This Paper was presented at The 12th International
Conference on Sri Lanka Studies (ICSLS) held from the 18th to
20th March 2010 in Colombo
The types of cattle are Sahival (71.4%), Jersey
(25.4%), Frisian (1.6%) and Local (1.6%). In cattle selection the SEED joined with the
beneficiaries and took them to the South for purchasing purposes. Many
respondents (65%) were satisfied about the quality of their cattle though a
considerable number (35%) was not. There was a comment among the beneficiaries
that during the first distribution, most of the cattle were not of ‘good
quality’ but in the second phase of the distribution many felt satisfied. The
beneficiaries had doubts about the suitability of the improved quality cattle
to the climate and fodder available in Vavuniya. 58% revealed that they had
enough resources to maintain their cattle but 42% did not due to water scarcity
and fodder. Some beneficiaries were worried of the frequent contraction of
cattle diseases which led to less milk yield, deaths by snake bites, delay in
reproduction, the distribution of aged cattle or infertile cattle etc, and
demanded that they needed a replacement. There was one complaint that for one
and a half years the cattle were not made anoestrus. Though they complained of the poor quality of the cattle, the
beneficiaries had to accept the offer.
Around 35% of the respondents sell their milk to the
private sector. In Poovarasankaulam, for the last 13 to 14 years, Private Milk
collectors’ influence has been very strong. This has affected the efficiency of
the collection by the society. One of the
reasons stated is that the cooperative does not collect milk in the evening
(34.7%). The evening milk is sold to the private collectors who paid them an advance.
Promoting
Dairy Industry after the War: A case
study in the Vavuniya District*
Mangleswaren Thampoe**
and Jeyaseelan Gnanaseelan***
ABSTRACT
This
paper investigates the performance of the community based project which was
started in 2007 and implemented by a local NGO mainly in the areas of Sekkadipulavu
and Rajendrakulam of the Vavuniya district during and after the war
in Sri Lanka, especially of the dairy farmers on capacity building and
transferring technical expertise to ensure a sustainable intervention. It
studies the efficiency level of the implementing partner’s officials, livestock
breeders’ cooperative society (Kamathenu), social mobilizers, the animal
health workers (animators) and the beneficiaries, the problems encountered and
the recommendations for the remedy. It
assesses the participatory approach adopted to ensure a high degree of
relevance and ownership, income generation activities of the farmers in the
dairy sector by organizing them into dairy cooperatives in these locations. It
further analyses the collection system efficiency, innovative ideas for
economic improvement, cattle management practices, contribution to
institutional development, women economic empowerment, contribution of service
providers.
A
survey was conducted in July-August 2009 adopting methodological tools such as
questionnaire, focus group discussion, interviews and the
observations. The study
concentrates on the satisfactory level of the outputs and outcomes of the
project. They are less satisfactory in milk production to the expected level,
milk collection, cattle management, milk based production, services provided
(social mobilization, animation and collective participation), constant
monitoring and intervention for sustainable development. The recommendations of
this study would be helpful in the future dairy development projects,
especially in monitoring the performance indicators in the successful outputs
and outcomes of the project.
Key words: dairy development,
cooperative, performance evaluation, production and management
*Paper to be presented to The 12th International
Conference on Sri Lanka Studies (ICSLS) to be held from the 18th to
20th March 2010 in Colombo
** Dr. Mangaleswaren
Thampoe is a Senior Lecturer and Head, Department of Economics and Management,
Faculty of Business Studies, of Vavuniya Campus, University of Jaffna, Park Road, Vavuniya, Sri Lanka. Phone: 0714347689; Email: tmangales@yahoo.com
** Dr. Jeyaseelan Gnanaseelan is a Lecturer of Vavuniya
Campus, University
of Jaffna, Park Road, Vavuniya,
Sri Lanka.
Phone: 0717477503; Email: jeya86@hotmail.com.
1.0
Introduction
The development of a natural dairy
industry to meet the demand for milk and milk products was one of the
strategies of the Mahinda Chinthana policy program of President Mahinda
Rajapaksa. The effort to achieving that object was started about four years ago.
The government imported milk powder at a cost of Rs.19 billion in 2007. Local
dairy farmer is the one who helps to reduce it. It is necessary to take every
step to introduce new techniques for livestock farmers and ensure a good price
for their products. There is a need for changing the attitude of the people to
uplift the livestock industry in the country; new techniques must be introduced
and the young people be trained to engage in the livestock field. The projects
have been carried out by both government and non-government organizations. All changes are influenced by mediating processes
(specific characteristics of the agent and of the economic, physical, social
and political environment) that influence both behavioural changes and the
outcomes in ways that are difficult to predict (Sebstad, Neill, Barnes, and Chen, 1995).
Generally, two key variables are focused on: institutional outreach and
institutional sustainability (Yaron, Benjamin and Piprek, 1997). Especially loans and grants are
provided for livestock farmers. The Social Economical and Environmental
Developers (SEED) formed with the commitment to social change in Sri Lanka, in 1995, with assistance from Germany is one
of the implementing partners of Oxfam GB which implemented a programme for
poverty alleviation and enhancing quality and sustainable income generation for
small-scale milk producers in Vavuniya district. One of its need assessment
surveys had identified dairy farming as a secure source of secondary income for
nearly 15,000 households in Vavuniya district. The damage to the infrastructure
due to the protracted conflict and decline in veterinary and extension services
of Government Department severely curtailed access to quality inputs and
financial services. These weakened the local dairy sector. Hence, Oxfam GB designed
a project to meet the gaps identified in the need assessment survey. The dairy
project was designed to contribute recovering and reintegrating livelihood and
livelihood options of 200 poor and vulnerable dairy farmers in Vavuniya. The experimental approach is virtually infeasible in
the social sciences, because of the nature of the subject matter, and so the
approach has been adapted into quasi-experiments (Casley and Lury, 1982).
Throughout
the project, Oxfam supported the dairy farmers on capacity building and
transferring technical expertise to ensure a sustainable intervention. In the
first year of project, the Department of Animal Production and Health (APH)
conducted Training for the farmers educating them on the standard dairy
practices and also trained field level animal health workers (animators) who
could help internalize the standard practices. It was intended as a participatory
approach to ensure a high degree of relevance and ownership. More specifically,
Oxfam collaborated with local stakeholders to establish Dairy Development
Stakeholder Advisory Group (Steering committee), which functioned as the
coordinating body of Dairy development-related activities in the district. The learning
visits for stakeholders were facilitated at different levels to support changes
at multiple levels.
SEED
implemented this community based project mainly in the areas of
Sekkadipulavu and
Rajendrakulam in Vavuniya Divisional Secretariat Division of the Vavuniya
district. The project was aimed to support
the farmers in income generation activities in the dairy sector by organizing
them into dairy cooperatives in these locations. The project started in 2007.
2.0
Objectives of the Study
The study was carried out with the
following objectives
1.
To
evaluate the strength and weaknesses of daily milk collection system.
2.
To assess the progress and sustainability of
the project
3.
To
evaluate the state of social mobilization
4.
To
assess the level of participation of the stakeholders specially the
beneficiaries of the project
5.
To
assess the interests of the committee members of the Kamathenu LBCS
6.
To
evaluate the status and self-sufficiency of the Coop and the actions taken by organization
3.0 Conceptual Background
The Government through the Agriculture and
Livestock Ministry is to launch a national level program to establish 1000
"Dairy Farmer Villages" countrywide to empower the large number of
dairy farmers socio-economically and increase the local dairy production (http://www.realmilk.com/sri-lanka.html).
At the initial stage, the Ministry will set up 50 dairy farmer villages in
several districts. Rs. 11 billion is spent annually to import milk powder. At
present only six per cent of the country's milk production is made locally. Due
to lack of attention focused, the country's dairy production is at very low
ebb. A large amount of fresh milk collected is not 100 per cent pure and did
not meet with the quality. As a result, large amounts of such fresh milk are utilized
in the production of milk powder.
Dairy farmers should organize themselves
as small groups to promote the local dairy industry by uplifting their
socio-economic conditions. The project interventions will assist by providing
cattle, cattle sheds, bio gas units and containers which will assist the dairy
farmers to collect fresh milk in a more hygienic manner. The dearth of improved
cattle varieties is one of the key obstacles to develop the dairy industry.
There are less than 6000 hybrid cattle varieties in 29 farms. It is hoped to
increase this number up to 10,000 during the next year. The government’s intention is to provide 500
hybrid cattle varieties to dairy farmers once in three months. According to the
government, it has also reserved Rs. 40 million to upgrade facilities of the
Veterinary Research Institute to create vaccines needed to develop the hybrid
cattle varieties.
To reach a development scale at macro level, NGO’s
assistance is indispensable. A microfinance project like this has very
beneficial economic and social impacts (Holcombe, 1995; Hossain, 1988; Otero
and Rhyne, 1994; Remenyi, 1991; Schuler, Hashemi and Riley, 1997). However all
the scholars of microfinance are not happy with it (Adams and von Pischke,
1992; Buckley, 1997; Montgomery, 1996; Rogaly, 1996; Wood and Shariff, 1997). A moderate success is the only viable one but
it is argued that microfinance does not assist the poorest, as is so often
claimed (Hulme and Mosley, 1996; Mosley and Hulme, 1998). All impact and
performance assessment exercises have a conceptual background. In well-planned
and well-resourced IAs with long ‘lead-in’ times such frameworks are usually
explicitly identified (eg Sebstad et al, 1995; Schuler and Hashemi, 1994). This
study will undertake a case of a dairy development project with the micro finance component to
assess the performance of the project in Vavuniya
District, Sri Lanka.
4.0
Methodology
A
survey was conducted in July-August 2009 adopting methodological tools such as
questionnaire, focus group discussion and interviews. These tools helped assess
beneficiary profile, household economic condition, productive assets and
finance, capacity building activities, collection system efficiency, innovative
ideas for economic improvement, cattle management practices, contribution to
institutional development, women economic empowerment, contribution of service
providers ,and overall performance of
the project.
SEED implemented the project among
100 households selected from eleven villages. The project provided improved cattle
and training for the farmers, chilling plant, milk utensils and vehicles for
Cooperatives, and organized exposure visits. The list of target households from
SEED were obtained. The project had provided training for all 100 households.
However, only 65 households received improved cows and 9 stud bulls at
different dates commencing from April 2007. Only 63 (85%) beneficiaries
responded to the survey.
Focus
group discussions were carried out with the Kamathenu committee members, Kamathenu
general members, Animators, Social mobilizers and staff of the SEED. Interviews were held with the
veterinary surgeon, the Oxfam project officer and the Grama Niladari. Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for analyzing the quantitative
information. The descriptive statistics were gathered relating to the different
sections of the questionnaire. In analyzing
qualitative data, the matrix of issues and responses of the participants was
developed. Content analysis contributed
to the qualitative analysis with the descriptive reports generated. The field observations
were carried out to understand the context in which these responses were
obtained.
5.0
Data analysis
5.1
Relevance
The responding beneficiaries consist
of 69.8% of females and 30.2% of males. This composition is positive supporting
the significance to be given to women empowerment in rural, especially dairy
development sector. The percentages of the beneficiaries who responded in the
seven GN Divisions are as follows: Rajenthirakulam (48%), Sekkadipilavu (41%),
Pambamadu (1.6%), Sivapuram (4.8%), Puthiyakovilkulam (3.2%) and Parathipuram
(1.6%). In terms of educational
qualifications 81% of the respondents were below G.C.E O/L, which conform the
status of the typical farming population. As for the family sizes, a significant percentage (49.2%) had
5-6 members, and a considerable percentage (36.5%) had 3-4 members, which is typical
in a rural area like Vavuniya.
Through a household economic portfolio model (HEPM),
project evaluation seeks to assess impacts at household, enterprise, individual
and community levels and thus produce a fuller picture of overall impacts (Chen
and Dunn, 1996). A strong case can be made that assets are a particularly
useful indicator of impact because their level does not fluctuate as greatly as
other economic indicators and is not simply based on an annual estimate
(Barnes, 1996). There
was a need assessment survey before the distribution of the cattle especially
in selecting the beneficiaries; however, because of the external interference
or negative influence, it could not support them in identifying the appropriate
beneficiaries to some extent. The existing cattle farmers among the beneficiaries
are 60.3% compared to the newly started cattle farmers (39.7%). This situation
is very positive because the experience and expertise would facilitate success
of the project. However there was a feeling that some needy and skilled farmers
were left out. In the
selection of the beneficiaries, some respondents told that although a point
system was followed to issue the improved cattle it was biased. Nevertheless, almost
95% are satisfied with the selection. Though the inclusion of marginalized
groups is accepted generally by the majority, this project did not reach the
people beyond poverty line.
In
gaining experience in cattle rearing, 72%
of the farmers had 10 year in average, 14% had 25 years in average. This percentage
is significant in both positive and negative ways; their experience and
expertise would facilitate success of the project and this might have discouraged them from adapting to
new cattle rearing and management practices. However, the prevailing political
instability at that time and the consequent cattle loss also to some extent de-motivated
them. At the time of the survey, the sizes of the herd in possession are Very
Small (81.3%); it means less than five cattle. The relevance of the dairy project is appreciated by 61.6%
as Highly Relevant and 36.7% as Moderately Relevant. Since it was the pilot
project of the implementing partner, more attention in the form of monitoring
and intervening could have been carried out. The gap between the current
activities via the project and the real needs is expressed by 26.7% as very
high and high. However 65% are satisfied with the project fulfilling their real
needs. The two results reveal that the farmers accept the relevance of the
project to their areas as well as to their needs however the project outcomes
do not reflect their relevant to the most.
5.2
Efficiency and Effectiveness
SEED
is the implementing partner to that area. The cooperative is positive of its
service. The members of the cooperative appreciated the service of Oxfam
assisting in developing dairy industry. There was less Government interference
like those of GS, RDS, and WRDS, although there were certain difficulties at
the initiation of the programme such as obtaining approval from the government
authorities. It seems that the implementing partner encountered problems in
recruiting and retaining dedicated staff in this project. While there was a
shortage of skilled staff, the recruited field staff often quit during the
course of time of the project implementation. There were about seven officers
appointed in sequence when one after another was leaving the organization. These frequent changes of officers affected
the functions of the Society and even this study because a discussion could not
be conducted with the implementing partner’s field officers who served in this
project. Many were out of the district. It can be said that implementation was
affected to some extent due to this situation. The satisfaction with the dairy
project is endorsed by 75 % as High. However, many a time the implementing
partner was unable to control the process of the implementation. Further, the
percentage of satisfaction was explained by the respondents as they had thought
that entry of externally implemented project would open up new windows of opportunities
in future.
The Beneficiaries’ participation in
the dairy project is endorsed by 62% as High however this percentage does not
justify the low participation of the rest of the beneficiaries. It was told
that it was difficult to function without the intervention of the implementing
partner. Sebstad et al (1995) usefully distinguish
between ‘domains of change’ (eg household income) and the specific ‘markers of
change’ (eg amount of income, number of income sources and seasonality of
income) within each domain. Changes
via this project are felt by 46.7% as High. The committee felt the desire for
changes. The feasibility of the project success depended on many expected
changes through this project. However, the achievements were not satisfactory. The
cooperative had less involvement in identifying beneficiaries which affected
the efficiency of the project. The respondents expressed dissatisfaction about the
implementing partner making promises when complaints were made but did not
solve or take steps to remedy them. Their officials rarely visited them.
5.3
Involvement of Kamathenu LBCS
The
Kamathenu Livestock Breeders’ Cooperative Society consists of one hundred and thirty
five members. The executive committee has seven board members – four females
and three males. From Rasenthirakulam only two were active - the president and
a member- At Sekatipulavu only one was active-the treasurer. Earlier there were
two societies functioning in Rajendirakulam and Chekattipulavu. Later, they
were merged into one society as Kamathenu at the recommendation of the
department of Cooperative. It was
registered in May 2008. It has one member in the Federation. This co-op covers
three GN divisions. Earlier it supplied between 200 -250 liters of milk on a
daily basis mainly to the LBCS Vavuniya but during the survey period (July
2009) it had come down to 50 liters /day because the society could not pay for
the milk in time due to its non recovery of the payment for the large quantity
of supply. The society supplied milk to the IDPs in February and March 2009 through
the Divisional Secretariat but so far the payment has not been made. Therefore
the members felt their livelihood was affected. They were distributing milk to
the welfare centre at Rs 40 per liter.
Seasonality
also affected the production and supply. Generally, according to the dairy
farmers, more than 250 liters per day are collectable except during April to
August. At present they have a chilling
plant with the storage capacity of 500 liters, given by the Veterinary
department. It was not used due to the poor milk collection. They used to
collect milk in the morning but not in the evening. Further, they own a three
wheeler vehicle for collection and transport purposes and a small building as
well. However, the three- wheeler had later become malfunctioned.
5.4
Cattle Management
Regarding
the farm status, almost all of them have established farming. This trend is also contributing to
a sustainable development of the dairy sector. Only 68.3% accepted that they
had proper cattle shed. However, in Rasenthirakulam, the cattle were let
straying which is against the intensive method prescribed. This practice is
generational. 83.3% get medicine for worms once in every 3 month period administered
by animators (46.6%) and by the respondents themselves (53.4%). Further only 16.7%
get the vaccine from the coop, Kamathenu and 83.3% from LBCS Town.
In addition, the facility for AI was not provided. The beneficiaries showed commitment and
involvement because 83.3% get vaccine at appropriate times and the rest said
“no” and 85% said that they maintain the records. Cattle stealing, dog bite,
accidents were some of the reasons for poor management; they said no treatment
was given though the complaint was made. Also the cattle did not yield enough
milk. The cattle were insufficient; According to the National Statistics
2003-2008, there are 532520 cows are available in Sri Lanka. But out of this amount
only 249,315 (47%) animals are milking cows, rest are dried cows. The monthly
average milk production is 14,370,200 ltrs and herd average is 27 per month.
And you will realize that the herd average is just 1.9ltrs
(edairylanka.blogspot.com). Some
beneficiaries were doing well but many maintained and managed the cattle badly.
They felt some were dead due to the unsuitable climate and the non-availability
and non-accessibility of medicine and equipments in time during the intensive
conflict period.
Though
all the cattle were insured at the beginning and 59% felt good about the
insurance scheme for cattle, many were not renewed. However,
there were accusations that no insurance money was given for their cattle. It was returned in half monthly after
three months. But generally and gradually the insurance was not attractive for
the members.
5.5 Milk Productivity
A
quantity of milk within the range of 5-8 liters per day per cattle was produced
by 30% of the beneficiaries. These improved cattle are expected to yield
between 5-10 liters but many could not achieve the target. The figure 3.1 shows the average liter of milk
per day extracted by farmers.
The types of cattle are Sahival (71.4%), Jersey
(25.4%), Frisian (1.6%) and Local (1.6%). In cattle selection the SEED joined with the
beneficiaries and took them to the South for purchasing purposes. Many
respondents (65%) were satisfied about the quality of their cattle though a
considerable number (35%) was not. There was a comment among the beneficiaries
that during the first distribution, most of the cattle were not of ‘good
quality’ but in the second phase of the distribution many felt satisfied. The
beneficiaries had doubts about the suitability of the improved quality cattle
to the climate and fodder available in Vavuniya. 58% revealed that they had
enough resources to maintain their cattle but 42% did not due to water scarcity
and fodder. Some beneficiaries were worried of the frequent contraction of
cattle diseases which led to less milk yield, deaths by snake bites, delay in
reproduction, the distribution of aged cattle or infertile cattle etc, and
demanded that they needed a replacement. There was one complaint that for one
and a half years the cattle were not made anoestrus. Though they complained of the poor quality of the cattle, the
beneficiaries had to accept the offer.
5.6
Women economic empowerment
Majority
(65%) said that they have their cattle registered in women’s names. 90% of the
respondents said that their women have the control over the income. Again the
same percentage said that women get their respect in the household. 47.5%
revealed that their women were able to save regularly but 52.5% insisted on the
supportive role played by men in this regard. 52.5% are confident that their
women could bring positive changes in society. These percentages reveal a
positive trend in women economic empowerment. However, it was observed that woman
leadership had to undergo a tough time with the gender-biased members.
5.7
Income Generation (Finance and Savings)
Only half of the respondents felt
that their income improved after the cattle project. There was a
facilitating plan to recover the cost of the cows. They could give the first
calf delivered by the given cattle so they need not pay 50% of their loan
(cattle). However 65%
of the loans given were repaid.
The
saving at the cooperative (35%) was not satisfactory: It depended on the poor
milk supply of the beneficiaries to the society and inefficient financial
management of the society, for example, no receipt was given for the saving and
they were not written in any book or records.
They did not get the benefits of saving in overall.
As additional income generating activities, they are
interested in toffee making (50%), ghee making (20%), yogurt (20%), and ice
cream (10%). Again 93.3% denied any support
from any other organizations except the implementing partner. Many complained
that they do not have refrigerator so could not make value added production to
its maximum. Some mentioned of labor shortage in milk toffee production. Though
value added training was given, some members did not participate. Transport
problem was another serious reason for non-participation and non-production.
As a
whole, the improvement of their income from the dairy project is accepted only
by 26.7% as High and 31.7% as Average. However, it was commented that finance
system and insurance system were not efficient.
5.8 Capacity
building
The
respondents are confident of having obtained technical knowledge (91.7%) from
the project, mostly from the training given by the Veterinary department
(85.4%) and secondarily from their inherited experience (12.7%). It is shown in
the figure 3.2.
The majority (83.3%)
appreciates the live
stock training given but the training on value addition and awareness of Vet
Care Unit get 52% and 55%
respectively. The training on co-operative
gains a poor satisfaction (33.3%). Apart from these trends, a significant number
(86.6%) are able to identify
cattle diseases, and 83.3% are
confident of providing the first aid services to the cattle. The
respondents
pointed out a shortcoming that when organizing the training programs many
beneficiaries and members were not included. Therefore, in general the
selection procedure was not appreciated for attending the training programs. As
though these statistics reveal a positive trend and considerable attention has
been paid to capacity building at the initial level during the course of
implementation, constant monitoring and intervention by the capacity builders had
been lacking; this could have let to the decline in the effectiveness of the project
implementation.
The majority (83.3%)
appreciates the live
stock training given but the training on value addition and awareness of Vet
Care Unit get 52% and 55%
respectively. The training on co-operative
gains a poor satisfaction (33.3%). Apart from these trends, a significant number
(86.6%) are able to identify
cattle diseases, and 83.3% are
confident of providing the first aid services to the cattle. The
respondents
pointed out a shortcoming that when organizing the training programs many
beneficiaries and members were not included. Therefore, in general the
selection procedure was not appreciated for attending the training programs. As
though these statistics reveal a positive trend and considerable attention has
been paid to capacity building at the initial level during the course of
implementation, constant monitoring and intervention by the capacity builders had
been lacking; this could have let to the decline in the effectiveness of the project
implementation.
5.9
Collection System
It
was found that 83.7% are satisfied of the access to collection system because
many could not produce sufficient milk to be concerned about access to
collection system whereas only 42.9%
are satisfied of the payment given in time. It was easy for them to give milk
to the private collectors for various reasons. For instance, when the milk was
given to the IDP camp, there was a delay in payment but the private collectors
pay them in time and sometimes as advance. The collection system is assessed as
Efficient (65%). Figure 3.3 shows the efficiency of the milk collection system
in the location. However, it was said that earlier 200 -250 litres of milk were
collected but now only around 50-100 liters are collected. The 500 liter chilling plant owned by the
Society was not utilized to its maximum capacity.
Around 35% of the respondents sell their milk to the
private sector. In Poovarasankaulam, for the last 13 to 14 years, Private Milk
collectors’ influence has been very strong. This has affected the efficiency of
the collection by the society. One of the
reasons stated is that the cooperative does not collect milk in the evening
(34.7%). The evening milk is sold to the private collectors who paid them an advance.
There
was a long break in the collection activities of Kamathenu; earlier the
collection was done on bicycle and in general 65% are not satisfied with the
work of Kamathenu. The three-wheeler owned went wrong. It was said that
sometimes it was misused. In improving the collection and payment system, all
the respondents expect their payment in time (100%). In strengthening the
collection system, most of the members expect lump sum payment or payment in
time. In revealing the weaknesses of the system, 23% complain that there was no
collection in the evening and 8% are worried that they got lower price compared
to the offer by the private collectors. However, in this issue too, the
majority (66.8%) is silent without any comments. This could be that the
beneficiaries supply their milk to the private collectors for their convenience
or the private collectors are the relatives and friends of these beneficiaries.
A strong complaint lodged by the beneficiaries was that the cooperative put a condition
that the milk should have minimum 28% fat; if not, it would be returned or
would not be collected. Another is that they got low price for their milk. One
issue which was noted by the respondents was one animator personally collected
milk and made curd and butter milk and sold it by herself which undermined the
collection functions of the cooperative. The animators and mobilizers
complained that their payment was not enough.
5.10
Service providers
Animator’s
service is acknowledged only by 48.3%; there was a complaint that animators did
not respond positively when they needed the service of the veterinary
department. A promise made and broken was that if a calf is delivered, medicine
and fodder would be given free. In general, animators were not accessible.
There was a point referring a conflict between the animators and the
beneficiaries. It was said that establishing regulations for animators was not
followed. Only 38.3% appreciate the efficiency and effectiveness of the
mobilizers; there was an accusation that the mobilization was poor. At the
beginning the animators served well but later they were indifferent. The blame
was partially attributed to officers of the implementing partner organization
for the exit of the animators. The implementing partner organization was not
directly accessible to the beneficiaries but only through the animators.
The
support of the veterinary department staff is accepted only by 63.3%. There was
a complaint that the staff did not visit the field even once in three months. Also
there was a feeling that the beneficiaries did not get ‘anything free’ from the
Veterinary department. At the beginning they got medical attention like
injection syringe, calcium power at lower price but not now.
Only
33.3% reveal satisfaction on Kamathenu's services. It was reported that the
committee of the society was inefficient as the society always showed loss in
the accounts. Further, they did not hold General Body Meeting to be transparent
about the account. It was also found that the treasurer did not write the
accounts for 6 months. No reason was given
for the loss. This indicates that the financial management was ‘poor and
mishandled’.
6.0
Finding and Recommendations
6.1
Findings
The social indicators that became popular in the early
1980s (eg educational status, access to health services, nutritional levels,
anthropometric measures and contraceptive use) have recently been extended into
the socio-political arena in an attempt to assess whether microfinance can
promote empowerment (Mayoux, 1997; Goetz and Sen Gupta, 1996; Schuler and
Hashemi, 1994; Hashemi et al, 1995). The impact indicators such as improvement in income
and increased milk production are at the average level. The effect indicators
such as increased access to Vet care unit, member enrolment in the cooperative,
access to collection centers, access to all the benefits of the cooperative
society are also at average level. The output indicators such as number of the
beneficiaries trained and the cattle managed do not reckon with the input
indicators such as the funds spent, personnel occupied and equipment and
materials purchased and utilized.
6.1.1 Relevance
The
opinions, positions and participation of the stakeholders especially the
beneficiaries of the dairy project are not satisfactory to the expected level of the outcomes of the
project though this project has been successful to some extent in giving a good
opportunity for rural and community participation, notably women empowerment,
for improving their livelihood and income generation. There was a gap and inconsistency
between the Need Assessment Survey in selecting the beneficiaries and the real
selection practice thereafter. In the
selection, purchase and distribution of the improved cattle in the two rounds, appropriate
criteria on quality assurance, environmental adaptability, fertility potential
and neutrality were missing. The project has failed to incorporate the
buttressing measures to the sociological, psychological economical impacts of
the prevailing political instability and its pressures on the stakeholders,
beneficiaries, animators, mobilizers, the officials of the implementing partner
organization (the constant and frequent quit and appointment of the field
officers), and the cooperative committee members. The absence of continuous and
periodic review and surveillance by the project management seems to be one of
the reasons for it. Donors could focus on
strengthening the internal impact monitoring capacities of the microfinance
institution and occasionally checking the quality of this information by using
external monitors for validation purposes. The greater the involvement of staff
in assessing program achievements then the greater is the likelihood of
findings being used (Hyman and Dearden, 1998:275).
Though
the relevance of the dairy project is appreciated by the majority, it has not
been ‘properly internalized’ among the stakeholders in terms of sustainable
management and development. Since it was the pilot project of the implementing
partner, the more attention in the form of monitoring and intervening should have
taken place to ensure input deliveries, work schedules, targeted outputs and
other required actions to proceed according to plan.
6.1.2 Efficiency and Effectiveness
In considering the progress and continuation of the
project, generally the beneficiaries appreciate
and welcome the NGO interventions in developing dairy industry. However, a
strong bond or coordination or link between the implementing partner, the
beneficiaries, and the district level government authorities is not
‘substantially visible’. The outcomes at the time of the study were not
comprehensive. The changes felt by the beneficiaries are not very significant.
An early indication of the deviations, performance gaps, constraints did not
grasp the attention of the project management. The interpersonal relationship and
interaction among the stakeholders are deficient though the implementing
partner has made many efforts to resolve this. Therefore institutional
commitment in the form of constant monitoring and intervention was not very
visible in leading the project to success. The beneficiaries’ and cooperative’s
actual utilization of project outputs and their feedback regarding acceptance,
rejection and modification have not been paid serious attention.
6.1.3 Commitment and Participation of the
Cooperative Society
The lack of interest, low level of motivation and
participation of the committee members of the Kamathenu LBCS has weaned the
efficiency and effectiveness of the project gradually, causing a setback to the
project due to many justifiable and unjustifiable reasons. They seem to have
been lethargic about achieving the long term goals of independent status and
self-sufficiency of the Cooperative. Its
gradual decline of production and collection of milk is a clear indication of the
poor performance. There is a lack of short term as well as long term financial
management which led to this setback. Ascertaining the continuing relevance of
the specific project activities to the intended target group was not fully
checked.
There
were no measures taken to counterbalance the seasonal fluctuation of the
production and supply and no any serious thought was paid to utilizing the chilling
plant given by the Veterinary department or maintaining the transport facilities.
Adequate attention has not been paid in forming new strategies to collect milk
of low fat content and pay the beneficiaries in time. There were also lapses in
financial management, monitoring the activities of the committee members and
regulating and regularizing the meetings of the Committee as well as of the
General Body.
The
officials of the implementing partner, after the initiation of the project, let
the coop society to decide ‘independently’. The lack of involvement have, to a
reasonable extent, resulted in inefficient management of the coop society in
this project, and the implementing partner also seemed to have missed
monitoring and intervention at certain critical times whenever the society
faced crisis situations.
6.1.4 Strengths and weaknesses of Cattle
management, milk production and collection systems
The intensive method of cattle
management was not seriously practiced in some areas. A significant expectation of the beneficiaries
was that the project would constantly facilitate and sponsor medical, health
and nutritional care of the cattle. But the project expectation was to promote
self-sufficiency. However, lack of continued material support resulted in
disappointment and this attitude affected the project success to some extent. Further
there was no proper guidance given to alleviate the beneficiaries’ perception
or remedy the situation where some cattle were dead due to the unsuitable
climate. The non-availability and non-accessibility of medicine and equipments
in time during the intensive conflict period was another shortcoming.
There
was no significant follow-up to check, standardize and regulate the cattle
insurance scheme for cattle from the beginning to the survey time to win the
confidence of the beneficiaries. The quantity of milk produced from the cattle
is not satisfactory. Around 58% revealed that they had enough resources to
maintain their cattle but 42% did not, due to water scarcity and fodder. There was a long break in the collection
activities of Kamathenu which led to the dissatisfaction of the beneficiaries
towards Kamathenu. The complaint that there was no collection in the evening is
also a moot point.
6.1.5 State of social mobilization, Women
empowerment and Capacity building
The
positive aspects of the project are that majority had their cattle registered
in women’s names; they have the control over the income; they get their respect
in the household; they could bring positive changes in society. Their savings
were significant. However, it was observed that under certain circumstances, woman
leadership had to undergo a tough time with the gender-biased members. The
confidence levels in having obtained technical knowledge from the training
given by the Veterinary department and the livestock training are good but the training on value addition and awareness of Vet
Care Unit are not much encouraging to be noted. However, the quality
of training on co-operative
gains a poor satisfaction. Cattle disease identification and providing the first aid services to the cattle
are good. Though considerable attention has
been paid to capacity building at the initial level during the course of
implementation, constant monitoring and intervention by the capacity builders
had been lacking; this could have led to the decline in the effectiveness of
the project implementation.
6.1.6
Income Generation (Finance and Savings)
Only half of the respondents felt
that their income improved after the cattle project. There was a
facilitating plan to recover the cost of the cows from the beneficiaries. It is
significant that 65% of
the costs were repaid. The saving at the cooperative was not satisfactory, for,
65% did not save due to the poor milk supply and inefficient financial
management. Labor shortage in milk based production and transport problems are
some of the reasons for non-participation and non-production though value added
training had been given to them. As a whole, the improvement of their income
from the dairy project is accepted at the average level.
6.2
Recommendations
- Continuing the projects in dairy development with constant monitoring and intervention is essential for yielding the expected outcomes and realization of the expected changes and expanding opportunities for rural and community participation, notably women empowerment, for improving their livelihood and income generation though the project has to some extent failed to materialize to the expected level of its outcomes . Though a project lacks financial success, it should be successful in bringing positive social changes, for, projects like these are implemented by humanitarian organizations.
- The gap and inconsistency between the Need Assessment Survey in selecting the beneficiaries and the real selection practice need to be avoided for example, the resources of the beneficiaries for cattle management for its sustainable development though there are many pressures which go against it. Measures should be taken to distribute the cattle to the rest of the selected beneficiaries efficiently and the second phase of the project can be further expanded in the number of beneficiaries and of the distribution of cattle.
- In purchasing and distribution of the improved cattle, aspects such as quality assurance, environmental adaptability, fertility potential, neutrality and feasibility of cattle management insurance should be evaluated beforehand.
- The project should incorporate the buttressing measures to the sociological, psychological economical impacts of the prevailing post-conflict situation and pressures on the stakeholders, beneficiaries, animators, mobilizers, the officials of the implementing partner organization and the cooperative committee members.
- The training and counseling should be more intensive so that the relevance of the dairy project is ‘properly internalized’ among the stakeholders in terms of sustainable management and development. Since it was the pilot project of the implementing partner, more attention in the form of monitoring and intervening should have taken place.
- A strong bond or coordination or link between the implementing partner, the beneficiaries, and the district level government authorities is necessary for the effective implementation of the project and the establishment of interpersonal relationship and interaction among the stakeholders.
- The interest, motivation and participation level of the committee members of the Kamathenu LBCS should be maintained throughout the project to reach efficiency and effectiveness in completing the project and to achieve the long term goals of independent status and self-sufficiency of the Cooperative, for example, short term as well as long term financial management and a change of executive officers of the society.
- Measures should be taken to counterbalance the seasonal fluctuation of the production and supply and to utilize the existing assets and resources to resolve major hurdles, to provide micro-finance services, to increase savings through efficient financial management and to encourage milk-based products and so on.
- Forming new strategies to collect milk of low fat content and pay the beneficiaries in time, monitoring the activities of the committee members and regulating and regularizing the meetings of the Committee as well as of the General Body, the different positions of the members of the two villages merged, tackling the strategies of the private collectors like collecting ‘the low quality milk’, door to door collection, advance payment, hot milk to school students, raising the price of the milk etc, must be given priority.
- The existing farming patterns should be tapped to the maximum to contribute to a sustainable development of the dairy sector.
- The project should constantly facilitate and sponsor medical, health and nutritional care of the cattle after studying the financial and competent capacities of the beneficiaries until they develop self-confidence in handling them on their own.
- The confidence levels in obtaining technical knowledge from the training given by the Veterinary department and the livestock training, the training on value addition and awareness of Vet Care Unit, the training on co-operative should be maintained at equal level.
6.3
Conclusion
In
overall, the assessment of the project
reveal that the outputs and outcomes of the project are satisfactory in women
empowerment, institutional development, transfer of skills and knowledge of
cattle management, increasing marketing opportunities, moderate rise in income
generation. They are less satisfactory in milk production to the expected level,
milk collection, cattle management, milk based production, services provided
(social mobilization, animation and collective participation), constant
monitoring and intervention for sustainable development. The implementing
partner can make use of its successful learning experiences gained in the
implementation of its other projects in the past and the observations given in
this evaluation survey in its future dairy development projects, especially in
monitoring the performance indicators in the successful outputs and outcomes of
the project should be further strengthened.
Reference
Adams, D and von Pischke, J
D (1992) ‘Microenterprise credit programs: ‘deja vu’, World
Development 20,
1463-1470
Buckley, G (1997)
‘Microfinance in Africa: is it either the
problem or the solution?’, World
Development 25(7),
1081-1094.
Little, Peter (1997) ‘Assessing
the Impact of Microfinance Programs on Incomes and Assets’, mimeo,
Consultative Group to Assist
the Poorest (CGAP), Washington
DC.
Holcombe, S (1995) Managing
to Empower: the Gramean Bank’s Experience of Poverty Alleviation,
London: Zed Press
Hossain, M (1988) Credit
for Alleviation of Rural Poverty: the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh,
Washington DC: IFPRI
Otero, M and Rhyne, E, eds
(1994) The New World of Microenterprise Finance, London: IT
Publications
Remenyi, J (1991) Where
Credit is Due, London:
IT Publications
Schuler, S R and Hashemi, S
M (1996) ‘Credit Programs, Women’s Empowerment and
Contraceptive Use in Rural Bangladesh’, Studies
in Family Planning 25(2), 65-76
Montgomery, R (1996)
‘Disciplining or protecting the poor? Avoiding the social costs of peer
pressure in micro-credit
schemes’, Journal of International Development 8(2), 289-305.
Rogaly, B (1996)
‘Micro-finance evangelism, ‘destitute women’, and the hard selling of a new
antipoverty
formula’, Development in
Practice 6(2), 100-112.
Wood, G and Sharrif S (1997)
Credit Where Credit is Due, Dhaka and London: UPL and Zed Press.
Hulme, D and Mosley, P
(1996) Finance Against Poverty, volumes 1 and 2, London: Routledge
Sebstad, J, Neill, C,
Barnes, C and Chen, G (1995) Assessing the Impacts of Microenterprise
Interventions: A Framework
for Analysis, Washington
DC: USAID
Schuler, S R and Hashemi, S
M (1996) ‘Credit Programs, Women’s Empowerment and
Contraceptive Use in Rural Bangladesh’, Studies
in Family Planning 25(2), 65-76
Yaron, J, Benjamin, M and
Piprek, G (1997) Rural Finance: Issues, Design and Best Practices,
Washington DC:
Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, World Bank
Chen, M A and Dunn, E (1996)
Household Economic Portfolios, Washington
DC: Management
Systems International
Barnes, Carolyn (1996) Assets
and the Impact of Microenterprise Finance Programs, Washington
DC: Management Systems
International
Mayoux, Linda (1997) ‘Impact
Assessment and Women’s Empowerment in Micro-Finance
Programmes: Issues for a
Participatory Action and Learning Approach’, mimeo, Consultative Group
to Assist the Poorest
(CGAP), Washington DC.
Goetz, A M and Sen Gupta, R
(1996) ‘Who Takes the Credit? Gender, Power and Control Over Loan
Use in Rural Credit Programs
in Bangladesh’,
World Development 24(1), 45-64
Hashemi, S M, Schuler, S R
and Riley, A P (1996) ‘Rural Credit Programs and Women’s
Empowerment in Bangladesh’, World
Development 24(4), 635-654
Casely, D and Lury, D A
(1982) Monitoring and Evaluation of Agricultural and Rural Development
Projects, Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University
Press
Hyman E and Dearden K (1998)
‘Comprehensive Impact Assessment systems for NGO
microenterprise development
programs’, World Development 26(2), 261-276
http://www.realmilk.com/sri-lanka.html
http://www.newsrilanka.com/2009/08/nestle-to-develop-dairy-industry-in-ne/
http://www.ilri.org/InfoServ/Webpub/Fulldocs/South_South/ch07.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment