THE LIVELIHOODS AND DEVELOPMENT MONTHLY

THE LIVELIHOODS AND DEVELOPMENT MONTHLY

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2010Volume 11 Number 11

NewsReach

This document has been produced with financial assistance from the European Union. The views expressed herein are those of the writers and can, therefore, in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union or the Aga Khan Foundation.

POULTRY REARING AS AN INCOME-GENERATING ACTIVITY IN KESLA: AN IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDYHarshvardhan: An excerpt from an in-depth study of the success, the limitations and thechallenges of KPS, an organization that promotes poultry rearing as an alternative livelihood,for the poorest of the poor, who have so far been migrating and working as labour forsurvival. Harshvardhan works for UNDP and is based in Patna.

WORKSHOP ON SMALL-HOLDER POULTRY REARING: A SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THE RURAL POORThe South Asia Pro Poor Livestock Policy Programme, Professional Assistance for DevelopmentAction and the National Small-holder Poultry Development Trust jointly convened a workshopon ‘Small-Holder Poultry Rearing: A Sustainable Livelihood Opportunity for the Rural Poor’ inNew Delhi on 28 December 2010. A report on the workshop.

29

THE INITIATIVE THAT CHANGED THE LIVES OF FULMANI DEVI AND MANY OTHERSPawan Ojha: Trying every means to keep home and hearth together, struggling in abjectpoverty, migrating to distant places, Fulmani, like the women in her village, finally findsstrength and sustenance through SHGs and poultry farming. Pawan Ojha is based in Ranchi.

25

01

NewsReach November-Decmber 2010

1

Poultry Rearing as an Income-generating Activityin Kesla: An Impact Assessment Study

An excerpt from an in-depth study of the success, the limitations and thechallenges of KPS, an organization that promotes poultry rearing as analternative livelihood, for the poorest of the poor, who have so far beenmigrating and working as labour for survival

HARSHVARDHAN

Kesla, one of the poorest blocks in Madhya Pradesh, has been one of the earliestintervention areas of PRADAN. Rain-fed agriculture and a limited assets base ofthe tribal population have made the area an endemic food-insecure zone. Limitedopportunities for livelihoods generation and income generation have mademigration the main income generating activity. PRADAN made interventions withvarious livelihood themes, to promote food security and the well-being of poorcommunities living in and around Kesla. Among all these initiatives, poultry rearinghas emerged as the single most important activity in this area; this is now beingmanaged independently by Kesla Poultry Samiti (KPS).

KPS has emerged as a model of a people-owned and people-centric organization,the likes of which civil society organizations in the country have continuously triedto promote and establish. At present, KPS has more than 600 owner producers,who have an assured source of stable income. This stable income has led to manypositive changes in the life of the poor tribal women in these villages. Althoughmany of these gains are in their early stages of consolidation, the changes in thehitherto-deprived households due to poultry are very visible.

This study primarily aims at neviewing the impact of poultry rearing as an incomegenerating source on the lives of the members of KPS and tries to capture thechanges in various areas of their life. Of 250 households, a sample of 30households that are engaged in poultry rearing for last five years, were selectedfor the purpose of this study. This study also analyzes the present poultry outlookin the country, the organizational structure of KPS, the opportunities for andhandicaps of the poor, to participate and reap gains from poultry.

Lead: Poultry Rearing as an Income-generating Activity in Kesla: An Impact Assessment Study

2

METHODOLOGY Key Features of the ImpactAssessment StudyThe guiding principles forinformation collection,assessment and analysis forthis study were based uponcertain premises detailedbelow. These principles had amajor impact on the natureand quality of findingsexplained later in the study.1. The evaluation design was participatory

in nature and was based on thefeedback received by the evaluator onhis field visits. The methodology andsampling were determined afterdiscussions with National ResourceCentre for Rural Livelihoods and seniorPRADAN functionaries.

2. Both quantitative and qualitativemeasures were used to capture theimpact. It was thought that quantitativemethods alone cannot capture therichness of information and may resultin the omission of many subtle andimportant changes. It was also thoughtthat, at the same time, the study musthave a quantitative information baseand data set to supplement the findingsgenerated through qualitativemeasures.

3. The study also actively involved theassessment of information at the pointof its generation. This ensured that thelearning from the participants is sharedwith them and the inclusion of theircritical inputs is made possible, to makethe findings more refined.

4. The livelihood systems of the poor aredependent upon a large number ofvariables. The traditional risk-hedgingmechanisms orient poor to diversifytheir livelihood base. The study tried to

analyze the change in livingstandards of the poor byexamining poultry relatedinitiatives and the changes inthe outside environment.The situation becomes evenmore challenging becausethe external environment has undergone majorchanges in recent years dueto many pro-poor policy

initiatives by the government such as NREGS, National Rural HealthMission, Total Sanitation Campaign, and the Annapoorna. Antodaya AnnaYojana (AAY).

5. Many qualitative aspects werediscussed at various levels. Apart fromthe household survey, forums such asfocused group discussions (FGDs) andin-depth discussions with variousbeneficiaries were carried out torevalidate the findings.

6. The perceptions of various externalstakeholders were incorporated toprovide additional information andvalidate the findings in the study.

POULTRY REARING IN KESLAPoultry rearing as an income generatingactivity was introduced in Kesla by PRADANin the late 1980s. The familiarity of the tribalswith traditional bird rearing practices was oneof the contributing reasons. Moreover, thevillagers were in transition from forest-basedlivelihood systems to farm-based livelihoodsystems.

Interventions in dairy and other agri-basedactivities had not been very successful in thearea due to lack of backward and forwardlinkages. Limited water availability in theregion was also a hindrance in rearing largeanimals. Poultry, on the other hand, was part

This study primarily aimsat reviewing the impactof poultry rearing as an

income generatingsource on the lives of the

members of KPS andtries to capture the

changes in the variousareas of their life.


3

PhaseFirst Phase: 1988–1992

Experimentation

Introduction of improvedbreeds in backyard poultrysetting; interventions in themarket for better price real-ization; and communitymobilization

Second phase: 1992–1997

Pilot testing and demonstration of broilerfarming

Third Phase: 1997–2002

Scaling up: Expansion, sys-tems settings, institutional-izing producers’cooperatives

Fourth Phase: 2002 onwards

Prototype development,documentation, developingsystems for large-scale mar-keting, lobbying, setting upprojects in new locations

Salient Features1. Marketing

2. Cage rearing of cockerels

3. Brooding and rearing done separately

1. Broiler rearing on deep litter initiated

2. Brooding and rearing done by the same family

3. Rigorous training4. Standardization of

production prototype

1. Rapid expansion

2. Producers organized as cooperatives

3. Interventions in other components of the value chain—marketing, establishment of warehouse cum wholesaling, etc

1. Modern retail outlet

2. Feed production3. Replication by other NGOs,

governments and by PRADAN

Learning• Little industry interaction;

experimentation on one’s own• High return on investment but

low absolute income fails to excite and bring intensity to the activity

• 25–30 birds cage rearing failed miserably

• Adequate financing: Units were underfinanced and required external support to facilitate linkages

• Criticality of unit size: Lower unit size did not adequately provide for debt servicing

• Absence of factoring financial implications of market volatility and lack of risk mitigation system made the intervention fragile

• System to address market volatility key to success—de-linking of production and enterprise risks

• Creating ownership of the enterprise

• Creating margins to take care of establishment costs

• Creating a good governance structure, which is able to exercise ownership and control on the operating structure managed by professionals, is a big challenge and takes years to establish

• Integration of all the cooperatives through a producer company dedicated to the growth of small-holder poultry farmers helps in building specialized services, enhances autonomy and ownership

Salient Features and Learning from Each Phase


4

of the local livelihood systems,and interventions in this sub-sector were designed tooptimize the available skill set.However, it has been a longjourney, full of learning, inreaching the present sophisti-cation in operations, structuresand processes.

The intervention initially aimedat upgrading backyard poultryto modern poultry. Newtechnologies such as cage-rearing practices, includingbrooding and balanced feed,were introduced. Theseactivities were new for tribal villagers;therefore, a separate set of villagers weretrained to brood the chicks and, thereafter,the brooded chicks were given to the farmersfor fixed rearing charges. However, thereturns from the farming and subsequentfailure to engage with the market did affectthe sustainability of the operations.

In 1990–91, a shift was made to cockerelrearing in pucca production sheds. Some ofthe sets were financed by the IntegratedRural Development Programme, IRDP,whereas some were financed by otherdonors. PRADAN also made a shift to broilerfarming in the first half of the nineties. KPS was registered in 1997 and all businessoperations were formally separated fromPRADAN.

The learning from the project over time andthe steadfast commitment to poultry as anincome generation option led to increasingsophistication in operations; at present, 580producers are members of KPS, which hasachieved an impressive turnover of nearly

Rs 10 crores this financialyear and has also been ableto distribute surpluspayment to farmers since2008.

Poultry as an income-generation activity has beenfairly successful in securinglivelihoods for many of poorfamilies in Kesla. However, itis also necessary to have anoverview of the poultryindustry in the country, andthe opportunities for andthreats to small producers.It is pertinent to examine the

sustainability, achievements and impendingchallenges of poultry rearing.

KPS: PROCESSES AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSKPS was registered under the Societies Act1860, to promote poultry and other incomegenerating activities in Hoshangabad andBetul districts of Madhya Pradesh. At present,KPS is working in 21 villages in and aroundKesla, in Hoshangabad and Betul districts.Poultry was introduced as an incomegenerating activity by PRADAN in the mid-eighties. PRADAN professionals started andstrengthened the initial poultry activities.

At present, KPS is an independent legal entity.It is not dependent on PRADAN in theory. Ithas its own CEO and other support staff andruns its business independently. However,there is a strong informal linkage betweenPRADAN and KPS even today. This is visiblein the membership and the support structuresof KPS. The membership, organizationalstructure and the operational procedures ofKPS are detailed below.

Poultry rearing as anincome generating

activity was introduced inKesla by PRADAN in the

late 1980s. Thefamiliarity of the tribals

with traditional birdrearing practices was one

of the contributingreasons. Moreover, the

villagers were intransition from forest-

based livelihood systemsto farm-based livelihood

systems.


5

MEMBERSHIP

KPS is more or less a closed cooperativesociety. The society has also decided that the membership of the cooperative willremain confined to Schedule Caste (SC) andSchedule Tribe (ST) families, to safeguard itscharacter as well as safeguard it from thepotential threat of the local elite taking it over.

The households and SHGs that wish to takeup poultry have to first make an applicationto Narmada Mahila Sangh, which is afederation of SHGs in the Kesla block. Thiscommunity structure is also promoted andfacilitated by PRADAN. The Sangh checkswhether the village is connected with all-weather roads, and whether the applicant isless than 45 and has been disciplined inher/his transactions in the SHGs. When theSangh is convinced about the willingness andcapability of applicant to carry out poultryrearing, it arranges funds from donoragencies or government departments forshed construction, training and securitydeposits. The federation then forwards theapplication to KPS for consideration.

On receipt of the application, KPS carries outits own investigation before granting

membership. Once selected by KPS, the newmember has to undergo a 45-day residentialtraining programme on poultry rearing. Thetraining covers aspects such as chickmanagement, measuring feed and medicine,prevention of disease and record-keeping.

PRODUCTION SYSTEM1. Production is completely taken care of

by the individual producers.2. Individual producers are provided day-

old chicks (DOC), the feed andmedicine (on a need basis) at theirdoorsteps, for brooding according tothe production plan.

3. Producers are also provided sawdustand material for whitewash for pre-rearing management.

4. When the chickens reach a marketableage and size (approximately 35 to 40days), these are collected by the traderfrom the producer’s doorstep.

5. Monitoring of production is done by ateam of supervisors (typically selectedfrom among the villagers).

6. KPS has a CEO, who is the mostimportant functionary and acts as alynch pin for the various activities of thecooperative. He is assisted by a centralsupervisor, who monitors the work ofother supervisors.

7. Each producer’s performance is meas-ured on an efficiency index. The efficiencyindex is a function of mortality, feedconsumed and weight gain of the chick.The supervisor’s payment is directlylinked to the efficiency of his assignedproducers, which, on an average, isaround 50 paise per live bird sold. Theincentive of the supervisor is alsovariable and there is a sharp decline inthe incentive if the producer fails toachieve a satisfactory score on theefficiency index.

Source: KPS database


6

8. The co-operative endeavours to protectthe farmer from any external businessshock. As a result, the producer isreposed with production responsibilitysolely, and is assured a fixed minimumreturn per kilogram of broiler (plusadditional payment linked to productionefficiency).

9. The cooperative usually pays the surplusit accumulates at the end of the financialyear as deferred wage payment. Thisamount is generally referred to as bonusby the producer members. In this study,therefore, wherever the word ‘bonus’ ismentioned, it refers to the deferredwage payment to the producer at theend of the year.

The co-operative takes care of procurementand marketing functions, and a team of fieldsupervisors act as a medium for inputdistribution and collation during delivery tothe market.

FINANCIAL SYSTEM1. The cooperative has an elaborate MIS

system that helps it keep track of alltransactions and ensures accuracy andtransparency in all dealings.

2. All transactions with members arerecorded in the system, and anelaborate system of challans andcounterfoils is used to ensuretransparency between the membersand the cooperative.

3. The cooperative uses the MIS software,‘Udyog Munshi’, which is customdesigned to suit the accounting andstock-taking requirements of KPS.

4. KPS has accounts with the State Bank ofIndia (SBI) in Kesla and the Axis Bank inItarsi. SBI provides a cash credit of Rs 25lakhs to KPS. Both SBI and Axis Bankregard KPS as a valued customer. The

representatives of both these banksregularly visit KPS.

MARKETING SYSTEM1. KPS has two dedicated customers—

Sahid and Kallu. Whereas Sahid is asupplier in and around Itarsi, Kallumainly serves the Vidisha market. Sahidis the main customer of KPS andmarkets roughly 50 per cent of the KPSproduction.

2. There are many other suppliers, whopurchase from KPS as per their needsand supply the Bhopal, Narsinghpurand other markets in the state.

3. All the sales are on cash basis, in whichdedicated customers get three days ofcredit. However, dedicated suppliers also have to settle their accounts at theend of the financial year.

4. The boom in demand for poultry in rural areas has served KPS well. Most ofthe production is supplied to the nearby rural markets. KPS and the dedicatedsupplier believe that the rural markethas got better potential; even whenthere are outbreaks of avian flu indifferent parts of the country, the localrural market is only marginally affected.

HUMAN RESOURCESA trained and committed human resources(HR) department is necessary for institutionalstability and sustainability. KPS has created acadre of village-based supervisors. Inaddition, all the support staff of KPS havebeen locally recruited. At present, KPS has 10staff on its payroll, and 27 supervisors andother staff, who are paid incentives on theproduction efficiency achieved by members.The CEO is a veterinary doctor, who is theonly non-permanent resident of the area. TheCEO now delegates many of his responsi-bilities and empowers his subordinates; thus,


7

even during a prolongedabsence, the business of KPSruns as usual.

GOVERNANCE SYSTEMThe Board of Governorscomprises producer membersand two experts. Everyvillage of producersnominates one member tothe Board, which is thesupreme decision-makingbody of the KPS. A Boardmeeting is held on the 10thof every month. The chairperson of the Boardusually visits the KPS office once every weekand is apprised of the weekly activities by theCEO. The CEO is also responsible to theBoard and presents a monthly report to theBoard. It may surprise many that SC/STwomen are responsible for running a multi-crore business entity. However, women haveproved that they can take important decisionseasily, once the options and the possibleoutcomes of decisions are clear to them.

The Board has taken many decisions todiscipline erring members, supervisors andother staff. The Board members engagethemselves increasingly in the day-to-dayfunctioning of KPS. Recognizing the need forsanitation to check the outbreak of diseasesand the subsequent weight loss to the birds, the Board members now form teamsand visit every village. The Board memberscheck the sanitation level, educate theproducers about its importance and even take action against erring members. However,the capacity building efforts and theleadership training of the Board needs to be stepped up because it will meet morechallenging and complex situations in thefuture as the business of the cooperativecontinues to grow.

STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIPSKPS and other womenpoultry cooperatives of MPhave come together to formMadhya Pradesh WomenPoultry Cooperative Limited(MPWPCL), an apexorganization of all the poultrycooperatives in the state,which undertakes advocacyworks. It also does centralizedpurchase for medicines andprepares the medical mix tobe used in feeds. All themanagerial appointments in

the cooperatives are made by the MPWPCL,which also provides strategic leadership andguidance to its constituent cooperatives.

FINANCIAL VIABILITYKPS has emerged as a strong viable businessmodel. One of the most important featuresof KPS is hedging the tribal livelihoods againstany down risk and uncertainties in the market.Key inputs, veterinary support and marketlinkages are facilitated by KPS. Farmers havethe mandate to rear chicks effectively.Depending upon the efficiency with whichthe farmer carries out the operation, she ispaid. At the end of the financial year, theproducer is also paid a share in the surplus ofthe KPS, as deferred payment.

At first glance, it may seem that KPS hasassumed a significant risk, to protect thefarmers. However, this model is beingadopted by most of the integrators in thecountry. The benefit of the system is that thefarmer is concerned only with productionactivities and is not encumbered with otherdetails. KPS acts as strong service deliveryplatform. This is more imperative because theindividual costs of accessing the gamut ofservices will make the enterprise unviable.

It may be surprising foroutsiders to even

conceive that SC/STwomen are responsible

for running a multi-crorebusiness entity. However,

it was very clear thatwomen can take

important decisionseasily, once the options

and the possibleoutcomes of decisions

are clear to them.


8

Moreover, the collectivization of risks reducesindividual risks considerably. This model ismost fitted for an enterprise that is rockedfrom time to time by bird flu outbreak risks.

KPS has been making consistent profit since2008. The producers have received deferredpayment at the end of the year as surplusbonus. KPS has also been strengthening itsequity base by seeking contributions from itsmembers. From 2008 onwards, its equitycapital has grown to more than Rs 1 crore.Similarly, a bird flu fund, with a deposit of Rs 16.46, lakhs has been created, to meet anycontingency arising out of the outbreak. Thefinancial strength of KPS, therefore, is gettingmore robust every year.

Most of the vendors of KPS are satisfied withthe prompt payment from the organizationand would like to continue with the services.SBI and Axis Bank also express theirsatisfaction with the financial health of KPS.The audited estimates of 2008–09 show that

the total payment to farmers has grown to Rs 1.86 crores. This translates to more thanRs 30,000 per annum income per household.The income from poultry alone can lift mostof the KPS members out of the officialpoverty line now. However, the cash surplusin these three years has been used mainly forinstitutional strengthening. KPS itself is in theprocess of consolidation; therefore, suchactions are necessary to ensure long-termsustainability of the institution. Hence, the net transfers to the households have beenmuch lower.

A philanthropic organization, DewanFoundation, gave financial assistance of Rs 10lakhs to KPS; this is used for additionalcapacity creation by the members. As of now,more than 125 KPS members have taken theloan money to expand their productioncapacity. The loan repayment rate is 100 percent, and many members have already repaidtheir loans in two years. Productive assets thatare being created at the household level will

No. Financial Indicators 2006–7 2007–8 2008–91 Total wage payment 40,49,514 67,22,129 1,86,50,673

to producers, includingbonus

2 Total share capital 2,38,100 4,97,000 1,049,8003 Bird flu contingency fund 5,98,310 1,179,560 1,646,5604 Net payment to producers 31,16,204 56,75,969 79,09,6735 Total sales 3,64,38,701.00 5,36,02,814 9,89,93,6286 Membership fees 9,400 11,475 12,5757 Total number of producers 362 453 6118 Average production per 1,00,659.39 1,18,328.50 1,62,019.03

member/annum 9 Average gross payment 11,186.50 14,893.13 30,524.83

per producer/annum10 Average net payment per 8,608.29 12,529.73 12,945.45

producer11 Grower’s deposit 18,26,693 19,52,418 14,737,36212 Capital reserve 28,90,355 2,890,355 2,890,355

Table 1: Financial Indicators of KPS (2006–7 to 2008–9)


9

lead to increased cash flow. Atpresent, productive assets arebeing strengthened both atthe collective and thehousehold levels, which willyield higher benefits to both,in the coming years.

Poultry rearing has emergedas a viable source of livelihoodin Kesla and nearby blocks. This model hasbeen scaled up by PRADAN in other parts ofMadhya Pradesh and Jharkhand. It has apositive impact on the lives of its producermembers. In this section of the study, thesubstantiality and the viability of theenterprise will be examined by using the 7-SMckinsey framework.

ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS OF KPS WITH THE 7-S MODELThe 7-S Mckinsey model is a holistic tool tomeasure organizational effectiveness. Thistool primarily helps in analyzing how theorganization is positioned, to achieve itsintended objectives. It also helps tounderstand how future changes might affectthe organization and, hence, how toimplement a proposed strategy. Anunderstanding of the organization thusreached can be useful for refinement ofprocesses and systems, leading to theimproved performance of the organization.

SHARED VALUESFor KPS, the shared value system is fairlydeveloped and owned, both by thefunctionaries and the producer owners. It iswell established that KPS exists for thewelfare of its producer members and its mainconcern is maximizing their monetary andnon-monetary benefits.

KPS itself is established onthe humanitarian concerns ofcaring for needy fellowbeings, and theorganizational culture isoriented to maximizing theincome of the producermembers. Transparency in itsfinancial and operationaltransactions has heavily con-

tributed to the building of trust and faith inthe organization. The strong commitment ofKPS and PRADAN to the poor isacknowledged by the members. Theinnovative use of IT, to facilitate transparency,is commendable.

STRATEGYThe strategy of KPS is well in congruencewith its shared values. Since 2009 membershave contributed Rs 8.12 lakhs from theirdeferred payments to build an equity base ofRs 10.50 lakhs and a bird flu fund Rs 16.57lakhs, to meet any contingency. Membershave been able to identify that the financialstability of the organization is crucial, in orderto protect the interests of members.

The benefit of the systemis that the farmer isconcerned only with

production activities andis not encumbered withother details. KPS acts asstrong service delivery

platform.

THE 7-S MCKINSEY MODEL


10

By design, KPS can never be acash surplus organizationbecause most of the operatingsurplus is distributed amongthe producer members as theirdeferred wage payment. Theendemic poverty in the areaalso makes it very difficult tohold back payments from thepoor producers. However,even in the face of suchhardships, the women haverecognized the long-terminterests of the organization,and this is reflected in theirstrategic choices.

STRUCTUREKPS is a very small organization and thestructure is still evolving. Initially, the CEO ofthe organization was the central authority,who made all the decisions and who wasresponsible for the day-to-day functioning.However, in recent years, greaterdecentralization of authority is taking place.The members are now encouraged to overseethe functioning of the field supervisors andthere is greater role clarity among theemployees. However, this transition of rolesamong the members may take some moretime to be firmly established. Many leaders ofKPS are very clear about their role as owners;however, the same cannot be said of all the producer members.

SYSTEMKPS functions in a mode of trusteeship and,hence, tries to keep maximum transparencyin its operations. As the payment to theproducers is made on the basis of theirefficiency in rearing and most of the financialrisk and working capital is borne by KPS, it isimperative that a detailed transparent systemis put in place. All the input transactions with

the producers aremaintained by the fieldsupervisors and the detailsare recorded in thecomputerized MIS system.

KPS makes direct paymentto its producers and does nothand over wages anddeferred payment to thehusbands of the members.Hence, members can decidehow to utilize the money,without interference from the male members of theirfamily. These systems areproducer- and human-centric, and supplement the

shared goals of the organization.

STAFFMost of the staff of the KPS belongs to thesame village and socio-economic profile asthe members. Hence, the staff can directlyconnect with the producer and her problems.Most of the supervisors are village-based andare not highly educated. Similarly, the fieldsupervisor and the support staff have limitededucation. However, most of them are awareof their job responsibilities and are committedto the work. In some cases, unfortunately, thehigher income flow to these supervisors hasalso led to higher liquor consumption bythem. This is an aspect in which KPS needs totrain and sensitize its field work force.

STYLEAs a human-centric organization, the CEOexhibits supportive leadership traits. There areclear performance indicators of leadership,and payment to the supervisors is made onthis basis. Similarly, the CEO takes a lot ofeffort to educate the member producersabout KPS being an institution owned by

KPS itself is established onthe humanitarian

concerns of caring forneedy fellow beings, andthe organizational cultureis oriented to maximizing

the income of theproducer members. Even

vendors such as Sahidbelieve that their work ispart of a greater whole;

he proudly claims that hehas never worked for anyother poultry producer or

group, and will neverwork for them in the

future.


11

SWOT ANALYSIS OF KPS

Strengths

w Well-developed and localized production support system

w Benefit of scalew Even distribution of risk among

producersw Trained human resourcesw Horizontal and vertical linkages with other

cooperativesw Community ownershipw Modern MIS Systemw Location advantages to the growing rural

marketw Excellent credibility with key stakeholdersw Proven success in different states

Opportunities

w Fast growing market for poultry productsw Growing awareness among government

and other donors of poverty concentrationamong SC/ST and other excluded social groups

w Possibility of diversification of production base

w Manure treatment as an additional incomesource

w Reducing competition from peri-urban producers

w Scope for vertical and horizontal growthw Possibilities of exportsw Limited capacity creation by existing big

farmers

Weaknesses

w Dependence for DOCs and other key inputs on external suppliers

w Dependence on a small number of distributors

w Limited governance ability among member owners

w Limited penetration in urban marketsw High exposure of business risk to KPSw Limited reach among poorest villagesw Donor dependency for initial capacity

building, working capital and infrastructure creation

w Illiteracy and fragile assets base of the producers

w Unfavourable response of financial institutions to organizations owned by the poor

w Emerging ecological challenges due to declining fuel and water availability

Threats

w Possibility of frequent bird flu H1N1 outbreak

w Growing competition from for-profit private sector integrators

w Increase in price of key inputsw Small producers interest adversely

affected by strong industrial poultry lobby

w Resistance by PETA and other animal rights activists

w Consumption shift toward vegetarianismw Increased threat from importsw Government regulations especially

related to wet poultry market


12

them. The CEO also assiststhe board members inmaking decisions byexplaining about variousoptions; in recent times,board members haveencouraged members to takedecisions on vital issuesconcerning the governanceof the organization. Additionally, womenleaders have great faith in the CEO andrespect his advice and suggestions.

SKILLKPS has evolved into a unique people’sorganization. Because it was one of the firstsuch people’s initiatives in the poultry sector,the learning from it has led to furtherrefinement and adoption of this model inother parts of Madhya Pradesh and country.The processes, systems and managementhave evolved as per need and, many a time,as per design. The unique working model,which combines the efficiencies of a bigintegrator and at the same time ensurespeople’s ownership has been fairly successfulin assuring an alternative source of livelihood to the poor in and around Kesla block.

One of the main reasons for such a strongvalue orientation can be attributed to therelatively small size of the organization.Moreover, most of the members of KPS belong to the same socio-economicstrata. A predominant majority of them are already involved with the SHG move-ment and are familiar with PRADAN’s ways of functioning. The strong informalrelationship between PRADAN and KPS reinforces the value system with which both PRADAN and KPS wereestablished.

CENTRALITIES OF KPSMember centrality refers tothe importance of thecooperative in the economicactivities of its members. Ifthe members of cooperativesare generating economicactivities worth Rs 1,000 andthe share of cooperative in

this value creation is only Rs 100 it denotes alow member centrality. Centralities—member,patronage and domain—are, thus, a majorfactor in judging the relevance, utility andprospects of a cooperative or any producer-owned organization for its members.

KPS has high member centrality. Most of themembers of KPS reported that the earningsfrom poultry rearing constitute up to half thehousehold income. High member centralityalso means that members of KPS will remainactively involved in the affairs of KPS becauseit continues to be their most important sourceof livelihood.

Patronage centrality on other hand refers tothe direct benefits and the activities that arefor the benefit of members. For example, ifcooperatives create economic surplus worthRs 1,000 and members receive surplus worthRs 800, it denotes a high patronage centralityand, thus, the active interest of theorganization in the well-being of its members.

Domain centrality refers to the degree ofinvolvement of the cooperative in economicactivities, both actual and potential, takingplace in the domain of the cooperative.

KPS has high member centrality. It also hasthe potential for high patronage centrality.However, for many years, because theproducers have been contributing a part of

KPS has high membercentrality. Most of the

members of KPS reportedthat the earnings from

poultry rearing constituteup to half the household

income.


13

their deferred earnings to strengthen theequity and bird flu fund, the actual paymentto the producer is less.

KPS also has the potential for high domaincentrality. Maize is the major crop in andaround Kesla and also the principalconstituent of the poultry feed. The farmers of the area, therefore, can get aready market for their produce. Similarly,soybean is an important input grown locally. KPS can help in the generation ofadditional income by assisting in theproduction of these key inputs. It may also support additional income generation for its members by marketing manure (frombird waste) and diversification in othersources of animal protein.

IMPACT ON THE LIVES OF MEMBERSKPS was established with the mandate ofstrengthening the fragile assets-base of thepoor, to create additional sources of income.However, over the years, it has had asignificant impact on the lives of its producermembers. The impact of an additional sourceof income on poor tribal households and, inparticular, female producer members will nowbe examined in detail.

Thirty households that have been membersof KPS for last five years were identified as the treatment group. Similarly, 30households that, till the time of the study,were not associated with PRADAN-promotedSHGs or KPS were selected as the control

group. The control group households were selected from a village where nosignificant economic activity had been initiatedby PRADAN or KPS.

ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT OF KPS MEMBERSKesla is one of the poorest blocks of thecountry. The limited resource endowmentand limited options for livelihoods compoundthe problem. At best, a majority of the

No. Share of Poultry Level1 Between 50 and 75% 12 Between 40 and 50% 213 Between 30 and 40% 64 Between 20 and 30% 2

Table 2: Share of Poultry in Household Expenditure

WHY HAVE THE RURAL POOR STAYED AWAY

The tremendous success of poultry develop-ment has bypassed the rural poor for thefollowing reasons.

w High entry barriers: Poultry industry ishighly organized, complex, competitiveand intensely market-oriented. The poorwith their socio-economic disadvantagesand low skill base cannot enter the sectorwithout outside support or intervention.

w Input supply, extension and marketing:In contrast to the existing situation inwhich multiple agencies provide servicesinput supply, extension and marketing,poor producers require all these servicesunder one roof.

w Access to technology: Sophisticatedtechnology, when not scaled down, willremain with the more well-to-do farmers.Appropriate technology, which is scalable,improves access in favour of the poor.

14

villagers have food security fora mere six months. And if therains fail, the villagers do nothave food security for morethan three months. Thevillagers have been dependenton migration and sand fillingfor their survival. Thesetraditional coping mechanismstoo are now under threat dueto increasing mechanization.

Discussions with the villagersrevealed that survival wasdifficult for the poor. Locally available coarsegrain was the main cereal and dalia (a coarsecereal boiled in water) were the main fooditems. Vegetables were a rarity and,sometimes, villagers had to go to bed onempty stomachs. This situation has improvedsignificantly in the last decade thanks togovernment food distribution programmes aswell as improved job opportunities.

However, the establishment of KPS has beenone of the most significant institutionaleconomic activities of this economicallyunderdeveloped region in the last decade.

Poultry has now become the mainstay of thehousehold economy for KPS members. Morethan 75 per cent of the treatment grouprespondents covered under the studyreported that nearly half their monthlyexpenditure was directly met by poultryearnings. For a batch size of 300, therespondents reported that an income of Rs10,000 to 15,000 was earned per annum.This income increased pro rata, with anincrease in batch size.

The income from poultry is evenly distributedthroughout the year. This distribution made iteasier for producers to plan the household

economy and made themeven more credit-worthy.The women said that theycould now borrow moneyfrom the SHG when in needand repay it.

Similarly, borrowing fromthe ration shop has alsobecome easier for KPSmembers because theshopkeepers give them easycredit for their regularconsumption needs. FGDs

revealed that whereas many KPS membersdid not have to pay any interest on credit forthe purchase of household rations to theshopkeeper, many of the control groupmembers reported paying interest for this tothe shopkeeper.

The table on the next page shows that thenet income per household has increased fromRs 9,435 to Rs 15,070 in 2008–9. The actualincome per household has more than Rs 35,000 in 2008–9. At present, KPS and itsmembers are generating internal resourcesfor vertical expansion (setting up a satellitehatchery) and a buffer for bird flu losses;hence, the net payment to the households is lower.

The members realize the benefits of poultryrearing. It gives them a chance to generateincome by using their slack labour. They arealso saved from drudgeries of manual labourand the problems associated with migration.

The data reveal that the producers haverealized the usefulness of poultry to theirhouseholds. In 2006 and 2007, there were198 producers rearing a batch size of 300.However, most of them have now upgradedtheir shed capacity and there are only 76


Poultry has now becomethe mainstay of the

household economy forKPS members. More than

75 per cent of thetreatment group

respondents coveredunder the study reported

that nearly half theirmonthly expenditure was

directly met by poultryearnings.


15

producers now, who have a shed capacity of300. Similarly, there were only five producersin 2006 and 2007, who reared 500 chicks ormore. This number has now gone up to 153. What is more remarkable is that most of the shed construction has been carried outwith a loan from KPS. Members have supple-mented the costs of shed construction withtheir labour, use of local resources and anysavings they had. This demonstrates the faiththe households have in the dependability andviability of the enterprise.

One of the main benefits of the poultryintervention has also been the stabilizing ofthe household economy. A direct impact hasbeen the visible improvement in the qualityof food and nutrition levels for the household.Many households have moved away fromusing cereals to wheat and rice. The AAY hasalso significantly increased the availability offood to the villagers.

Families report that vegetables, which were a rarity, have now become a regular featureof meals. Many households claim that theyare now in a position to purchase tomatoesat Rs 40 per kg. A few households admittedthat, at times, when vegetables are verycostly, they are dropped from the regularmenu.

The income from poultry has stabilized thehousehold economy. There is great possibilityof taking this forward. At present, householdswith 300 chicks need one more stable sourceof livelihood to live comfortably. Families thathave no loan obligation may be considered tobe above the official poverty line.Unfortunately, the rising inflation in the lasttwo years in commodity prices has undonesome of the good achievements of KPS.

The size of a family has a strong impact onthe economy of a household. Families with

No. Financial Indicators 2006–7 2007–8 2008–91 Number of active producers 250 250 2492 Total wage payment 25,98,830 39,90,012 8,944,538

including bonus3 Total bonus payment 8,18,698 13,80,835 63,54,1644 Deferred payment 2,40,000 2,49,000 51,92,000

taken back5 Net payment to 23,58,830 37,41,012 37,52,538

the producers6 Gross income per 10,395.32 15,960.04 35,921.83

producer/annum7 Net payment to 9435.32 14,964.04 15,070.43

producer/annum8 Producers with a 198 198 76

batch size of 3009 Producers with a 44 44 18

batch size of 40010 Producers with a 3 3 2

batch size of 50011 Producers with a batch 5 5 153

size of more than 500

Table 3: Financial Indicators for Producers Rearing Birds for More than Five Years

16

two children, which areprimarily dependent onpoultry, reported that theycould meet their basic foodand nutrition needscomfortably. However,families with more than sixmembers needed anadditional source of incomeother than poultry, to meettheir household needs.

Clearly, if a family had anassured source of income other than poultry,whether a regular daily wage job or irrigatedland, the household reported purchase ofsome durable assets in the last few years.However, if a household was dependent onlyon poultry and had an irregular source ofwage labour, assets creation at the householdlevel was not evident.

This is quite natural because most of theincome was used for meeting householdexpenditure. The above table shows that thequantum of deferred payments, also referredto as bonus by the producers, has not beenvery significant. The highest average deferredpayment to members, which was paid in2008–9, was Rs 4,667.32.

Many members now have added additionalshed capacity and have paid back most of theloan amount. Hence, although assets creationis not evident at the consumption level, it is

significant at the level ofcreation of productive assets.These productive assets areexpected to yield better cashflow in the coming years.

The amount of savings wasthe main difference betweenthe control and treatmentgroups. Whereas controlgroup members hardly hadany savings, (the highestsavings reported was Rs

3,000), the women in treatment group hadsavings of Rs 3,000 to Rs 7,000 perhousehold. In many cases, these savings were deposited with KPS as workingcapital deposit.

The Narmada Mahila Sangh executives saidthat they realized that the SHGs in whichpoultry producers were members were morevibrant than other SHGs. A regular source ofmoney made transactions in SHG morefrequent and disciplined.

MIGRATIONOne of the most important outcomes ofhaving a regular source of income is theimpact on migration. Only one of more thanhundred poultry producers interviewedadmitted to migrating for agriculture-relatedwork outside their village. Most of the womenadmitted that poultry as an alternative source of income has permitted them to focus

No. Migration for Work KPS Members Othersby Women in a Year

1 60 days to 80 days 0 02 40 days to 60 days 0 163 20 days to 40 days 1 144 Never 29 0

Table 4: Migration by Women

One of the mostimportant outcomes of

having a regular source ofincome is the impact onmigration. Only one of

more than hundredpoultry producers

interviewed admitted tomigrating for agriculture-related work outside their

village.



17

more on their children and their well-being. In many cases, the male members of the family still migrate to augment thehousehold income.

However, both women and the men agreedthat such opportunities for work areincreasingly declining. One KPS memberadmitted to migrating for work during therabi season. Many men still continue toaugment the household income although the number of days they migrate for isdeclining. Whereas the field supervisors of the KPS believed that this was becausemale members were averse to working, manyof the KPS members said it was due todeclining opportunities.

On the other hand, all the women in thecontrol group still have to migrate toaugment the household income. The womenand their families form groups and migrate toother parts of the district and to nearbydistricts. One of the major achievements ofKPS has been in reducing migration; this hasa positive effect on the well-being of childrenand also saves the women from the hardshipsassociated with migration.

EDUCATIONOne of the most pleasant outcomes of thestudy is capturing the growing awareness

about the importance of education in ruralcommunities. In many villages, women arenot only encouraging children to completeschool but also encouraging them to studyfurther. Many households, both from thetreatment and control groups, have evenbeen sending their wards to hostels in districtheadquarters and supporting their education.Women in both groups said that they believeeducation to be very important for the betterfuture of their children. More than 90 percent of the children in both the groups arecompleting their primary education.However, the importance of having a regularsource of income was evident to themembers in the treatment group.

The children of KPS members have anaverage schooling of more than eight years.In the control group, on an average, theperiod for schooling was five years. Manywomen in the control group reported that the unavailability of schools in the village and the distance of 3–5 km for the next levelof schooling were the main reasons forchildren dropping out of school. Children ofmany KPS producers, on the other hand, who have been facing similar situations have continued their schooling. The dropoutrate of the children of non-members was higher than the children of members ofthe treatment group, who asserted that they

Table 5: Deferred Payment Bonus to the 250 Old Producers (2006–7 to 2008–9)

No. Bonus indicators 2006–7 2007–8 2008–91 Number of active producers 250 250 2492 Total bonus payment 8,18,698 13,80,835 63,54,1643 Deferred payment 2,40,000 2,49,000 51,92,000

taken back4 Net bonus payment 5,78,698 11,31,835 11,62,164

to the producers5 Gross bonus payment 3,274.92 5,523.34 35,921.836 Net bonus payment 2,314.79 4527.34 4,667.32

18

would support the educationof their children as long asthey showed interest inpursuing their studies.

In fact, economic hardshipwas not a handicap for thechildren of KPS producers.Most of the women who hadchildren in the age group of 5to 18 were quite aware of theimportance of education. Themajor reason for dropouts inthese cases was failure in theexamination, particularly inthe matriculation boardexaminations. There was nosignificant difference in theeducational achievement of boys and girls;they attend school without any form ofdiscrimination.

One of the major reasons for dropouts in thecase of the control group is also economic. Inspite of a free education system, women saidthat nearly Rs 1,000 to 1,500 per annum isspent on each child for stationery andexamination fees to the school. The quality ofeducation is an important issue that forceschildren to drop out of the education system.Children are usually promoted on the basis ofinternal assessment. However, it also resultsin a large number of failures in the externalBoard examinations, which are perceived tobe stricter and devoid of unfair means.

Even among the KPS members whosechildren have crossed the school-going agebefore 2003, widespread illiteracy wasobserved, with the average schooling yearsbeing hardly more than five years. Hence, thisemphasis on education has been a newphenomenon in this region and the growingawareness about the importance of education

may have contributed to thistrend. Equally significant isthe fact that KPS earningshave made it possible forwomen to keep their wardsin school longer.

CONCLUSIONS AND THE WAY AHEADKPS has emerged as asustainable model forlivelihood generation forpoor people in the tribalareas of Madhya Pradesh.Since 2008, the model hasbeen replicated at five otherdeprived areas of MadhyaPradesh, and in Jharkhand,

where 11 cooperatives have been set up. Theoperations in Jharkhand have also emergedas the largest commercial poultry rearingoperations in eastern India. At present, thesecooperatives have a total membership of5,200. The total turnover of thesecooperatives in 2008–9 was Rs 62 crores.

Models like KPS are highly relevant for thepoor. Most of the poor in India, andparticularly the SCs and STs, have negligibleownership of land. Similarly, most of the tribalhouseholds own rain-fed land, which getsincreasingly degenerated. A small poultryfarm hardly requires an area of 400 to 500 sqft and, hence, may support livelihoods.Hence, unlike other agriculture-basedlivelihood initiatives, it does not requiresignificant land assets-base and can be agood source of livelihood for excludedcommunities. The KPS model is highlyrelevant for the BIMARU states, where alarge number of SCs and STs is concentrated.The proper implementation of pro-poorschemes such as NREGA will encouragepoultry as a viable livelihood.


In many villages, womenare not only encouraging

children to completeschool but also

encouraging them tostudy further. Thedropout rate of the

children of non-memberswas higher than the

children of members ofthe treatment group, whoasserted that they wouldsupport the education oftheir children as long asthey showed interest inpursuing their studies.


19

Limited urbanization in thesestates is also a blessing indisguise for the smallproducers. As urbanizationincreases, these states will bethe major consumptioncentres in the country. Asmore and more cities geturbanized, the land value inthe peri-urban areas ofbigger cities will also increaseand the economic viability oftraditional farms near bigcities will decline. Further,increasing urbanization willalso spur the domesticdemand for poultry.

The success of KPS as amodel is also due to the pioneering workdone by PRADAN in Kesla. Although KPS isan independent organization, strong linkagesstill exist among PRADAN, Narmada MahilaSangh and KPS. The value-basedorganizational structure and culture can belargely attributed to the presence ofPRADAN-promoted SHGs.

The above data clearly show the benefits thata cooperative like KPS adds to thecommunity. The integrators pay a wage tothe producers, who rear chicks for them. Therate varies from region to region. In thesouthern states, the producers earn up to Rs 1.7 per kg as rearing charges. In certainwestern and eastern parts of the country,integrators pay up to Rs 3 per kg as therearing charges.

KPS has consistently paid its producers morethan the rates paid by the integrators. For2008–9, the rate differential is Rs 6.95 per kgbetween that offered by KPS and theintegrators. Even if a higher wage charge of

Rs 3 per kg paid by theintegrators is taken intoaccount, there is significantgap of Rs 5.65 per kg. With21 lakh kg production, thisdifferential adds up to morethan Rs 1.20 crores. This isalso the net value addition,which KPS brings to thecommunity by its existence.The per producer net valueaddition is also approximately Rs 20,000. This is thepremium of ownership.

A very interesting fact isrevealed on analysis. Theaverage gross income perhousehold has been

Rs 35,921 as mentioned in the Table 5.However, on an average, every producer hasreared approximately 3,500 kg of live birds in2008–9. At a wage rate of Rs 3 per kg, theymight have earned Rs 10,500 had they beenassociated with an integrator. This amount isnearly one-third of what they have earnednow through KPS. This additional valuecreation is generated by facilitating therearing and marketing of birds. As KPS movesup the value chain, this value creation willimprove significantly.

Once the entry barriers are removed and thesmall producer is part of a larger collective,his income potential increases many folds.The KPS model will be highly relevant for thepoor households, where every additionalrupee is important.

KPS has been able to achieve the samebenefits of scale as an integrator. However,the integrators have not been able tooutsource and decentralize bird rearing inMadhya Pradesh. KPS has been able to do so

Models like KPS are highlyrelevant for the poor. Most

of the poor in India, andparticularly the SCs and

STs, have negligibleownership of land. A small

poultry farm hardlyrequires an area of 400 to500 sq ft and, hence, may

support livelihoods.Hence, unlike otheragriculture-based

livelihood initiatives, itdoes not require

significant land assets-baseand can be a good source

of livelihood for theexcluded communities.

20

by virtue of its strong social mobilization anda sense of ownership among producermembers.

The important lesson from KPS is that, bydesign, it assumes significant business riskupon itself as producers mainly concentrateon production, and all arrangements forrearing, DOCs, feed and veterinary care aremanaged by the collective. In any case ofleakage or lack of commitment of anyproducer, the collective suffers as a whole.

For example, feed is supplied by KPS; anyleakage by the producer selling in the marketwill benefit the producer but will be a loss tothe collective. Hence, any scale up would bepreferable in areas where strong socialmobilization is already in place and potentialmembers are strongly oriented to the valuesof collective.

The increasing food inflation in recent yearshas wiped out many benefits that KPS hadassured to its members. However, memberswith a batch size of 300 and an alternativesource of income are comfortably placed. Theanalysis also shows that a batch size of 300,an annual income of Rs 15,000 may beassured to the producers.

Now that KPS has attained sufficient maturityin its operations, new members should beinducted with a shed capacity of 500. Atpresent estimates, this will ensure a monthlyincome of Rs 3,000 per month, which will besufficient to meet their basic needs. However,selection of a member should be donekeeping in mind her familiarity with PRADAN,the SHG norms and a commitment andorientation to the values of collective.

The most important reason for the success ofKPS has been a strong and dynamic

leadership, especially in last few years. Thesuccess of KPS demonstrates the change thata qualified and committed leadership canbring to the lives of the poor. This will be achallenge that other organizations wishing toreplicate the model will have to meet.

KPS will need to grow both horizontally andvertically. Aggressive efforts need to be madeto generate resources for more sheds at theproducer level, satellite hatcheries, and parentand grandparent farms. There is a limitedscope for improving efficiency at theproducers end. More benefits will occur toproducers if KPS can attain the advantages ofscale and increase its own control on thevalue chain. Moving up the value chain toown a hatchery, and parent and grandparentfarm has the potential to double the incomeof the individual producer with the samebatch size.

The model is getting replicated in other statesand areas, and a national-level body may beset up, which undertakes advocacy andknowledge dissemination. Similarly,expansion of the model needs to be done by keeping the core value system intact.Strong social mobilization must precede thescaling up. At the same time, a newleadership may also be developed to take thisinitiative forward. Attracting and retainingqualified and committed manpower will be the biggest challenge that KPS will face in the near future.

CASE STUDY: MANDIPURAMandipura is a small tribal village, situated ata distance of 2 km from the Hosanagabad–Nagpur national highway. The village isconnected by an all-weather road. All the 33families in the village belong to STs. Thisvillage came into being in 1986–87 after thegovern-ment decided to build new houses for


STs on a vacant plot of land,under the Indira Awas Yojna(IAY). The residents ofMandipura moved in fromadjoining villages when theywere sanctioned their land bythe government.

Belabai and her family usedto live in the nearby Chowkipura village. Herfamily moved to Mandipura in 1986. Belabairemembers the old days and recounts thedifficulties they faced. Her family had 2 acresof land, which hardly provided them any foodsecurity. The family’s primary means ofincome was sand filling in the nearby river.Her husband Balchand and she used to go tothe river early in the morning. Many men and women from nearby areas also congregatedthere because sand filling was their mainsource of livelihood. Belabai recounted thatthey used to earn Rs 5 per truck if they were lucky. In periods of limited demand forsand, many a time their earnings dropped toRs 2 or 3 per truck. After a day of hard work, between husband and wife they hardly earned Rs 30–40 on a good day. Most of this money was spent on dailyrations. Every evening, provisions werebought for the night and the next morning.Often, the family had to go to bed on anempty stomach.

Migration was other source of income. Thewhole family would migrate to Hoshangabadand other nearby places for employment. The family migrated during the harvest of rabiwheat and soybean, and were dependent on labour contractors for work. There werelimited opportunities for wage employmentin the area and survival itself was a challenge.Belabai vividly remembers when Ms MadhuKhetan, an executive from PRADAN, met hermore than ten years ago and persuaded her

to form an SHG. Belabai saidshe was very reluctant andapprehensive. In the past,many NGOs had come andfled with their hard-earnedmoney. However, after muchpersuasion, she and ten otherwomen of the village formedan SHG and started saving Rs

10 per month. Their association withPRADAN, and later with the Narmada MahilaSangh, continues to this day.

Belabai has a large family. She and Balchandhave six children—four girls and two boys.Belabai explored different sources of incometo meet the household expenditure and tookup poultry on the suggestion of PRADANexecutives. A shed for 300 day-old chicks(DOC) was built, with the support ofgovernment schemes, and since then Belabaihas been regularly rearing chicks in herbackyard. Balchand started working as a fieldsupervisor with the Kesla Poultry Samiti (KPS)a few years later and his income supplementsthe household income.

Balchand bought a motorcycle last year, witha loan from the SHG members. Belabai isencouraging her children to study. Her eldestdaughter completed her schooling from areputed Navodaya Vidyalaya. She lives in ahostel in Hoshangabad and is a regularstudent in the local degree college. Belabai’sother children are in school, with theyoungest child in Class III.

Belabai also served on the governing boardof KPS for five years. She believes that KPSand poultry rearing have brought about a seachange in the life of her family members.Caring for her children left her with little time;increasing her shed capacity, therefore, was amajor challenge. However, she is determined


21

Belabai recounted thatthey used to earn Rs 5 pertruck if they were lucky. Inperiods of limited demand

for sand, many a timetheir earnings dropped to

Rs 2 or 3 per truck.

to do so this year. She will be adding anadditional capacity of 400 birds and manymore dreams to her household this year.

WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENTOne of the most important outcomes of thepoultry intervention has been the growingawareness and the ability of women to makeinformed decisions on the issues concerningtheir lives. Most of the women said that theirincome has helped them to have a greater sayin household affairs and decisions. This doesnot mean that disputes do not arise amongmembers of a household.

The women opined that most marriedcouples in the world have differences overone issue or other. But more importantly,income distribution within KPS is a woman’sdecision. Many women also said that the menof the family considered this to be theirindependent income and did not interfere in

their decisions on how to utilize it. In KPS, itis mandatory that payments to members aremade directly to them and not to the malemembers of their families.

On the issue of social awareness, members ofKPS have their own views and express themfreely. Members of KPS are also members ofPRADAN-promoted SHGs. Therefore, thisempowerment may also be attributed to thegood work done by PRADAN professionals inthese villages over last two decades. Thegrowing awareness among the KPS membershas also led to some interesting outcomes.

One of the most important outcomes of theintervention has been the capacity of womento assume greater responsibility in planningand strengthening their family assets base.This has happened because women feel moreconfident about taking greater risks. Morethan 90 per cent of the members want to


22

Year Batch Size Total Wage Deferred Payment Net Payment Average Payment Taken Back to Belabai Monthly

Including Bonus Income(in Rs) (in Rs) (in Rs) (in Rs)

2006–7 300 12,785 1,000 11,785 982.082007–8 300 19,121 1,000 18,121 1510.082008–9 300 39,478 22,000 17,478 1456.50

Table 6: Gross and Net Payment to Belabai

Year Net Payment Net Production Total Family Average Monthlyto Belabai Incentive Earned Income Income

by Balchand(in Rs) (in Rs) (in Rs) (in Rs)

2006–7 300 12,785 1,000 11,7852007–8 300 19,121 1,000 18,1212008–9 300 39,478 22,000 17,478

Table 7: Net Family Income of Belabai

expand their shed capacityand increase productionoutput. The only reason forthe reported non expansionwas the increased householdresponsibilities because ofthe presence of smallchildren or the lack of ahelping hand. Over 125women have taken a loan of more than Rs 10lakhs from KPS and are repaying it regularly.

In contrast, most of the women outside ofKPS were apprehensive of taking loans. Theaverage loan size was Rs 1,000 only. Themain reason was the fear that they would beunable to repay the loan, leading them into adebt trap. One major impact of KPS has beenthat in the treatment group the women havethe confidence to take major risks and havethe capacity to manage credit.

CASE STUDY: BURRABurra is a small village situated at a distanceof nearly 8 km from Sukhtawa inHoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh. The villagehas poor connectivity and a kuccha roadconnects the village to the outside world. Thesigns of impoverishment are visible all aroundthe village. There are nearly 30 households inthe village. The village is divided into twohamlets. Most of the houses are kuchha andthe living conditions are abysmal.The village has been formed because thevillagers were displaced by the creation of afiring range nearby. In the absence of any

legal documents, villagersclaimed that they had receivedno land compensation evenmany years after theirdisplacement. Most of thefamilies depend primarilyupon migration and livestockrearing for survival. Migrationwith the entire family is the

norm and most of the families hardly havefood security of more than three months.However, villagers reported that they receivesubsidized ration regularly under theAntodaya scheme, which is a great relief for them.

The quality of life indicators are belowsatisfaction. At first glance, it is clear that thevillagers do not have enough clothing orsanitation facilities. Most of the children haddropped out of school and were engaged inincome generating activities.

Burra is a challenging village for PRADANprofessionals in the Kesla team. Their effortsto form SHGs had failed twice in Burra.PRADAN executives attributed it to the verylow income base of the poor and frequentmigration by households.

A very distressing case was reported duringthe study. One of the respondents said thatshe had been married recently but had hardlybeen able to spend any time with herhusband. On probing, it was learnt that herhusband had borrowed Rs 10,000 for his


23

One of the mostimportant outcomes of

the intervention has beenthe capacity of women to

assume greaterresponsibility in planningand strengthening their

family assets base.

No. Work Availed of in NREGS KPS Members Others1 Between 70 to 100 days 0 02 Between 40 to 70 days 0 03 Between 20 to 40 days 0 04 Between 0 to 20 days 16 20

Table 8: Work Availability in NREGA

marriage and had beenworking since then with abusinessman in Itarsi, in lieuof repayment of his debt. Itwas more or less a case ofbonded labour and she hadmet her husband on rareoccasions over the previoussix months. This casehighlights the acute problemin the area. PRADAN and KPS executives areworking to meet the challenge to improve theliving conditions in this village.

ENTITLEMENT TO GOVERNMENT SCHEMES Most of the community members in thetreatment and the control groups were awareof the major flagship government pro-grammes. Both the control and the treatmentgroups expressed satisfaction with theentitlements under the government schemesand made use of them. Some doubts wereraised about the quality of services offered.

ENTITLEMENT TO NREGS Access to NREGS remains one of thechallenges in these villages. Most of therespondents in both the control and thetreatment groups were registered under thescheme and had job cards. There was also ademand from households for NREGS work.But very few respondents reported havingworked under the scheme for more than 10days. Not a single household worked morethan 20 days in 2009 under NREGS.

Most of women respondents in both thegroups expressed the view that if they get work up to 100 days as guaranteed in the Act, they can meet their household needs without many problems. Most of them

had applied for and receivedjob cards. However, threeladies in the treatment group, who had additionalsources of income, had not applied for job cards. The arrest of a panchayathead in Kesla in a case of embezzlement in NREGShas, however, certainly

affected progress in the scheme.

HEALTHKPS members were aware of the health issuesthat households faced. In general, people aredependent on government hospitals formedical aid. ICDS centres and anganwadisevikas are the first point of contact. Peoplewere also aware about the role of Ashaworkers. Members in the treatment and thecontrol groups were aware about the benefitsof institutional delivery and facilitatinggovernment initiatives.

CHALLENGES IN SCALING UPThe increasing unavailability of fuel wood and water were identified as two mostimportant challenges by KPS members. Theproducers were worried about the rapidlydecreasing forest cover and the subsequentincreasing cost of the fuel wood. Similarly,access to water was identified as a majorchallenge in managing production andexpansion of sheds. The major source of water in these villages is hand pumps.Once the chicks grow, the increasing need to supply water and the limited hand pumps take up substantial time of women. In summer, the problem is more acute. These two constraints are the biggestchallenges that KPS needs to address in the near future.


24

Most of the womenrespondents in both the

groups expressed the viewthat if they get work up to100 days as guaranteed in

the Act, they can meettheir household needs

without many problems.


25

The Initiative that Changed the Lives ofFulmani Devi and Many Others

Trying every means to keep home and hearth together, struggling in abjectpoverty, migrating to distant places, Fulmani, like the women in her village,finally finds strength and sustenance through SHGs and poultry farming.

PAWAN OJHA

Fulmani Devi of Silum village in Raidih block of Gumla district, Jharkhand, is happyand proud about her newly constructed poultry farm, which has a capacity for1,000 broiler birds. This has become possible after nine women (including her)started the poultry co-operative way back in 2002. Prior to this, her family used toharvest paddy prematurely so that it could get an early supply of food grain. Sherecalls, “My husband, Tapeswar Oraon, once went to Ranchi, which is about 100km from my house on foot, in search of work as labour.”

Before taking up poultry as a means of livelihood, Fulmani Devi’s quality of life waspathetic. She and her family lived in a mud hut; she had a few utensils. She hadthree acres of land, of which one acre was cultivable; however, only one crop ofpaddy could be cultivated there because it had no irrigation facility. The family hadno other means of livelihood. After selling the harvested paddy, they had foodsecurity for six months in a year. Three meals a day was a distant dream…theyhardly ate twice in a day. Their meal comprised rice and vegetables and quite oftenthey had gruel (stale rice with water and salt). The income from the paddy wasjust enough for other household expenses such as oil, spices, medicines andeducation of children. They had no income and no food for the rest of the year.

Fed up with the condition, in 1997, Fulmani, her husband and a daughter, whowas a few months old, migrated to Shimla, with Rs 500 that they had borrowedfrom relatives. They left behind their elder son, aged 13, and daughter, aged 11,in the village to look after the house. Their stay in Shimla was equally painful butthey could earn their bread with the hard work they did. They earned Rs 50 eachper day and managed to save Rs 10 to 20 each day. Fulmani does not even knowthe names of the places in which they worked. They worked in brick kilns on theoutskirts of towns. They constructed temporary settlements with the unused bricksat the work site. She was constantly worried about her home and children. Shewas always looking to getting back to her village but lack of opportunities thereforced her to stay for six months.

Forum: The Initiative that Changed the Lives of Fulmani Devi and Many Others

26

Fulmani returned to the village with herdaughter and husband. Tapeswar Oraonwent back after some time whereas shestayed back in the village because there wasno one to look after her children. In theabsence of proper guidance, the children hadstopped going to school. Her son had takento gambling and theiving. As a result, her sonwas on the verge of getting arrested by thepolice but was saved because the villagersintervened. She weeps as she recalls thosetimes and feels grateful to the villagers fortheir help. Life was no easier after her return.She had to look after household chores andwork to earn money. She started working asa daily wage labourer in another villager’sfields and earned Rs 10 per day. Sometimesshe went to Gumla to work in theconstruction sites and earned Rs 30 per day.Life continued this way till she joined a Self-Help Group (SHG) in her village.

Initially, Fulmani and the other women of thevillage were reluctant to join the SHGbecause they were not convinced about theconcept. Later, following the persistentpersuasion of PRADAN professionals andnoticing the inevitable benefits of being amember, they formed a new SHG namedJagriti in 2001 with 20 members, whodeposited Rs 10 each as their weekly savings.Subsequently, she borrowed Rs 5,000 fromthe SHG for the marriage of her elderdaughter. She returned it in nine months,from her as daily wages. The repayment waseasier for her because of the low interest ratecharged and because she could repay smallamounts at regular intervals spread over alonger period.

However, this was not enough. She needed amore sustainable source of livelihood in thevillage. This was a common problem amongthe members of her group. The professionals

from PRADAN then advised them to startpoultry farming as a means of livelihood inthe village. To give them an exposure aboutthe activity, the members were taken toLohardaga where women had started poultryfarming. The women in Lohardaga told themabout the process of poultry farming, theirexperiences and the benefits. They said thatthey earned profits to the tune of Rs 3,500 toRs 4,000 from each lot.

Livestock rearing has been an age-old andcommon occupation for the villagers. Nowwith easy access to loans, Fulmani readilyagreed to take up poultry. She initially took aloan of Rs 2,000 with nine other membersfrom the SHG to start poultry farming. Thismoney was given to the professionals fromPRADAN to get a supply of chicks and feed.Initially, she started with the semi-scavenging,cross-breed called kroilers. She did not buildany separate shed for the kroilers; instead,she earmarked a part of her living room andreared the poultry there. She did not evenbuy any equipment for feeding or drinkingwater. She reared the chicks indigenously.Without any medicine and vaccinations, quitea number of chicks died. It took 40 days forthe rest of the chicks to mature. They werethen taken to the local markets. The pricerecovered was not enough and she incurreda loss of Rs 300, which she was able tocompensate. She, however, did not lose hope,and with the other members decided torestart poultry farming with proper logistics,equipment and better services.

In October 2002, PRADAN executives talkedto the villagers about the concept of poultryfarming through co-operative societies.Fulmani was among the nine members whocame forward to initiate the poultry farmingthrough a co-operative society. The officebearers were elected from the group. Fulmani


27

was elected Governing Board member. Thus, Gumla Grameen Poultry Co-operativeSociety Ltd. came into existence. Withsupport from Department of Cooperatives,Government of Jharkhand, and loan fromGrameen Bank, she constructed a poultryshed of 300 sq ft in which 300 chicks could be reared. She received a loan of Rs 10,000 from Grameen Bank and a grantof Rs 9,500 from the Department of Co-operatives. In the first year, she earned Rs 5,150 and in the second year, she earnedRs 12,376. Sensing a bright future ahead in the village itself, she called her husbandback from Simla and constructed anothershed that had a capacity for 350 chicks after receiving a grant of Rs 20,000 from theblock for the construction of the shed. Her own contribution was Rs 15,000. In2009, she once again expanded the businessby constructing a shed of 1,000 sq ft with a capacity of 1,000 chicks. This time she took loan of Rs 80,000 from Punjab NationalBank, at an interest rate of 6 percent. The

annual income of Fulmani Devi is given in thetable below:

She is thankful to the co-operative societyand the broiler farming model for changingher life. Her family now has meals three timesa day. She recalls that there were times whena kilogram of oil had to be stretched for twomonths whereas now even 2 kg of oil is notenough for a month. The productivity of heragricultural farm has increased three times. Poultry droppings are a very effectiveorganic fertilizer in the fields. She is now ableto buy better quality seeds and has solved the water crisis for irrigation by digging a well in the field. Her husband is now engagedwith the cultivation. He helps her with poultryfarming too. Her son works as a daily wageearner, supplementing the earning, whereasher daughter-in-law looks after thehousehold chores and the livestock. Afterrepayment of the loan to the SHG and the bank, Fulmani has been able to createsome assets.

Financial Year Amount in Rupees Remarks2003–04 5,150 Shed capacity 300 birds2004–05 12,376 Shed capacity 300 birds2005–06 13,775 Shed capacity 300 birds2006–07 17,546 Shed capacity 650 birds2007–08 20,792 Shed capacity 650 birds2008–09 28,268 Shed capacity 650 birds2009–10 71,565 Shed capacity 1,000 birdsTotal 1,69,472

Assets No. CostTelevision 1 4,000Bicycle 1 2,200Mobile 2 6,000Well 1 30,000Livestock 5 8,500

Table 1: Annual Income of Fulmani Devi

Table 2: Fulmani Devi’s Assets

Forum: The Initiative that Changed the Lives of Fulmani Devi and Many Others

28

She has a television set, bank savings and hasinvested in insurance. She saves Rs 700 inSahara; she also deposits Rs 500 in LIC andsaves more than Rs 10 per week in the SHG.She also has a bank account in the UnitedBank of India. All these accounts are in hername. Her only regret is that she could noteducate her children properly. They droppedout of school. Her children do not findeducation necessary. According to them, they are earning well in the village throughtheir hard work and skills, which they will continue.

She has heard about an automatic drinkingsystem for the poultry from the members ofthe co-operative. She is planning to install itbecause it will help her manage the unitsmore efficiently. This will be helpful when sheexpands her business to the extent that it willbe difficult to manage things manually. Shewishes to expand operations for the cominggenerations and to secure their lives so thatthey will not face similar trials and tribulationsin life.

She visualizes an alcohol-free village and hergroup has already taken steps towardsachieving that. She used to sell liquor way

back; she thinks it is not a dignified livelihood.She avoids talking about it. Men used toindulge in all sorts of crimes after consumingalcohol. She does not want to see otherwomen facing similar situations and henceshe visualizes an alcohol-free village. She hadparticipated in similar social action earlier. Shealong with other women of the villageparticipated in the deforestation drive inwhich they did not allow people from othervillages to cut the trees. These socialinitiatives have nothing to do with her beingeconomically well off. She stopped makingliquor and struggled her way out of it.Similarly, she wants other to find solutions totheir problems. She took to poultry rearingearly; this motivated other women to comeforward. According to her, recognition is not important; she would have continued the work even if she were not recognized for it because it helped her family tosurmount bad times.

Like her, 530 members of the GumlaGrameen Poultry Self-Supporting Cooperative Society Ltd. as well as 3,267members of the Jharkhand Women’s Self-supporting Poultry Cooperative FederationLtd. are being benefited by the activity.

FY FY FY FY FY FY FY2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Membership 475 829 1,380 2,100 2,500 3,235 3,467Sales (MT) 395.54 810.35 1,963.24 2,428.11 3,015.39 4,814.47 5,429.3Sales turnover 142.00 299.00 770.57 993.13 1,252.79 2,688.93 3,272.17(Rs in lakhs)Members’ profit 12.11 19.26 71.79 86.81 91.85 250.72 348.38(Rs in lakhs)

Table 3: Annual Sales Turnover


29

Workshop on Small-Holder Poultry Rearing: A Sustainable Livelihood Opportunity for theRural Poor: A Report

The South Asia Pro Poor Livestock Policy Programme (SAPPLPP), ProfessionalAssistance for Development Action (PRADAN) and the National Small-holderPoultry Development Trust (NSPDT) jointly convened a workshop on ‘Small-Holder Poultry Rearing: A Sustainable Livelihood Opportunity for the Rural Poor’in New Delhi on 28 December 2010. A report on the workshop.

BACKGROUND

The workshop was designed with the objective of building awareness about theimmense potential of poultry rearing as a viable income earning opportunity forthe rural poor, identifying opportunities that the poultry sector presents andplanning what needs to be done to enable small-holders to participate in andbenefit from an expanding poultry market. Over 80 participants from governmentprogrammes and research institutions, NGOs and donor agencies attended theday-long workshop, which was inaugurated by Dr. Amarjeet Singh Nanda, AnimalHusbandry Commissioner, Government of India. Dr. Nanda delivered the keynoteaddress.

The poultry sector in India can be broadly categorized into the organized and theunorganized sub-sectors. Small and medium farmers are increasingly under contractfarming arrangements with large integrators, primarily for broiler rearing. The needsof both the sub-sectors are very different. There is also an emerging, but marginalsub-sector, moving from the unorganized to the organized. As per the LivestockCensus (2007), there are 648 million poultry birds in the country, of which 45 percent (294 million) comprise birds raised at the household level, under backyardpoultry production systems. Approximately 77 per cent of the egg production isfrom improved poultry and the remaining 23 per cent is from desi indigenous birds.

The poultry sector currently provides employment to over three million people inthe country, and is one of the fastest growing economic sectors, averaging a growthrate of 10–15 per cent per annum over the last decade. The rapid advancement ofthe poultry sector has, however, largely bypassed the poor, for whom poultryrearing has been a traditional livelihood activity that contributed significantly tohousehold food and nutrition security. Whereas poultry rearing is recognized as a

Report: Workshop on Small-Holder Poultry Rearing: A Sustainable Livelihood Opportunity for the Rural Poor

30

key poverty reductionstrategy, with a number ofschemes on poultrydevelopment and promotion,the high growth in the sectoris currently confined to thecommercial, organized sector.This is largely because of thepoor risk-bearing capacity ofsmall-holders, the lack of acoordinated supply of inputs,extension and marketservices, and limited access tonew knowledge andtechnology by small-holders.To enable small-holders toeffectively participate in andbenefit from the rapidlyexpanding poultry sector, a designedapproach that is based on the existingknowledge, resources, and access to inputsand markets is required, which helps small-holders to graduate from a nutrition and foodsecurity focused intervention to a livelihoodsand income earning intervention.

The key elements of profitable andsustainable poultry rearing models for small-holders was highlighted, commencing with adescription of a low input/low output poultryproduction system that focused on therearing of desi (non-descript) birds. This is anauto-run system that requires no or negligibleinvestment. Birds have dual purpose; they areraised for both the meat and the eggs. Beingnative to the environment, these birdsdemonstrate high levels of adaptability.

The rearing of desi birds meets criticalhousehold food and nutrition security needsand ‘emergency’ income requirements.Similar to the system of rearing desi birds isthe rearing of indigenous poultry breeds, awide variety of which are found in India (for

example, the Kadaknath ofWestern Madhya Pradeshand Aseel of AndhraPradesh). Poultry productionsystems that are based onimproved breeds, withrelatively higher productivity,require moderate inputs(particularly related tosourcing of birds, feed, healthservices and access tomarkets). High input/highoutput poultry productionsystems are dependent onstrong backward and forwardlinkages, and necessarilyrequire that aspects related tosourcing of birds, health

services, feed and market access are ensured.

The detailed aspects of facilitating a ‘levelplaying field’ for small-holders in poultryrearing were stressed. First, the selection ofthe most appropriate model, based on theresources of the household (including time and knowledge) and access to markets,is important. Second, the need to ensureaccess to preventive vaccination services isalso crucial.

Documentation of good practices from theregion, adequately demonstrates a significantreduction in bird mortality following theprovision of vaccination services at the ‘door-step’ of small-holder poultry rearers. The highcost of feed is another major constraint facedby small-holders in up-scaling poultry rearing.Production of maize, a key ingredient inpoultry feed, has remained static over mostof the last decade, and the high import costs,have led to an increase in poultry feed prices.

There is need for the development ofalternative sources of poultry feed, based on

The poultry sectorcurrently provides

employment to over threemillion people in the

country, and is one of thefastest growing economic

sectors. The rapidadvancement of thepoultry sector has,

however, largely bypassedthe poor, for whom

poultry rearing has been atraditional livelihood

activity that contributedsignificantly to household

food and nutritionsecurity.


31

crops grown locally, as also thediversification of feed sources,based on local practices. Thereare numerous traditionalpractices, which could act asan alternative for poultry feedsuch as rearing termites inearthen vessels as high-proteinfeed for poultry, adding crushed snail shells to the feed, promoting vermi-compost in mixed farming systems and the feeding of greens, such as onion andgarlic leaves.

There needs to be both facilitation andsupport through the collectivization of small-holders, which will enable economies of scalefor accessing inputs and services as well as foraccessing markets. A parallel was drawn withthe successful Amul model of milk collectionand marketing, dependent on small farmerscollectively marketing their produce throughan institutional system that facilitates accessto consumers in markets at considerabledistance. The need for extension systems tocentre-stage small-holder poultry rearing, asalso for the veterinary course curriculum toinclude small-holder production and rearingsystems rather than the current priority ofbeing focused largely on commercialproduction systems, was stressed on.

Currently, the poultry sector in India isclassified neither as an agricultural sector noras an industrial sector, and an emerging policyissue is the need to recognize small-holderpoultry rearers as agriculturists and eligible forsector support and incentives. Information onon-going government schemes for thepromotion of small-holder poultry rearingand assistance through both subsidy andinterest-free loans for the setting up ofmother units were provided.

Information was providedon the establishment ofpoultry estates, selected ona pilot basis in Sikkim forbroiler farming and in Orissafor layer farming, as thePoultry Venture Capital Fundand the work of the Central

Poultry Development Organisation focusedon the supply of quality chicks and farmerstraining.

Mention was made of a few stategovernments (for example, of Orissa) wherepoultry is already designated as an agriculturesector, and farmers are eligible for sectorbenefits and subsidy. Concern was expressedthat whereas subsidies did exist, these werelargely targeted at commercial poultry forexport; however, no subsidies or insurancepolicies are available for small-holders. Thelack of insurance schemes that are tailored tothe needs and priorities of small-holders wasa major limiting factor in up-scaling small-holder poultry rearing. NABARD is thecoordinating agency for the subsidy-cum-loan scheme for poultry rearing. It should beapproached, to avail the benefits of thescheme.

SECTORAL OVERVIEW An overview of the poultry sector and asector SWOT analysis with respect to small-holders was presented. The unique positionthat poultry occupies in the country’slivestock economy, characterized by a co-existence of an intense system (technology,capital, scale) with integrated production andmarketing, and a system that is based ontraditional knowledge and practices werehighlighted. Small scavenging poultryproduction systems are the most widespreadanimal production systems in the country.

The rearing of desi birdsmeets critical household

food and nutritionsecurity needs and

‘emergency’ incomerequirements.


32

Three decades back, 70 percent of the poultry populationcomprised desi/indigenousbirds, accounting for 70 percent of the egg production.Today, over 80 per cent of the poultry production isunder the commercialintensive-managedproduction system. There is adecline in the share of small-holders in this rapidlyadvancing sector. However, policy and publicinstitutions have not kept pace with thischange. Small-holder poultry productionsystems can be categorized as (i) traditionaldesi/indigenous; (ii) improved desi/ indi-genous; (iii) new breeds introduced in thesame context; and, (iv) small-scale modernpoultry systems.

As one moves across these four categories,there is a reduction in the unit cost of labourand supervision, a higher quality ofhusbandry and a shorter response time.However, given the importance of aspectssuch as nutrition and ready cash income,small flock sizes of even 9–10 birds aresignificant and important for small-holders.Whereas successive rural development andlivelihood improvement projects haveidentified poultry development as a pro-poorintervention, there are few successes, and thisis largely on account of the failure ofextension initiatives in reaching out andbenefiting small-holders. Poverty reductioninterventions need to factor in key aspectsrelated to nutrition and food security, andensure that income gains remain in the handsof women.

The key statistics relate to the poultry sectorin India, detailing the significant opportunity

presented by the poultrysector in India today. With apopulation of over onebillion, and annual per capitaincome increases of 5–6 per cent, India is a verylarge market. In bridging the consumption gap thatcurrently exists between the current production andthe recommended norm ofthe National Institute of

Nutrition of 180 eggs and 11 kg of meat percapita each year, there is the potential tocreate an additional 10 million jobs. As perGovernment of India estimates, an increasein the per capita consumption of one egg or50 gm of poultry meat will generate anadditional 25,000 jobs. The current level of growth itself creates opportunities for60,000 jobs in the primary sector. There isrenewed focus on addressing nutritionaldeficiency, and poultry products (eggs and meat) are some of the most economicalfood options available.

The strengths of the poultry sector in Indiainclude some of the best productioninfrastructure in the world and high levels ofproductivity, comparable with the best in theworld (320 eggs annually, and 1.8 kg broilergrowth in six weeks). India is self-sufficient inits genetic stock, and globally ranks second in egg production and fifth in poultry meat production. Almost 75 per cent of thenon-vegetarian food consumed in Indiacomes from poultry produce. Poultryproduction offers the highest return on capital and per unit land, anddemonstrates the best biological efficiency in the animal meat category. However,whereas the country has over 39 veterinarycolleges, the development of skills and

Currently, the poultrysector in India is classifiedneither as an agricultural

nor as an industrial sector;an emerging policy issueis the need to recognize

small-holder poultryrearers as agriculturistsand eligible for sector

support and incentives.


33

knowledge has not kept pace with the growth of the industry and there isneed for efficiency at alllevels of the value chain. Thisis a major weakness of thesector in India.

Further, the dominantproduction system is thecommercial high input/highoutput system, dependent onexotic breeds. Traditionalhousehold-level poultryrearing has been gradually marginalized. Theagriculture or industry status of the poultrysector is not consistent across the country,and some states have resorted to taxing evenlive meat. There are differential VATstructures for equipment, ingredients, etc.Formal financial systems are not supportive of investments in this sector. Major threats faced by the sector include disease outbreaks leading to culling of large numbers of poultry, the high cost offeed, the withdrawal of protection todomestic poultry markets while continuingwith the restrictions on the import of feedingredients such as corn and soya.

The 11th Plan document recognized thesignificant contribution of the poultry sector,with the annual growth rate being 10 percent, higher than the overall growth target.Much more than the growth rate ofagriculture, as also the importance ofinstitutional restructuring, support for public-private partnerships and the setting up of producer collectives (similar to the Amul model in milk production), thecorresponding investment in the sector is lessthan 4 per cent of the total investment inanimal husbandry.

There is implicitacknowledgement that thegrowth of the sector is to bedriven by private capital.Against the backdrop oftechnology, infrastructure andcredit constraints, there isincreasing marginalization ofsmall-holders, who arecurrently not a part of therapid growth and advance-ment of the sector. Acomparative assessment ofthe poultry sector with other

animal husbandry sectors such as dairy andfisheries was also made.

Policy development of the sector isconstrained by the lack of data and, in somecases, the availability of distorted data. Indetailing consumer preference patterns, theNSS surveys capture data for meat, fish and eggs—poultry meat is not mentioned as a distinct category. The database for feedand feedstuff is lacking, requiringdependence on USDA estimates. Given thelack of data, the real impact of the sector isunderestimated.

In highlighting what needs to be done toenable the poor to participate in the growthand expansion of the poultry sector, stresswas placed on the need to leverage thecurrent rural-urban divide in consumptionpatterns. Whereas the average eggconsumption in urban India was 100 eggs percapita annually, the corresponding figure for rural India was 15 eggs. Similarly, whereas the per capita consumption of poultry meat in urban areas was 2.1 kgannually, in rural areas, this was 0.15 kg.Since 95 per cent of the poultry meat is sold in wet markets, there are considerable

Almost 75 per cent ofthe non-vegetarian food

consumed in Indiacomes from poultry

produce. Poultryproduction offers the

highest return on capitaland per unit land, anddemonstrates the bestbiological efficiency in

the animal meatcategory.


34

cost implications of servicingan increasing urbanconsumption.

Efforts to develop andexpand rural markets willfacilitate access to the poor.Further, there is need forinstitutional mechanisms toenable pro-poor verticalintegration in the poultryvalue chain and support forcontract/ cooperativefarming, to keep pace withthe shift in the structure andthe operation of the industry.Highlighting that Andhra Pradesh produces afifth of India’s poultry output, the importanceof ensuring the supply of adequate skills,extension services and availability of rawmaterials were emphasized.

It was also highlighted that small-holders cancompete with modern commercial poultrybecause of productivity advantages. There isneed, however, to substantially increasepublic investment, particularly for institutionaldevelopment, to enable small-holdersovercome the high transaction costs they facein securing quality inputs and accessingmarkets.

The creation of a National PoultryDevelopment Board (on the lines of theNational Dairy Development Board and theNational Fisheries Development Board) wasproposed, to facilitate a structured impetus tothe sector, enable public-private partnershipsand leverage the inherent strengths anddynamism of the sector. Other critical needsof the sector are the provision of insuranceand the need to indigenize feed resources,thereby reducing production costs.

It was reiterated that there isurgent need for insurancecover for poultry rearing,‘which required thegovernment to develop aninsurance product targeted atsmall-holders. Poultry rearinghas high initial capital cost,which is difficult for small-holders to arrange. Whereassubsidy is available, it doesnot reduce the urgent needfor credit for the sector.

THE BACKYARD ANDCOMMERCIAL MODELS OF POULTRY

The need to differentiate between backyardpoultry and rural poultry was mentioned. Thebackyard poultry model is a zero-inputmodel, with the birds primarily scavenging for food whereas the rural poultry model issimilar to intensive commercial poultryrearing, scaled down to the individualhousehold level. Participants also felt that small-holders have to be linked to the rapidly expanding poultry market

and should not be confined to backyardpoultry production systems. Scaled-downsystems of commercial poultry, tailored to

There is implicitacknowledgement that

the growth of the sector isto be driven by private

capital. Against thebackdrop of technology,infrastructure and credit

constraints, there isincreasing marginalizationof small-holders, who arecurrently not a part of the

rapid growth andadvancement of the

sector.

Poultry’s Missing VoicePoultry contributes Rs 35,000 crores more

than sugar cane (Rs 25,776 crores) and

equivalent to 70 per cent of the

contribution of the fisheries sector

(Rs 49,891 crores). The absence of strong

farmer lobbying makes this a ‘silent’

sector.


35

the capacity of individualhouseholds would helpsmall-holders link up andbenefit from the rapidgrowth of the sector.

What needs to be done toensure a ‘level playing field’for the poor in the poultrysector was highlighted.Primarily, this is the recognition of thecoexistence and growth of both productionsystems (village-based, small-holderproduction systems and the scale-intensivecommercial systems).

A. SELECT GOOD PRACTICES ON SMALL-HOLDER POULTRY REARINGBastar Integrated Livestock Development Programme Poultry rearing in Bastar is characterized as alow-input/low-output production system,primarily carried out by women. Birds raisedlargely comprise the desi and the Aseel,which is culturally of great significance in the region because of the traditional practiceof cock fighting. Disease, predation and theft result in high losses among young flock. On account of the remotenessof the area, access to extension healthservices, inputs and markets are low.

The Bastar Integrated Livestock DevelopmentProgramme (BILDP) focused on interventionsto reduce and mitigate disease loss amongthe existing poultry flock reared by tribal communities. Rather than introducing a new breed or upgrading the existing breed,programme interventions recognized thepositive traits of desi poultry birds and effortswere made to secure this critical assetthrough the provision of health services at the‘door-step’ of poultry rearers.

BILDP focused on the creationof a cadre of villagefacilitators, trained andequipped to carry out regularvaccination, under theguidance and direction of theAnimal Husbandry Depart-ment. To facilitate and ensurethe quality of vaccines, theproject strengthened the

vaccine cold chain up to the village. Apackage of practices, building on thetraditional knowledge base and practices ofthe community, was documented anddisseminated. This included a range of ethno-veterinary practices based on locally availableherbs, low-cost technologies and improvedhusbandry practices. Key innovationsdocumented and scaled up by theprogramme included the rearing of white antsas protein supplement; the use of bamboo forhousing and low-cost waterers, which led tosignificant reduction in worm infestation; eggcandling to identify fertilized eggs; andvaccination drives such as Pulse Ranikhet.

An evaluation study in 2006 detailed the major impact of the programme,including an increase in income from household-level poultry rearing,averaging Rs 300 a month, a three- to four-fold increase in poultry numbers and the income earned by the trained cadre ofvillage facilitators, which ranged from Rs 500to Rs 1,500 per month.

B. NATIONAL SMALL-HOLDER POULTRYDEVELOPMENT TRUST IN JHARKHANDAND CHHATTISGARHThe National Small-Holder Poultry Develop-ment Trust (NSPDT) has promotedsmall-holder commercial poultry farming withresource-poor communities in Madhya

Poultry rearing has a highinitial capital cost, which isdifficult for small-holders

to arrange. Whereassubsidy is available, itdoes not reduce the

urgent need for credit forthe sector.


36

Pradesh, Jharkhand andChhattisgarh.

Interventions havesuccessfully linked small-holder poultry rearers to theexpanding market for poultrymeat through an institutionalmodel that ensures access toinputs, health services andmarket opportunities. The keyelements of the institutionalmodel include ‘right-sizing’the unit in terms of risk,return and investment for thefarmer, adapting the besttechnology for highperformance, and havingfaith in the abilities of thepoor. Women members oftribal and dalit households arethe key target community.Participating households areorganized into collectives and systems areensured throughout the value chain, toenable competitive production andefficiencies of scale comparable with the bestindustry standards.

Participating households have reported a 75per cent increase in annual income, withresultant investments in land, children’seducation and health. There is significantreduction in distress migration. Poultry rearinghas also contributed to farm-based livelihoodsby creating an income buffer, as alsoproviding manure through poultry litter. Eachof the 18 cooperatives has created 15–20sustainable job opportunities for rural youthas technical supervisors and cooperative staff.

Small-holder poultry rearers raise an averageof 400–700 birds. The unit cost per

household is in the range ofRs 52,500 (Rs 30,000 forcapital assets, Rs 15,000 forworking capital, Rs 2,000 forcapacity building and Rs5,500 for institutionalinfrastructure and externalsupport).

The household is the firstlevel of the institutionalstructure. Income earned is in the range of Rs 75–100 perday. With an average of 200days of work per year, this ensures an annualincome of Rs 15,000 to Rs 20,000. Around 300–400producers organize into acooperative, which is thesecond level of theinstitutional chain. Thecooperative maintains

accounts and is responsible for ensuringsupply of inputs and market linkages.Supervisors are appointed by the cooperativeto support clusters of 30–40 producers. Theaverage turnover for the producercooperatives ranges from Rs 4 to 5 crores.

Based on the experience of NSPDT, howsmall-holder poultry rearing is competitivewas detailed, primarily on account of the useof household labour as compared toemployed/hired labour in large-scalecommercial enterprises. Decentralized smallerunits demonstrate better productionefficiency, and when the opportunity cost oflabour is low and access to inputs are assured,the poultry rearing enterprise is scale-neutral.The institutional model developed byPRADAN detailed the role of eachstakeholder in the value chain.

The key elements of theinstitutional model include

‘right-sizing’ the unit interms of risk, return and

investment for the farmer,adapting the best

technology for highperformance, and havingfaith in the abilities of thepoor. Women members oftribal and dalit households

are the key targetcommunity. Participatinghouseholds are organized

into collectives andsystems are ensuredthroughout the value

chain, to enablecompetitive productionand efficiencies of scale

comparable with the bestindustry standards.


37

C. THE BANGLADESHMODEL

The BRAC model of poultryrearing from Bangladesh is aunique public-privatepartnership initiative. Themodel comprises sevenenterprises—poultryvaccinators, chick rearers, keyrearers, feed sellers, eggcollectors, model breedersand mini hatcheries. Eachenterprise is targeted at economicallydisadvantaged women. Access to key inputssuch as credit, information, skills, appropriatetechnology and market access is ensured.

Poultry vaccinators are identified from amongthe community, based on criteria developedby BRAC. These include married, widowed ordestitute women, who are permanentresidents of the village, with a high level of social acceptability and motivation to work for the community. An initial five-day training is provided, which includesextensive field training sessions onvaccination, de-worming and minor first-aid.Refresher training is convened every month.BRAC provides the vaccination kits andequipment whereas the vaccines are supplied by the district animal husbandryoffice twice a month. Poultry vaccinatorscharge a small fee, ranging from BDT 0.50 to BDT 1 for vaccinating each bird. Often payment is in kind. One poultryvaccinator is appointed for approximately1,500–2,000 birds, and there are currentlyover 19,000 poultry vaccinators across the country. The bird flu outbreak in 2007and 2008 resulted in the culling of a largenumber of birds,

BRAC has, in particular,focused on the promotion ofbio-security measures at thelevel of households rearingsmall poultry flock. BRAC’ssmall-holder poultry rearingmodel has increased theincome for households ateach level of the enterprise.Monthly income increases,ranging from 50 to 60 percent, have been recorded, in addition to an

improvement in household nutrition levels,resulting from the increased availability of eggs and poultry meat. The mini-hatcherytechnique was developed by BRAC. Thetechnology builds on local knowledge, in which heated rice husk is used as artificialincubation to hatch both chicken and duck eggs.

D. KEGGFARMS: SUPPLY CHAIN FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE KUROILER With the objective of reaching out to ruralcommunities and facilitating an improvementin rural livelihoods, Keggfarms developed a dual-purpose village hardy bird, combiningthe adaptability of the desi poultry bird with the improved productivity of exoticbirds. The Kuroiler, as the Keggfarmsdeveloped poultry breed is called, has anannual egg production of 150, as comparedto 40 by the desi bird. Further, the averagebody weight of the male bird is 3.5 kg ascompared to 1 kg for the desi poultry breed. The supply chain promoted byKeggfarms, to facilitate the supply of day-oldchicks (DOCs) in rural areas, comprisesmother units, the owners of which are trainedand equipped to raise DOCs until they arethree weeks old, including providing critical

RLN’s interventions havefocused on reducingmortality through the

provision of vaccinationservices, increasing

hatchability and reducingegg spoilage, intensifyingfeed availability and feed

supplementation, anddeveloping market

networks.


38

vaccinations. These ‘started’birds are then purchased byvillage vendors, who supplythese birds to the poultryrearing households.

Through voluntary inter-dependence, each stake-holdersustains a system thatbenefits all stakeholders inthe supply chain. When thepresentations of select goodpractices from within the South Asian regionconcluded, the Ford Foundation-supportedRain fed Livestock Network (RLN) presentedthe emerging results of its work on thepiloting of backyard poultry rearinginterventions across 13 locations in thecountry. Backyard poultry comprises 52 percent of the total poultry population,contributing 21 per cent to the country’s eggproduction and 8.47 per cent of poultry meatproduction. The distinct features of backyardpoultry are presented as follows.

RLN’s piloting of backyard poultry rearing hasbeen undertaken through partner NGOsacross six states of the country (Rajasthan,Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh,Karnataka and Orissa), working with 2,603households. Interventions commenced with adetailed baseline, mapping key village data,existing numbers of birds and productivityparameters. Key findings from the baselinesurvey in programme villages indicate thathens comprise 26.3 per cent of the totalpoultry population, cocks comprise 17 percent and chicks 56.6 per cent. The averagenumber of hens raised per household is 3.5.The average egg production per clutch is 15,averaging 46 eggs per hen each year. Thepercentage of egg hatchability is 68 per cent.Mortality in chicks is high and recorded at 54

per cent, largely on accountof predation (32.7 per cent)and diseases (21.3 per cent).The contribution of backyardpoultry rearing to householdincome ranges from 2.4 to7.8 percent. RLNsinterventions have focusedon reducing mortalitythrough the provision ofvaccination services,increasing hatchability and

reducing egg spoilage, intensifying feedavailability and feed supplementation, anddeveloping market networks.

Activities related to the provision ofvaccination and health services includedevelopment and dissemination of avaccination calendar, in collaboration with theanimal husbandry department, trainingvillage-level poultry vaccinators and ensuringaccess to equipment such as ice-boxes,syringes and needles. Interventions to reducechick mortality and predation comprisesupport for improved night shelters and thesetting up of chick rearing centres (CRCs),where 10-day-old chicks are reared in anintensive system, ensuring feed andvaccination services. Fifty per cent of thechicks reared at the CRCs are returned to theparticipating households, and 50 per cent areretained by the owner of the CRC as his/herprofit. Similar to interventions under BILDP,egg candling to segregate fertilized eggs hasbeen promoted, and improved husbandrypractices such as feeding white ants,production and feeding of azolla, andintegrating cereals and millets assupplementary feed have also been promoted

The initial learning from the pilotinterventions demonstrates that the

Improved breeds,combining the

characteristics ofdesi/indigenous poultry

breeds with exotic breedshave had limited successon account of the highfeed costs, which makethe production system

unviable.


39

establishment of CRCs hasincreased the number ofclutches per year by breakingthe broodiness of the hens.The number of clutches hasincreased to 6/7 from theinitial 3/4. Intensive rearingin the CRCs has improvedthe weight of chicks and hasreduced mortality. CRCsmust, however operatecontinuously because chicksare available at differenttimes throughout the year. Emerging policyissues from the initial piloting by RLN includerecognition of backyard poultry productionsystems as a viable income opportunity forthe poor, with a clear budget allocation.

This production system must be distinguishedfrom other small-holder poultry productionsystems. Up-scaling backyard poultry rearingshould follow an area-based approach tofacilitate economies of scale. Poultryvaccinators/animal health workers should beaccountable/anchored within the panchayatsystem. To ensure delivery of vaccine services,storage facilities should be made available atthe block/mandal level. Further, vaccinesshould be marketed in smaller quantities, andresearch on development of thermo-stablevaccines particularly for diseases such asNewcastle should be intensified.

POULTRY SECTOR GROWTHPROJECTIONSNSPDT aims at becoming one of the top 10broiler producers in India over the next fiveyears, registering a five-fold growth rate. Itfurther aims at generating over Rs 20 croresof income in the hands of the poor,expanding to new areas in Assam, WestBengal and Bihar, strengthening and furtherbuilding the institutional infrastructure.

The priority need to conservebackyard poultry productionsystems that thrive on ascavenging base washighlighted, as also thequalities of broodiness anddisease resistance found inbackyard poultry productionsystems. Improved breeds,combining the characteristicsof desi/indigenous poultrybreeds with exotic breedshave had limited success on

account of the high feed costs, which makethe production system unviable. Research haslargely focused on commercial poultryproduction and development of improvedbreeds with higher productivity. The keyattributes of desi/indigenous breeds such asbroodiness and disease resistance aregradually dying out, and there is an urgentneed to preserve these.

Other specific comments related to the needfor inclusion of poultry rearing under theDFID-funded Poorest Area Civil SocietyProgramme (PACS) in the Bundelkhand

NSPDT Vision for Community PoultryBy 2020, fifty thousand farmers will produce 200

million live birds annually valued at Rs 15 billion

(Rs 1,500 crores) generating Rs 1 billion (Rs 100

crores) in the hands of the farmers and Rs 200

million (Rs 20 crores) additional income in the

hands of community workers, support and

professional staff. These 50,000 farmers are

organized in 100 primary producer organizations,

making it the largest family poultry initiative in

the world and among the top five broiler producers

in India with the gross turnover, including that of

its associates, being Rs 2,000 crores.

The importance ofelectricity for small-holder

poultry rearing, andspecifically for brooding

and hatching washighlighted, as was the

need to developalternatives such as solarheating and lighting in

view of the limitedavailability of electricity in

rural areas.


40

region of Madhya Pradesh, where animalhusbandry is a key intervention. However,poultry rearing, which is a relevantintervention for the area, is currently not partof the programme. The high investment andcapacity building required for the setting upof viable community institutions, includinghuman resource costs, were mentioned.These costs, which are related to theidentification and placement of committedand qualified staff at the grass roots, are oftennot factored into programmes and budgets,and are often the reason for the failure ofmany well-thought-through schemes forpoverty reduction and livelihoodsenhancement.

POLICY OVERVIEWVarious interventions of the centralgovernment initiated over the 10th and 11thFive Year Plans focused on the developmentof rural poultry rearing. These included thedistribution of subsidized maize to the sectorand a temporary ban on maize export tocontrol prices.

With the objective of increasing the export ofpoultry products, cold storage facilities,pressured air cargo capacity, etc., are beingstrengthened. The Prevention and Control ofInfectious and Contagious Diseases inAnimals Act, enacted in 2009, furtherstrengthens reporting and surveillance. Otherinitiatives include the setting up of a NationalPoultry and Meat Processing Board and aFood Safety and Standards Authority, toensure quality control of veterinary andbiological products; the National Institute of Animal Health has been set up and it isproposed to set up a National Bio-securityNetwork. Building community awareness andfacilitating access to services at the grass rootsis another priority; over 11,000 community

workers have been provided training inartificial insemination.

A National Livestock Policy is in the pipeline;it proposes an integrated approach for thedevelopment of the livestock sector. Some ofthe major gaps in the sector are: 1. Absence of a realistic database of

numbers and productivity 2. Inadequate availability of improved bird

stock (low input technology breeds) 3. Lack of an effective doorstep health

service delivery system 4. Absence of corpus/institutional

financing for technology upgradation 5. Absence of a framework for

implementing standards in the sector 6. Lack of risk mitigation measures for

epidemics and pandemics 7. Inadequate HRD for specialized poultry

operations8. Lack of incentives for exports9. Lack of recognition of poultry as an

agriculture sub-sector in many states.

There is urgent need for systems to constantlymonitor and ensure health coverage to the backyard poultry sector; create andupdate the database of the poultry sectorregularly, using GIS tools, with particularfocus on the vulnerable unorganized sector and live bird markets; developparticipatory epidemiological tools and focus on technology upgradation for small units, to enable them cope better with the impending requirements of bio-security, food safety regulations andmitigation of environmental damage.

Other priority initiatives required urgentlyinclude collaboration and partnership by stategovernments with NGOs and otherinstitutions to upscale government


41

programmes and increase outreach, trainingand human resource development atdifferent levels, and an urgent need todocument progress and field practices(including traditional practices such as the use of rice husk to promote hatchability), to facilitate knowledge sharing. Following the completion of presentations, participantswere invited to share their views on policy recommendations to strengthen small-holder poultry rearing and upscale thisactivity as a viable livelihood opportunity for the rural poor. The recommendations,once compiled, will form the basis of policy dialogue initiatives of SAPPLPP,PRADAN and NSPDT for greater recognitionand support for small-holder poultry rearing as a viable income opportunity forrural communities.

The Central Poultry DevelopmentOrganisation is working on schemes todevelop and conserve germ-plasma focusedon rural poultry. Priority activities are trainingand capacity building of farmers; NGOs andstate government representatives present atthe workshop were requested to widelydisseminate this information and enablefarmers avail the training provided. The needto distinguish between commercial andbackyard/small-holder poultry rearing washighlighted. For small-holder poultry, rearingan area-based approach that would facilitatecollectivization and access to inputs, servicesand markets was stressed.

In view of the high potential of poultryrearing as an income earning opportunity for the rural poor, the need for increasinginvestment for this sector in rain-fed regions of the country was mentioned. The importance of electricity for small-holder poultry rearing, and specifically for

brooding and hatching was highlighted, as was the need to develop alternatives such as solar heating and lighting in view of the limited availability of electricity in rural areas.

The budget of the Animal HusbandryDepartment was Rs 800 crores in the 10th Five Year Plan. For the 12th Five Year Plan, it was increased to Rs 1,200 crores;additionally, a fund request of Rs 3,350 crores is being developed. A major hurdle in utilizing the allocated funds was theabsence of requisitions from the stategovernments, which often did not accountfor even 10 per cent of the total budget. Insuch a scenario, targeting and ensuringbenefits for small-holders is a challenge.

EMERGING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONSFirst and foremost is the recognition of thehuge potential of poultry rearing tohousehold food and nutrition security as alsoa significant poverty reduction/incomeearning opportunity for the poor.1. Improvements in existing programmes

and schemesPrioritize the creation of a ‘decentralized’grass-roots vaccination and health deliverysystem.w Identify, train, recognize and support

poultry vaccinators linked to andworking under the direction of theAnimal Husbandry Department.

w The Animal Husbandry Department canfacilitate access to key vaccines, andensure cold chain maintenance facilitiesup to the point of vaccination.

w Services of poultry vaccinators to be ona cost basis. Good practicesdocumented by SA PPLPP demonstratethat small-holders are willing to pay forpreventive health services for their


42

livestock, provided these services areavailable on a regular and sustainedbasis.

w Regular refresher training to beprovided to the poultry vaccinators.

w Identify, document and promote ofethno-veterinary and improvedmanagement practices, that build onlocal knowledge and tradition. Thesepractices are often low-cost, useequipment and material that are readilyavailable in rural households, and canlead to reduced mortality and improvedhealth and productivity. Some of thesepractices have been documented andcan be accessed from the SA PPLPPwebsite (www.sapplpp.org).

w Promote the packaging of vaccines insmaller doses.

w Build first on poultry assets that thecommunity has or is familiar with.

w Desi/indigenous breeds function wellon a scavenging base, adapt to the localenvironment and should be the startingpoint for any small-holder poultryinitiative.

w Improvements in management andrearing practices can significantlyreduce mortality and improve theproductivity of desi/indigenous breeds,directly contributing to household foodand nutrition needs, as also small butsustained income improvements.Focusing on poultry resources that thecommunity has and reducing mortalitythrough a network of trained villagefacilitators working under the guidanceand direction of the Animal HusbandryDepartment has been effectivelydemonstrated by the BILDP,Government of Chattisgarh.

w Small-holders willing to expand poultryrearing interventions and take this up as

a full-time activity can be supported to‘graduate’ to small-holder poultryproduction models that use improvedbreeds.

w Recognize various small-holder poultrymodels, and enable those poultryrearers who are willing, and have therequired time and resources to invest,to graduate from food security/household nutrition-focused poultrymodels to semi-commercial/commercialpoultry models. Different small-holderpoultry production models could be: (i)low input/low output (primarily therearing of desi/indigenous breeds underbackyard production systems); (ii)moderate inputs/moderate outputs(rearing of improved breeds)—dependence on strong linkages, healthservices and market access; (iii) highinput/high output (small-scale intensivesystems)—need for strong institutionalsystems, high level of dependency onlinkages (health services, feed andmarket access need to be ensured).

w Promote insurance for as low as 10–50bird holdings.

w Promote and upscale the use of poultrylitter for bio-gas generation. Use ofpoultry litter for biogas generation canpotentially reduce the health hazards ofdisposal of poultry litter. For commercialfarms, use of poultry litter for biogasshould be made mandatory.

w Develop norms for ensuring bio-security and cleanliness, particularlyaround commercial farms.

2. Recognize the commercial poultrymodel as a viable model for income-generation for small-holders in ruralareas and provide a facilitating policyand programme environment.

w Support collectivization of small-holders

to achieve economies of scale andmarket access (for example,cooperatives, producer companies,other aggregations).

w Support the establishment of robust andsustainable institutional models throughthese collectives (by governmental ornon-governmental promoting agencies)that ensure the supply of critical inputs(DOCs, veterinary support, includingvaccination, feed mix and feed,production supervision andmonitoring,); facilitate and enablemarket linkages; and absorb price risks.

w Recognize need for human resourcesand capital infusion into thesecollectives and provide appropriateprovisions in programming.

w Design and promote a bankable schemefor small-holder poultry rearers(techno-managerial model for small-holders).

3. Veterinary education and researchpriorities.

w The small-holder poultry sector hasbeen adversely affected by humanresources/skills gap. The veterinarycourse curriculum should include small-holder production and rearing systemsrather than the current priority, which isfocused largely on large ruminants andcommercial production systems. Thegraduate veterinary course curriculumshould have electives with specializedcourses on poultry production thatstudents can opt for.

w As has been demonstrated by aresearch study by the School ofExtension and Development Studies,Indira Gandhi National Open University,the number of graduate veterinarydoctors is much lower than what thesector requires (as per the study,

whereas India needs 72,000 graduateveterinary doctors, the currentavailability is 43,000. However, there isa surplus availability of post-graduatedoctors. The study also highlighted theneed to set up polytechnics forveterinary education based on therequirement of technicians at the grass-root level).

w In view of the growth of the poultrysector, the establishment of veterinaryITIs (as has been done in AndhraPradesh) should be considered. Thiswould increase the number of veterinarytechnicians at the grass-roots.

w Research priorities should focus on theemerging needs of the sector, forexample, the development of thermo-stable vaccines and area-specific feedformulations based on locally growncrops.

w The government should play a morepro-active role in promoting/makingavailable technology to improve theavailability of laying stock. Currently,most research programmes in this areaare led and implemented by the privatesector.

w There is need to bring more rigour andcontent in the data, to capture thepotential and the current strength ofthe poultry sector. NSSO shouldseparately detail consumption ofpoultry meat and obtain information onnumbers of poultry rearers, and notonly list those engaged in this activityfor more than 180 days.

4. Conservation of indigenous poultryBreeds.

w In collaboration with NGOs and otherrelevant institutes, NBAGR shouldundertake a mapping of the status andnumbers of indigenous poultry breeds


43

across the country. Schemes should bedesigned to promote the rearing ofindigenous breeds relevant for differentregions.

w Farmers rearing indigenous poultrybreeds should be recognized andsupported by way of access to healthand vaccination services, feed andmarket support. Conservation ofindigenous poultry breeds should be viewed as a public good andsupported.

w Marketing networks to promoteindigenous poultry products (eggs andmeat) should be developed to enable

urban consumers to access theseproducts.

5. In the budget proposal for the 12th FiveYear Plan, to be submitted by theDepartment of Animal Husbandry,ensure a specific allocation for small-holder poultry rearing.

6. The poultry sub-sector should beclassified as an agriculture sector,eligible for appropriate benefits andtaxation structures. Linked with this isthe recognition of poultry cooperativeson par with agriculture, dairy andfisheries cooperatives and, therefore,eligible for reduced taxation norms.


44

KPS has emerged as amodel of a people-owned andpeople-centricorganization, the likesof which civil societyorganizations in thecountry havecontinuously tried topromote and establish.At present, KPS hasmore than 600 ownerproducers, who have anassured source of stableincome. This stableincome has led to manypositive changes in thelife of the poor tribalwomen in thesevillages.

Pradan is a voluntary organization registered in Delhi underthe Societies Registration Act. Pradan’s work through smallteams of professionals in selected villages across eight states.The focus of Pradan’s work is to promote and strengthenlivelihoods for the rural poor. It involves organizing the poor,enhancing their capabilities, introducing ways to improve theirincome and linking them to banks, markets and other economicservices. The professionals work directly with the poor, usingtheir knowledge and skills to help remove poverty. NewsReach,Pradan’s monthly journal is a forum for sharing the thoughtsand experiences of these professionals working in remote andfar-flung areas in the field. NewsReach helps them to reachout and connect with each other, the development fraternityand the outside world.

NewsReach is published by the National Resource Centre forRural Livelihoods, housed in the Pradan Research andResource Centre.

PRADAN, E-1/A, Ground Floor, Kailash Colony, New Delhi - 110048 Tel/Fax: 011 40407700/29248831-32 E-mail: [email protected]

AGA KHAN FOUNDATION

Supported by the Aga Khan Foundation through the European Union co- financed SCALE Programme

Documents

THE LIVELIHOODS AND DEVELOPMENT MONTHLY