Introduction
Objectives of livestock systems research
Stages in LSR
Some considerations on sampling framework in LSR
Descriptive and diagnostic phase
The identification of improvements
The design phase
The testing phase
Extension phase
ILCA's future role in LSR
Summary
References
Vers un cadre de recherche sur les systèmes d'élevage
Summary of discussion session 1.
Résumé des débats de la première séance
Cees de Haan
Deputy Director General, ILCA, Ethiopia
The International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) has adopted a systems approach to research since its inception in 1975. This strategy originated from ILCA's Foundation Report, which stated that 'technical answers are available to many of the specific problems facing livestock development in Africa, but the major constraint lies in introducing change into existing socioeconomic systems, exacerbated by inexperience in adapting technology to suit local conditions' (Nester et al, 1973). The approach was reinforced by the growing realisation as experienced in development projects that the results of classical on-station research, whether in Africa or elsewhere, and Western technology could not be transferred directly to African traditional systems. A better understanding of those systems, and adaptive research was necessary to identify relevant improvements.
When ILCA started its research no methodology for livestock systems research (LSR) was readily available, and a considerable amount of time and resources was spent on developing methods of studying and understanding the complexity of livestock production systems, and on defining ways in which available technology could best be tested within a particular production system. With the emergence of a farming systems research (FSR) methodology (Gilbert et al, 1980; Byerlee et al, 1980; Shaner et al, 1982), ILCA has attempted to develop a systems approach analogous to the framework used in FSR, although the greater genetic variability of livestock, the lower degree of control because of mobility, the daily rather than seasonal inputs required for livestock, their multiple usages, and the greater influence of individual management makes LSR more complex than cropping systems research. Additionally in pastoral systems the greater mobility of people and livestock, problems of land tenure, and the limited scope for improvements, adds to the complexity in the application of the approach.
This paper gives an overview of the ILCA research framework and highlights some of the results obtained. It focuses on pastoral systems of arid and semi-arid zones, but also includes the linkages with cropping in agropastoral systems. It uses mainly examples from ILCA's own field research in the Sahelian environment of Mali, and the semi-arid areas of Kenya and Ethiopia but also incorporates other situations in more humid areas or where ILCA was only indirectly involved.
The objective of livestock systems research (as in FSR) is to assist in the generation of relevant-improvements for the wellbeing of a certain target population. These improvements can be technical and socio-economic in nature. LSR is not responsible for the extension of a new technology, or for making complete baseline surveys or management plans for a certain region. These distinctions should be emphasised, as it immediately puts limits on the number of producer units and the kind of parameters under study, the level of details in observations made, the frequency of data collection, etc.
For example in a pastoral area, LSR would describe the relationship between water resources and rangelands utilisation, diagnose labour and sanitary constraints for the extraction and use of the different types of water points, assess the effect of those constraints on animal productivity and identify users' rights. It would then use this information to design and test relevant technology, which could overcome those constraints. It would not make a complete inventory of all water points in the region, nor conduct a hydrological study of all underground water available. The latter tasks are clearly the responsibility of a development agency, which should use the technology developed and tested through LSR to design and implement water improvement schemes for the region.
LSR as defined above consists of a sequence of stages, designed to identify constraints in a particular system, and through experimentation or available knowledge identify possible solutions. These solutions are then tested in real life situations, initially with a high degree of scientific control, and as positive effects are noted with increasing producer participation and decreasing scientific involvement and control. Table 1 gives the different terms used in each of the stages.
Table 1. The terms used in the stages of livestock systems research
|
Stage |
Object of observations | |
|
1. Descriptive |
Natural, livestock and human resources, production systems | |
|
2. Diagnostic |
Constraints, in order of priority research requirements, chances of success to overcome them | |
|
3. Design researcher managed/ executed |
Possible solutions through on station experimentation or body of knowledge | |
|
4. Testing |
| |
|
|
a. researcher managed/farmer executed |
Producer management of improvements |
|
|
b. farmer managed/farmer executed |
Acceptability of improvements |
|
5. Extension |
Evaluation of technical and socio-economic impact of improvement | |
Source: Adapted from Shaner et al (1982) and Norman (1982).
Three points should be emphasised in this context :
1. The different stages can overlap, e.g. it is not necessary to complete the whole diagnostic phase before any design or testing activity can take place.2. Although the classical approach is to start with the descriptive phase, the research process can be initiated at any stage.
3. Continuous data analysis is essential for feed-back of results and rapid progress from the descriptive/diagnostic phase to the testing phase. Micro-computers can play a useful role in this process. If no computing facilities are available, the data collection system should be organised in such a way that calculators can do the analysis.
With the increasing limitation on funds and the pressure from development agencies on research institutes to provide improvement the emphasis is on using rapid and low-cost appraisal techniques. Sample selection can be an important tool in enhancing the cost effectiveness of the diagnostic and testing phase. ILCA's results indicate that the following parameters are important in determining the management strategy, and therefore the profile of possible improvements, and should be considered in the sampling framework.
1. The livestock/man ratio ("rich vs poor"). It becomes increasingly apparent that a different degree of livestock wealth results in different management. For example, in the pastoral areas of Niger, Wilson and Wagenaar (1983) found a marked decrease in offtake with increasing herd size (see Table 2).2. Men vs women. As shown by ILCA's subhumid programme in northern Nigeria (ILCA, 1982) there is often a conflict of interest in the male and female economic sphere particularly over milk offtake and e-ales. Milk offtake normally benefits the women, whereas the proceeds of livestock sales go directly to the men. Improvements like supplementary feeding, which are financed by men, therefore should not only result in increased milk offtake, but also in increased rates of calf survival, and at a later phase improvements should benefit both groups in order to avoid future inequities. In pastoral systems research, both groups should therefore be included in the sampling framework.
3. 'On-road' vs 'off-road' producers. Especially in agropastoral systems research activities tend to focus on the easily accessible 'on-road producer. Access to a road, as shown in Table 3 for the Ethiopian highlands, to a considerable extent affects producers' strategy, and therefore should be one of the considerations in selecting the sample.
Table 2. Relation between herd size and offtake of WoDaaBe herds in Northern Niger (1983)
|
Herd size |
Offtake* (%) per year |
|
5-10 |
5.9 |
|
11-15 |
10.9 |
|
16-20 |
4.7 |
|
21-25 |
4.3 |
|
>25 |
3.5 |
* Sales, slaughter and gifts
Source: Wilson and Wagenaar (1982).
In this example the category owning between 11 and 15 animals also sold females which indicated that they were forced to sell. The poorest category could not sell, and practiced migratory labour. Further examples of the importance of livestock/man ratio, and a rapid method of assessing the relative wealth will be given by Bekure and Grandin later in the workshop.
Table 3. Average livestock holdings per household of on-road and off-road producers* in the Ethiopian highlands
|
Livestock |
'On-road' |
'Off-road'* | |
|
Cows: | |||
|
|
Local breeds |
2.1 |
1.6 |
|
|
Crossbreeds |
0.4 |
- |
|
Oxen |
1.8 |
1.6 | |
|
Sheep |
4.9 |
8.5 | |
|
Goats |
0.2 |
0.3 | |
|
Donkeys |
1.0 |
1.2 | |
* Minimum of 2.5 hours away from an all-weather road.
Source: Gryseels (per. comm.).
The descriptive phase consists of a literature review and a general reconnaissance of the resources and production systems of the target region. It will generally provide an indication of the nature of the constraints but not a quantitative assessment of their importance or their priority ranking. The descriptive phase should be kept short (one to six months) to move as soon as possible into the diagnostic phase.
The different methods used by ILCA in the descriptive and diagnostic phase for resource assessment, and the measurement of vegetation, vegetation trends, animal productivity, importance of diseases, nutrition, resource allocation within the producers' units, and marketing will be presented in detail in this workshop, and are therefore not reviewed in this paper. Some results which merit special mention and which have assisted in developing ILCA's overall programme are :
1. Herd and flock management practices by individual owners seems to be one of the most important single factors affecting productivity. For example, Wilson et al (1982) found in central Mali the ratios of the production index (production kg per year per kg metabolic weight of breeding female) given in Table 4.
Table 4. Ratios of production index of small ruminants in the agropastoral system of central Mali
|
Source of variation |
Ratio |
Goats |
Sheep |
|
Overall mean |
|
1.47 |
2.31 |
|
Parity |
All parities/first |
1.40 |
1.23 |
|
Season of birth |
Best/worst |
1.23 |
1.14 |
|
System |
Rice/millet |
1.58 |
1.33 |
|
Flock (millet) |
Best/worst |
2.43 | |
|
Flock (rice) |
Best/worst |
5.58 | |
Source: Wilson et al (1982).
Similar results were obtained in ILCA's Kenyan programme both with cattle and small ruminants. This is all the more surprising because grazing is communal to all and different owners have the same access to this principal resource. Individual management skills therefore seem to play a more important role than previously reported. However, ILCA has not yet defined the components which determine those management practices. In view of their overriding importance, more attention is presently being given to quantify these factors. Indeed if those parameters could be better quantified, and if through extension the management of the below-average flocks and herds could be raised to higher levels, considerable productivity gains could be obtained.
2. Strong linkages already exist between livestock and cropping, and the enhancement of these linkages merits a high priority in research, because they form a relatively easy entry point for improvement.
On an Africa-wide scale Brumby (1983) observed a significant correlation between the increase of total cereal production and cattle numbers, e.g. that each extra number in the cattle population was associated with an extra 0.25 ha of crop land and about 200 kg of annual grain output. On a regional basis, the strong relationship between livestock and cropping was shown by ILCA's aerial survey work in several systems. For example, Table 5 demonstrates this integration for central Nigeria.
Table 5. Relationship between livestock and cropping in central Nigeria
|
% area cultivated |
Cattle density |
|
|
wet season |
dry season |
|
|
< 10 |
7.7 |
40.0 |
|
10-34 |
16.6 |
48.5 |
|
35-60 |
21.4 |
50.6 |
|
> 60 |
22.4 |
45.7 |
Source: Miligan, 1980.
The beneficial nature of this relationship expresses itself differently in the various situations. For example ILCA's systems studies in central Mali demonstrated a very clear effect of livestock ownership on millet yields, probably through the manure linkage (see Table 6).
Table 6. Relation between village field millet yields (kg/ha) and livestock ownership in central Mali
|
|
Millet yield (kg/ha) | |
|
Year |
Households with cattle |
Household without cattle |
|
1980 |
679 |
440 |
|
1981 |
637 |
439 |
Source: Fulton and Toulmin (1982).
A similar close relationship in the field of animal traction was found by Gryseels (1983) in the Ethiopian highlands. His results clearly show a marked increase in the crop area cultivated by each family as well as a significant change in cropping patterns to higher value cereals as oxen numbers increase (see Table 7). Similar trends were observed by ILCA's central Mali studies (Fulton and Toulmin, 1982).
Table 7. Relationship between area cultivated, cropping pattern and oxen ownership in the Ethiopian highlands
|
No. of oxen per farmer |
Area cultivated (ha) |
Area under cereals (%) |
Area under pulses (%) |
|
0 |
1.2 |
54 |
46 |
|
1 |
1,9 |
44 |
56 |
|
2 |
2.7 |
67 |
33 |
|
3 or more |
3.6 |
92 |
8 |
Source: Gryseels (1983).
These findings have directed to a considerable extent the focus of ILCA's research thrust; for example, activities aimed at strengthening the integration of crops and livestock (legume agronomy) animal traction) are receiving approximately 150 % more funding in 1983 than in 1981.
Even more important than the specific results, although less tangible, is the understanding ILCA staff have gained of systems and systems research after five years of work.
Possible improvements are identified and designed by the systems team, tentatively during the descriptive phase, but increasingly during the diagnostic phase. It should be emphasized that the identification of improvements and their priority ranking must be a team effort. Quantitative models describing the input/output relationships at the different systems levels are useful in assisting the team in the decision-making process.
The plant/animal sub-component is adequately represented by ILCA's herd productivity model. This model is being used to estimate the effect of supplementation or management strategies, such as the effect of early weaning, watering frequencies and distance to water on livestock productivity, and can therefore be used to rank the priorities for field research (Konandreas and Anderson, 1982; Konandreas et al, 1983). A simple example of an input/output model at the producers' unit level for the Ethiopian Borana system is graphically represented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Input/output relationships of a Borana pastoral production unit in southern Ethiopia
This particular example also illustrates the multidisciplinary approach to the identification of improvements, In the Borana system the herd demography study revealed a significant differential mortality between female and male calves (see Table 8). This is caused by a heavy reliance of the Borana on milk for subsistence, which probably forces them to slaughter male calves to enable a faster reproduction and to allow less suckling to increase the amount of milk available for human consumption. However, this strategy conflicts with government objectives aimed at increasing the meat offtake from these rangelands. An obvious way therefore to reduce this calf mortality, and to increase total offtake from this particular system, is to increase either the total milk yield or the amount of available grain to reduce dependence on milk. The joint ILCA/RDP (Ethiopian Rangelands Development Project) team therefore will shortly be testing the feasibility of millet cultivation around the heavily manured permanent dry-season camps and has started work on legume introduction for dry-season supplementation.
Table 8. Age/sex distribution (%) of cattle herds in southern Ethiopia (dry and lactating herds combined)
|
|
Age sex distribution (%) |
|
|
Female |
Male |
|
|
Calf |
12.2 |
9.3 |
|
Immature |
14.7 |
6.3 |
Source: Cossins (pers, comm.).
The assumption that the new technology for improving Africa's traditional livestock production systems would be available, is only partially true. Generally it can be said that in the field of animal health and animal nutrition there exists a whole range of improvements, which can immediately be tested under pastoral conditions, However, in the field of range management and in the integration of forage production into cropping systems, the available body of knowledge is still extremely scarce, and no clear-cut solutions to identified constrains- are available. Production parameters have to be established, therefore, initially under controlled conditions, e.g. in on-station research. It is therefore essential that LSR has access to good research station facilities. One major distinction between LSR and classical research station experiments relates to the identification of the treatments. In LSR the treatments are defined by the socio-economic and political framework determined in the diagnostic phase. If for example the supply of fertilizer or agricultural equipment is not expected in the near future, such inputs would not be used in the experimental design.
Once the improvements have been formulated they have to be tested under producers' conditions. The object of these tests is to obtain scientifically valid conclusions regarding the effect of improvements and to assess producers' acceptance. The first objective distinguishes systems research from extension. In extension improvements are normally introduced without control groups, and without built-in scientific comparisons. In systems research the objective is not to cover the whole target population, but to make a scientifically valid comparison regarding the effect of certain treatments (improvements) on a minimum required sample size!
This means that systems research should always have a with/ without comparison on a representative sample, simultaneously carried out under similar environmental conditions. A before/after comparison as carried out in many development projects will always have the confounding effect of different environmental conditions.
For this comparison, matched pairs of animals with similar characteristics within a herd or flock are preferred when inputs are very easily administered. ILCA is following this experimental procedure for example in the case of animal health inputs, and in concentrate supplementation in northern Nigeria. If the improvements proposed require major changes in management strategies, or different organisational structures, then comparisons have to be carried out on a whole farm, or whole herd, basis, Examples of this procedure are-to be found in ILCA's programme testing the use of fodder banks in northern Nigeria, and forage production and crossbreeding for dairy production in the Ethiopian highlands.
The latter programme, although not a pastoral system, illustrates the value of continued systems research. Although the initial results (Gryseels and Anderson, 1983) showed a very positive impact of the introduction of crossbreds and forage production (annual milk yield increased sevenfold to 2300 kg, cash income fourfold to US $ 800, food grain production by 40 %), changes in the cropping pattern clearly demonstrated the need for more research on forage production. It was shown that farmers: 1. replaced their crop yielding the lowest gross margin (pulses) to grow forages with a resulting negative long-term effect on soil fertility; 2. allocated labour for soil preparation first to cereal crops, rather than the forages; and 3. applied fertilizers only to cereal crops because of recent increases in fertilizer prices. This in turn has caused ILCA to allocate more resources to the search for leguminous pasture plants requiring low labour and low fertilizer input. The first on-farm trial with a perennial grass legume mixture will start in 1983.
Improved range management practices are particularly difficult to test under pastoral conditions, and generally new organisational forms are required a priori. Even so, a good understanding of a traditional system frequently offers opportunities:
1. In the Malian delta, traditional forms of land tenure offer the possibility of establishing pastoral units which would enable the introduction of improved grazing schemes (ODEM/CIPEA, 1983 Wilson et al, 1983).2. In Niger, building upon traditional water rights, a promising grazing scheme developed on a government station will be tested with a small number of experimental herders associations. Soon to be established water points under the control of those herders associations form the mechanism for testing this grazing scheme.
3. In the Kenyan group ranches, individual ownership of certain pastures allows the introduction of legume fodder banks to overcome the dry-season nutritional stress. ILCA plans to introduce fodder banks in on-herd trials in 1983.
Once the improvement has been satisfactorily tested under producers' conditions in farmer managed, farmer-executed trials, it can pass to the extension service for further implementation. This will generally be carried out in the framework of a development project.
It is important to evaluate the improvement and, in this phase especially, its socio-economic impact. The direct involvement of a research institute in this evaluation is questionable. Ideally the project or extension structure will include the capabilities for the technical and socio-economic evaluation of the improvement. In the absence of such a structure and the-information still being required, it should be national research institutes who take responsibility for this often politically sensitive task. The degree of ILCA's direct involvement is an open question.
In any case, the evaluation procedures should be simple and be focused on the specific improvement introduced. If a particular improvement is to be successful, it should produce a considerable gain in productivity and income, or added security. The data collection system to study the impact could therefore be reduced in sampling frequency and size. Qualitative information allowing the identification of trends in this case might be given more emphasis.
Livestock systems research is location specific, focusing on a particular target zone. It cannot be the role of an international centre like ILCA to take direct responsibility for the whole African production system. Rather, ILCA sees its role as 1. further developing the systems methodology for each of the major ecological zones, 2. developing improvements for the constraints identified in those zones, and 3. simultaneously assisting national research and development agencies in establishing their own in-house capabilities. The interest which has recently emerged is encouraging.
- In northern Nigeria, ILCA is actively cooperating with scientists from the National Animal Production Research Institute (NAPRI) in establishing an LSR group, which focuses on an agropastoral system near Shika.- In Mali, ILCA has recently signed a contract with the Institute National de Recherche Zootechnique Forestier et Hydro-biologique (INRZF) to assist in the establishment of a LSR group in the institute to focus on smallholder mixed farmers in southern Mali.
- Negotiations are at an advanced stage with the Directorate of Research and Special Services in Zimbabwe to assist them in the establishment of an LSR capability, focusing initially on two mixed farming systems, in high and medium potential areas respectively.
- The Government of the Cameroons has recently approached ILCA to assist them in developing LSR capabilities in the Institute de Recherche Zootechnique (IRZ) focusing initially on three different production systems there.
The complexity of livestock production systems in sub-Saharan Africa, and the multiple objectives of its producers requires that whole systems rather than components be studied. Livestock systems research, as practiced by ILCA over the last year, represents an approach to such studies. By applying this approach ILCA has gained considerable knowledge of the constraints and opportunities in pastoral and agropastoral systems.
The testing of improvements under producers' conditions is a crucial and essential part of this approach. Livestock systems present particular difficulties in implementing these tests. Some experience has been gained but more methodology development is still required for this phase.
ILCA sees its role as that of further exploring these issues, assisting national agencies in developing systems research capabilities, and developing relevant improvements to the constraints identified. With this combination of research thrusts ILCA believes that a sustained gain in African livestock productivity and overall food production can be achieved.
Brumby, P.J. 1983. Alternative strategies for dairy development. Paper presented at the Seminar on Agricultural Research in Kigali, Rwanda. ILCA, Addis Ababa.
Byerlee, D., Collinson, M.P., Perrin, P.K., Winkelman, D.L., Biggs, S., Moscardi, E.R., Martinez, J.C., Harrington, L. and Benjamin, A. 1980. Planning technologies appropriate to farmers: Concepts and procedures. CIMMYT, El Batan.
Fulton, D. and Toulmin, C. 1982. Socio-economic study of an agropastoral system in central Mali. Draft Report: ILCA, Addis Ababa.
Gilbert, E.H., Norman, D.W. and Winch, F.E. 1980. Farming systems research: A critical appraisal. M.S.U. Rural Development Paper No. 6. East Lancing, Michigan.
Gryseels, G. 1983. Livestock in farming systems research for smallholder agriculture: Experience of ILCA's Highland Programme. Paper presented at the Seminar on Agricultural Research in Kigali, Rwanda. ILCA, Addis Ababa.
Gryseels, G. and Anderson, F.M. 1983. Research on farm and livestock productivity in the central Ethiopian highlands: Initial results. ILCA Research Report 4, Addis Ababa.
ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa), 1982. Annual Report 1982. Addis Ababa.
Konandreas, P. and Anderson, F.M. 1982. Cattle herds dynamics: An - integer and stochastic model for evaluating production alternatives. ILCA Research Report 2, Addis Ababa.
Konandreas, P., Anderson, F.M., and Trail, J.C.M. 1983. Economic trade-offs between milk and meat production under various supplementation levels in Botswana. ILCA Research Report 10, In press.
Nestel, B., Pratt, D.J., Thome, M. and Tribe, D.E. 1973. Animal production and research in tropical Africa. Report of the Task Force commissioned by the African Livestock Subcommittee of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Washington, D.C.
Norman, D. 1982. Institutionalizing the farming systems approach. Research paper presented at the African Bureau of Agricultural and Rural Development Officers' Workshop at Ibadan, Nigeria. USAID, Washington, D.C.
ODEM/CIPEA (Operation de développement de l'élevage dans la région de Mopti/Centre Internationale pour l'Elevage en Afrique). 1983. Recherche d'une solution aux problèmes de l'élevage dons le delta intérieur du Niger au Mali. 5 vols., Addis Ababa.
Shaner, W.W., Philipp, P.F. and Schmehl, W.R. 1982. Farming systems research and development. Guidelines for developing countries. Westview Press, Colorado.
Wilson, R.T. (ed.). 1982. Livestock production in central Mali. ILCA Bulletin 15, Addis Ababa.
Wilson, R.T. and Wagenaar, K.T. 1983. Enquête préliminaire sur la démographie des troupeaux et sur la reproduction chez les animaux domestiques dans la zone du projet gestion des pâturages et élevage de la République du Niger. ILCA/Mali Working Document AZ 80, Bamako.
Wilson, R.T., de Leeuw, P. and de Haan, C. (eds). 1983. Systems research in the arid zones of Mali: Initial results. ILCA Research Report 5, Addis Ababa.
Résumé
Dès sa création en 1975, le CIPEA a adopté une approche par système analogue au cadre utilisé dans la recherche sur les systèmes d'exploitation agricole. Le présent document brosse un tableau général du cadre de recherche du CIPEA, présente certains des résultats qu'il a obtenus et met l'accent sur les systèmes pastoraux des zones arides et semi-arides.
La recherche sur les systèmes pastoraux se propose de contribuer à l'amélioration de la qualité de la vie d'une certaine population-cible. Cette amélioration peut être technique et socio-économique. La recherche sur les systèmes d'élevage est une série d'étapes conçues pour identifier les contraintes d'un système particulier et les moyens d'éliminer celles-ci par le biais de l'expérimentation ou par l'utilisation des connaissances disponibles. Ces solutions sont par la suite testées dans les conditions de l'exploitation, tout d'abord sous le contrôle du chercheur, dont le rôle sera progressivement transféré au producteur, à mesure que les résultats enregistrés s'avéreront encourageants.
Avec l'accroissement des restrictions budgétaires et des pressions qu'exercent les organismes de développement sur les instituts de recherche en vue de la mise au point par ceux-ci d'innovations, il faudrait privilégier l'utilisation de techniques rapides et peu coûteuses d'évaluation. La sélection des échantillons peut constituer un outil utile pour renforcer l'efficacité - coûts de la phase du diagnostic et de l'expérimentation. Les résultats obtenus par le CIPEA indiquent que les paramètres ci-dessous jouent un rôle important dans la détermination de la stratégie de gestion et partant, dans la forme des innovations éventuelles. Il faudrait donc en tenir compte dans la base d'échantillonnage: rapport bétail/homme (riche/ pauvre); homme/femme; producteur situé à proximité de la route/ éloigné de la route.
Lors de la phase de la description, on procède à un examen de la documentation et à une reconnaissance générale des ressources et des systèmes de production de la zone-cible. Cette phase fournit généralement une idée de. la nature des contraintes même si elle ne permet pas de procéder à une évaluation quantitative de leur importance ou de leur rang de priorité.
Cette phase donne lieu à l'identification et à la mise au point d'améliorations potentielles par l'équipe étudiant le système. Ces activités s'intensifient au cours de la phase de diagnostic.
Après la formulation des innovations, on doit procéder à des essais dans les conditions de l'exploitation. L'objet de ces essais est de confirmer scientifiquement les effets des améliorations et d'évaluer le degré de succès des innovations chez les producteurs.
Une fois que les améliorations auront été testées dans les conditions de l'exploitation au cours d'essais dirigés et exécutés par les agriculteurs, on pourra passer à la phase de la vulgarisation pour une plus large diffusion. De telles activités s'effectuent généralement dans le cadre de projets de développement.
La recherche sur les systèmes pastoraux s'effectue en un lieu spécifique, sur une zone-cible particulière.
Chairman: Dr. L.J. Lambourne (ILCA)
Dr Chema referred to Dr de Haan's paper in which he mentioned possible on-station work during the design phase. Where would ILCA do this work in e.g. Kenya where it had no research station? Dr de Haan said that en LSR team working in a particular area did not have to do the on-station work itself but could involve other research groups in the process. If the results of ILCA's diagnostic phase indicated that on-station work was necessary, the co-operation of national authorities would be actively sought. Dr Chema asked at what stage of LSR should extension officers be involved; Dr de Haan said they should be involved at all stages.
Dr Zulberti pointed out that in recent work on the main components of project success the early participation of farmers in the descriptive and diagnostic phases had been identified as one of the most important ones. Also the role of extensionists was crucial especially when testing was being done because of the multiplication effect of their participation. Dr de Haan agreed. Dr Zulberti suggested that participants used the term 'pastoral systems research' during the workshop rather than 'farming' or 'livestock systems research'. Dr de Haan explained that he had used the term 'livestock systems research' because he wanted to highlight the specific difficulties inherent in livestock as a part of an overall farming system. The focus of the workshop was indeed on pastoral systems, although he had given a broader scope in the opening paper.
In referring to Mr Sandford's paper, Dr Zulberti said that the development of water systems was not necessarily a consequence of machinery reducing the cost of earth movement, because the ILO had data showing that the cost of earth movement was cheaper with hand labour. Mr Sandford pointed out that in most pastoral areas it was very difficult to hire people for manual labour and often pastoralists had a low productivity in this regard.
Dr Abel questioned whether or not there had been a sincere development effort in the arid and semi-arid areas - such areas were frequently marginal ones politically, economically and ecologically with their people poorly represented. Mr Sandford agreed that there were extreme difficulties in channeling development efforts to pastoral areas - he felt it was unrealistic to expect governments to commit large sums over long periods to the development of marginal areas. Development efforts needed to be self-supporting after as short an initial investment period as possible.
Dr Sorbo said he felt that ILCA was confronted by two main problems in the field of systems investigations: the problem of improving the conceptual and data technical tools by which one approaches the realities of production systems; and the problem of applying these tools and techniques to finding solutions to decision-making in practical tasks. He felt ILCA's activities needed to be focused on both problems, not just the second. Dr de Haan agreed, but said that under pastoral producers' conditions ILCA's main focus should be on the testing of hypotheses e.g. making scientifically sound conclusions regarding the impact of improvements, but not going beyond the sample size and the inputs required to test the specific hypotheses. If that focus were kept in mind, the distinction between research and development would be clear.
Dr Chema asked Mr Sandford to clarify what he had said about the control of rinderpest by quarantine. Mr Sandford said that quarantine was very difficult to administer and was very costly in terms of both government efforts and inconvenience to pastoralists. Tissue culture vaccine was in every wary a vastly superior method of control. He said he had been making the point that quarantine had controlled rinderpest first, but was not advocating a return to quarantine control.
Dr Rhissa said that he thought that the failure of projects to intensify animal production was not primarily due to the negligence of governments, the lack of adequate policies, bad coordination or poor planning. But rather this failure was due to the approach used in which the producer was not involved from the start of intensification programmes. Dr Rhissa felt that ILCA should intervene only after the state had determined its precise needs; ILCA could then after field studies apply a package of solutions which the state could choose and adapt according to their own needs. Mr Sandford agreed that development planners had tried to think and act too much on behalf of producers instead of directly involving them in the planning process. But he still thought that negligence, poor policies and poor planning had also been major problems. Mr Sandford thought that there was a role for ILCA to intervene earlier than Dr Rhissa proposed. ILCA ought to be able to make valuable suggestions which themselves help populations and states to determine their precise needs.
Dr Abel said that the understanding between local people and foreigners could be good and that in some countries the extension service was so alienated from the local farmers that only an outsider had a fair chance of getting useful information. Communication between farmers and scientists was both useful and possible.
Dr von Kaufmann said that systems research was about change and was iterative. One could not expect farmers to comment easily on something new - their answers would be motivated by all sorts of reasons. Iteration meant going forward and seeing the farmers' reaction, then going back and adjusting the innovation, then putting it to the farmers again. Evaluation was a continuous process.
Dr Diakite felt that Mr Sandford had not taken into account the problem of financing - finances were in general inappropriate, inadequate and conditional. Mr Sandford agreed that financing conditions were often quite inappropriate and that one expected too much too soon. But he doubted if the fact that one was dealing with 'traditional populations' had much to do with it. The problem was that development projects often tried to do foolish things rather than that traditional populations hesitated to do wise ones.
Dr Diakite felt that Mr Sandford underestimated the importance of international health agreements. Mr Sandford thought that they were not necessarily well founded - indeed often they were manifestly not in the interests of developing countries. He believed that disease eradication or control policy should not be regarded as sacrosanct but should be subject to review and justification from time to time.
Prof. Saka Nuru said that it was acknowledged that national institutes had carried out research into various national livestock problems over the years with considerable success. However, traditional research had its limitations in that its direct application to the field was not feasible. ILCA's role was different in that it not only looked at the problem in its totality through its multi-disciplinary approach, but also carried the applied research to the farmers' level. However, ILCA had to continue to rely on the basic research resources of national institutions and to relate its work to the needs of the development agencies of each country. A closer link with national bodies was therefore desirable.
Mr Sandford said that the way in which PSR had been described and so defined - may have given the impression that the only 'output' of PSR was successfully tested improvements. There were other valuable outputs - which were only spin-offs of PSR as defined by Dr de Haan, but were the outputs of other ways of defining PSR. These outputs were in terms of the better understanding by everyone concerned in pastoral development. A piece of PSR which led to no successful improvements could still be valuable in terms of increased understanding and consequently better oriented development efforts.
Dr Bekure commented that if one confined systems research to the production of technology to increase productivity, one closed the door to research on e.g. marketing which did not deal with the producer directly but yet was important for the producers' incentives and fur an understanding of producers' perceptions. Dr von Kaufmann agreed that testing technology was not the only subject for FSR. If the diagnostic phase revealed extension as the bottleneck, then FSR would focus on how many farmers should there be per extension officer, what would be the logistic package and how could the package be best presented to farmers.
Dr Grandin pointed out that ILCA was not involved in adaptive research/ extension for its own sake. ILCA's purpose was to understand the process of doing PSR, to work out the necessary methods. This could be done partially by other research activities which helped to evaluate the role or process of PSR. Dr Lambourne said that ILCA had a mandate which required it to "assist national efforts which seek to bring about a change in the systems of production..." ILCA thus had two roles: to look for ways of improving and changing existing production systems, and to find those systems which were best left in their present equilibrium because of ecological or social reasons.
Dr Habou suggested that most livestock projects were more interested in the animal than in man - but in the long run man was the centre of any production system. Mr Sandford commented that the disregard in planning of the human element was much more obvious in the 1960s than either before or after that period. It was perhaps too early to judge whether the changes from the 1960s to the 1970s in this respect had led to better projects.
Dr Ngutter suggested that ILCA should ask governments and research institutions what role they would like ILCA to play in their own countries rather than ILCA assuming they knew each country's problems a priori. Dr de Haan said that the essence of systems research was that the problems of a certain production system were not known a priori. ILCA would see its involvement along the following lines: governments ask ILCA for a systems study in a certain target area chosen by the government; ILCA then decides in discussion with the government research and extension agencies the kind of co-operative agreements required.
Président: M. L.J. Lambourne (CIPEA)
Le Dr Chema a fait allusion au document présenté par M de Haan dans lequel celui-ci mentionnait des travaux éventuels au niveau de la station au cours de la phase de conception. Où est-ce que le CIPEA pourrait effectuer ces travaux, par exemple au Kenya où le Centre ne dispose pas de station de recherche? M. de Haan a déclaré qu'une équipe de RSP travaillant dans une zone donnée n'avait pas à effectuer elle-même les travaux au niveau de la station et qu'elle pourrait au contraire demander à d'autres groupes de chercheurs de participer aux travaux. Si les résultats de la phase de diagnostic du CIPEA indiquaient que les travaux au niveau de la station étaient nécessaires, on chercherait activement la coopération des autorités nationales. Le Dr Chema a demandé à quel niveau de la RSP devaient intervenir les agents de vulgarisation. M. de Haan a déclaré qu'ils devaient intervenir à toutes les étapes.
Le Dr Zulberti a souligné que dans des travaux récents sur les éléments essentiels de la réussite des projets, la participation précoce des exploitants dans les phases de description et de diagnostic a été identifiée comme déterminante. Le rôle des vulgarisateurs était également très crucial, notamment lorsque les tests étaient effectués en raison de l'effet multiplicateur de leur participation. M. de Haan a accepté ce point de vue. Le Dr Zulberti a suggéré que les participants utilisent l'expression "recherche sur les systèmes pastoraux" au cours du séminaire plutôt que celle de "recherche sur les systèmes d'élevage" ou"d'exploitation agricole".
M. de Haan a expliqué qu'il avait utilisé l'expression" recherche sur les systèmes pastoraux" parce qu'il voulait mettre l'accent sur les difficultés spécifiques inhérentes à l'élevage conçu comme un élément du système global d'exploitation agricole. Il était évident que ce séminaire avait pour principal objectif les systèmes pastoraux bien que dans son exposé préliminaire, il ait parlé dans une perspective beaucoup plus large.
Parlant du document présenté par M. Sandford, le Dr Zulberti a déclaré que dans la mise en place de systèmes d'adduction d'eau, la conséquence de l'utilisation de machines pour les travaux de terrassement n'entraînait pas nécessairement la réduction des coûts, car le BIT disposait de données montrant que le coût de ces aménagements était moins élevé avec le travail manuel. M. Sandford a souligné que dans la plupart des zones pastorales, il était très difficile de recruter une main-d'oeuvre pour des travaux manuels et que souvent la productivité des éleveurs dans ce domaine était faible.
Le Dr Abel a demandé si oui ou non il y avait eu un réel effort de développement dans les zones arides et semi-arides, celles-ci étant fréquemment des régions marginales aux plans politique, économique et écologique, et leurs populations étant mal représentées. M. Sandford a reconnu qu'il était très difficile de canaliser les efforts de développement dans les zones pastorales. A son avis, il était peu réaliste d'attendre des gouvernements qu'ils engagent des sommes importantes sur de longues périodes pour le développement de zones marginales. Les efforts de développement devraient être auto-entretenus après une période d'investissement initiale aussi brève que possible.
Le Professeur Sorbo a souligné qu'à son avis le CIPEA était confronté 5 deux problèmes essentiels dans le domaine de la recherche sur les systèmes. Le problème de l'amélioration des instruments conceptuels et techniques de collecte de données qui permet d'aborder les réalités des systèmes de production et le problème de l'application de ces outils et techniques à la formulation de solutions en vue de la prise de décisions dans des domaines pratiques. Il a estimé que les activités du CIPEA devraient être axées sur la solution de ces deux problèmes et non seulement sur celle du second. M. de Haan a exprimé son accord mais a déclaré que dans les conditions de la production pastorale, le CIPEA devrait se concentrer essentiellement sur le test des hypothèses, par exemple travailler en vue de parvenir à des conclusions scientifiquement valables en ce qui concerne l'impact des améliorations, mais que l'envergure de tels tests ne devrait pas dépasser la taille d'un échantillonnage et les facteurs requis pour vérifier les hypothèses spécifiquement identifiées. Si l'on garde cela présent à l'esprit? la distinction entre recherche et développement devient claire.
Le Dr Chema a demandé à M Sandford de clarifier sa pensée lorsqu'il a parlé de la lutte contre la peste bovine par la quarantaine. M. Sandford a répondu que la quarantaine était difficile à mettre en pratique et qu'elle était coûteuse et pour le gouvernement et pour les éleveurs. Le vaccin à base de culture tissulaire était dans tous les cas une bien meilleure méthode de lutte. Il a déclaré qu'il avait voulu souligner que la quarantaine avait été utilisée par le passé pour lutter contre la peste bovine, mais qu'il ne tenait pas pour autant à se faire l'avocat de la quarantaine.
Le Dr Rhissa a déclaré qu'à son avis, l'incapacité des projets d'intensifier la production animale ne relevait pas essentiellement de la négligence des gouvernements, de l'inefficacité des politiques adoptées et de l'inadéquation de la coordination ou de la planification. C'était plutôt l'approche utilisée dans laquelle le producteur n'était pas présent pendant la phase initiale de l'intensification des programmes qu'il fallait incriminer. Le Dr Rhissa a estimé que le CIPEA ne devait intervenir qu'après que l'Etat ait déterminé de manière précise ses besoins; le CIPEA pourrait alors, après des études de terrain, utiliser un ensemble de solutions que l'Etat pourrait choisir et adapter en fonction de ses propres besoins. M. Sandford a reconnu que les planificateurs du développement avaient trop souvent essayé de penser et d'agir à la place du producteur plutôt que de l'intégrer directement dans le processus de planification. Mais il persistait à croire que la négligence, de même que des politiques et une planification inadéquates avaient également constitué de sérieux problèmes. M. Sandford pensait que le CIPEA pouvait intervenir plus tôt que ne l'avait suggéré le Dr Rhissa. Le CIPEA devait être à même de formuler des suggestions valables qui pourraient aider les populations et les Etats à déterminer leurs besoins.
Le Dr Abel a déclaré que la compréhension pourrait régner entre les autochtones et les étrangers et que dans certains pays, le service de vulgarisation était tellement éloigné des préoccupations des agriculteurs locaux que seul un étranger pouvait accéder à des informations utiles. La communication entre les agriculteurs et les scientifiques était à la fois utile et possible.
M. von Kauffmann a déclaré que la recherche sur les systèmes portait sur les changements et qu'elle était itérative de nature. Il ne fallait pas s'attendre à ce que les exploitants agricoles puissent exprimer facilement leurs impressions sur quelque chose de nouveau. Leurs réponses seraient motivées par toutes sortes de raisons. L'itération signifiait d'observation des réactions de l'agriculteur puis l'adaptation des innovations qui seraient de nouveau présentées à l'agriculteur. L'évaluation était un processus continu.
Pour le Dr Diakité, M. Sandford n'avait pas pris en considération le problème financier. Le financement était en général insuffisant et conditionnel. M. Sandford a reconnu que les conditions de financement étaient souvent réellement inadéquates et que par ailleurs, l'on avait tendance à faire preuve d'un optimisme exagéré en ce qui concerne le volume et les délais des financements. Mais il a déclaré qu'il ne pensait pas que le fait qu'il s'agissait de "populations traditionnelles" en soit la raison principale. Le problème était que le projet de développement essayait très souvent de réaliser une entreprise insensée et non que les populations traditionnelles hésitaient à faire des choses censées.
Le Dr Diakité a déclaré qu'il estimait que M. Sandford sous-estimait l'importance des accords sanitaires internationaux. M. Sandford estimait que ceux-ci ne se justifiaient pas nécessairement et qu'en fait, très souvent, ils n'allaient manifestement pas dans le sens des intérêts des pays en développement. Il estimait que la politique d'éradication des maladies ou de lutte contre celles-ci ne devrait pas être considérée comme sacro-sainte mais qu'elle devrait de temps à autre faire l'objet de révision et de justification.
Le Professeur Saka Nuru a déclaré qu'il était reconnu qu'au cours des années qui venaient de s'écouler, les instituts nationaux avaient effectué des travaux de recherche sur plusieurs problèmes nationaux d'élevage avec beaucoup de succès. Toutefois, la recherche traditionnelle avait ses limites en ce sens qu'une application directe sur le terrain n'était pas faisable. Le rôle du CIPEA était différent dans la mesure où, grâce à son approche multidisciplinaire, il étudiait les problèmes dans leur globalité mais aussi parce qu'il menait à bien des activités de recherche appliquée au niveau de l'exploitation agricole. Toutefois, le CIPEA devait continuer à s'appuyer sur les ressources qu'offrent les institutions nationales en matière de recherche de base et à faire en sorte que ses travaux concordent avec les besoins des organismes de développement de chaque pays. Il était donc souhaitable que des liens plus étroits soient établis avec les organismes nationaux.
M. Sandford a déclaré que la manière dont la RSP avait été décrite et définie avait pu donner l'impression que la seule contribution de la RSP consistait à mettre au point des améliorations testées avec succès. Il y avait d'autres contributions valables qui n'étaient que des effets secondaires de la RSP telle que définie par M. de Haan mais qui découlaient d'autres manières de définir la RSP. Il s'agit précisément de l'accroissement des connaissances de tous ceux qui s'intéressent au développement du système pastoral. Des travaux de RSP qui n'ont pas donné lieu à des innovations adoptées pourraient néanmoins être valables, notamment en développant les connaissances sur le sujet et partant, en permettant de mieux orienter les efforts de développement.
M. Bekuré a souligné que si l'on confinait la recherche sur les systèmes à la mise au point de techniques en vue d'accroître la productivité, on fermerait la porte à la recherche sur la commercialisation qui ne s'appliquait pas directement au producteur mais était toutefois importante en ce qui concerne la motivation des producteurs et la compréhension de l'opinion des producteurs. M. von Kauffmann a reconnu que le test de techniques n'était pas le seul objet de la recherche sur les systèmes d'exploitation agricole. Si la phase de diagnostic révélait que la vulgarisation constituait un goulet d'étranglement, la RSA mettrait l'accent sur le nombre des exploitants agricoles qui doivent être couverts par un agent de vulgarisation, sur ce que devrait être la logistique à mettre en oeuvre et sur la manière de présenter de la façon la plus avantageuse cette logistique aux exploitants agricoles.
Mlle Grandin a souligné que le CIPEA ne participait pas à une vulgarisation/recherche d'adaptation en soi. L'objectif du CIPEA était de comprendre le processus de la RSP pour élaborer les méthodes nécessaires. Cela pouvait s'effectuer partiellement par d'autres activités de recherche qui ont contribué à évaluer le rôle ou le processus de la RSP. M. Lambourne a déclaré que le mandat du CIPEA consistait à "aider les pays intéressés dans leurs efforts en vue d'introduire des changements dans les systèmes de production..." Le CIPEA avait ainsi deux rôles: chercher les moyens d'améliorer et de changer les systèmes de production actuels; trouver les systèmes qui étaient les meilleurs dans leur état actuel d'équilibre, compte tenu des conditions écologiques ou sociales.
Le Dr Habou a souligné que la plupart des projets d'élevage s'intéressaient davantage à l'animal qu'à l'homme. Mais qu'à long terme, c'est l'homme qui se trouve au centre de tout système de production. M. Sandford a déclaré que la négligence en ce qui concerne la planification de l'élément humain était beaucoup plus évidente dans les années 60 qu'avant ou après cette période. Il était peut être prématuré de dire si les changements intervenus entre les années 60 et les années 70 à cet égard, on donné lieu à de meilleurs projets.
Le Dr Ngutter a suggéré que le CIPEA devrait demander aux gouvernements et aux institutions de recherche, le rôle qu'ils voudraient que le Centre joue dans leurs pays respectifs plutôt que de supposer qu'il connaît les problèmes de chaque pays à priori. M. de Haan a déclaré que l'essence de la recherche sur les systèmes était que les problèmes d'un système donné de production n'étaient pas connus a priori. Le CIPEA devrait s'engager sur la base des éléments suivants: les gouvernements demandent au CIPEA d'effectuer une étude de système dans une zone-cible donnée choisie par lui-même; le CIPEA décide ensuite, à la suite de concertations avec les organismes de recherche et de vulgarisation du gouvernement, du type d'accord de coopération requis.
