|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Partly in response to Seamus Cleary's contribution on pastoralism, I'd like to offer some experiences related to growth, trade and opportunity from an ongoing, regional project focusing on policy and institutional change in the livestock sub-sector in seven Horn of Africa/east Africa countries. This work has been funded by DFID since 2000 and was based on experiences with community-based animal healthcare at field-level since the early 1990s, largely funded by USAID. Before summarising a few key experiences, a couple of general points about livestock, growth and poverty might be useful. First, in arid and semi-arid regions livestock are often the key economic and social asset of rural communities, and options for non-livestock related agricultural activities may be limited. Second, if the predictions of IFPRI and partners are correct, the 'Livestock Revolution' affords considerable opportunities for livestock producers in Africa (and elsewhere) to respond to the growing demand for livestock products in other developing regions (e.g. southeast Asia). With these thoughts in mind, the DFID project with the African Union/Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU/IBAR) has been working in the following areas: Policy and institutional change to enable community-based services - during the 1990s there was an increasing body of evidence to show that the provision of basic veterinary care via community-based animal health workers (CAHWs) had dramatic impact on human livelihoods, particularly in pastoral and agropastoral communities. Furthermore, people were willing to pay for basic services, suggesting that privatised systems might be appropriate. However, a key constraint was that in many countries CAHWs were illegal and often feared by the veterinary establishment. Since 2000, we've worked at national and international levels to change policies and laws to enable veterinary-supervised and privatised CAHW systems. Legislative reform has been achieved in Ethiopia, and is in progress in Kenya, Tanzania and the Sudan. At the global level, the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) set the standards for veterinary services under the WTO/SPS Agreement and as detailed in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. We've been working with the OIE to broaden the standards to include various types of 'veterinary para-professional', such as CAHWs. These changes will be presented to the 164 OIE member states for endorsement at the OIE general assembly next month. A key lesson is that is possible to change national and global policies and rules to support community-based services, and that such change can be achieved with highly conservative partners relatively quickly and with modest funding. Of course, there is much more work to be done to ensure that policies result in action and that improved animal health benefits are fully captured e.g. through better livestock marketing. Rethinking the global standards on animal health in relation to international trade - at present the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code is based on the principle of disease eradication from countries or geographical zones, and a focus on 15 'List A' transboundary epidemic livestock diseases with major economic or human health implications. 12 out of 15 List A diseases are found in Africa and some of them are found only in Africa. According to the OIE Code, African countries have been attempting to eradicate List A diseases for decades, and with considerable donor investment, much progress has been achieved with regards the eradication of rinderpest. However, other major diseases persist and technical and financial constraints strongly indicate that the eradication of other diseases may not possible. In this scenario, African livestock producers will remain largely isolated from international trade and the opportunities of the Livestock Revolution. During the last year AU/IBAR has been exploring the feasibility of commodity-based approaches to international health standards for trade in livestock and livestock products. For example, it is possible to export meat from areas with endemic foot and mouth disease if the meat is processed in order to achieve 'acceptable risk' of transferring FMD virus. We believe that commodity-based approaches are an appropriate alternative to disease eradication, but could still be science-based and apply to both developed and developing countries. We are currently exploring options for promoting greater understanding of commodity-based trade in the relevant standard setting agencies, ultimately leading to revision of international standards. Linked to this work is developing the capacity of AU/IBAR to advice regional economic grouping and member states on a wider range of trade constraints, including the behaviour of trans-national companies and private sector standards. Finally, I would like to share some of our experiences with farmer organisations, pastoral associations and similar groups. I very much agree with Christie Peacock's views on the value of farmer organisations at a political level and for enhancing local representation in policy reform processes (e.g. policies for improved veterinary services). I also agree with Dick Tinsley' concerns regarding the provision of services by farmer organisations. We've commissioned research in pastoral areas of Kenya to compare the economic viability of four different models of veterinary service delivery. The most economically feasible approach in marginalised areas is a private clinic or pharmacy owned and run by an animal health assistant or technician (diploma holder) and linked to a network of CAHWs. Such a system is regulated and inspected by government veterinarians. In contrast, the use of farmer/pastoralist groups to deliver basic animal healthcare on a sustainable basis is constrained by a myriad of management problems, often compounded by subsidies from development projects. Despite the economic realities of running small businesses, it's interesting to note that the 'pastoral association' model of veterinary service delivery retains considerable popularity among some donors despite the limited empirical evidence to support the approach. Andy Catley Institutions and Policies Support Team African Union/Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources PO Box 30786, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya tel: +254 2 226447 fax: +254 2 212289 e-mail: <address removed> website: <http://www.cape-ibar.org/> http://www.cape-ibar.org
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.