Discussion on Working Group presentations
Peroration
Recommendations
Sub-Saharan Africa and West Asia and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
There seems to be some confusion between "highlands" "high population density countries" such as Burundi which are also in the highlands. Population densities are high throughout the East African highlands. Some other way of distinguishing between highland countries such as Burundi and Ethiopia that may differ in agricultural potential as a result of differences in relative population densities should be found. Perhaps this could be done on the basis of agricultural systems (Thomas).
It was indicated that efforts should be concentrated in high potential areas but that not much can be done for low potential areas (Lefèvre). It was said that policy research is very important in the low potential area but that the success of technical research cannot be guaranteed (Peters).
The group stressed very important issues concerning education and research-extension linkages but "assessment of social needs" should be added to help development of analytical tools for policy decisions and for help in improving organizational efficiency (Ostergaard).
Studies on heat tolerance and adaptability have been indicated in TAC documents as a research need. Perhaps genotype-environment interaction studies would cover the needs if genotypes are evaluated biologically and economically (Vaccaro). Cost-benefit studies on genetic resource conservation and the development of methodologies to define which genotypes justify conservation are needed (Peters).
West Asia and North Africa
It was said that the reasons for farmers not adopting legumes were not known. In the late 1980s an ICARDA conference on ley farming in the Mediterranean basin included WANA. Several papers dealt with the biological, socioeconomic and policy reasons for lack of uptake of the technology (Thomas).
Relying on industry to develop vaccines for low income farmers in the developing countries may be ill-advised. The profitability of such products is often too low to justify investment in vaccine development by commercial interests (Ole-Nielsen).
Asia
Similarities between the priorities drawn up by the working group for Asia in this Roundtable and those drawn up by the Asian group at the ILRI Global Agenda for Livestock Research Consultation in Nairobi in January 1995 need to be identified (Thomas). There is a great deal of similarity: the Nairobi meeting ended at the identification of research needs but this Roundtable has gone further and examined development issues, especially how best to involve farmers in the research process and to extend research results to the farm (Devendra).
The impression given by the list of tasks for the future is that there is not much need for technology research on health issues in Asia (Lahlou-Kassi). This was the view of the group (Devendra).
The consultation process used by ILRI/FAO is an approach where people identified as knowledgeable in a mandate area are asked to help prioritize research needs. In the absence of other objective criteria this is better than it being done in-house (Osuji).
Mixed crop-livestock systems involving ruminants and non-ruminants were identified as very important and that research should be done on non-ruminants. I presume that what was being emphasized is that if non-ruminants are present in a system they should of necessity be studied as part of it, rather than change ILRI's emphasis on ruminants (Osuji). The presumption is correct (Devendra).
Latin America and the Caribbean
The focus on policy issues is appropriate. There is a need to know what will be required in terms of resources and organization in order to carry out the policy work and which key constraints must be overcome to achieve the objectives (Ehui). There is a great amount of waste now on work that is not all that relevant and resources should be redirected to more important work (Vaccaro).
The approach used by the group is interesting and thought provoking. If the on-farm and decentralized approach to research that is advocated is to succeed it needs to be properly funded and staff working outside headquarters stations will need to be given equal conditions of service, opportunities for promotion, adequate mobility, and effective equipment to do the excellent work that is required. The cost implications need to be studied in determining approaches and modalities for research (Oram).
General comments
Farming systems research has proved very costly and has not been very successful in sub-Saharan Africa. The reasons for this are low budgets and a paucity of systems information. Information systems to provide a basis for decision making are required (Peters).
The frustrations expressed about the apparent failure of on-farm systems research in Africa, attributed to too much reliance on costly diagnostic surveys, are Understandable. The time devoted to this work led to criticism of on-farm research that was probably premature. The main problem was that real objectives and problem definitions were not sharp enough and lead to the collection of costly and unnecessary data. These were either not analyzed or, if they were, contributed little to the removal of the ill-defined constraints (Osuji).
One of the basic reasons for research failure in the past was that there was no genuine needs assessment of rural farmers. As these farmers do not "own" the problem to be solved by research activities they do not own the solution which could affect their future. This applies to systems analysis as well as to applied research. These are complementary and both are needed (Nana-Sinkam).
On-farm research might be managed effectively through village agroecosystems. "Failure'! of farming systems research might have occurred in part because insufficient attention was paid to an ecosystem approach and the hierarchy of nested ecosystems that comprise the animal production system. A system cannot be studied in isolation, especially if achieving sustainability is one of the objectives. A recent publication presents a lucid and well argued case for assigning "the community of the village agroecosystems" as a relevant and embracing social and spatial unit of analysis to operationalize sustainability. It is also worth noting that during the last 10 years there has been rapid development of epidemiological methods to conduct on-farm or field research to identify determinants of health and productivity (Ole Nielsen).
Systems analysis/systems thinking, for example livestock systems research with farmer participation, is not only appropriate but also an absolute necessity if progress is to be made in development work. It also benefits the various disciplines involved and enriches the research output (Ostergaard).
Support for helping people in low income countries through livestock development needs some institutional structure based on sustained allocation of funds and manpower. Involving farmers in the process is important but the main objective in promoting livestock development is to gain public support for increased funding for research and development. A mechanism must be found that takes into account the concerns of the public, interest groups and policy makers in developed countries. If this is to be accomplished in an effective manner a secretariat of representatives from the CG system, FAO, the World Bank, other international development agencies, regional institutions such as SACCAR and CILSS and NARS is needed. This secretariat could, inter alia, do impact analyses and distil research results to make them palatable to the public. A global forum, a secretariat, a policy network and a "2020 vision for livestock" are complementary activities (Shapiro).
In attempts to publicize the role of livestock and promote policy research it must be remembered that this costs money. If the idea of publicizing the importance and role of livestock and trying to dispel misconceptions about their influence on the environment is to succeed it will have to be well crafted. Funding may have to be a consortium effort but setting up a policy research group might fit within the systemwide livestock initiative and be funded through it. With regard to comments on the public attention attracted by IFPRI's 2020 initiative on micronutrients it should be noted that this was a user friendly and novel approach to improving human nutrition and drawing attention to a hitherto unrecognized problem. IFPRI has not much experience of livestock issues but is now trying to correct this. It is hoped to establish a working relation with ILRI and FAO to develop a 2020 position paper on research needs for livestock policy in relation to future demand and supply for animal products (Oram).
Policy is highlighted as important but policy is swayed by politics, external funding, resource allocation, interest lobbies and many other factors. Livestock make a major yet still undervalued contribution to development. Many answers have come out of this meeting and many constraints and opportunities have been identified. We must now exploit the results and build on the synergy (Mack).
The main point arising from the roundtable is that the welfare of small farmers and herders - and not of livestock- is the goal. Livestock research and development must turn that goal into reality. The case for livestock must therefore be presented to show that improved production will have no adverse impact on opportunities to feed future people, maintain environmental quality and conserve genetic resources.
The new vision places livestock in a production and au ecological system. There are immense opportunities to improve the welfare of producers and consumers by further integration of crops and livestock into truly mixed systems. This new system thinking, however, presents a challenge. Experts in systems analysis and modelling need to be brought into livestock research fore. A critical factor for further progress will be a clear articulation of the role of livestock in advancing human development.
Understanding of the consequences of continuing with the status quo versus the pursuit of visionary but realistic alternatives must be developed as part of the process. A capacity to create development scenarios and policy alternatives has been identified as a need, requiring the blending of Global Information Systems and modelling with policy analysis techniques. The resultant framework should show where livestock can make a difference. It could form the basis of a set of research and policy decision support systems for use by international, national and local organizations.
Progress in the development of realistic scenarios needs to be supported by research on indicators of performance - ecosystem health - so that the models can be kept simple and persuasive. Research on indicators will also be useful in clarifying the relations between livestock and the world's environment.
One of the greatest openings for progress lies in the identification of opportunities to improve livestock policy and the institutional arrangements that influence livestock management and investment strategies. Land tenure arrangements, for example, can give investment security and facilitate joint management of resources. New price and regional trade policies would do much to improve overall welfare and reduce land degradation. As some of these reforms would bring about significant structural adjustment it is important that work in this area identifies the most effective order or sequence in which to implement change. Simple and generalized recommendations that fail to clarify the impact of change, for example, on a hillside farming community are insufficient end only serve to discredit livestock research.
Past research agendas have failed to involve local farmers. Isolated behind field station gates much research has seemed, and on examination has proved, to be irrelevant. Research projects that focus on problems that are not relevant to farmers' needs risk failure. The alternative is a research environment that creates a seamless link between resource use, people, development, extension and research. Development projects, for example, can be modified to provide the adaptive platforms necessary for effective research. Animal breeding trials and forage utilization trials can be conducted on-farm.
The search for new research mechanisms suggests a parallel need for research on ways to encourage local communities to solve their own problems, to form their own organizations and, even, to commission research. Overall the vision is one that is output and product focused with people at the centre. Problem recognition, firm product targets, clear hypotheses, system thinking, policy relevance and small farmer welfare provide focus for that vision.
The livestock roundtable concluded its meeting with optimism and purpose. In particular, it felt that the new vision of livestock research and development working in partnership must result in the development of an action plan. It resolved unanimously:
· that senior representatives from FAO and ILRI meet before May 1995 to form a Livestock Research and Development Forum with a charter to· coordinate livestock related research and development across the developing world,· identify opportunities to create synergies between development and research by, for example, targeting work in the same region and designing projects so that they can be used for complementary research and development purposes,
· ensure that research conclusions are incorporated into development proposals as soon as possible,
· act as a clearing house for information about livestock development and research proposals,
· facilitate the refinement of draft project plans by means of appropriately constructed working groups,
· endorse integrated development/research plans for submission to donors,
· promote livestock's image in development and the potential for research on livestock production and resource conservation to enhance their positive contribution to sustainable development, and
· identify opportunities for developing innovative livestock communication strategies.
· that FAO/ILRI/IFPRI develop a proposal for a Livestock Policy Research Network for submission to the livestock planning group responsible for implementing the CGIAR's new Systemwide Livestock Initiative.
· that ILRI, in association with FAO, take a lead role in developing the image of livestock, livestock research, and livestock development.
· that ILRI ensure that the new CGIAR communication strategy give prominence to livestock research.
It is anticipated that the executive of the Livestock Research and Development Forum would comprise a small group of senior FAO and ILRI representatives responsible for the general direction of livestock research and development. The opportunity to expand this executive to include representatives from other agencies, NARS and farmer organizations should be considered. The Executive would be aided by a Secretariat comprising senior representatives of FAO and ILRI. One or two resource persons could be appointed to the Executive and/or the Secretariat as appropriate. Opportunities to allow open membership of the forum and hold periodic meetings should be considered carefully. It is envisaged that the forum's Executive would meet at least once a year and, through its Secretariat, convene regularly by e-mail.
