Summary – Global Livestock Review

• Please find here the summary of yesterday’s (Day 2: 24 March) discussions following the Global Review Presentations.

  Download the file below, and read this before you proceed to the next session. We hope it is clear.

  Download the document, here: Summary doc 3 – Global Livestock Review

  The following text is in the document

  Summary of Global Livestock Review Comments 

  1. Animal Source Foods and Human Nutrition by Isabelle Baltenweck
  

  a)    What new activities to consider?
  With whom should we partner: Consider alliance with CGIAR crop centres, since ASFs are promoted as part of a complete diet, and as part of a shared food and nutrition security R4D agenda.
  Mine existing data first. Before doing more data collection, use existing data to assess how ASF consumption varies by region, rural/urban, income class and intra-household. This should describe the nutrient gaps for specific target groups and the degree to which ASF would be nutritionally and economically strategic in addressing those gaps. Appropriate data for this include Demographic Health Surveys (DHS) and the national Consumption & Expenditure Surveys. WUR has contacted ILRI for a similar work, focusing on ‘Patterns of Change in Dairy Production and Consumption in Developing Countries’.
  Understand how ASFs are prepared, and how this varies nutrient content

  b)    Livestock production by the poor and meat consumption for the rich
  This statement generated lots of comments. Reality is more complex. The poor produce for the rich and the rich produce for the poor in different cases. Rural chickens produced by the poor are sold to the rich for higher prices while mass produced broilers produced by the rich are affordable for the poor. This varies by commodity. To increase ASF consumption, focus on dairy and chickens for these are daily produced in small quantities and in the reach of the poor. Consider also other value chain actors besides farmers. In the fish value chains, poor retailers and other actors are employed.
  For non-producing households, we need to increase availability, affordability, and quality of what is sold in local wet markets. Some cuts reach the rich, others reach the poor. We must better understand the post farm dynamics of value chain, who consumes what, and through which channels. In Egypt, promotion of farmed fish consumption would improve the nutrition of the poor.

  c)    Livestock and Fish nutrition strategy:
  We need a nutrition strategy. It is a complex issue that requires a broader research agenda that goes beyond supply. A strategy would articulate the importance of ASFs as part of a healthy diet.
  We must define research questions that explore how different approaches combine to increase access to animal source foods. A strategy should articulate how technology flagships would contribute to a nutrition agenda beyond productivity, to include food safety and action within social relations. This is relevant for both gender accommodative and gender transformative work.

  d)    Where should Livestock and Fish focus: ASF availability or accessibility
  Should we focus on increasing ASF availability (increased productivity, reduced losses etc.) or on ASF accessibility (ensuring low prices through short chains, better marketing channels, policy etc.)?
  •    We are better positioned to increased availability, because there are too many external influences on accessibility.
  •    To have impact on either, we need to engage the interplay of external factors beyond our control. We have a role to play in catalysing action through productive partnerships and stakeholder platforms.
  •    We should do both as increasing productivity would also lower prices, and therefore could improve accessibility.

  2. Animal and fish agriculture, livelihoods and market opportunities by Shirley Tarawali
  
  There were 13 comments on this presentation, with most focused around issues of ‘who is demanding/consuming more livestock and fish?’ and especially ‘who benefits?’

  a.    A common narrative that makes the case
  There is a compelling narrative in terms of increased demand for livestock and fish in developing countries, whilst recognising that for different commodities the future trajectories (and thus opportunities that may be addressed by research for development) may look very different in diverse regions, countries and economies (and within countries too).

  b.    Who is driving the demand?
  A recognition that in order to focus our research for development agenda, we may need to articulate greater understanding of the opportunities and challenges that differ for consumers or producers, which may indeed play out differently depending on the commodity and scenario.  A key demand driver is of course income which in many countries means more middle class citizens and can present a potential threat the affordability of animal-source foods for the poor.  A phenomenon already observed in SSA for fish.

  c.    Who benefits?
  There are a number of issues to consider in terms of who to target and how they’ll benefit from the growth in demand for animal source foods.  And that benefits themselves are also varied from more affordable and available animal source foods to greater income and purchasing power.
  It is also important to recognize that beyond distinguishing producers and consumers within which there is already considerable diversity, there are also a host of other value chain actors who may benefit or lose out – women, men, youth with varying capacities and access to resources.  Approaches thus need to take account of the diversity of potential beneficiaries and impacts on their livelihoods.  Combining such in relation to different scenarios and trajectories may help to both target as well as draw lessons in the future.  There is some consensus that smallholders – especially in the case of livestock are certainly important at present.

  d.    A bigger agenda
  Considering potential trajectories for the future of livestock and fish production and marketing systems can be a useful construct to distinguish different approaches, which may include those currently not in the CRP agenda such as the dryland pastoral systems, where in some cases the focus would be on resilience rather than ‘sustainable intensification’.   Certainly we also need to give more thought to how we could articulate trajectories for the aquaculture sector, which already had different development pathways emerging in Asia and Africa.
  One further dimension  of a ‘bigger agenda’ would be to include addressing how to minimize losses.

  3. Livestock Fish and Social Equity by Maureen Miruka
  

  The presentation highlighted key issues on gender as a social inequity, women being the largest population of the poor – 70% and being the majority of livestock keepers. Men, women, youth and the poor have differentiated needs and interests. Women are custodians of knowledge and technology that is key in technology development and adoption. Poor smallholders are faced with various gender and social inequities that inhibit their full participation in livestock and fish value chains, largely due to underlying norms, institutions and traditions. It highlighted CAREs ‘Agency, Structures and Relations’ Women’s Empowerment Framework and key areas of consideration for L&F on gender and social inequities. The discussion highlighted the following areas:

  The agency structures and relations model:
  The CARE agency, structures and relations model presented is all encompassing as a women’s empowerment framework; the interplay between one’s own agency, social structures and relationships can indeed promote or hinder empowerment. Although there was little mention of the gender continuum, the CARE framework sits very much in the transformative area where it engages with the ‘structure’, i.e. the norms and attitudes and the institutions as these would represent some of the underlying causes. And that it is a great framework and might help L&F to better explain others what we mean when we talk about a transformative approach.
  Entrenched gender norms, traditions and religious beliefs are difficult to change and are context specific. Gender norms are socially constructed and not biological, and differ from one context to the other. Dialogue towards change must enter and exist through social structures and the relationships that govern them. Community leaders and gate keepers, male actors, alternative sources of power are actors that endorse cultural norms and sanction those who break them. CARE work in Bangladesh highlighted female service providers and engagement of men and boys.  Media is as role modelling change agent (positive deviance). Female service providers/extension agents are an important way of inclusion but very context and enterprise specific.

  Areas of gender and social inequity focus for Livestock and Fish
  •    Social dynamics of power is a focal area under empowerment programming.  Research within these power relationships tests different forms of engagement. We need to assure better participation in our research and action through engagement with the poor to determine what works for achieving the program’s vision.
  •    Empowering interventions: It is important for L&F research to be system and context specific. L&F falls short in impact assessment and fails to capture how interventions work, how change happens and the long duration required for systemic and attitudinal change.
  •    Choice of enterprise is important: small ruminants – those value chains where women can participate and benefit. Example of goat as a high value enterprise.
  •    Partnerships: Further discussions with CARE since CARE is so present in the L&F VC countries
  •    Focus on value chain approach and other niches in VC where women have comparative advantage beyond being producers.

  Ongoing Livestock and Fish work on gender transformative approaches:

  Work is going on in VCs, to analysis gender inequity, and to use gender sensitive monitoring tools for implementation. The L&F gender strategy includes transformative approaches in terms of empowerment, engaging social media for social change, studies & publications on gender-based perceptions of livestock and gender transformative approaches, women’s empowerment in livestock index, partners’ capacities and a framework to address policy issues.
  More information on other social inequities, ToC and gender continuum and how gender issues relevant to L&F work may differ between different socio-cultural contexts (Africa and Asia)

  Food for thought:

  Empowerment is still a vague concept and goes beyond the individual where most current work is focused. Evidence shows that empowerment is not a linear progression towards an end goal but a complex path of ups and downs that vary within context, individual life circumstances etc. How can we generalise?
  Some quantitative approaches to measuring empowerment rely on a set of indicators that are decided a priori and irrespective of the local context. How do we deal with this clash between universal indicators and the individual nature of empowerment? Who has the power to decide what empowerment means and what each of us needs to do to be empowered?

  4. Livestock and Fish – and the Environment by Mats Lannerstad

  In total this topic attracted 31 comments. The links between environment and natural resources are complex and can be viewed from many perspectives. Therefore, the online discussion is summarized under a number of headings. The presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhoqkGvYUV0

  Our response to Livestock’s Long Shadow and other critics
  How can L&F give a robust and clear message to those criticizing livestock and fish production for always having a negative impact on the environment? Should L&F set our own goals and indicators that we want to reach? It was suggested that we can frame our work around some major specified challenges, like “halving the GHGs from ASF production” in less developed countries the coming 10 years. However, the CG system already has SLOs, IDOs, and sub-IDOs, so one option would be to work with these goals, and highlight livestock.
  In general, L&F production is using large amounts of natural resources, and is impacting the environment. We could highlight a science based approach towards more sustainable production, something that is relatively better. Considering the “Fish and livestock revolution” it is difficult to promise a change in absolute terms. Livestock and fish can be portrayed as a positive force to regenerate landscape health, or as a vital component of the biodiversity of agro-ecological landscapes. The presentation lacked a positive angle. This is symptomatic of defensiveness. We could instead positively lead discussion as an “honest broker”

  Assessments of Environmental Impacts and Natural Resources
  The move from single indicators to multiple-currency environmental and natural resources assessments was well received by several participants. We should link environmental indicators to socio-economic dimensions, such as income, equity and gender.
  Going beyond the carrying capacity, links to recent discussions around “Planetary Boundaries”. How can we position L&F production in relation to these boundaries?

  Competition for Feed and Natural Resources and Efficiency in Livestock and Fish production
  How can we place livestock and fish production in relation to natural resources use for feeds of various quality levels? There is growing competition between L&F production and human “vegetarian” food consumption. This affects ruminant, monogastrates and fish. Can we focus on using less valuable, non-human-edible biomass? If we promote “better” animals, e.g. small versus large dairy cattle, we can show that “more can be produced, with less”. Genetics and health scientists observe a difference between assessing animal individually and at system level. In a developing context, it is necessary to take other factors into account, such as high mortality rates, high age first calving, etc.
  Environment along the VC
  We need to improve environmental monitoring in VCs. Addressing waste and losses is important.

  5. Livestock and Fish Production and Productivity by Ewa Wredle
  

  Discussion focused mainly on two topics; research vs extension/development and genomics and phenotyping.
  To cut the world into science and development/extension is too simplistic. We have not yet reached an agreement where science should go to and when development partners should take over. That is, where does research stop and development start? There is a role for overlap between research and extension, and Farmer Participatory Research is a perfect tool. We have a gap in L&F to transform research into innovation systems. If we want to create impact, the research topic and questions should be identified in collaboration with farmers, extension workers and other actors in the value chain.

  Breeding was discussed and it seems unlikely to replace phenotyping for a long time. Data gathering is still crucial and we should put the mobile revolution at the centre of data collection and knowledge dissemination. Do we put too much emphasize on techniques as genomics? Probably not within L&F. For sure not all of us have heard from the various stakeholders (on low-input livestock production systems that using genomics is to replace pedigree recording.