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

Process and Partnership for Pro-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

Process and Partnership for Pro-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

Process and Partnership for Pro-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

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change How did this change happen?

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change ROA applied in Kenya case study First application of ROA 1.Literature review & commissioned timeline of key events – focus on Smallholder Dairy Project 2.Interviews with key actors 3.Workshop a.Key actor identification b.Key activities identification c.Identification of behaviour changes d.Mapping of influences 4.Follow-up interviews and literature search to cross-check findings.

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Smallholder Dairy Project Collaborative research and development project ( ) 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

Process and Partnership for Pro-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

Process and Partnership for Pro-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

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change SDP’s influencing strategy

Process and Partnership for Pro-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

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Behaviour change chart – Complex!

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Causal factors – even more complex!

Process and Partnership for Pro-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

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Simplified representation of policy change process

Process and Partnership for Pro-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

Process and Partnership for Pro-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.

Process and Partnership for Pro-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

Process and Partnership for Pro-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

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change