Mission Impossible ? Pro-poor innovation that is socially equitable, gender fair, and environment- friendly Rameswar Deka, Asif bin Qutub 1 , M Islam Barbaruah 2 , Amos Omore 3 , Steve Staal 3 , Delia Grace 3 Innovation Asia Pacific Symposium 2009 Kathmandu, Nepal
Presentation overview 1. Rationale Innovation in systems characterised by poverty, should consider: Health, equity, environment….. 2. Methods Case study: innovations in traditional dairy in Assam 3. Results Health impacts and risk mitigation Equity impacts and exclusion mitigation Environmental impact and risk mitigation
Background: enhancing traditional dairy in Assam • Informal sector - 97% of milk marketed; • Smallholder dairying = pathway out of poverty – 80% rural hh involved milk value chain – ILRI’s studies showed high potential for dairy take off But… … • Health: milk a major source food-borne disease • Equity: commercial dairying can exclude poor, women, other marginalised • Environment: livestock 18% of GG, pollution etc
Ecohealth lens • Ecohealth framework for promoting human, animal and ecosystem health • Health: Human, livestock, wildlife, and environmental health are integrally related Equity: Socio-economic impacts included- gender, SEGs � Environment: l and use, pollution, biodiversity � 3 methodological pillars : transdisciplinarity, participation, and equity
Methods • Innovation-systems project funded by RIU; • Comprehensive survey on dairy sector in Assam; • Laboratory tests of milk samples throughout the milk pathway; • Social exclusion assessment; • Environmental impact assessment;
1. White poison or pathway out of poverty? Ecohealth lens 1: Results of assessment of health impacts & development of risk mitigation
Median physical and bacteriological quality parameters for raw and pasteurised milk in Assam Type of mik Added water (%) Unacceptable bacterial levels (%) Ultra heat treated 6.0 1 milk Pasteurised (formal 4.0 68 sector) Raw (informal 20.5 80 sector)
Mean scores of different actors (n=75) in a study of dairy hygiene in Assam – (100% is acceptable level) Consumer Transporter Co-op Trader Farmer 35 40 45 50 55 60 Milk-handling hygiene (%) •Average score 53%, means large short-fall from acceptable standards •Worst hygiene at farm and trader level.
Pathway analysis: quality declines most between the last vendor and the household
Health Impacts • Informal sector milk has high levels of adulteration and faecal bacteria; • Boiling is effective at eliminating pathogens, but boiling will not eliminate diseases caused by toxins and chemicals; • Mitigation needed to improve safety of informal sector milk
: Health risk mitigation • Risk analysis to understand which behaviours are responsible for poor quality of milk; • Develop a training course which addresses these; • Incentives to ensure sustainability of training and certification e.g. Certification trainees & branding of clean milk; • Social marketing to increase consumer demand for and confidence in milk quality and safety; • Engagement with policy processes through generation of evidence
2. Does intensive dairying increase inequity? Ecohealth lens 2: Results of Social Exclusion Assessment and development of mitigation strategies
Social exclusion 11 categories of SEG • Level of SE • Migrants – High – Medium • Women – Low • Mechanism of SE • Poor – Norms – Assets • Char dwellers – Access • Recognition of • Scheduled tribes SE • Backward tribes – Official – Societal
Involvement of socially excluded groups in different aspects of dairying relative to their overall proportion in the population Client group Migrants Char Women dwellers General population 15-25% 6-10% 46% Small dairies with high potential 50% 2% 50% Informal sector milk traders 80% 10% 1% Small scale milk processors 70% 2% 1% Formal sector milk processors 0% 0% 0% Consumers making decision on 20% 10% 90% of milk and milk products
Mitigation for social exclusion • Disaggregation of data by gender, wealth, location and identity; • Considering needs, preferences, constraints for SEGs; • Institutional access analysis; • Capacity building of partner agencies to understand social exclusion and effectively work with SEGs; • Monitoring participation of SEG members in activities; • Considering SEG’s needs and constraints in adaptation of knowledge outputs; • Including SEGs in pre-testing of materials and social marketing messages;
Project responses for inclusion of women • Programmes to women's needs and skills; • Sufficient time to women to acquire new skills; • Involvement of women from poorer and less educated backgrounds; • Awareness on gender issues and their rights; • Participation of women in training programmes related to milk trading & processing; • Linkages with bank, insurance comp. etc.;
3. Will intensive dairying cost the earth? Ecohealth lens 3: Results of Environmental Impact Assessment and development of mitigation strategies
Environmental impacts livestock � Livestock 80% ag. emissions � 18% anthropogenic emissions � Environmental pollution � Deforestation � Over-grazing � Eutrophication � Biodiversity loss
Environmental impacts & threats in Assam • Identified 9 potential environmental impacts; – Methane & CO 2 emission are directly linked with climate change; – Degradation of fodder & grasses attributes to soil erosion & flood; – Climate change could lead to heat stress, emerging disease, changes in availability of feed; – Pollution from dairy wastes may be a potential problem; – Loss of biodiversity – ………
Mitigation of environmental risk • Increase productivity rather than cattle numbers; • The wastes are valuable agricultural inputs used as fertilizer; • Cow manure is used as cooking fuel/ building material; • Cow urine is used as medicine/ source of urea for improving nutritional quality of straws;
Conclusions • Informal dairy is a major employer for poor people and a major potential pathway out of poverty • In Assam, treated with much suspicion and little support; • An important reason is- concerns over the safety and quality of informal sector milk; – We found concerns are justified but health risks can be mitigated – Key interventions are: hazard identification; risk-based targeting; improving milk handling and hygiene; building knowledge of and demand for milk safety; • Also concern that intensive dairying will be anti-poor or anti -other SEGs and damaging to the environment – Assam’s social and gender analysis was reasonably positive; – Vulnerable groups tend to have a higher involvement in dairying; – Environmental impacts of small-holder dairying are relatively minor and manageable; – Strategies identified for mitigating social and environmental risks
Conclusions 2 � EcoHealth approach can lead to a better designed intervention � …this not only helps meet multiple societal objectives but improves the likelihood of achieving primary goal
Triple – win?
Acknowledgements: the Department of Dairy Development of the Government of Assam facilitated field work. The project on ehancing the traditional dairy sector in Assam is funded by RIU
Recommend
More recommend
