Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya.

Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change

Case study 1:Dairy marketing policy in Kenya


The dairy sector in Kenya• Predominantly based on smallholder production with

informal marketing by small-scale traders– >86% of all marketed milk is sold as raw milk to consumers

• Some 800,000 dairy-cow owning households• 350,000 full time employees• Majority of all dairy marketing jobs (over 40,000) are

in the informal sector• Poor consumers access affordable milk, and it is

almost invariably boiled before use


Policy environment – pre 2004• Dairy policy based on industrial cold-chain model

– Sales of raw milk effectively prohibited in urban areas

• Kenya Dairy Board (KDB) are main regulators– But does not reflect range of dairy sector stakeholders– Harassed and arrested informal traders– Informal traders unlicensed and unable to access training on

milk handling– Perceived concerns about poor milk quality and public health

risks

• Powerful private sector actors put pressure on KDB to stamp out informal trade


Policy environment - now• Positive engagement by KDB with small-scale

milk vendors– Training and certification, with incentive system– Working with partners to help establish business

development services to informal sector• New Dairy Policy in parliamentary process

– Explicitly recognises role of SSMVs– Commits to engaging with informal sector for training

and quality improvement– Transition of KDB to be stakeholder-managed


How did this change happen?


ROA applied in Kenya case studyFirst application of ROA1. Literature review & commissioned

timeline of key events – focus on Smallholder Dairy Project

2. Interviews with key actors 3. Workshop

a. Key actor identificationb. Key activities identificationc. Identification of behaviour changesd. Mapping of influences

4. Follow-up interviews and literature search to cross-check findings.


Smallholder Dairy Project• Collaborative research and development project

(1997-2004) implemented by– Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development– Kenya Agricultural Research Institute– International Livestock Research Institute

• Objectives (developed during the project):– Characterise dairy sector and develop appropriate

technologies to overcome constraints affecting dairy-related livelihoods

– Influence policy and institutional reform in support of dairy-related livelihoods


SDP evidence about the sector• Produced wide-ranging & robust evidence on:

– Economic importance of informal sector• Livelihoods and employment

– Consumer demand underlying market structure– Actual public health risks & how they can be reduced– Practical training and support for informal traders– Nutritional benefits for poor consumers

• Evidence implied a different model for dairy marketing policy in Kenya, with a key role for informal sector


SDP strategy to influence policy• All activities based on the research evidence• Collaborative approach meant continual

communication of evidence from start of project• Steering committee of key industry stakeholders• Project manager within Ministry of Livestock• Regular presentation of evidence to stakeholder meetings• Field visits• Use of media• High level Policy Forum

• Links with advocacy-focused NGOs to allow evidence to be more actively promoted


SDP’s influencing strategy

ILRI

KARI

MoLFD

SDP

ITDG ActionAid

IPAR

Advocacy partners

SITEPolicy influencing

targets

Other researchers

Research partners and collaboratorsUniversities; NGOs;

farmers; traders; KDB

Farmers & farmer groups

PublicMPs

DFID

Ministries

KDB

Processors

Partners and Linkages:

ILRI

KARI

MoLFD

SDP

ITDG ActionAid

IPAR

Advocacy partners

SITEPolicy influencing

targets

Other researchers




PublicMPs

DFID

Ministries

KDB

Processors

ILRI

KARI

MoLFD

SDP

ILRI

KARI

MoLFD

ILRIILRI

KARIKARI

MoLFDMoLFD

SDP

ITDG ActionAid

IPAR

Advocacy partners

SITE

ITDGITDG ActionAidActionAid

IPARIPAR

Advocacy partners

SITESITEPolicy influencing

targets

Other researchers

Other researchers






Public



PublicPublicMPsMPs

DFIDDFID

Ministries

KDB

Processors

Ministries

KDB

Processors

Partners and Linkages:Partners and Linkages:


What happened?• Very controversial area - SDP findings were strongly opposed

throughout the project• Well resourced opposition to the SDP coalition

– ‘Safe Milk Campaign’– Reaction of SDP’s CSO partners with own media campaign, based on SDP

evidence– ‘Battles’ in meetings and through the media – KDB caught in the middle– Increasing pressure from farmers and traders for change

• Meetings held with ministers – set up by CSO partners• High level ‘Dairy Policy Forum’ held• ‘Bridges’ built with KDB to support them in changing their approach


Behaviour change chart – Complex!


Causal factors – even more complex!


The ‘tipping point’…• Influence of SDP was continuous throughout

its activities, gradually changing mindsets

• But a ‘tipping point’ was the ‘Milk War’ – The processors’ Safe Milk campaign and the

reaction of SDP’s partners to it.– High profile debate followed KDB was forced to

listen to its stakeholders


Simplified representation of policy change process

SDP Research and communication activities

KBD dominated by processors

Harassment of informal traders

SDP Policy Focus

Policy change

NGOs work at grass roots with farmer groups

Milk War

SDP Dairy Policy Forum

NGOs become SDP partners

Attitude & behaviour

change

New GovernmentIncreased Citizen Voice

DFID Snapshot review of SDP

Safe milk campaign

2000 to 2003 2004 2005

SDP Research and communication activities

KBD dominated by processors

Harassment of informal traders

SDP Policy Focus

Policy change

NGOs work at grass roots with farmer groups

Milk War

SDP Dairy Policy Forum

NGOs become SDP partners

Attitude & behaviour

change

New GovernmentIncreased Citizen Voice

DFID Snapshot review of SDP

Safe milk campaign

2000 to 2003 2004 20052000 to 2003 2004 2005


Lessons: Political and economic context• Understanding the political context opens influencing

opportunities– Government strategy e.g. Economic Recovery Strategy stressing

employment• Politicians respond to grass roots pressure

– Linking evidence to such pressure can be very effective– Farmer advocacy groups pressurising KDB

• Approaches that appeal to the personal incentives of key policy makers increase likelihood of influence. – The evidence is only one pressure on such people.

• Civil society role is influenced by their freedom to operate. When role is increasing (as in Kenya) they can be highly effective and free of institutional constraints– Advocating; opening doors; linking grassroots to policymakers;

piloting approaches


Lessons: Linkages• Widespread linkages enable a key role in policy

processes– Formal between implementing organisations and MoLFD

policymakers and KDB regulators – Strategic with research and development partners to carry

out appropriate research and communicate it– Tactical and opportunistic with other partners, when policy-

influencing became the focus.

• But effective linkages involve significant time investment.


Lessons: Evidence• Evidence must be relevant, robust and credible,

especially in controversial environments– Credibility is built up over time, and can be lost easily– Both socio-economic (e.g. employment) and technical

evidence (health risks) help make a complete picture.

• Evidence must be communicated:– Continually, and to a range of audiences

• Supporters; opponents; grass-roots organisations; the public; politicians; technical actors and regulators

– Using appropriate formats for different actors• Meetings, policy briefs, audio-visual, field visits, media


Lessons: External influences

Donor influences• Funds

– Influencing can be expensive, and needs resources targeted specifically for this

– SDP was well resourced for influencing, and supported activities of advocacy partners

• Supporting poverty-focused & policy-focused activities– DFID’s intellectual and practical support in maintaining the

poverty and policy focus was helpful for SDP staff more used to a research focus

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya.

Documents

Transcript of Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya.