Mission Impossible ? Pro-poor innovation that is socially equitable, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mission Impossible? Pro-poor innovation that is socially equitable, gender fair, and environment- friendly

Rameswar Deka, Asif bin Qutub1, M Islam Barbaruah2, Amos Omore3, Steve Staal3, Delia Grace3 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: land 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 milk 6.0 1 Pasteurised (formal sector) 4.0 68 Raw (informal sector) 20.5 80

35 40 45 50 55 60

Farmer Trader Co-op Transporter Consumer

Milk-handling hygiene (%)

Mean scores of different actors (n=75) in a study of dairy hygiene in Assam – (100% is acceptable level)

• 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

• f 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

• Level of SE

– High – Medium – Low

• Mechanism of SE

– Norms – Assets – Access

• Recognition of

SE

– Official – Societal

• Migrants
• Women
• Poor
• Char dwellers
• Scheduled tribes
• Backward tribes

11 categories of SEG

Client group Migrants Char dwellers Women 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

• f milk and milk products

20% 10% 90% Involvement of socially excluded groups in different aspects of dairying relative to their overall proportion in the population

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
• f 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 & CO2 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
• bjectives 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