Name country

Opinion: Unsung heroes by Anil Gupta

Senegal

Update from ILEIA by ILEIA

US

Report from the Nyéléni Pan-European Forum for Food Sovereignty by Madeleine Florin

The post Magazine title | July 2016 appeared first on Ileia.

Dialogue amongst the different members of The Food Sovereignty Alliance, India resulted in co-creating knowledge, strategies and actions to strengthen our food sovereignty and cope with climate change. The Food Sovereignty Alliance, India works to reclaim and democratise local community control over food and agriculture systems . Members of our alliance include organised groups of Dalit people, Adivasis, small and marginal farmers, pastoralists, and co-producers. The co-producers are a political constituency of the alliance, who may not be directly engaged with food production themselves, but work in solidarity with the Alliance. Co-creating knowledge is a key element in our movement through which innovative and creative solutions emerge. I share one such example through this article in which, through co-creation of knowledge, we developed our own way of assessing the impacts of climate change and strengthening our coping strategies in our villages.

Rejecting top-down solutions

The establishment of REDD/ REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation programme), in 2010, as a key strategy to combat climate change, has been applauded by world leaders. In practice, REDD entails sinking carbon in standing stocks of trees, and raising new plantations, often on indigenous territories. From previous such models of carbon trade that had been tested in their territories, indigenous peoples were aware of how such policies and programs alienated Adivasis from their territories and forests. They had been forced to relinquish customary practices and forest governance, undermining indigenous resilience and climate coping strategies and threatening local food sovereignty.

An indigenous alternative

In 2010, Adivasi Aikya Vedika, a member of the Food Sovereignty Alliance, was invited by the Indigenous Peoples Biocultural Climate Change Assessment (IPCCA), to join a global initiative of indigenous peoples to assess climate change impacts and also to develop indigenous peoples’ response strategies to extreme climatic events drawing from their knowledge, experience, wisdom and worldviews. The Adivasi community became deeply involved in identifying a framework of enquiry to facilitate local assessments of climatic impacts and response strategies. Intense dialogue amongst the different Adivasi communities and co-producers resulted in the idea of reconnecting with the indigenous rhythm of life or ‘life cycle’. This life cycle is a representation of how the community members live their lives, based on the Adivasi worldview. It describes their relationship to their territories, seasons, food, forests, and the cultural cycles of life, in time and space.

In the course of one of the dialogues, at a meeting of Adivasi elders and youth, different groups were busy drawing their communities’ life cycles on paper and we realised that this life cycle was in fact a lived, dynamic, indigenous epistemology that could be used by communities to assess and record the impacts of climate change in their indigenous territories and on their lives. There was tremendous excitement. Young people from the community took the lead in creating a collective vision of their communities’ cycle of life. They began working with both male and female elders of the community recording their narratives and memories in spoken word, art, poetry, stories or songs. They translated all of this onto paper and on their walls. There was unanimous consensus of a circular representation of the life cycle.

In the case of some of the indigenous communities there existed another layer of information of ‘how it was 70-80 years ago’, which came from existing literature. For instance, books about Gonds the Chenchus and the Konda Reddis, include intricate descriptions of people’s lives, centred around their relationship to their territories and seasonal cycles. This was used by the community as additional information about climatic events on the life cycle.

The life cycle in action

After illustrating the cycle as ‘we know it is’, according to the communities’ experience, the young folks of the community began to use the life cycle to assess in real time, the trends each year. This was done by recording what was happening in the present and comparing it with established life cycles. They compared the flowering and fruiting of trees, the appearance or not of birds and insects, the onset or delay of weather patterns, and sowing and harvesting cycles. They also used the life cycle to identify forces that threaten or strengthen indigenous resilience. Most significantly what emerged was that villages with strong functioning village councils were far more resilient than villages with poorly functioning village councils. For instance, village councils which had rejected plantations showed higher diversity of food crops and thus resilience to climatic changes, than villages where individual families were persuaded to replace food crops with plantations on their lands.

They used the life cycle to identify forces that threaten or strengthen indigenous resilience

The life cycles illustrate the resilience of communities in the face of climatic variability. For instance, in 2012, the Savara community of Bondiguda village recorded how in the month of Lologain (approximately, the month of May), the usual season to sow diverse food crops, rains were scarce (see Savara Adivasi Life cycle illustration above). Around the same time, the community recorded how the forest department tried to convince, and in many instances force, the community to raise tree plantations on their food crop lands, saying this would bring both money and rains. The constant refrain of the forest department is that growing trees will bring more rain. Discussions in the village revealed that despite the scarce rains and the pressures of the forest department, the village residents preferred not to establish tree plantations on agricultural land and instead continued to grow food. This continued planting ensured that there was food for the year, and seeds for the future. In this case, the life cycle exercise also made visible communities’ commitment to autonomous food production despite external pressures to use the land for other purposes.

The life cycle approach not only continues to be used by the Adivasi communities to develop the idea, but it has also been adopted in other territories. It has proven to be an extremely effective approach for a number of reasons. It readily captured impacts of climate change, but this was just the first step of the process. The life cycles have been a critical tool for communities to discuss their own lives and situations. They have been a means for the communities to understand their own resilience and to share their innovative adaptation strategies with each other.

The life cycle exercise also made visible communities’ commitment to autonomous food production despite external pressures to use the land for other purposes

They help communities to actively assert their knowledge and strategies in the wake of climate change, offering concrete proposals that build indigenous resilience as well as mitigate the effects of climate change. In other instances it also stimulated intense discussions on steps to be taken by the community to halt and prevent the entry of mining, dam and plantation projects.

Road ahead

A major challenge continues to be state and global policies that refuse to recognise these indigenous approaches and epistemologies as valid. States are still determined to push false carbon trade arrangements, such as REDD/REDD+ as the solution to climate change, despite evidence of another way forward based on Adivasi peoples worldviews and life practice. However, through the life cycles, communities are increasingly able to confidentally reject the government’s climate change proposals.

Dr Sagari R Ramdas

Dr Sagari R Ramdas (sagari.ramdas@gmail.com) is a veterinary scientist, a member of the Food Sovereignty Alliance, India, and is learning to be a farmer.

The post Life cycles: Climate change seen through indigenous worldviews appeared first on Ileia.

This is the 21st century of exploitation, pollution and encroachment of water resources. Meeting challenges has always been a huge part of my life. When I went to Alwar, this semi-arid area was unhealthy and impoverished. The aquifers were completely dry. We started conserving the rainwater so that it wouldn’t evaporate or flow away and be wasted.

Using traditional wisdom we built johads (small dams) to recharge the underground aquifers. And because of that wisdom and those efforts, the area became fertile, prosperous and dead rivers came to life again. And those who had abandoned their villages came back again. The unique part of the whole process was the active community participation, which gives the community a sense of ownership over the assets they have created.

What now?

World peace is only possible when everyone gets clean and pure drinking water. Water resource conservation and management will continue to be a climate change adaptation strategy for people living with rainfall variability, both for domestic supply and to enhance crop, livestock and other forms of agriculture.

Decreasing water poverty by increasing water productivity will be key for the coming era. Demand-side control of water resources is urgent for sustainable supply-side management.

We are launching World Water Walks along the rivers and lakes of five continents over the next five years. The walks aim to connect local communities to their water and secure their water rights. Walk themes and ‘outdoor classrooms’ will provide the opportunity to ask questions and to understand the complexity around water issues.

Can reviving the flow of water in landscapes reduce the inequalities that face the world and ensure a more peaceful era for the planet? Do world spiritual traditions and the importance of water in them have a resonance and some teachings for us in this modern age? And, what can we learn from local communities which have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with the environment for millennia?

Water resource conservation will continue to be a climate change adaptation strategy

The first of a series of walks was from Holy Island of Lindisfarne to Belford in the UK. The walkers, local community members, politicians and church leaders as well as an international contingent, participated in a powerful discussion on water and climate change.

Walks are already scheduled in Sweden, the USA and Germany and by 2016 water walks in all participating countries will be organised.

Rajendra Singh

Rajendra Singh is the chairman of Tarun Bharat Sangh, an organisation working for holistic development of all, regardless of economic situation, caste or religion in India. He also heads a national network of organisations working on water issues, Rashtriya Jal Biradari, working for restoration of all mighty and small rivers of India.
Email: jalpurushtbs@gmail.com

The post From water wars to world peace appeared first on Ileia.

Fodder makes up 70 percent of livestock inputs and is crucial to the livelihood of poor livestock-keepers in most developing countries. However, several factors continue to threaten its supply. Most livestock-keepers depend on agricultural crop residues and grass provided by the grazing of common or fallow land supplemented by cultivated grasses. But most crops are rain-fed and can’t be relied on. In addition, shifts in crop type and variety tend to reduce the availability of feed, as does encroachment from other land uses. Over-grazing often leads to the degradation of grazing ground, and to make matters worse, a consistent push to develop crossbred animals that are more productive but input-intensive, has accelerated the problem.

Shifts in perspective

The traditional solution to these challenges has always been to promote the cultivation of fodder that is nutritionally beneficial, thus increasing yields. Governments have supported this approach by stimulating the use of high-quality seed varieties and developing new technologies. While this might work for large-scale operators, small-scale and landless farmers don’t have the resources to take these new technologies on board.

Fortunately, the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) decided to look at the issue from their point of view and discovered that the problems related to fodder availability have just as much to do with access to knowledge as with access to appropriate technology. As a result, the UK Department for International Development (DFID) funded a project that was implemented in India and Nigeria. Under the banner title of the Fodder Innovation Project (FIP) its findings keenly illustrate this shift in understanding.

Field-based trials in India and Nigeria

The first phase of the project, which kicked off in 2003, identified new varieties of fodder and dual-purpose food/feed crops, passing on information to its partners (government research organisations and NGOs) with a view to increasing production. Each partner organisation implemented the project within some general parameters, but according to its own mandate and the context in which it worked. In both India and Nigeria it became apparent that issues related to seed production, supply and low survival of the plantations must be addressed before appropriate technologies could be employed. It also showed that while participatory research is useful, innovations need to be introduced in the institutional and policy arenas too. The effective development of technology demands concurrent investment in new local networks; programmes, processes and policies must all be open to innovation.

Forests of fodder
In the Indian village of Wankute, in the area covered by one of the project’s participating organisations, the Watershed Organization Trust (WOTR), the grass Stylosanthes hamata was identified as suitable for cultivation on communal lands as fodder. Representatives from WOTR, the Department of Forestry, Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, the village development committee and the Joint Forest Management Committee (JFM) divided up tasks that included providing the seed and passing on information on its features. The Forest Department worked alongside JFM to create a mechanism that would give farmers access to forest lands for fodder production. Landless farmers would have first access to the forages from the forest, followed by those who did not own enough land for fodder cultivation. It was exceptional for the Forest Department to take an interest in fodder issues and to allow farmers access to forest land for reseeding.

Enabling effective innovation

The second phase of the project, which got underway in 2006, centred on how best to realise this call for innovation. Five partner organisations were identified through countrywide landscaping exercises in India and Nigeria and became the project’s Key Partner Organisations¹. They included governmental, semi-governmental and non-governmental organisations and were all running livestock-related programmes. To facilitate the process it was decided to select a context-specific innovation theme for each location. For example, one NGO in India, the Foundation for Ecological Security focussed on increasing the marketable surplus of milk on select routes, while a Nigerian NGO, the Justice, Development and Peace Commission looked at raising goat-rearing from its largely subsistence status to a semi-commercial level (see box on this page). What came out of these joint endeavours was that if interactions between the wide range of organisations that have knowledge relating to fodder and livestock were strengthened, this would lead to the institutional and policy changes necessary to improving the way information is created, distributed, shared and used.

Providing pauses for reflection

The networks that were put in place all included representatives from public, private and civil-society organisations, and the livestock-keepers themselves. Joint action plans had different entry point activities such as seeding forests with fodder strains (see box on previous page) and organising animal vaccination camps. Periodic reviews, followed by mentoring and reflection on the network processes by all members proved to be important components of the project.

Studies were carried out to find out how best to link the research to the policy-makers and the organisations involved, and a Fodder Innovation Policy Working Group was created at national level in both countries to facilitate this. These Working Groups comprised senior government representatives from the departments of animal husbandry, dairy and rural development; heads of NGOs; managing directors of co-operative milk unions, and scientists from agriculture and fodder research organisations.

Scaling up goat-rearing in Ikire
In the Ikire area of southern Nigeria, farmers kept goats mostly as a saving and/or insurance against crises. While rearing goats at a subsistence level, fodder was a non-issue. They were mostly being managed by women alongside their domestic chores who preferred to let them browse freely on available feeding resources, irrespective of the season. Traditionally goat farmers do not access markets directly – they depend upon middlemen (who work independently within pre-determined boundaries) who tend to be exploitative. In discussions with farmers, it was found that the farmers recognise the potential of goat rearing as a supplementary livelihood option, as a chance to make extra money during festivals. However, as the right network was not in place, they never took scaling up of the activity seriously. Continued discussions revealed that farmers who were keen to move from subsistence to more systematic rearing of goats (on a commercial scale) would require not only an assured, adequate and year-round supply of the right kind of fodder, but would also have to confine their animals, and build appropriate networks. In turn, each of these factors would require a combination of technology-related and institutional interventions to be carried out by relevant individuals and/or organisations.

The way forward

The FIP contends that building networks and putting institutional arrangements in place to enable innovation is a better way of addressing the fodder shortage problem along with the conventional technology transfer approach. A socio-economic baseline survey was conducted at the beginning of the project; the repeat survey to assess impact is yet to be carried out.

While it’s too early to say if the innovation approach goes far enough to solving the problem, the project has shown those involved how to build and nurture networking processes that benefit livestock-dependent farmers. It also showed that the constraint is not limited to the availability of fodder, but it has to be put into context with other issues at the level of crop-livestock value chains, like markets or access to services.

Learning laboratories

As an action-research project, the Fodder Innovation Project was successful in setting up networks and turning them into effective learning laboratories, but further improvements can still be made. Innovation platforms could be created around crop-livestock value chains and strategies put in place to ensure that innovations are pro-women and pro-poor. The lessons must be sustained and expanded before they have currency in policy debates, but the fact that an apex organisation like India’s National Dairy Development Board agreed to host the Fodder Innovation Policy Working Group is encouraging. The shift in perspective from a technology-driven to an innovation-focused approach is well underway, but we need to gather more evidence before policy-makers take it on board wholeheartedly.

Text: Mona Dhamankar

Mona Dhamankar (mona.dhamankar@gmail.com) is an independent development consultant working on livestock-based livelihood programmes and a PhD student at Wageningen University in the Netherlands.

¹ The Justice Development and Peace Center (JDPC), Ibadan, Nigeria. Sasakawa Global 2000 (SG2000), Kano, Nigeria. Rajiv Gandhi College of Veterinary Sciences (Ragacovas), Puducherry, India. The Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR), Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India. The Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), Bhilwara, Rajasthan, India.

The post Re-assessing the fodder problem appeared first on Ileia.

Politicians and policy-makers now frequently discuss the crucial role of agriculture in development. What will be the future of agriculture?

There are contrasting views about precisely what needs to be done, and the question is complex because many policy-makers seem to think that today, there is a trade-off between the various objectives that any agricultural policy must combine: improving levels of production and raising the revenues of small producers, while respecting the environment. There is also a clear schizophrenia within governments: while more market liberalisation is sometimes seen as a solution to encourage production, many realize on the other hand that this squeezes out the smallest and least competitive production units, which is exactly not what we want to achieve, as this increases inequality and poverty, and therefore hunger. In this context, a serious ideological battle is being fought. The problem, as I see it, is that large agribusiness corporations exercise a disproportionate influence on governments, while small farmers are not involved in most processes.

Then what is the relevance of all your high-level meetings for the lives of small farmers in Africa and Asia?

There is often a serious disconnection between the high-level officials I meet and the poor farmers, living in the most marginal areas. I see my role as trying to understand the needs of the most vulnerable, and ensuring that policy-makers are made sensitive to those needs and are more accountable. The right to food is about raising accountability. It’s based on the idea that you cannot work for the poor without the poor.

But what is the impact of high-level declarations to global developments in agriculture? Will they really convince governments to implement better policies?

There are important vested interests in the existing system, despite its failures: it has succeeded relatively well in raising production, but failed in addressing the root causes of hunger. Things can change, however. Two levers are important. First, through international meetings and the preparation of declarations, we can change the perception of governments about what needs to be done, and gradually arrive at a common diagnosis. Second, through improving accountability at the domestic level, particularly by encouraging countries to set up national strategies by participatory means and to establish consultative bodies, we can increase pressure on governments, and ensure that their efforts will be appropriately targeted to the needs of the most vulnerable. These tools should not be underestimated. Together, they can lead to real change.

During the last world summit on food security in November 2009 in Rome, the UN have called for a reform of the Committee on Food Security (CFS). What real impact can this reformed committee have for small farmers in the world?

It will be important to see how the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) will function, under its new composition and with its new role. During a second phase of its work, the CFS should adopt a global strategic framework – a plan of action at global level, identifying measures that governments and international agencies should take. It should set priorities and guide the work of development co-operation and investment in agriculture. This has the potential to improve the understanding of governments about what needs to be done to eradicate hunger and malnutrition, and of raising the accountability of all actors – donor governments, their partners in developing countries, and international agencies.

It also has the potential to improve co-ordination across different international agencies. For it is bizarre, to say the least, that within the World Trade Organisation, countries are pressured to relax the measures that protect their agricultural sector in the face of foreign competition, while at the same time they are told to support smallholders and to diminish their dependency on international markets to feed their populations.

“Large agribusiness corporations exercise a disproportionate influence on governments”

The CFS should ensure that these inconsistencies do not persist. All governments and international agencies (both from within the UN system as well as outside it, such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO) and also civil society and the private sector will have to justify their choices in the face of a shared diagnosis of the priorities. This can be significant. But whether or not real change will result, will depend on whether they in fact agree to subject themselves to this collective evaluation. Will they act co-operatively? Or will they continue to prioritise their national interests and ideological agendas? This is the real test for the future.

What should small farmers do to get their voices heard?

They must organise themselves! I am encouraged to see, for instance, how fast co-operatives of small farmers are developing. This means that small farmers improve their bargaining position and can improve their access to infrastructure or to public goods such as storage facilities, information about prices, or transport. It also means that they will find it easier to be heard at all levels, from the domestic to the international level. I am convinced that we would not have seen the mistakes of the past if small farmers’ organisations had been better involved in decision-making. I refer for instance to marketing boards that bought crops from farmers at very low prices either for export or to ensure low-priced food for the urban populations. But also the insistence on export-led agriculture in general, which has increased inequalities between larger, better-off producers and small farmers living on the most marginal lands. Farmers’ voices need to counterbalance the corporate sector in setting the agenda for agricultural and rural development.

Agriculture is affected by climate change, but also contributes to it. Livestockproduction has a big influence on the emission of greenhouse gases. Is this not a dilemma in promoting farming?

The increase in livestock production, in response to a growing demand for meat, tightens the competition for land between its various uses. Together, grazing land and cropland dedicated to the production of feed-crops and fodder already account for 70 percent of all agricultural land, or about 30 percent of the land surface of the planet. And in certain regions it is a major cause of deforestation or soil degradation, as a result of overgrazing. In a 2006 study called Livestock’s long shadow, the FAO noted that if we take into account deforestation as a result of the creation of pastures and production of crops for feed, livestock is responsible for 18 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions, almost double the share of transport.

Yet, at the same time, we must recognise that no two kilogrammes of meat are the same. Farm animals raised in industrialised countries consume more than five calories in feedstock for each calorie of meat or dairy food produced, and some estimates put that figure much higher, establishing a relationship of up to 17 units to one. But these figures represent the production of meat in rich countries, which is heavily industrialised, and it relates to animals fed on grains. In India, the ratio is a less than 1.5 to one. In Kenya, where animals are not fed grain but live off grass or agricultural by-products which humans cannot eat, livestock actually yield more calories than they consume. And it is equally important to acknowledge that livestock rearing represents a source of income for perhaps up to one billion people, representing one third of the poor in the rural areas.

In 2008, the IAASTD report on the world’s agriculture was published. You often urge governments to take this report more seriously, but even the extensive summary is difficult to read. Can we expect governments to use this report as an input in their agricultural policies?

The IAASTD is the result of a considerable amount of work, by some of the most renowned experts in the world. The obstacle its reception faces is that it calls for a paradigm shift in the way we conceive agricultural development and innovation, with a focus on the needs of the most vulnerable and on sustainable agriculture, away from the technological approaches of the past. We may need to break down the conclusions of IAASTD into parts, and treat separately those that relate to trade, those that relate to seeds and genetic resources, and those that relate to rural development, for example. Of course, all these issues are linked. But the task seems insuperable unless we cut it down in separate chunks.

China as a growing economy is becoming a more and more important player in the global political and economic system. China supports Africa with money and advisors. Their relationship with developing countries is very different from that of the EU or the UN. What does this mean for small farmers in Africa?

China has to feed approximately 20 percent of the world’s population with about seven percent of the world’s arable land. Its population is still increasing, and its capacity to expand agricultural acreage is limited. They are in fact facing a rapid loss of arable land and a large amount of soil erosion, and their access to water is precarious. The melting of the great glaciers of the Himalayas will make their position less and less tenable in the future. It should therefore come as no surprise if they seek to invest in agriculture abroad, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa where land is available and where labour is relatively inexpensive.

For the local communities, the arrival of investors often means that their access to land, and therefore their livelihoods, will be affected. Some small farmers will be moved to more marginal, less fertile land. Others may be offered waged employment on the large-scale plantations that investors will develop. Others still will have no alternative but to migrate to the cities, with little prospect of decent employment. These risks cannot be underestimated, and it is therefore vital that investment in agriculture be carefully guided, and that local communities be involved in negotiations that are conducted with such investors.

Some people plead for a clearer dichotomy between big and small farmers in the West: on the one hand, industrialised farms competing on international markets and on the other hand, more ecological farmers, near to markets and consumers. Would that be a strategy for the whole world or should all efforts go to small farmers on a global level?

This is still an open question, in my view. The coexistence of very large, agro-industrial farms, and small-scale, sustainable farming, is something a country such as Brazil is trying to achieve. At a minimum, it requires strong support of family farming by the state. Smaller farms, while very productive per hectare, are more labour intensive and thus produce at higher costs. Therefore they must be supported, or they will be wiped out in increasingly competitive markets. Governments can support family farms by providing loans at lower-than-market rates, by adequate public procurement policies, by supporting farmers’ organisations, by providing access to credit and insurance against weather-related events or crop losses, and by supplying management policies or buying policies to establish public stocks that can ensure stable revenues. I don’t think we should place too many hopes on the attitudes of individual consumers. Although these attitudes are changing (consumers pay greater attention to where food comes from and how it was produced), price remains a determining factor for them.

Interview done by: Mireille Vermeulen

The post Food as a universal right appeared first on Ileia.

Over the last decade, high demand has caused the poultry sector to expand, globalise and consolidate, turning it into possibly the fastest growing of all livestock sectors. In India it grew by nearly 10 percent between 1997 and 2002 and broiler meat is currently sold for half the price of lentils, traditionally considered the poor’s main source of protein.

In recent years, however, NGOs and governments have supported the introduction of “improved” poultry breeds in rural areas (commercial hybrids produced from two or more different strains). If these are reared under the right conditions, they give a higher yield in terms of both eggs and meat than indigenous breeds. But is that necessarily always the right way to go?

Indigenous breeds: the benefits

Traditionally, farmers in rural areas tend to prefer indigenous birds to these commercial hybrids. Indigenous breeds are self-propagating; they contribute to poultry diversity and cultural heritage and produce tasty meat and eggs. They are also well adapted to the local climate and can survive, produce and reproduce through scavenging. Because of their local origin they are less prone to disease or predator attacks, and their cultural and sporting values secure additional income. Even their coloured feathers can bring in additional cash. But since commercial strains have become popular and heavily supported by state and NGOs, the percentage of indigenous birds reared in India has dropped to just 10 percent of the total over the last 30 years (absolute numbers have remained relatively stable). Yet, meat and eggs of indigenous birds can meet the demand in a growing niche market.

High expectations

So why have governments and NGOs supported the introduction of improved poultry breeds in rural areas? For the masses of deprived, marginal and landless farmers in these areas, poultry serves as both a safety net and a means to acquire assets and move out of poverty. If hybrids are reared under the right husbandry conditions, they give a higher yield in terms of both eggs and meat than indigenous breeds, but they do not hatch chicks. Experience has shown, however, that without the adequate infrastructure it is rarely cost-effective for small-scale farmers to raise improved birds. Two practices in rural India show how the introduction of simple, low-cost methods can easily enhance the contributions that indigenous birds make to farmers’ livelihoods, without having to invest in costly new institutional and market frameworks.

The Aseel revival: the vaata sharing system
In 2000, ten women in Noogamamidi, Andhra Pradesh, were each given two Aseel hens, the rest of the group were given two Aseel cocks. They collectively returned 25 five-month-old chicks, which were then passed on to other women in the village who did not have any poultry. A year later 55 chicks had been produced, and, since there were no further takers in the village, the group decided to sell the birds, for which they received 2,890 rupees (US$ 75). In 2003, eight birds were passed on to eight women in another village, and three years later more birds were given to women in two other villages. Over the past eight years, 74 women in six villages have benefited from the scheme.

Reviving the Aseel breed

The Aseel is one of the most widespread indigenous chicken breeds in Andhra Pradesh, India, and has an ancestry steeped in antiquity. Traditionally, they are kept for their cock-fighting abilities and their relevance in social and religious functions – and that’s in addition to the superior taste and texture of their meat. They are usually kept by women and sell at prices 50 to 100 percent higher per kg/live weight than broilers. However, in the early 1990s infectious diseases like Newcastle disease (a highly contagious viral disease, affects poultry of all ages and can severely threaten farmers’ livelihoods) became widespread among the breed and started to threaten its gene pool. State policies to introduce non-local breeds failed and in 1994 a consortium of NGOs led by the Indian organisation Anthra looked into ways of promoting the on-site conservation of Aseel poultry.

They studied backyard production methods employed by some 2,000 households in 24 villages in East Godavari and developed improvements based on traditional technologies and institutions that were already in place. These included training local animal-health workers to provide basic, yet critical services to poultry farmers, and revitalising the traditional vaata sharing system (see box) to increase poultry ownership.

The female poultry farmers found that reverting to growing pulses and traditional staples such as millet and paddy instead of cash crops not only increased household food security, but also offered a rich scavenging base for the poultry, with a positive effect on their income. This change in cropping enabled each household to maintain a flock of up to 25 birds.

And, as the women’s groups grew in numbers and strength, they managed to get the government’s Animal Husbandry Department to vaccinate their birds free of charge. As a result of these local efforts, mortality rates in the Aseel population shrank from 70 percent to 25 percent between 1996 and 2008 and, over the same period, the net income from one bird, including the value of both eggs and offspring, rose from 1,800 to 5,750 rupees (US$ 40 to US$ 130).

Re-inventing the Kadaknath

Similarly, efforts focused on the Kadaknath – another indigenous breed of chicken found largely in the Jhabua district of Madhya Pradesh – have paid off. The dark-coloured meat of the Kadaknath bird is considered a delicacy and consumers are willing to pay a premium for it. However, excessive consumption combined with the introduction of improved breeds such as the Rhode Island Red and recurrent outbreaks of Newcastle disease were diluting the Kadaknath gene pool and numbers plummeted in the late 1990s.

Since 2003 a government programme has been running in tribal areas of Madhya Pradesh to enhance livelihoods of village communities. Prompted by a suggestion by local farmers, the Madhya Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project (MPRLP) introduced the Kadaknath birds in new areas to support and strengthen local livelihoods. The MPRLP, in conjunction with village assemblies and BAIF, a local NGO, has facilitated the distribution of batches of 100 Kadaknath chicks, bought from the government hatchery involved in conserving this poultry stock. The carefully selected beneficiaries have received poultry farming training and obtained access to a variety of government programmes to finance the inputs. This lead to unnecessary high initial investment on sophisticated poultry houses, special equipment and compound feed, as per experts ill founded advice.

But through experience it was learnt that the breed has a high feed conversion rate and thrives well under (semi)scavenging conditions. In addition, vaccination, de-worming and first aid were provided by animal-health workers linked to BAIF. And while Kadaknath hens are sold in local markets, the popular birds are often purchased directly from the farm, reducing transaction costs for farmers. Rearing the indigenous Kadaknaths has increased annual net income from both eggs and offspring to an estimated 5,300 rupees (US$ 120) per bird, compared to less than 1,200 rupees (US$ 28) for other, ordinary native species. Currently, households have also taken up rearing Kadaknaths in scavenging systems themselves, typically in conjunction with few local hens that are good brooders, which Kadaknath hens aren’t. Another plus for the Kadaknath is that they are vital in certain religious ceremonies.

Affordable healthcare is crucial

The two cases show that only small interventions are needed to revive and strengthen self-sustainable smallholder poultry practices that use indigenous breeds. There is no need to revolutionise prevailing husbandry practices or to make use of costly housing and equipment or to introduce day-old chicks or buy special feed. What is critical however is the provision of affordable animal health services for farmers, including the timely vaccination of chicks. Another important aspect concerns the diversity of the farming system; the more diverse the farm, the better the scavenging material. The Aseel case shows that female farmers can easily modify their own traditional farming and poultry distribution system. In the case of the Kadaknath birds, it was necessary to “learn by doing” before realising that these birds could best be kept in the way tradition had taught.

Both cases show that governments would do well to stop distributing commercial hybrids, albeit for free, and focus on the provision of public services such as the prevention and control of (zoonotic) diseases. Communities themselves, and the private sector (or a public/private partnership), can be relied on to supply, for example, day-old chicks. Indeed, two pioneering companies in India are doing well out of selling two other indigenous species, the Kuroiler and Sadpuda, that are well adapted to the often harsh living conditions that exist in poor, rural communities. In their business strategies, both companies successfully targeted poor households.

A gift for society at large

This evidence from India suggests that indigenous poultry, normally handled by women, can significantly contribute to farmers’ livelihoods through increased food security and cash income. While the returns from rearing just a few indigenous birds may not be sufficient to fully sustain a family, they will serve to generate highly nutritious food at minimal cost. In addition, these practices bestow dignity and respect on the family, which can offer an egg or the slaughter of a bird for its guests. The contribution that such practices make to heritage and cultural conservation can be regarded as a gift for society at large.

Text: Mamta Dhawan, Lucy Maarse and Ugo Pica-Ciamarra

Mamta Dhawan (mamta@sapplpp.org) is senior veterinary officer at the South Asia Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Programme in New Delhi, India.
Lucy Maarse (lucy.maarse@gmail.com) is an independent advisor (Livestock & Livelihood) specialised in tropical animal production and extension, currently working from the Netherlands.
Pica-Ciamarra (picaciamarra@fao.org) works at the Animal Production and Health Division of FAO, in Rome, Italy, focusing on livestock sector policies and institutional changes for poverty reduction.

The post Unpacking a poultry myth appeared first on Ileia.

Livestock plays an important role in the livelihoods of many farmers and herders in the South, as it contributes to the basics of food, income, and security, as well as other social and cultural functions.

Actually, the world’s poorest people – nearly one billion – depend on pigs, yaks, cattle, sheep, lamas, goats, chickens, camels, buffalos and other domestic animals.

For undernourished people, selling one egg may imply being able to buy some rice, and thus, instead of having one meal per day, a second one becomes reality. This is a typical survival strategy: selling high-quality foods to buy lowcost starchy food.

In other parts of the world, we see an over-consumption of red meat and other animal-based food, which damages the health of many people: it is a shocking dichotomy.

Animals and greenhouse gases

According to the FAO study, Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options, published in 2006, livestock contributes to 18 percent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity. Most of these emissions come from countries using industrial farming practices, in the form of methane produced by the belching and flatulence of animals, carbon dioxide by felling and burning trees for ranching, and nitrous oxide by spreading manure and slurry over the land. It is therefore a problem predominantly caused by Western consumption patterns, as has been discussed and studied by many researchers and authors (for example, Jonathan Safran Foer in Eating animals). For some people, it is a reason to promote a vegetarian lifestyle, as a protest against animal exploitation.

There are, however, great differences in livestock production systems in various regions of the world. These systems emit very different amounts and types of greenhouse gases, and serve different purposes. Considering that all of Africa’s ruminants together account for 3 percent of the global methane emissions from livestock, their contribution is minor. But as Carlos Seré, director of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), rightly points out, ruminants maintained on poor quality feeds (see Meet Miss Buffalo) make an inefficient conversion of feed to milk and meat, and are more environmentally damaging. Skinny ruminants on poor diets, while not competing with people for grain, produce much more methane per unit of livestock product than well-fed cattle, sheep and goats.

Yet many African livestock systems seem to be the best way to deal with climate change because these systems can be carbon-negative. According to Mario Herrera and Shirley Tarawali from ILRI, a typical 250 kilogram African cow produces approximately 800 kilogram CO2 equivalents per year, whilst carbon sequestration rates (the amount of carbon taken up in the soil) can be about 1400 kilograms of carbon per hectare per year under modest stocking rates, making a positive balance. The same goes for stall-feeding dairy systems, which emit less CO2 due to higher quality diets and better recycling of products within the system.

Livestock revolution revisited

The notion of a “Livestock Revolution” was introduced in an influential IFPRI publication in 1999. It initially simply stood for the unprecedented growth in demand for food of animal origin in developing countries, because of population growth, urbanisation and increasing income (and subsequent changes in diets and life style).

Meet Miss Buffalo
The models were hefty, horned, heavily made-up and hooved: everything you would expect from contestants at a beauty contest for water buffalo in India. About 125 buffalos, decorated with colourful cloths and ornaments, took part in the event and plodded down a makeshift stage as the crowds cheered. “The objective of the show was to teach villagers to take care of the poor animals,” said Prabhat Ranjan, organiser of the event: “Buffalos are underfed and as a result, their milk production is decreasing.” In rural Bihar, most villagers depend on selling buffalo milk to earn their living and they could improve the milk production by giving their animals proper feeding and disease prevention. Source: The Economic Times, 28 Oct. 2009.

The idea that the Livestock Revolution would be driven by demand, contrary to the Green Revolution which was supply-driven, strongly influenced the thinking in the sector.

The growth in demand could imply enormous opportunities for the poor, who could catch a substantial share of the growing livestock market. But just 10 years later, Ugo Pica-Ciamarra and Joachim Otte show in The livestock revolution: Rhetoric and reality, that this growth has been especially huge in China, India and Brazil in the poultry, pork and dairy sectors. In sub-Saharan Africa and developed regions, the growth has been decreasing or stagnant. The geographical impact is patchy even within the nations and the impact is largest on poor urban consumers. The paper also observes that an increasing polarisation has occurred in the livestock sector.

Local developments

The World Bank has acknowledged the notion of a Livestock Revolution from the beginning, seeing opportunities for poor small-scale farmers in developing countries. Jimmy Smith, from the Agriculture and Rural Development department of the World Bank, admits that growth in the demand for animal products has not been uniform: “Income growth has happened fastest in China, and therefore, growth in demand for livestock products happened fastest there. South East Asia also recorded impressive growth in demand for milk, poultry meat and eggs.” For Smith it does not mean that the Livestock Revolution did not happen: “Despite regional differences, changes have been so large that it has influenced global trade, and raised issues about livestock and climate even in the developing world. As small holders are often not connected to markets, they have not been able to benefit as we would have expected.”

For Smith, policy makers need to be more active to allow them to benefit: “It’s mostly very large scale producers that have benefited from the Livestock Revolution. Public spending has been very low. Veterinary services have deteriorated. And there have been little investments in linking small holders to markets, perhaps with the exception of India, and on making livestock systems more environmentally sustainable.” There are more examples indicating that the livestock sector is influenced by other factors, such as food price policies, availability of animal feed and investment facilities for commercial farming.

The idea of a livestock sector that grows as a result of increased demand for meat is therefore misleading. It prevents governments from intervening and identifying the real potentials that could stimulate a growth in the livestock sector that would be beneficial to poverty reduction and rural development at large. The debate on page 19 focuses on this aspect.

Mixed farming

In Eastern Africa, one third of the rural population lives in areas where livestock predominate over crops as a source of income. Nearly 40 percent of all livestock are kept in mixed farming areas, where they contribute to rural livelihoods in diverse ways. Various classifications are used to define livestock production systems.

From a family farming perspective, livelihood criteria known as “the relative dependency on livestock at the household level”, including the customary use of the terms “pastoral”, “agro-pastoral”, and “mixed farming”, place the livestock into perspective with all the activities and resources through which households fulfil their needs.

Clean pigs
The rather panicky reaction to the swine flu in Egypt last year shows how important it is to keep looking at the different functions and dimensions of livestock. The Egyptian government announced a ban on pig rearing in Egypt, which has led to streets being littered with rotting food piles. What started out as an impulsive response to the swine flu threat, turned into a social, environmental and political problem for the most populous nation in the Arab world. For more than half a century, the waste collectors in Cairo were the Zabaleen, a community of Egyptian Christians who live on the cliffs on the eastern edge of the city. They collected the trash, sold whatever recyclables they found and fed the organic waste to their pigs, which they kept for consumption. Cairo’s garbage collection therefore belonged to the informal sector. The government has now hired multinational companies to collect the trash, which have decided to place bins around the city. They failed to understand the ethos of the community, as people do not take their garbage out. Rather, they are accustomed to having someone collect it at the door. The result is that the streets are now littered and a large community is without work and income. Pigs are not just pigs, but form an important aspect in the livelihood strategies of distinct communities, and even contribute to the well-being of more affluent groups in society.

An agro-pastoral system would be one in which livestock account for between 50 and 80 percent of the total income, whereas a pastoral system would have livestock accounting for over 80 percent. We must be wary of making generalised statements about the links between livestock, consumption of meat, greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, food safety, poverty and animal welfare issues.

The context, functions of livestock and trade-offs of animal husbandry are very different all over the world. The crux of the matter is to reach a situation in which family farming and herding in the South meet future demands for animal products without environmental damage.

Strengthening and/or developing ecological, cultural and socially-sound livestock systems is possible, but it starts with understanding the different functions of livestock in rural livelihoods.

More than meat and milk

Farmers keep animals for direct consumption of food and non-food products such as milk, meat, wool, hair and eggs, but also manure for fuel, and urine for medicine (output function). Some of these products provide input for other activities: manure, urine and grazing fallow land are beneficial for crop production; stubble fields help pastoralists feed their animals; animals give drought power for transport, and their hair, hoofs and manure help to disperse seeds and improve seed germination; their grazing prevents bushfires and controls shrub growth, and stimulates grass tillering and breaking-up hard soil crusts (input function). But animals also permit farmers to raise money in times of need (asset function).

This often represents the priority function of livestock among poor farmers, and is the reason that animals are not necessarily sold when the market price is attractive but when there is a need for cash. Livestock are also part of the household. They are indicators of social status: festivals and fairs are based on livestock (bullock cart racing, cock fighting, cow beauty contests) and many songs have been written about livestock (socio-cultural function).

Van der Ploeg (2009) brings in the dimension of capital when analysing farming systems in his book New peasantries. There is the conversion of living nature (ecological capital) into food, drinks and a broad range of raw products. But controlling the complex organisation and development of farming, needs communities to network, co-operate, self-regulate, solve conflicts, and engage in learning processes (social capital). Finally, farming and herding stand for a certain culture and way of life (cultural capital), which are even more clearly articulated in these modern times, with anonymous global markets. Farming culture stands for origin, quality, authenticity and freshness of products, and of associated ways of producing, processing and marketing (fairness and sustainability). The analyses of Rangnekhar (2006) and Van der Ploeg (2009) can be combined in the diagram at the top of this page. The World Bank has already tried to adopt a more inclusive approach to livestock. Smith points out that livestock is mostly used for input into crops: “Some reports say that up to 50 percent of nitrogen use for crops comes from manure, which means that livestock is incredibly important. Livestock has many uses and functions, which have not received enough attention. Public investments are needed, in order to sustainably develop the livestock sector and escape poverty.

Climate smart development

Neglected zoonoses
Zoonotic diseases are transmitted from vertebrate animals to people and thus can compromise people’s health and endanger their livelihoods. Many of these diseases are prevalent in the developing world and affect the poorest segments of the human population. Neglected zoonoses, such as anthrax, rabies, brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis, zoonotic trypanosomiasis, echinococcosis, cysticercosis and leishmaniasis, are major causes of ill health in people in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The burden of these diseases on affected communities is compounded by the adverse effects on the productivity of livestock and hence on the livelihoods of the poor. Only recently have Western companies and research institutes taken more interest in these diseases. Previously, money and time has mostly been devoted to animal diseases affecting industrial livestock production, such as swine flu and Q fever. It is important to understand that one can jointly approach human and animal health.
For more information visit: www.galvmed.org.

A recent study by Delgado (2008) on the scaling-up of the production of some specific livestock products among small-scale producers in Brazil, India, the Philippines and Thailand, has focused on the impact of increasing the average farm size and annual livestock sales. There are some interesting conclusions regarding family farming that can be noted. Independent small farms in India and the Philippines typically have higher profits per unit than do independent large farms. Small farms with pigs and poultry also have a lower negative impact on the environment than large farms. Hence, environmental concerns are compatible with promoting small-scale livestock production. Climate-smart farming is the future, as Camilla Toulmin, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) stated at the ILEIA conference on the Future of Family Farming in The Hague in December 2009.

In this issue of Farming Matters, you will find a number of good practices and research findings that are in line with the thoughts expressed in this theme overview. They show alternative pathways to the rather linear value-chain approach, which tends to focus on the output function while giving little attention to other functions, nor having much consideration for the social, ecological and cultural capital that livestock offer. The competitiveness of smallholders is largely determined by low-cost family labour, but in order to improve the situation for farmers, some farm-specific barriers, such as credit and market information, should be addressed. Farmers also need quality animal and human health services (see box Zoonoses), as well as extension services and other pro-poor livestock interventions. Only then will climate-smart rural development pay off for smallscale farmers.

Text: Lucy Maarse

References

• Delgado, C., 2008. Determinants and implications of the growing scale of livestock farms in four fast-growing developing countries. Research report 157, IFPRI, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
• Delgado C., M. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld, S. Ehui and C. Courboi, 1999. Livestock to 2020, the next food revolution: Food, agriculture and the environment. Discussion Paper 28, IFPRI, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
• Van der Ploeg, J.D., 2009. The new peasantries: Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. Earthscan, London, U.K.
• Pica-Ciamarra, U. and J. Otte, 2009. The livestock revolution: Rhetoric and reality. Research report 09-05, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO, Rome, Italy.
• Rangnekar D., 2006. Livestock in the livelihoods of the underprivileged communities in India: A review. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.
• Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales and C. de Haan, 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Animal Production and Health Division, FAO, Rome, Italy.
• Sere, C., 2009. It’s time for climate negotiators to put meat on the bones of the next climate agreement. Blog posted at ILRI’s website, available at www.ilri.org/ilrinews/index.php/archives/1006/comment-page-1#comment-50.

Lucy Maarse (lucy.maarse@gmail.com) is an independent advisor (Livestock & Livelihood) specialised in tropical animal production and extension, currently working from the Netherlands.

The post Livestock, a smart solution for food and farming appeared first on Ileia.