IMPROVING FOOD-SAFETY IN AN INNOVATION SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

IMPROVING FOOD-SAFETY IN AN INNOVATION SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK:

METHODOLOGIES TO HELP ADDRESS KNOWLEDGE, INCENTIVE AND

CO-ORDINATION FAILURES

1

Asif Bin Qutub1, Rameswar Deka1, Islam Barburah2, Dilip Sarma3, Derek Baker4, William Thorpe4, Delia Grace*4

1 ILRI coordination office, Directorate of Dairy Development, Khanapara, Guwahti-781022, Assam

2 Fellowship for Agri Resource Management and Entrepreneurship Research, Guwahti, Assam 3 Centre for Humanistic Development, Guwahti, Assam 4 International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi *corresponding author

INNOVATION ASIA PACIFIC SYMPOSIUM 4-7 May,2009 Kathmandu, Nepal

INTRODUCTION

FBD is a major cause of sickness and death in poor countries. High-level of FBD in DC shows current food safety systems don’t work A project ‘Enhancing Traditional Dairy Value Chain’ funded by DFID, UK under the RIU programme is addressing the food safety failure in Assam, using a sectoral innovation system approach (SISA) . SISA implies we need to understand:

Knowledge/Information genesis & flow, Incentives for behaviour change, Coordination /linkage between actors. In order to design a sustainable and appropriate mechanism for improving

the quality and safety of milk.

Thus assuring the livelihoods of those in the informal milk sector value chain.

2

CASE STUDY- TRADITIONAL DAIRYING IN ASSAM

3

Findings from the previous survey: Many poor farmers keep cattle and rely on milk sales - 82% keep cattle & 64% cattle keepers are poor, 45% sell milk, 23% rank dairying 1st/2nd cash source. Nearly all milk and milk products are informally marketed - 97% is informal, pasteurised is <1% milk, Chilling plants (7) operate 3-34% capacity. Demand for milk and added value product is increasing. No training or quality assurance exists in the informal sector. High burden of informality to poor people (unsafe milk, un-official tax, lack of official recognition/support, lack societal respect) Of most concern to other stakeholders is the quality and safety of milk and milk products –

• 80% of samples have faecal contamination, 21% of milk volume consists of added

water.

• And consumers have a high level of concern over milk quality - 42% consumers

distrust milk quality.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROJECT

MILK INNOVATION SYSTEM

• The various actors (Producers, Traders, Sweet Makers, Cottage Processor)

that operate in the sector, their interactions, the environment in which they operate, which together and individually produce and/or transfer economically and/or socially useful knowledge. The Central Innovations are:

• Training and certification of informal sector milk chain actors.
• Processes of engaging with policy and decision makers to ensure a more

enabling environment for the informal sector.

• To increase likelihood of sustainability we are trying to understand:
• 1. Knowledge/Information genesis & flow,
• 2. Incentives for behaviour change,
• 3. Coordination /linkage between actors.

4

Knowledge /Information Failure

• Knowledge, Attitude & Practice

(KAP) Survey.

• Training Needs Assessment (TNA).
• Participatory Risk Assessment (PRA).
• 3. 3. Critical

Assumptions

• In-depth understanding of the

existing KAP; needs and desires for information

• Disseminating or Building on

wealth of indigenous technical knowledge and local expertise

• 2. Results of the

Problem

• Poor Understanding and Practice
• f Milk Hygiene.
• Poor Business skills
• Poor Communication.
• 1. Problem
• KAP Survey: Questionnaires,

Sample collection & analysis.

• TNA: FGD with the actors using

TNA guide and Templates..

• Risk Assessment: Syndromic

Surveillance Questionnaire, Milk collection & analysis at the point

• f consumption.
• 6. Evaluation
• Ensure

that training context will be relevant to a wide range of potential trainees.

• 4. Methodology

to address the Problem

• 5. Implementation of

Methodology

• 1. INFORMATION GENESIS &

FLOW

5

Incentive Failure

• Value Chain Analysis around a

value chain (e.g. producers, traders, processors, retailers) .

• 3. 3. Critical

Assumptions

• Market-based

incentives might exist for changing behaviour.

• Control

& Command’ not working .

• Rules are not internalised by

market actors

• 1. Problem`

The Value Chain Analysis is being carried out through FGDs to: Gather information to map the value chain and quality criteria used along the chain. Eliciting how key quality criteria are influenced. Ranking of key incentives. Investigating Interventions

• n training, certification and

marketing campaign.

• 6. Evaluation

Identify incentives required for innovation.

• 4. Methodology

to address the problem

• 5. Implementation
• f Methodology
• 2. INCENTIVES FOR BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

6

• 2. Results of the

Problem

Coordination Failure

• Outcome

Mapping for understanding the relations between actors and identifying strategies for more effective patterns of coordination

• 3. 3. Critical

Assumptions

• Improving

coordination would increase value chain performance.

• Lack of official recognition.
• Distrust.
• High transaction costs
• 1. Problem

The Outcome Mapping involves three stages of thinking: Intentional Design. Outcome and Performance Monitoring. Evaluation Planning

• 6. Evaluation

Examine whether the target groups/actors maintaining the system now have and use the knowledge and skills, tools, and other resources needed to keep it running in the long term.

• 4. Methodology

to address the problem

• 5. Implementation
• f Methodology
• 3. COORDINATION/LINKAGE BETWEEN ACTORS

7

• 2. Results of the

Problem

CONCLUSION

The sectoral innovation system is helping us to identify critical components of an innovation based on training and certification. The different methodologies (KAP, TNA, VCA, PRA, OM), help us to:

• Examine the relation between good and bad practices and safety of milk.
• Ensure training will be relevant to a wide range of potential trainees including

those who many have difficulty in accessing training.

• Understand which practices led to unsafe milk.
• Identify the incentives to change behaviour (e.g. branding, social marketing).
• Examine whether the target groups/actors in the milk value chain adopt the

knowledge and skills, tools, and other resources to keep it running in the long term. Initial results suggested that these methodologies were feasible, appropriate and capable of generating the information and engagement needed for implementation of the project. The Next Steps :

• Synthesising information from these studies in order to adapt training materials on

milk-hygiene and business management to the informal dairy sector in Assam

• Design of an Incentive- based mechanism :

—Sustainable continuation of the training and certification. —Strategies to ensure an enabling environment.

8

THANK YOU

9