farmer collaboration to the highlands


• The discussions resulted in ODA sponsoring a workshop (March 1995) for stakeholders & key players in the industry to plan and develop a collaborative dairy project for implementation by MoLD, KARI and ILRI

• W/shop produced a draft logframe showing where more support for the smallholder dairy development was required


• Participants, identified the need for a dairy system Research and Development project to support smallholders supplying, or with potential to supply, the Nairobi milk market

• A committee (MoLD, KARI and ILRI) was formed to prepare a proposal for DFID consideration.

• DFID had given approval for the project (SDP) by December 1995 to start in 1996 – started in August 1997


• SDP designed on the lessons from coast programme – mainly that, for SDP to succeed there is need for:-– Active participation of all major

dairy industry stakeholders and key players in the identification and resolution of technical, socio-economic and policy constraints along the dairy production-to-consumption chain;


–Effective linkages with MoLFD and related ministries at policy as well as operational level;

–Effective linkages with the private sector for provision of output and input services; and

–Effective means to implement proposals by feeding directly into design of pilot initiatives.


As a result, • SDP was designed to be managed

through SC - comprising of major dairy industry stakeholders and key players & chaired by MoLFD (DLP) - at the apex, meets quarterly

• SC membership: KENFAP, KNFC,KDPA, DRSK, KEBS, UoN, MoH, MoCD&M, DVS and DPIS section of MoLFD


SDP Management structure

SDP MANAGEMENTMoLFD/KARI/ILRI

ManagerAss. Manager

Advisor/FM

Dairy SystemsAppraisal

Policy and Institutional Reforms

Validation and Dissemination

STEERING COMMITTEEMoLFD – DLP/DVS/DPD,

KARI, ILRI, KEBS, DFID, MoH/PHDRSK, KDPA, KENFAP, KNFC, UoN


SDP RESPONDING TO CHANGING P&I ENVIRONMENT• SDP designed for 2 phases –

initially 4 & 6 yrs respectively but finally 2 & 4 yrs

• Integrated R&D, Consumption to production – all aspects of dairy systems

• Original emphasis was on farm technology and for the SH dairy sector supplying Nairobi


• SDP changes over time are reflected in logframes’ goals and purposes as summarized in the following: -


Goals for the 3 project phases

1. Improved access by dairy farmers to efficient, demand driven services, technologies, advice and information

2. Contribution to sustainable improvements in the livelihoods of poor people in Kenya


3. Improved access by poor dairy farmers to goods, services and output markets, and by other farmers to agricultural knowledge services

– * Super goal for phase 3 - Contribution to sustainable improvements in the livelihoods of poor people in Kenya


Purpose - 3 project phases1. Required actions for creation

of a supportive operational environment for smallholders supplying the Nairobi milk market agreed

2. Improved access by smallholder dairy farmers to technologies, advice and information


3. Policies and institutions support: a) dairying by the poor and b) effective agricultural knowledge systems in support of the poor


• 1st change in 1999 - necessary in order to closely reflect ideas introduced during the project’s

• But major change was in 2000 on realisation that it was difficulty to have an impact in the prevailing P&I environment


CHANGES OF SC MEMBERSHIP OVER IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD• SC initial membership was – MoLFD,

KARI, ILRI and DFID & other dairy industry stakeholders & key players as ex-officio (when and as necessary except in case of DFID)

• This arrangement was changed after the 1st SC meeting to include more SH


• Expanded to include: DVS, Commissioner of Co-op and MD (KDB) as full members and Chief, Public Health (MoH), MD (KEBS), Chairman, AP (UoN), DRSK, KENFAP, KNFC & KDPA as ex-officio


• Also incorporated in the SC were Chief of APD & HDBB and the Heads of Extension and the Planning Divisions

• Since then, there is no difference of SC membership


• Notable changes of SC have been brought about by changes in the participating institutions – MoLFD (5 DLPs), KDPA (3 Chairmen), KDB (3 MDs), KARI (2 reps.)

• There were also changes from the other institutions but not as impacting


OTHER CHANGES

• MoLFD Ministers & PSs• Change in Ministry structure –

DLP to SDDLP due to combining 2 depts.

• Change of other key actor such as Technical Manager at KDB

• Change at top at KARI and ILRI• Change at DFID – 3 Senior

advisors


Gradual Change of Mind Set by Key Players in the Dairy Industry

• Major challenge to the project has been on how to deliver at the purpose level – Policies and institutions support: a) dairying by the poor and b) effective agricultural knowledge systems in support of the poor


• Two issues have attracted a lot of attention:– Recognition of the importance of the

informal (traditional) milk markets in the dairy industry (employment, moderation of prices, nutrition of the poor); and

– The need for use of alternative (lactoperoxidase – LP) system of milk preservation where the cold chain system is not feasible.


• Initially, the two areas were almost considered taboo by regulators

• SDP was seen to promote illegal activities in its attempt to highlight these issues

• Change has been observed in the way the issues are now being addressed – no longer outright rejection or seen as taboo


CHANGE IN SDP MANAGEMENT

• 3 Task Teams were formed to assist management of technical activities

• The 3 initial managers are all gone (2001, 2002 & 2004


MAJOR EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES DURING THE PROJECT LIFE

• RA – impact on understanding of the dairy industry

• Assessment of Public Health Hazards of informal Milk Marketing in Kenya– Active debate on PH risks

– PH Committee set up at KDB (2001)


• Focus on P&IR after “Snapshot” O-P review

• Coming up with a new strategy after recognition that SDP could not deliver alone (advocacy)

• Partnership with like minds


• The new strategy was based on:– Multi-pronged approaches;

– Use of different media and approaches;

– Strong and diverse partnerships; and

– Flexibility to respond to opportunities and developments.


• Partnership and strategy culminated in the very successful Policy Forum of May 2004 and an accelerated change of mind sets by some


Acknowledgement:The Success of SDP is due to financial support by the Kenya Government, through MoLFD and KARI, and the British Government, through DFID and the effort of many MoLFD, KARI, ILRI staff and those of other collaborating Institutions who have put up with the demands of the project’s activities

The SDP Case Study 1 Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change SDP STAKEHOLDERS, HISTORICAL TIME LINES & THE CHANGES Tuesday, 22nd February 2005.

Documents

sdp case study

project sdp

introduction sdp

coast slide

uon slide

dairy production

smallholder dairy development

changing pi environment