Macroeconomic international trade and sectoral policies in livestock development
Research and technology transfer for livestock development
Discussion summaryThere was animated discussion on this paper and more detailed explanations were called for in some aspects. It was emphasized that the analysis in the paper does not support active government intervention to limit trade in order to further existing or new development policies. It was also pointed out that livestock sectors have suffered from policy interventions due to the anti-agriculture bias displayed by the economywide and sector policies adopted in most developing countries.
In addition to the range of policies that now affects the livestock sector there is a more fundamental question. It concerns the very roots of livestock policy formulation within countries. There is a need to know how the process of policy formulation is initiated and the circumstances that contribute to this process. What makes a country overemphasize the use of resources (for example for dairy development) as opposed to a more balanced development of the totality of the sector also needs to be known. There is now a new approach to more integrated use of natural resources that will require policy support for systems oriented work. This side of policy may be worth addressing to provide a framework for more interventions (Devendra). The analysis in the paper does not support active government intervention to limit trade in order to further existing or new development objectives. With regard to the issue of better understanding policy formation the political economy of trade policies should be recognized more widely, particularly with regard to the ability of highly concentrated interest groups (whether consumers or producers) to lobby policy makers effectively to enact trade control measures that do not necessarily benefit the nation as a whole (DeRosa).
There may never be any justification for imposing mechanisms that restrict imports, either by tariffs or quantitative restrictions, to protect an infant industry and particularly if any revenue generated is used to develop the domestic industry (Mack). There is little support for infant industry protection in economic theory and in practice there are no examples of such schemes having succeeded (DeRosa).
There is real need for in-depth studies into livestock development as affected by international trade requirements, including GATT. Small dairies in developing countries are going to be seriously affected if import of powdered milk is allowed. Policy measures such as quotas or taxation can be used but if the price of recombined milk is cheaper then dairy farmers will be destroyed. Developing countries such as Thailand are expected to benefit from export of rice but there may be little benefit if its dairy farms are going out of business (Chantalakhana). The presentation may have given the impression of advocating international policies for the livestock sector possibly due to the discussion of the West African question where regional markets were subject to heavy export dumping of livestock products by the EU. Careful reading, however, shows that the main argument is that the livestock sector has suffered from policy intervention due to the anti-agriculture bias displayed by the economywide and sector policies adopted in most developing countries. The call for measures to protect domestic sectors from the effect of dumping is not international in the sense of wanting to provide undue protection to this sector. It is, rather, rightfully recognized that the input price of EU livestock products is by no means a long term indicator of border prices facing West African producers since it is mainly dictated by EU stocks which not only fluctuate but are also very unlikely to be sustained in the long run. The short run welfare cost of allowing these imports at their dumped prices are therefore likely to be much lower than the welfare loss in terms of lost production potential in the long term given the comparative advantage many West African countries enjoy in livestock production (Badiane).
In examining the recommendations that arise from theoretical models it is important to remember that policy changes affect people. Equity considerations can be as important in practice as efficiency considerations. Political considerations are also important in liberalizing economies - those who lose from a policy change "vote" (Young). The political influence of social, economic and other groups adversely affected by trade and policy measures is not always proportional to their numbers. Repression of agriculture in lower income countries is frequently a reflection of the limited political power of rural communities to match the more effective political influence of highly concentrated industrial and urban interests in maintaining import substitution policies and low food prices. Achieving trade liberalization to reduce bias against agriculture and increase national output and welfare is particularly difficult and might not be accomplished entirely through sentiments expressed in ballot boxes (DeRosa).
Discussion summaryThere was concern from some part of the group that direct participation by the beneficiaries - the small farmers - had not been accorded sufficient attention but this argument was countered by the fact that the social dimension is included to the extent that what is recommended will positively affect the welfare of the farmer. There was avid discussion on the role of research and how it should be funded: consensus was difficult to reach on the latter mainly because of efficiency issues - the public impression was that staff numbers and therefore expenditure had increased relative to operations but it was then agreed that this should be viewed in the light of the initial low starting point of staff numbers and salaries. Finally the role and methods of technology transfer were discussed especially in relation to the framework for the policy unit proposed in the paper.
Participation by beneficiaries
The policy research programme presented seems to lack a social dimension and is focused more on increasing productivity by policy related means rather than by rural development per se. The proposal for the livestock policy unit does not show clearly how the main actor, the farmer, will be involved (Lahlou-Kassi). The paper is about research policy and the impact of macro and sectorial policies on research funding and the extent of adoption of research results. The social dimension is included to the extent that what is recommended will positively affect the welfare of the farmer. Integrated rural development is certainly the overall goal but livestock are here treated as a component of the development strategy. Increased livestock productivity will contribute to improvements in rural development but "rural development" is too broad a context here. Effective research and technology transfer show concern for the farmer as the overall goal (Ehui).
An important issue in livestock research is project formulation that has specific focus, is concerned with real needs and involves the participation of farmers in all aspects of problem definition and implementation. In this sense, the systems approach provides the most important means for project formulation and can be carried all the way through to monitoring, evaluation and impact (Devendra).
Research funding and efficiency
It may not be very useful to keep asking for more money for research: what is needed is greater efficiency. The example of increase in funding versus staff growth rate is instructive. In the period 1961-1965 to 1981-1995 agricultural research support grew at an annual rate of five per cent from US $ 149.5 million to US $ 372.3 million. During the same period for the same institutions staff numbers increased by 7.2 per cent annually from 1323 to 4941 and in fact staff expenditure grew twice as fast as operation expenditure (de Haan). It is true that NARS will need to be more efficient in managing their resources but the fact that resources currently allocated to research and extension are very limited should not be ignored (Ehui).
The reasons for the insufficient financial support to livestock research need to be investigated. Reference can be made to the ISNAR study on OFROR country experiences which indicates the importance of measuring impact, attaining efficient technology transfer and adoption and of bringing successes to the attention of public and politicians (Peters).
There should still be scope, and there are certainly reasons, for higher efficiency. The tremendous contribution of agricultural research both at national and international levels over the last 20-30 years should not, however, be ignored. There is no part of the globe where agricultural output has not grown considerably and yields have increased in many regions. This clearly would not have been possible without research. This does not change the fact that impact remains cliff cult to document. There therefore does not seem to be a need to be apologetic about asking for more resources. The rising challenge in SSA and Southeast Asia with respect to poverty alleviation, malnutrition and population increase leaves no other choice than to increase support to research. This is particularly so given the recent trends of declining support which can mainly be linked to aid fatigue rather than to a lack of performance among research systems. With this background it appears dangerous to stress the high labour expenditure shares in research institutions. Research is a service oriented business and therefore quite labour intensive. Stressing the shares instead of looking at the aggregate level is misleading. Support for agricultural research in absolute terms is very low. In the same way high growth rates in research expenditure are valuable only when the absolute level and especially the very low base figures are taken into consideration (Badiane).
There is a clear need to increase the efficiency of research resource use in developing countries. Research is fragmented across subsectors/commodities and disciplines and there is limited coordination or interdisciplinary collaboration. The need is to increase support to existing staff through training and better equipment in order to raise effectiveness. National programmes in Africa should take advantage of linkages to regional organizations which support agricultural research and capacity building, such as SPAAR, SADCC, ASARECA and CILSS. There are congruence tests between research expenditure and commodity values which can help assess the comparative validity of resource allocations to research for example, on cereals, export crops and livestock. More attention to impact evaluation could help justify more funds. The need to pay more attention to environmental and social issues presents new challenges that neither national nor international research systems are yet equipped to meet (Oram).
Technology transfer
The process of programming research is important in collaborative efforts with NARS. Extension institutions should provide the link to the users of technology. Extension methods applied in NARS research and development systems can be a constraint. ILRI needs to consider how it relates to these processes and method oriented issues. Research and extension activities to develop and transfer technology may have to be directed to items which could become private goods, such as AI and seeds. Organizational and institutional issues may need to be scrutinized in terms of speeding up development; impact and sustainable development at system and sector levels (Peters).
There is a case for large scale management experiments and learning by doing. It has been advocated - although for trees, fish, water and corporate owners and not small poor farmers - that management interventions be treated as experiments as a way of overcoming uncertainty, system complexity and ignorance. This approach may have another function when funding is scarce - linking research to (better funded) development projects (Behnke).
This paper is about what is needed in the framework for action in terms of strategies to promote livestock research as well as improved linkages to technology transfer. The policy unit that is being advocated would do impact assessment, package research results in a form that would make them more palatable for public consumption and possibly consider the process of research formulation. It should be realized, however, that ISNAR is charged with doing this. Perhaps they could also play a role in the policy unit activities. The important point is to set up strong mechanisms to promote livestock development (Shapiro).
