Case study 1: Dairy marketing policy in Kenya

1. Case study 1:Dairy marketing policy in Kenya

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. How did this change happen?

6. ROA applied in Kenya case study First application of ROA • Literature review & commissioned timeline of key events – focus on Smallholder Dairy Project • Interviews with key actors • Workshop • Key actor identification • Key activities identification • Identification of behaviour changes • Mapping of influences • Follow-up interviews and literature search to cross-check findings.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. SDP’s influencing strategy

11. 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

12. Behaviour change chart – Complex!

13. Causal factors – even more complex!

14. 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

15. Simplified representation of policy change process

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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

19. 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