process and partnership for pro-poor policy change case study 1: dairy marketing policy in kenya
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
Case study 1:Dairy marketing policy in Kenya
![Page 2: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
![Page 3: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
![Page 4: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
![Page 5: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
How did this change happen?
![Page 6: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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.
![Page 7: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
![Page 8: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
![Page 9: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
![Page 10: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
Research partners and collaboratorsUniversities; NGOs;
farmers; traders; KDB
Farmers & farmer groups
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
Research partners and collaboratorsUniversities; NGOs;
farmers; traders; KDB
Research partners and collaboratorsUniversities; NGOs;
farmers; traders; KDB
Farmers & farmer groups
Public
Farmers & farmer groups
Farmers & farmer groups
PublicPublicMPsMPs
DFIDDFID
Ministries
KDB
Processors
Ministries
KDB
Processors
Partners and Linkages:Partners and Linkages:
![Page 11: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
![Page 12: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
Behaviour change chart – Complex!
![Page 13: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
Causal factors – even more complex!
![Page 14: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
![Page 15: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
![Page 16: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
![Page 17: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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.
![Page 18: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
![Page 19: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change
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
![Page 20: Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022072116/56649dde5503460f94ad7277/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Process and Partnership forPro-Poor Policy Change