Electronic Consultation on

What about using draft animals for stationary power, e.g. for driving a generator for battery charging or direct lighting? They could also drive a water pump or a maize grinder. My NGO has built a first "look see" unit which proved the general principle and now proposes to build a second one to a more reproducible and low cost design.

What Paul Starkey says about standards and legislation concerning animal welfare is very important if we search for realistic solutions. If you establish rules, which can be applied in different countries/regions and/or situations, they often are so general, that there is to much space left for interpretation ( e.g."working animals must be given enough water of good quality!") If you give very precise and realistic rules, they are closely linked to local conditions. In some (rich) countries of the European Union you are not allowed to keep horses in stalls, they must have a box. If this rule would be applied to the whole EU, working horse owners in Romania for instance would have very serious problems. There is a relation between comfort for humans and comfort for animals. You cannot tell people who work hard for ten hours a day that their animals are not allowed to work for more then eight hours. This is not realistic.

The question how much fossil energy we can save by using working animals instead of tractors, three-wheelers etc. encounters similar difficulties. Vandana Shiva says that animal energy in India saves up to 6 million tons of fuel every year ( "Soil not Oil" ,2008). It is quite easy to calculate how much energy an ox of a certain weight can produce and than multiply by the number of oxen. But this gives a very theoretical figure, as is V. Shiva's figure about India. Maybe it is more rewarding to compare animals and tractors doing the same amount of work under similar conditions. Some comparative studies/estimations concerning the horse versus tractor issue have been made in the last years, for instance in Poland, in France, in the US ( see the following documents: Renaissance of working horses ... by the icppl - Comparaison Cheval-tracteur ... by Bernard Dangeard - Horse powered traction and tillage ... by Chet Kendell) Research on this subject has recently been made in Germany too.
By the way it is good to see that the number of scientific studies about working horses realized by students at European universities and high-schools is increasing.
Nevertheless there is an important handicap: on the one hand hundreds of highly interesting data and studies made during the last century are not available for different reasons or are simply ignored. ( For instance, the Armed Forces all over the world and some big companies like the "Compagnie des Omnibus de Paris" with thousands of horses had made their own studies about feeding standards, pulled and packed loads, working time, harness and other equipment etc. But it is quite hard to find these documents)
On the other hand books, articles, studies etc. have been and still are published in many different languages, although English has become more and more predominant.

So an enormous amount of knowledge and information is "sleeping" and waiting for being made available to interested people.
Maybe the FAO could address this issue in partnership with other organizations.

Thank you so much Joy, Daniela and Illia for this consultation. And thanks to the contributors. Hopefully this is the beginning of a promising networking.

Pit Schlechter

Prof Starky hits the nail on the head when he says DAP has an image problem. Within communities where DAP is a way of life there is no such problem, the problem lies more heavily with the "authorities", service providing sectors and donor agencies. The arguments for DAP as a renewable and sustainable energy are powerful and even occasionally repeated - so why are they not being heard? Perhaps this is simply this image issue - DAP like pastoralists, is viewed as outdated so when their case for support is argued the shutters come down and minds move to more populist themes as credit groups, womens income generation and rust resistant rice!

In the part of Kenya where I am currently privileged to reside, the use of DAP, donkeys in particular, is on the increase. Some new owners have taken an economic decision and sold pickups and / or motorcycles to move up to DAP. If only the service providers, universities and donors would understand these moves. We need a real effort to bring the sector up into the 21st century with more energy efficient and purposive cart designs [how about hybrids?], ergometric harnessing, safety and codes of practice concerns addressed, appropriate curricula for professional and para-professional service providers, innovative, whilst applied, research and design initiatives - and yes all paid for by someone arguing the carbon footprint case - surely this has to be a win win scenario?

This is in response to Karen Reed’s post on the 16th February, whereby a request for examples of veterinary curriculums that cover working equines was made. Here in Kenya we have such an example at the University of Nairobi veterinary faculty. The inclusion of modules such as animal welfare and donkey health into the current veterinary curriculum resulted from a stakeholders forum to change the Veterinary curriculum in Kenya, of which I participated as a representative of KSPCA/Donkey Sanctuary Kenya. To support the new curriculum we have been involved in recent years to give guest lectures, as well as establishing a working equine resource centre at the university. Together with other organizations like WSPA we have also started introducing animal welfare as well as donkey veterinary care at the paraprofessional Animal Health and Industrial Training Institutes (AHITI) in Kenya.
As a result of this experience, I have personally found that it takes a long time to convince authorities on the importance of such modules and there is a lot of lobbying that you have to do. Stephen Blakeway recently asked whether PLA training etc should be included in veterinary curricula and my feeling is yes, it can be done within existing livestock economics and other extension modules as an underlying principle skill for working with clients/communities. This is because introducing a whole new subject can be complicated, as the curriculum itself is very rigid and requests for change must be prioritised.

Dear all,

I have been following with interest the postings over the past couple of weeks, and I would like to comment and reiterate on some issues raised in terms of policy and institutions (by this I am referring to societal behaviour and attitudes, rather than a particular organisation or foundation) which have been raised throughout the threads.

I think Paul Starkey hit the nail on the head with his comment regarding the “poor, old-fashioned image” of animal power, and agree with his observation that until this changes, challenges will continue for its inclusion into any of the varied frameworks (sustainable rural development, green energy etc) where such promotion is feasible. This in turn presents a fairly substantial bottle-neck to the general advancement of policy dialogue surrounding working animals, particularly in developing countries where national governments wish to be seen as progressive and forward-thinking – FAO has already identified where livestock, including working animals, have been left out of major policy dialogue papers (1) in developing countries, and mention of animal traction would no doubt be perceived as “out of place” in affirmative documents such as Tanzania’s Development Vision 2025, or Kenya’s Vision 2030, despite the important economic and societal role this sector currently plays in such countries.

In order for this working animal “stigma” to be overcome, institutional change is needed at all levels; however this is slow, and possibly reflected in Pit Schlecter's observation that funding for projects concerning working animals is “difficult to obtain”. One possible explanation could be the historical “private donation” culture of many working animal organisations/charities, which, despite its benefits in terms of programme ownership, may also for various reasons have propagated a certain level of exclusion from today’s competitive culture of public body funding. It is often difficult to enter this cycle from the “outside” without substantial evidence of the importance of the cause.

So how do we obtain this evidence? What is the evidence required if animal power is to be “taken seriously” and its profile raised both internationally and within national governments, particularly those countries who depend upon animal traction the most? These questions are difficult to answer. However, in order for policy and advocacy strategies to be prioritised in future, in an effort to overcome the perceived global stigma, one must be aware of the options available, and what people “want to hear” (read: evidence).

There are numerous examples where policy research has resulted in a more succinct approach to policy dialogue through improved understanding of policy actors and processes, especially in cases where attitudes towards the subject may be indifferent, or even negative. I feel that by contributing to the understanding of what policy makers want to hear, such policy research could be an invaluable first step for those trying to address the gaps.

Once this is understood, strategies for evidence collection can be drawn up. This is also where priority setting and co-operation is important: organisations have specific “animal centred” mandates and finite funding, thus evidence, wherever possible, should be shared between organisations to avoid duplication – a kind of “public good” for the promotion of working animals and the communities who depend upon them. The networking mechanisms described by Paul Starkey are fundamental, not just between those organisations or individuals with specific expertise in working animals, but, as inferred by Dr. Kung’u, within more generalised programmes and interventions designed to address the wider issues of poverty alleviation and realisation of the Millenium Development Goals. The EU 7th framework project I am currently involved in (2) is a good example of this, where the socioeconomic contribution of working oxen to human livelihoods is being assessed in a Ugandan case study on zoonotic trypanosomiasis, as part of wider research into the total societal burden of zoonotic disease across Africa.

I feel that despite the challenges, there are some important opportunities arising whereby working animals may be catapulted out of the stigma and into policy frameworks and wider institutional changes occurring as a result of the MDGs – the focus of my recent colloquium presentation in Delhi. Of course, good policy in itself does not make an iota of difference to the objectives of most organisations/individuals represented here at this forum, however improved advocacy and increased respect for the contribution of working animals as a whole will go a long way in the enforcement of any policy changes which occur as a result!

1. Blench, R., Chapman, R., Slaymaker, T., “A Study of the Role of Livestock in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers”, PPLPI Working Paper No. 1, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI), FAO, Rome, 2003 www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/pplpi/publications.html

2. Integrated Control of Neglected Zoonoses in Africa: www.iconzafrica.org