PKSF

Executive Summary

Moderate and hardcore poor of southwest and northeast of Bangladesh constituted the target group of the MFTS project. Women made up more than 95% of the project beneficiaries. The project was implemented through 170 branches of 24 NGOs/MFIs (POs of PKSF) in 97 Upazilas (sub-districts) spread over 13 districts. It mainly channeled micro-credit to the targeted poor through PKSF via selected POs of PKSF and trained them on IGAs with an emphasis on poultry and livestock.

MFTS project had an implementation period of seven years, which ended on 31 December 2010. The goal of the project is to improve livelihoods and food security of moderate and hardcore poor and to empower women. Its objectives are i) to support and facilitate adoption of sustainable income generating activities and improved livestock technologies by the moderate and hardcore poor and ii) the acquisition of livestock knowledge by PKSF and its POs.

 As of 31 December 2010 the project reached out to 237,336 poor (net of dropout) households and the total number of end borrowers stood at 171,723. Approximately, 95 per cent of the end borrowers were women. Most poor borrowers received loans multiple rounds from the participating POs. As of 31 December, 2010 PKSF wholesaled a cumulative loan amount of BDT 2,342.80 million to 24 POs, while in their turn POs provided a cumulative loan amount of BDT 13,750.80 million to end borrowers by revolving loan fund received from PKSF and savings mobilized from the end borrowers. In terms of loan disbursement and recovery, the project performed exceedingly well. The loan recovery rate from POs to PKSF remained more than 99% and from end borrowers to POs around 97%.

The project trained 182,939 project participants on general livestock; 2,874 project participants on specialized livestock and 91,780 project participants on social development. The general livestock trainings were mainly on chick rearing, poultry keeping, feed selling, goat keeping, cow rearing, beef fattening, duck keeping, duckling rearing, broiler farming, layer farming and buck rearing. The specialized livestock training included customized training for parent breeder, poultry worker on mini hatchery, dairy management, milk quality-testing, artificial insemination etc. Issues covered in social development training were sanitation, nutrition, dowry, child marriage etc. In addition, the project funded a six-month long intensive training for 27 community livestock extension workers at a public veterinary training institute. The project trained more than 3,633 juniors, mid-level, and senior staff from POs on managerial and livestock related issues. Another 395 staff from POs attended follow-up training. In addition, the project funded 141 persons (mostly from PKSF and government agencies) to attend relevant foreign training, seminars and study tour (some PKSF staff attended more than once). Empirical evidence suggests that training made a positive impact in increasing production and income of the project beneficiaries.

The project extended improved animal husbandry technologies and practices that are tested, proven and pro-poor. Adoption of most of these improved technologies required relatively small amounts of investment with potentials of incremental rather than dramatic gains and they entail high to moderate levels of risks. The project also funded 22 research proposals that dealt with issues relevant to poultry and livestock rearing, impact of training on beneficiaries etc.

 The project was extremely cost effective. It cost only US$ 21.20 per beneficiary over a period of seven years. This was possible mainly because of capitalizing on experiences and resources of PKSF partners and the approach taken to utilize local resources and expertise and share project resources with others e.g. leveraging project resources with DLS to produce better livestock services for the targeted poor.  Impact of the seven-year long project had been diversified and at multiple levels. At the level of project beneficiaries it impacted on by bringing about a number of behavioral changes. A few examples are developing a habit of making regular savings that provide them with cushion at times of shocks and stress, vaccinating and de-worming poultry and livestock, improved feeding and maintaining cleanliness of places, where livestock are housed. Changes in the systems that can largely be attributed to the project are introduction of a couple of improved poultry breeds namely, Sonali and Fayoumi in backyard poultry keeping systems in project areas, better integration of small-scale producers with markets and functional linkages with public sector service provider namely, DLS. An improvement in supply systems of day-old-chicks, poultry feed, vaccines, improved semen can also be attributed to the project. These changes brought significant tangible benefits to the project participants by reducing morbidity and mortality of poultry and livestock, increasing productivity leading to increased consumption, sales and income and improved food security. However, a significant portion of economic gains made by the participants was eroded by events such as super cyclone SIDR, outbreaks of Avian Influenza and Anthrax. The social impact of the project had been in empowering women and is manifested by increased mobility of and participation in family decision making by women and their greater control over revenues from project-supported IGAs.

At PO level the project significantly contributed in building capacity of livestock programming by developing human resources and letting them gain/enrich experience of implementing small-scale livestock development programs. It also helped them to develop linkages with DLS and private sector input suppliers. By implementing the project PKSF did not only gain experience of funding and overseeing poverty alleviating livestock programming but also established linkages with other key public sector players namely, DLS, BLRI, CVASU, BAU etc.

An impact study conducted in 2006 reported significant increases over the baseline in livestock ownership, number of livestock producers and sellers, improvement in water supply, hygiene and food security among the randomly selected project participants. Another study conducted in 2009 revealed an increase of 24 grams in food consumption per capita per day among the members of the sample respondent households. Before participating in the project per capita per day food consumption was 1106 grams, which increased to 1130 grams. The study also reported significant increase in utilization of labor in poultry and livestock enterprises and attributed development of some related private businesses in the supply chains.    

A few key learning from the project include the following:

Increased participation of hardcore poor in microfinance programs calls for more flexible credit and savings systems and placing programs in areas where incidence of extreme poverty is higher such as economically backward and remote geographic areas with week paved road communication systems and limited accessibility to local growth centers. In order to make training more effective there is a need for striking a balance between classroom lectures by technical specialists and training at field level by peers. Given low educational level of trainees extra care is needed in selecting trainers and avoiding one way lecture method. Production and market risks associated with chick rearing, boiler and layer production are quite high. Therefore, developing and putting in place appropriate risk mitigation measures (such as insurance) is important. Improved poultry keeping at the backyard does not provide the pathway to graduate out of poverty. Sustainable livelihoods call for combining poultry keeping with other remunerative IGAs at household level. Chick rearing, boiler and layer production, if undertaken at a viable scale (700-800 birds) has potentials to be a major source of livelihoods for a rural family of average size. Maximizing and sustaining gains from projects like MFTS calls for working simultaneously at policy level. Inadequate supply of poultry vaccines or unusually high prices of processed poultry feed or severely understaffed mainstream livestock services limit the chances of sustaining gains made at household level in project mode. Evidence-based advocacy with appropriate government agencies either for more public sector investment and/or removing policy constraints that restrict private sector investors to adequately invest in vaccine and feed production and distribution is of great significance.