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. 

• 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.

Strategic objectives

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 RwandaEADD2: Dec 2013, for 5 years in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania

Facilitation

Private sector

TRANSPORTERSTRANSPORTERS

TESTINGTESTING

FARMERSFARMERS

FIELD DAYSFIELD DAYS

FEED FEED SUPPLYSUPPLY

AI & AI & EXTENSIONEXTENSION

VILLAGE BANKSVILLAGE BANKS

OTHER RELATED OTHER RELATED MEsMEs

HARDWARE SUPPLIERSHARDWARE SUPPLIERS

CHILLING or BULKING CHILLING or BULKING FACILITIESFACILITIES

The Hub approach

EADD1 achievements

124%164%

64%

• 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’

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%

Majority of Kenya POs were in Stages III and IV. In Uganda, majority of POs were in Stage II.

2014 POs distribution by stage and country

Annual performance trend (overall score)

Source: Stage gate data (2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013)

Kenya PO performance has been on an increasing trend while Uganda performance improved between 2011 and 2012 and later declined between 2012 and 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

Source: Stage gate data (2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013)

Capital structure improved greatly while FH improved marginally. The other 4 dimensions declined with VP market declining most.

Kenya business dimension-wise trend across years

Source: Stage gate data (2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013)

Overall there was fluctuation in scores for all dimensions between 2010 and 2013. Performance in all the dimensions declined.

Uganda business dimension-wise trend across years

Kenya production dimension-wise trend across years

• An overall improvement 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 implementer2. Hub model not a ‘one size fits all’3. Sustainability4. Governance / leadership key driver of sustainability5. Raising farmers equity a challenge6. Invest in enhancing value proposition to farmers7. Incorporate hub graduation and exit strategies earlier on8. Paradigm shift from traditional M&E to MLE system! 9. Increase engagement with private sector10.Encourage a pro-poor value chain11.Gender considerations are key12.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