Kindly send back this questionnaire in word format
/ Secretariat HLPE, c/o FAOViale delle Terme di Caracalla
00153 Rome, Italy
Tel: 0039 06 5705 2762
Website : www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe
E-mail :
HLPE report #13 on
“Multi-stakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve
Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda”
Existing MSPs: Case studies
The following questionnaire aims at collecting detailed inputs on existing MSPs. This material is to be used where appropriate by the HLPE to illustrate its abovementioned report #13 with concrete examples.
1. Name of MSP: Dairy Hub and Dairy Academy Development / # (for HLPE use only):2. Thematic domain of activity:
(X) Food production; food supply chain;
(…) Natural resource management;
(…) Education, information, knowledge sharing;
(…) Resource mobilization;
(…) Other (specify):
Brief description of mandate / activities / objectives:
The project links smallholder dairy farmers to an industrial dairy processor, giving them a secure market for all milk they produce. Through Dairy Hubs, the farmers get access to inputs, services and training. Farmers deliver milk to village milk collection centres, morning and evening. The Dairy Academy trains extension officers and farm managers. Project objectives include increased productivity (milk yields), increased farmersincomes and improved milk quality.
3. Website (official website of the MSP and, or, relevant web sources):
www.tetrapak.com/ffdo (not project specific, several dairy hub partnerships are presented here)
4. Year of Origin / Creation: 2011 (MSP and co-funding by donor from 2014)
5. Scale/Level of operation (choose one option):
( ) Global (Specify major areas/regions of presence:………………..…………….……………………)
( ) Regional (Specify region[1]:…………………………………………….….……………………………..)
(…) Sub-regional (Specify sub-region[2]: …………………………………………………………………….)
(…) National (Specify country……………………………………………………….………………………)
( X ) Local (Bangladesh)
I) STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION
6. Number of main partners: 5
7. Composition of the MSP: list of main partners: names and/or categories (i.e.: public sector, private sector, civil society, others[3])
PRAN Dairy, Bangladesh / private sector
Tetra Laval Group (Tetra Laval Food for Development, DeLaval) / private sector
UNIDO / UN organisation
Government of Bangladesh / public sector
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) / public sector
8. Which partner(s) initiated the MSP? How the MSP may have evolved?
The MSP was initiated by the private sector, Tetra Laval and PRAN. The two companies had worked together in building up the first Dairy Hub since 2011. PRAN is one of Bangladesh’s major dairy companies and a customer of Tetra Pak. The dairy needed more local milk to replace imported milk powder. The initial results were very positive and additional resources were needed to scale up and speed up the initiative. The MSP was formed in 2014 when Sida approved a partnership application from Tetra Laval, PRAN and UNIDO (implementer of the partnership project), including the approval/no objection from the Government of Bangladesh.
The partnership formally ends in April 2018, but the 5 dairy hubs developed so far will continue to operate on PRAN’s expense. PRAN’s investments in milk collection, transport and extension services have been paid back in increased milk volumes and improved milk quality. There are plans to expand further and new partnerships are sought for this.
9. Degree of formalization: does the MSP result of an informal agreement, or is there a formal structure of decision-making?
(…) full legal entity: legal personality
(X) formalized agreement among partners, but no legal personality for the MSP
(…) informal arrangement
Describe the decision-making process (including frequency of meetings of the governing bodies…)
A project Steering Committee meets every 6 months. Daily project management is the responsibility of UNIDO (implementing organisation in the donor funded partnership) and in close collaboration with PRAN’s staff (all project extension staff are hired by PRAN, but costs shared).
10. Governance structure: describe the roles, responsibilities and level of involvement of the different partners in the partnership. Describe, the case being, power asymetries between partners. Which partner(s) lead the MSP?
PRAN Dairy: responsible for all necessary investments in milk collection, milk processing, transport etc. “Owns” the dairy hubs and hires all extension staff. To build up the first dairy hub, PRAN and Tetra Laval jointly engaged a milk production specialist for two years who lived in the project area and worked full time with training farmers, extension staff and building up the dairy hub operations.
Tetra Laval Food for Development (FfD): The Tetra Laval Group (Tetra Pak) is a supplier to PRAN. FfD developed the dairy hub model and contributes with technical assistance to build up and run the dairy hubs, as well as with training of extension staff and farmers.
DeLaval: a supplier of milk collection equipment to PRAN. DeLaval is not a formal partner in the project, but has contributed to farmer training.
UNIDO: implementer of donor funded project
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida): Co-funds technical assistance (covers UNIDO experts and cost sharing of PRAN extension staff)
Government of Bangladesh: The Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, through its Department of Livestock Services (DLS), encouraged the participation of its extension service providers in the training of trainers’ activities to allow the spread of gained knowledge beyond the project area and to strengthen the institutional capacity in the field of dairy farming.
11. Representativeness: How and by whom are the members chosen? Do they speak only for themselves or represent a broader category of stakeholders? How long is their mandate? How does the MSP ensure inclusiveness and “fair” representation of the most affected people?
The smallholder farmers are not formal partners, they are beneficiaries of the support provided by the project. Farmers still have influence of which kind of support that is provided and meet in groups with project staff to discuss.
All farmers are welcome to register as suppliers, and they are free to sell milk to anyone they choose. The dairy is however committed to buy all milk delivered by farmers (provided it holds a minimum quality)
What are the channels of communication between the MSP and the government(s)? Are the decisions/recommendations of the MSP to the government(s) are prescriptive or consultative? What public strategies/priorities this partnership supported at different scales?
The Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock’s Department of Livestock Services (DLS) is offered training that benefits their services to dairy farmers. The Dairy Hub model has also been introduced to other value chains under the responsibility of the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock (shrimps sector).
12. Finance: How and by whom the MSP is funded? Who underwrites the partnership? Add relevant data about the budget, and budget share of each category of partners (public, private, civil society). Is the budget sufficient for work plan implementation? What are the financial tools and mechanisms used by the MSP?
The public sector: The donor Sida contributes around 3 million USD (SEK 21 million) for technical assistance (mainly staff costs and UNIDO administration).
Private sector: PRAN and Tetra Laval contributions amount to around 7 mio USD (investments, staff, technical assistance)
II) OUTCOMES
13. What is the main function of the MSP? Is it mainly:
(…)“policy-oriented”
(X) “action-oriented”
(…) Other (specify):
14. What are the main areas of contribution of the MSP? Please tick in the table below the main, secondary and tertiary areas of contribution of the MSP.
Outcome Area / Primary / Secondary / Tertiary
1. Policy design, policy implementation, laws, advocacy and awareness / √
2. Increased participation/inclusiveness: priority given to women as well as to marginalized and vulnerable groups. / √
3. Capacity building, among the MSP partners, and beyond / √
4. Resource mobilisation and fund raising / √
5. Activities related to facilitating improved FSN outcomes (e.g. environmental stewardship towards biodiversity/ water conservation…) / √
6. Outcomes that directly contribute to FSN (e.g. increased production, economic growth, income and employment generation, improved diets, better nutrition education and information…) / √
7. Monitoring and evaluation / √
8. Other (Specify: ______)
For each of the areas of contribution mentioned above, please give examples of the MSP outcomes and impacts:
After 60 months the project has resulted in the following:
· milk yields increased from 4.45-10.8 litres/cow/day (+143%)
· Average income per smallholder farmer (2006 farmers) increased from 100-244 USD/month (+144%)
· daily milk collection in Dairy Hub 1 area increased from 2000 litres/day to 41,000 litres/day
What are the main organizational and collective benefits gained from setting-up this MSP?
The dairy has built up a stable supply of locally produced milk to complement and gradually replace its imports of milk powder. The dairy value chain in the project areas is transformed from an informal market to a formal market. Farmers no longer have to sell their milk through middle men or directly to consumers.
III) OVERALL ASSESSMENT
15. Please rank your overall assessment of the MSP, ranking from 1 to 5 (with 1 being lowest to 5 highest)
5
16. Explain your above ranking
No farmer among the more than 10,000 farmers reached and impacted of this MSP has voluntarily left the project (a few have been expelled due to fraud). The MSP has meant a lot to local farmers who have improved their incomes and livelihoods. The impacts have exceeded the targets set by the partners (milk yields per cow, farmer income, milk quality). The dairy processor’s investments have been paid back in increased milk volumes collected in the project areas and in better milk quality. The partnership has also led to business opportunities for Tetra Laval companies (Tetra Pak and DeLaval).
17. How do you assess the MSP according to the following criteria (high, medium, low)? Why?
Criteria / Assessment / Low / Medium / High
Inclusiveness
(the intention to include everyone affected by decisions, especially those who are routinely ignored) / All farmers are welcome.
Accountability
(assigned responsibility that a representative or a group acquires with the action of speaking or deciding on behalf of someone else) / Farmers know they can sell all milk they produce. The project also gives them access to inputs, services and training
Transparency/Access to Information
(openness to public scrutiny, availability of information) / Project evaluated by Sida consultant. Data of project results collected all through project.
Reflexivity
(capacity of a MSP to learn from mistakes, to assess long-term trends, and to react accordingly
Effectiveness
(assessment of the achievement of MSP’s objectives) / Project targets have been met
Efficiency
(comparison between the use of resources with the potential benefits the MSP can generate, including intangible benefits) / Very efficient use of donor funds (compared to other donor funded dairy development projects). Viable investment for private sector.
Resource mobilisation
(raising of financial resources, and other enabling resources to improve FSN) / Farmers could not have sourced this training and support by themselves
Impact
(impact on FSN in its four dimensions at different scales) / High impact
18. Any comments on the above ratings:
19. How do you rate the power relations between participants? (choose one option)
( ) More Equal
( X ) Equal
( ) Less Equal
( ) Un-equal
20. Explain your above rating
Tetra Laval and PRAN developed the Dairy Hub model as implemented in Bangladesh and other partners came in later to help scale up. This means that Tetra Laval and PRAN has had a strong position in the development and implementation of the partnership. Partners bought into the model and concept and joined in implementation and funding.
IV) THREATS, OPPORTUNITIES, LESSONS LEARNED AND WAYS FORWARD
21. Could you identify current strengths supporting and/or weakness challenging the MSP?
This MSP is a project and as such it has an end date. The dairy hubs will continue as a fully commercial activity, which was the ambition when the MSP started.
22. Could you identify projected threats and/or opportunities that the MSP would cause/offer, (included for those stakeholders that are not included in the MSP)?
PRAN dairy is planning to continue its expansion and development of new dairy hubs. The project also has the potential to inspire other dairy or food processors to replicate the model.
23. Which conditions could enable the MSP to better function?
The key to success in a dairy hub MSP is the commitment by the dairy processor, who will need to be long term in its approach and be able to carry initial investment costs.
24. What is the potential of this MSP to influence public priorities across sectors and allocation of budget for improved FSN? What is its potential to mobilise further funds for improving food security and nutrition?
The Dairy Hub model can be applied for other food value chains. It effectively links small producers to an industrial processor and establishes a win-win relationship between them.
In some cases the private sector can build up these kinds of projects without external help, but in many cases the processor lack the technical skills to develop agricultural production and need the technical assistance to do this. Also, if volumes initially are very low, the business case for substantial investments in staff and equipment might not be present, which also means that donor or government funds and resources could play a role initially.
25. What is the potential of this MSP to address the specific needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition?
The Dairy Hub model and this MSP effectively addresses the needs of small holder dairy farmers, a vulnerable group. In Bangladesh, these farmers lack knowledge of efficient milk production and do not have access to the necessary inputs at decent prices. With increased incomes they improve their diets, invest in their children’s education and invest in their farms.
26. How can other regions/countries use this experience to organize similar spaces? what are the necessary conditions to extrapolate/adapt/scale-up this MSP experience?
Tetra Laval Food for Development has initiated dairy hub projects and partnerships in Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Senegal, Kenya, Zambia and Honduras. The key to success is a dedicated dairy processor with a long term view on building its milk supply chain.
REFERENCES
27. The HLPE is interested by any article, mainly scientific references but also practical experiences on MSPs you would like to share (scholarly articles, reports, reviews, analysis, etc):
The report “SMALLHOLDER FARMERS AND BUSINESS” shows how pioneer companies and organizations have sustainably increased the income and livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers around the world, by sourcing produce from them or selling products to them. The PRAN Dairy Hub project is one of the cases described.
http://hystra.com/smallholder
28. Any other observation.
MSPs in food value chains must be based on a viable business model. Production must be demand driven so that farmers and processors can find a market for the foods they produce.
Investments should be made by private sector, even if loans and grants could help in initial phases.
7