The Smallholder Dairy Project: Experiences in dairy policy influencing in Kenya

This paper is written by one of the key actors in the Smallholder Dairy Project (SDP) to summarise his observations on policy influencing and processes while working with the project. It is written from the perspective of the SDP as a central player in the process of policy reform as SDP has undoubtedly been one, if not the only, main mover in this process in the last few years. However, there is an ongoing process to link with ODI in order to document the experiences of dairy policy reform in Kenya based on experiences of SDP and its partners, which will involve more of an outside perspective.

Kenya's dairy industry is hugely important, accounting for 3.5% of total GDP and 14% of agricultural GDP. Hundreds of thousands of Kenyans earn their livings through dairying and related activities. The industry is based predominantly on smallholder production, from farms with just one or two milking cows. It is very much a market-oriented sector, although the vast majority of marketed milk is sold 'raw' or unpasteurised. However, the policy and regulatory environment, based on the still current Dairy Industry Act of 1958, revised once in 1984, was enacted on the basis of large-scale colonial dairy farms, supplying milk to urban centres. Until 1992, Kenya Cooperative Creameries (KCC) had a monopoly for buying and processing milk. This changed following liberalisation, with other private processors being able to operate, and led to the collapse of KCC. In this environment, the informal market for raw milk (which had always existed) thrived because of the large demand for milk. There have been moves to develop a new Dairy Policy and introduce a new Dairy Industry Bill, but to date this has never been enacted. So the current policy and institutional environment is inappropriate for the industry that currently serves the needs of Kenyan consumers, and supports the livelihoods of those involved in dairy production and marketing. However, the policy environment has supported harassment and rent-seeking behaviour, as the larger powerful players, linked to those in authority, have sought to increase their small market share.

Since coming to power in 2002, the new government has introduced an Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS) with employment generation as a cornerstone. They have also introduced a Strategy for Revitalising Agriculture (SRA), which supports the idea of less government control through parastatals, and development of small-enterprise-based marketing of agricultural products. However, the priorities and framework for implementation of these strategies are still not well developed.

Since 1997, the DFID-funded SDP, collaboratively implemented by the Ministry of Livestock, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), has been carrying out research into all aspects of livelihoods associated with the Kenyan smallholder dairy sub-sector. Following a review in 2000, the project log-frame was revised to include activities to implement a strategy for influencing policies and institutions in the sector, in support of poor people's livelihoods. This was a challenge to a project implemented by publicly funded research institutions, as it meant crossing the boundary between carrying out the research, and getting involved in supporting advocacy for change.

In 2002, with much of the underlying research having been completed, and indicating several areas where P/I reform would have an impact on livelihoods, SDP developed a strategy for influencing policy. Key elements of this strategy were:

• Working in partnership with other organisations with similar visions;
  
• Robust research evidence underlying all proposed reforms;
  
• Broad range of 'targets', to influence not only formal written policy, but wider mindsets and 'rules of the game' affecting the sector.

Of these, the focus on partnerships was crucial, in particular, bringing in NGOs with capacity for engaging in advocacy, and providing clear links to stakeholder advocacy groups. This linkage of true stakeholder voice and robust underlying evidence provided a potent tool at many stages.