PC 93/5

Programme Committee

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ACRONYMS

Executive Summary and Major Recommendations

A. SUMMARY OF THE REPORT

B. RECAPITUALTION OF THE MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EVALUATION

I. Introduction and Context

II. Scope of the Evaluation

III. Overview of FAO's Activities in Livestock Production, Policy and Information under Programme 2.1.3

A. EVOLUTION OF FAO's LIVESTOCK PROGRAMME 1998-2004

B. REGURAL PROGRAMME RESOURCES

C. EXTRA-BUDGETARY RESOURCES FOR NORMATIVE PROGRAMMES

D. FIELD PROJECTS

IV. Questionnaire Survey of Member Countries on FAO Assistance in LPPI

V. Assessment of Regular Programme and Normative Activities

A. COHERENCE OF THE PROGRAMME WITH THE FAO STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

B. REVIEW OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMME ENTITIES

2.1.3 A3 Contribution of Livestock to Poverty Alleviation
2.1.3 A5 Developing the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources
2.1.3 A6 Veterinary Public Health Management and Food and Feed Safety
2.1.3 A8 Technologies and Systems for Efficient Natural Resource Use in Livestock Production
2.1.3.B1 Livestock Sector Analysis and Strategy Development (including the Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative - PPLPI)
2.1.3.P1 Global Livestock Information System and Knowledge Framework
Overall Scoring of the Programme Entities

C. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES

Measuring the Results and Impact of Programme Entities: Objectives and Indicators
Publications and Communicating AGA's Message

VI. Assessment of Field Activities

A. QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT

B. ISSUES RELATED TO FIELD ACTIVITIES

From Technology-based to Development-based Interventions
Dairying in East Asia: Prioritization and Strategy in the Field Programme
Lack of Visibility of FAO’s Recent LPPI Work
The SPFS Diversification Component
Pastoral Livestock Systems
Regarding TCPs

VII. Programme Design and Issues at Headquarters

A. THE INSTITUTIONAL VISIBILITY OF LIVESTOCK WORK WITHIN FAO

B. PROGRAMME DESIGN AND WORKING ARRANGEMENTS

Interdisciplinarity Within AGA and Linkages with Other Parts of FAO
Understanding FAO's Role in LPPI in the Global Context

VIII. General Conclusions on the Strategic Orientation of FAO's Work in LPPI

FAO's Current and Future Role in the Livestock Sector
The Revised Programme Entities in the MTP 2006-11
The "Mission" of the FAO Livestock Programme

NOTA BENE: Any paragraph containing a recommendation or suggestion for change is highlighted in a text box

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

Evaluation Team:
FAO Evaluation Service:	Daniel Shallon (Team Leader) Bernd Bultemeier Carlos Tarazona
Headquarters Review Consultant:	Margaret Gill
Regional Mission Consultants:	Adama Traoré Leonard Reynolds Garry Cummins Carlos Pomareda

ACRONYMS

Executive Summary and Major Recommendations

A. SUMMARY OF THE REPORT

1. Programme 2.1.3, Livestock, includes the three general areas of health, policy/information and production. Given the growing size and importance of the livestock sector in agriculture around the world and, in particular, the important role of livestock production in poverty alleviation and food security, the present evaluation focuses on FAO's response to development issues associated with livestock production, policy and information (LPPI).

2. The major outputs of this programme include: global livestock sector analysis, policy and strategy to favour smallholder (poor) livestock systems, for improved standards and safety, and for better integration of livestock and environment; development of a global livestock information system; technical assistance for smallholder livestock production systems; and development of the Global Strategy for the Management of Animal Genetic Resources (AnGR). The programme was significantly restructured in the 2000-01 biennium, moving to a programme organized around development goals instead of production systems. The new approach seeks to focus overall strategy on the role of livestock development in the evolution of three key "global public goods": equity (in particular poverty alleviation), environment and natural resources, and veterinary public health.

3. During the review period, FAO's Livestock Division (AGA) carried lead responsibility for the implementation of some 91 non-emergency LPPI projects, of which 15 were normative projects at headquarters. It also had lead responsibility for 17 emergency LPPI projects, of which 10 in Iraq. This is an unusually high (for FAO) concentration of donor-funded headquarters projects, which has commendable benefits for the normative programme. However, donor funding has proved difficult to attract at regional and country levels, though this was clearly not for lack of trying. There is a clear need to identify more effective resource mobilization strategies for the Field Programme, such as the suggested strengthening of regional livestock teams noted, and the adoption of a more strategic approach to field activities.

4. The LPPI activities under the Livestock Programme relate directly to all five of FAO's Corporate Strategies under the Strategic Framework 2000-15. An analysis was made of progress under each programme entity (PE) related to LPPI. This analysis is summarised below.

5. 2.1.3.A3 Contribution of Livestock to Poverty Alleviation: This PE appropriately focuses on small stock (e.g. poultry, sheep and goats) and on small-scale processing. It has developed a network of partnerships both within and external to FAO and is the entity that provides technical input to the SPFS Diversification Component. There is a continuing demand from member countries for the delivery of the more traditional approach of technology-centred projects. Given the significant requests in this area and the limited resources in AGA, active consideration could be given to adopting a facilitator role rather than providing technical assistance directly, working through partnerships at the technology-transfer interface at regional and national levels.

6. 2.1.3.A5 Developing the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources: Activities over the past three years have largely been driven by the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA). The PE focuses on the completion of the first State of the World's AnGR (SoW), a publication for which each member country of FAO should nominate a national focal point and produce a national State of AnGR. This work has a very high profile internationally. However, the weight of work in preparing the SoW has meant that not enough time has been given to utilization, which is the link between what is otherwise biodiversity conservation work (not particularly central to overall AGA priorities) and the production, health and policy work of the rest of AGA. There is a need to adjust the current arrangements to support this work effectively in AGA while strengthening integration in the work of other parts of the division.

7. 2.1.3.A6 Veterinary Public Health Management and Food and Feed Safety: This is an area of interdisciplinary work within AGA, of which the Food and Feed Safety part is reviewed here. This work is concerned with the implementation of the Codex Alimentarius. The work reviewed showed clear goals (though a poorly stated objective) and there were good links with both public and private sectors. Further attention should be given to ensuring knowledge gained in this area of work informs work in other PEs, such as the poverty entity A3, to help avoid the potential disadvantaging of the poor through implementation of tighter standards.

8. 2.1.3.A8 Technologies and Systems for Efficient Natural Resource Use in Livestock Production: There is evidence of adaptation in this PE to the growing emphasis on policy-level assistance. However, there remains a tension between the opportunity to be pro-active and a continuing pressure from member countries for traditional technologies. As of 2006, changes to be implemented will divide the work in this PE between two new entities on poverty and on environment. Care will need to be taken to ensure that new divisions are not created and that each ‘public good’ is not considered in isolation. The LEAD (Livestock, Environment and Development) initiative under this PE is an example of an area that has been very successful in securing external income. The new PEs raise the profile of livestock-environment interactions in AGA, a move which should ensure that the impact of livestock on the environment is considered in all aspects of animal production.

9. 2.1.3.B1 Livestock Sector Analysis and Strategy Development (including the Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative - PPLPI): The creation of a ‘Policy’ branch within AGA is an example of adaptation to changing demands and future needs. However, this branch is not sufficiently integrated with the two older services in AGA and opportunities are being missed. That said, the work of the team, including the proposal to publish a World Livestock Report, was found to be innovative, relevant and of high quality. The PPLPI (Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative) is another important externally funded headquarters programme, which contributes to this PE, as well as to A3 and P1. After a slow start, the PPLPI has made considerable progress and is now poised to deliver a portfolio of livestock-related interventions for reducing poverty through policy and institutional change. It also seeks to influence thinking within FAO itself about processes for inclusive and pro-poor policy work.

10. 2.1.3.P1 Global Livestock Information System and Knowledge Framework: This PE is designed to bring together all information activities and databases maintained in AGA, and give them a clearer strategic orientation in support of informed policy and decision-making in the livestock sector. As a coordinating mechanism for existing systems, the value of this entity is beyond question. The regional missions were unanimous in finding that FAO is considered an important (often the most important) source of information on livestock-related issues. Information collection, management and dissemination is central to AGA's strategic vision, and the website and information systems under this entity are central to that function. A weakness is that these systems depend to a great extent on staff funded from extra-budgetary sources for maintenance and management, with the uncertainty this implies as regards the future.

11. Assessment of the field activities is based on five regional field missions to 20 countries in Africa, the Near East, Eastern Europe, Latin America and East Asia. The number of field projects directly assessed in the countries and regions represents more than half of the total implemented during the review period. Projects were scored for a number of aspects. The strongest was found to be relevance of the projects to development problems. Slightly less was the clarity of objectives, but the weakness in formulation and design (and consequently in sustainability) was more significant, with nearly one-third of the projects rated unsatisfactory. Missions recommended greater resource allocation for the design and preparation of TCP projects. This is related to the ongoing evolution of TCPs from technology transfer and advice into increasingly complex issues of poverty alleviation and socio-economic development.

12. At headquarters, programme design reflects a future vision of a division whose role is to be a knowledge broker and facilitator focusing on livestock policy and information, working to minimize negative impacts and maximize positive outcomes of livestock production on the three 'public goods'. In terms of policies, FAO has a key role to play in providing evidence for the impact of policy on achieving global goals, particularly poverty reduction and food security; in identifying where national or regional policies may impact on other countries or regions, especially through trade; and in facilitating the replication of best practice between countries. In this, AGA is evolving along with FAO towards a way of working which focuses more on information and policy and less on technology and training.

B. RECAPITULATION OF THE MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE EVALUATION

Rethinking the Mission Statement (Recommendation 1)

14. The current Mission Statement of the FAO Livestock Programme is:

"to clarify and facilitate the role of the livestock sub-sector in poverty reduction, improved food security, improved food safety, as well as in safe trade in livestock and animal products while safeguarding environmental sustainability and biodiversity"

15. The evaluation team recommends that the phrasing of the Mission Statement be reconsidered and further sharpened. While the final formulation is left to AGA, a possible alternative phrasing which, to the evaluation team, better reflects how the division's work was presented is:

The Mission of FAO's livestock programme is to clarify (through analysis and information) and to facilitate:

1. the role of the livestock subsector in improving food security and providing a pathway out of poverty; and
2. the task of meeting rapidly increasing demands for livestock products through production, processing and trade, while
1. mitigating any negative impacts of production intensification on the poor;
2. safeguarding the environment; and
3. minimizing the risks to public health.

Increasing the Visibility of LPPI Work in FAO (Recommendation 2)

16. The evaluation team recommends that:

• As a step towards resolving the issue of the Livestock Programme's limited visibility in the Agriculture Department and in FAO, the presence of livestock as an agenda item in FAO's Committee on Agriculture (COAG) should be made permanent. Suggestions of other mechanisms for increasing visibility, such as through a strengthened communications strategy, through stronger interaction with other parts of the Organization, or through other FAO conferences and bodies, are given in the report below.

Interdisciplinarity (Recommendation 3)

17. There are two aspects to this issue: technical and staff. On the technical side, the evaluation team recommends that:

• While the work on implementing standards and regulations for livestock products, as well as the animal health work for the most part are more distinct areas, in the areas of smallholder livestock production systems and of sector analysis and policy work (particularly pro-poor policy), AGA needs to proactively seek the wider integration of AGA activities within the work of the Agriculture Department (AG) as a whole¹. This means seeking ways to integrate small farmer livestock issues with a full farm livelihoods approach, working together with other AG units to provide sector-wide support to policies and strategies for smallholder agriculture systems for poverty alleviation, food security and income generation, where livestock support works hand-in-hand with other support. Policies would aim to ensure the coherent and effective integration of livestock activities into all smallholder agricultural assistance, one aspect of production among several others.

18. On the staff side, the team recommends that:

• AGA management undertake more active promotion of interdisciplinary work, between units within the division, and between AGA staff and other parts of FAO. This is related to incentives, both direct and indirect, which influence staff decisions in time and resource allocation, and which currently favour a vertically structured focus on the narrow technical field associated with the post, group, service and division. Management should, for example, explore ways of setting up a (transparent) incentive system which encourages inter-disciplinary work within and outside of AGA. Incentives may be in the form of access to additional resources (e.g. from a "fund for interdisciplinary activities" kept at divisional level), release from administrative activities, or whatever is appropriate to the situation. Likewise, disincentives to resistance to interaction with others could, for example, take the form of negative assessments of an entity's or an individual's performance.

Rationalizing Genetic Resources Work in AGA (Recommendation 4)

19. The evaluation team recommends that:

• consideration should be given to clarifying and strengthening the position of animal genetic resources (AnGR) work in AGA and FAO in two respects:
1. by linking it more strongly and directly with the rest of the genetic resources and biodiversity work of FAO. One approach to this which emerged from discussions with both AGA and the Secretariat is to second a staff member² (preferably jointly selected by the two units) to place an animal genetic resources person in the CGRFA Secretariat, which is otherwise much more focused on plants. It is important to work out a mechanism that genuinely allows this position to bridge the gap between AnGR and other GR work: it is important to ensure that the position is shared and not simply absorbed by the Secretariat, leaving the same distance as now. The team suggests that the position be fully funded by AGA, while physically located in the Secretariat offices and have an active role in Secretariat functions, meetings, planning, etc. The post would answer to both AGA and the Secretariat under a carefully defined mandate. Such a post would assist in drawing more attention to AGA's AnGR work, which should take on greater importance in the context of the high priority currently accorded to genetic resources and biodiversity by many member countries.
2. by accelerating the evolution of FAO's AnGR work towards utilization, including breeding, biotechnology and biosecurity, and exchange of genetic resources. Strengthening technical and programming skills in this area can be achieved if this is a priority when selecting candidates for the vacancies in the AnGR group, both the current one and upcoming ones for the replacement of retiring staff members. The team believes that work in utilization and management should not await the shift of budget emphasis foreseen in the MTP 2006-11, which is planned to take place at the beginning of 2008, but should instead begin now. The work on utilization of genetic resources by AGAP should also involve AGAL and AGAH as appropriate.

Using the Strategic Vision for Priority Setting in the Field Programme (Recommendation 5)

20. Based on a number of indications, it would appear that many member countries would be happy with FAO taking a more proactive approach to priority setting for field activities. AGA has developed a focused, strategic approach to its livestock programme, and with it has been able to attract large donor-funded programmes.

21. The evaluation team recommends that:

• AGA should work on translating the new headquarters strategic vision into a coherent approach to its support to the Field Programme, and use this as a basis for priority setting in responding to requests. To the extent possible, this should apply to requests coming from member countries as well as from other parts of FAO, such as the Special Programme for Food Security and the Emergency Relief and Rehabilitation Division (TCE). AGA cannot answer all and any request related to livestock, and this should be clear to its clients.
• This would clearly involve consideration of regional and national specificities, and it is recommended that strategy development be done with the direct participation of Regional Officers and selected FAORs in the AGA planning process, bringing to bear regional and national situations and prerogatives.

Constitution of Regional "Core Teams" in three Regional Offices (Recommendation 6)

22. The current structure of FAO's decentralization was undergoing its own in-depth evaluation at the time of this evaluation, and the response of the Governing Bodies and FAO management had not yet been finalized at the time of writing. However, under the current structure, the evaluation team highly recommends:

• That AGA move forward with the proposal to constitute a small number of regional core teams with a larger number of officers. This will allow much more complete coverage within the region, easing the burden on headquarters and providing countries with more complete and easily available technical support.
• Three international professionals with additional national staff as in RAP would seem an excellent formula. AGA has proposed covering Europe and the Near East region from headquarters (logistically possible) while concentrating existing posts on the remaining three Regional Offices.
• This could be done by moving one post from the Subregional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and one from the Regional Office for the Near East to RAF, and requesting the return of the two OTO/FAOR posts in Latin America to put them in RLC. The existing international livestock officer post would be kept in SAFR, which the evaluation team feels is very important, as RAF officers have significant logistical difficulty travelling to and communicating with East and Southern Africa. The evaluation strongly recommends approval of such an arrangement.
• The teams should also be called upon to take part in AGA strategic planning workshops in order to inject the (very diverse) regional perspectives on livestock activities into the AGA strategic vision and programme.

From Technology Transfer to Policy Change (Recommendation 7)

23. As the world's developing countries go through economic transformation and globalization, they increasingly have the means to resolve technological issues without FAO, through rapidly growing domestic technical capacity, through NGOs and other similar sources, or through the use of their own financial resources (public and/or private) to purchase the needed technology and training.

24. On AGA's policy assistance role, the evaluation team recommends that:

• AGA's work at national level in support of animal production should increasingly be aimed at the policy and strategic levels, whether that assistance is concerned with the commercial-industrial sector or with small farmers. This implies the better integration of the policy functions now concentrated in AGAL across the whole division, as well as greater recognition and utilization of the contribution of the other services to policy work.
• FAO has a strong comparative advantage in supporting policy change in the livestock sector. In order to achieve genuine impact in this area, however, the team recommends that efforts be made to reach beyond FAO's traditional counterparts at the Ministries of Agriculture where possible, and seek the attention of higher, more strategic levels of policy-making such as Ministries of Planning, Development, Economy or Finance.
• Technology-based field projects should continue to play a key role, but mainly as an instrument to achieve changes in policies, institutions and attitudes. To the extent possible, these projects should ideally be used as part of a policy process, serving as demonstrations, or for piloting new initiatives suggested by the policy dialogue. Where this cannot be done, technology projects should take the policy/strategy context into careful consideration during their design.

25. On its technical assistance role, the team recommends that:

• AGA take care to ensure that expectations of response to requests for technological assistance do not exceed the breadth of staff skills and depth of resources available. This means better publicizing the division's specific strategies and focus among member countries and to other parts of FAO (as noted in Recommendation 5 above).
• More active consideration be given to adopting a facilitator role rather than providing this assistance directly, working through partnerships at the technology-transfer interface at regional and national levels. FAO has helped to train and develop nationals and NGOs in many countries, and must take the opportunity to continue to evolve FAO’s role away from direct technical assistance, passing this responsibility where possible to strong national agricultural research and extension services (NARES), NGOs and national consultants, for example.

Sustainable interventions under SPFS (Recommendation 8)

26. On the basis of the results of the field missions, which invariably scored the SPFS livestock projects poorly for sustainability, the evaluation recommends that:

• AGAP, as lead technical unit for these interventions, bring to bear its expertise to ensure that the SPFS livestock activities are viable, replicable and sustainable under national conditions (i.e. after the end of project support). The team recognizes the efforts already made by AGA in this direction, but encourages further work. Additional guidelines or other instruments (workshops, training, etc.) might assist in this.
• AGAP and AGAL take a more proactive role in the (re-) conceptualization of the whole approach to livestock for poverty alleviation and food security in the SPFS, moving livestock away from its current isolated status and taking a more holistic approach to family, farm, community and national production systems. This work should be done in close collaboration with the PPLPI process, which for the moment has no interaction with the SPFS work of AGAP.

I. Introduction and Context

27. Agriculture globally is influenced by many external drivers, and organizations associated with the sector have to both be aware of the impact of those drivers and also adaptable enough to ensure their input remains relevant. This is particularly true for the livestock sector, which has been by far the fastest growing sub-sector in agriculture over the past several decades. Worldwide, consumption of livestock products increased by 2.9 percent per year between 1982 and 1994 (an overall increase of over 40 percent), but this figure masks a much more important trend: while consumption in developed countries grew by only 1 percent per year, in developing countries it grew by 5.4 percent per year (an overall increase of 88 percent)³. This trend has been termed the "Livestock Revolution" ever since a well-known 1999 global study of the sector by IFPRI, FAO and ILRI.⁴

28. Increases of this rate are being met through an increase in intensive systems of production, which has raised concerns about the potential impact on the environment, potential negative effects on the poor, and the increased risk of animal disease. Some of these diseases can affect humans (zoonoses), while others can, through international trade, result in epizootics (animal epidemics) across regions, raising issues of increasingly stringent requirements and standards associated with trade in livestock products. While increasing trade is the main priority for many countries, donors at the same time have been targeting more funds towards poverty alleviation with the stated objective of helping to sustain the livelihoods of small-scale producers, such as those who may be adversely affected by the tightening regulations and standards.

29. This external environment is not only changing but becoming increasingly complex. Simple provision of technologies no longer has a major impact in many countries and identifying appropriate interventions requires the monitoring of global trends, identification of the most appropriate institutional frameworks and assessment of the implications of policies, all of which require trans-sectoral understanding.

30. These different pressures place demands on FAO which require a very broad range of skills and experience, at a time when both the funds and the human resources available are decreasing. FAO senior management has responded to these changing demands by introducing a number of initiatives to stimulate interactions between departments and divisions, for example the Priority Areas for Interdisciplinary Action (PAIAs) and a New Programming Model which includes development of cross-service (and occasionally cross-divisional) programme entities. These efforts currently have problems fitting with the vertical organization of the FAO budget, which leaves PAIAs, for example, with very limited possibilities for internal funding.

31. Working in such a dynamic environment can be very stimulating and rewarding, but one of the consequences of tackling this with a decreasing workforce is that it is very difficult to meet all expectations. The evaluation team considered how FAO's Animal Production and Health Division (AGA) was meeting demands in this challenging environment by drawing on skills both within AGA and elsewhere within and outside of FAO. However, collaboration is often hampered by the lack of time for interaction due to the need to respond to country requests for technical assistance. The number of such demands has decreased in recent years, but continuing with this responsibility places a requirement for certain skills to be retained within AGA (and FAO in general), skills which may not be best suited to addressing the broader issues.

32. It is in this context, of a division and an organization showing recognition of changing demands and the new skills which these may require, while retaining a commitment to traditional demands requiring a broader skill base, that the evaluation was conducted.

II. Scope of the Evaluation

33. The FAO Livestock Programme: FAO’s livestock activities are included under Major Programme 2.1, Agricultural Production and Support Systems, one of the five major technical and economic programmes of the Organization⁵. The Livestock Programme, of which a part is under consideration in this evaluation, is structured as illustrated in Table 1 below. As with the other technical divisions, the work of AGA is subdivided into programme entities of three types: Technical Projects, Continuing Programme Activities and Technical Services Agreements (TPs, CPs and SAs)⁶.

34. Coverage of this evaluation: Programme 2.1.3, Livestock, as indicated in the table below, includes the three general areas of health, policy/information and production. This evaluation does not deal directly with the area of animal health, as a programme evaluation of the animal health activities of FAO was undertaken in 2001 (published in 2002). Given the growing size and importance of the livestock sector in agriculture around the world and in particular the important role of livestock production in poverty alleviation and food security, it was decided to undertake a strategic evaluation of the non-animal-health aspects of the programme. Thus, the present evaluation focuses on FAO's response to development issues associated mainly with livestock production, policy and information (referred to as "LPPI" throughout this report).

35. The evaluation reviewed normative work in LPPI at headquarters and in the Regional Offices, as well as carrying out five regional field missions to review TCP and other field activities in 20 selected countries.⁷ It is concerned mainly with the work of the Animal Production Service (AGAP) and the Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Policy Branch (AGAL), and is intended to complement the more technically oriented 2001 evaluation of animal health activities. Although the area of animal health was left out of this evaluation, it is difficult if not impossible to analyse activities in animal production or livestock policy without involving animal health and other aspects. Therefore, in line with the terms of reference, while analysis and recommendations refer mainly to the livestock production, policy and information areas, when appropriate the evaluation draws lessons and makes recommendations that are wider in scope, covering AGA as a whole, and in some cases, FAO in general. The evaluation covers the six-year period from 1998 to 2004.

36. Technical dimensions of production, policy and information work under Programme 2.1.3: The Mission Statement of AGA is the following:

"to clarify and facilitate the role of the livestock sub-sector in poverty reduction, improved food security, improved food safety, as well as in safe trade in livestock and animal products while safeguarding environmental sustainability and biodiversity.”

37. The focus is on analysis and provision of knowledge in the livestock sub-sector under a wide-ranging mandate, from poverty alleviation to international trade, public health and the environment. This mission statement is discussed in greater detail in Section VIII below.

38. The major outputs planned under the production, policy and information aspects of Programme 2.1.3 can be summarized as follows:

1. global livestock sector analysis, studies, guidelines and workshops for decision support for policy and strategy, in particular to favour smallholder (poor) livestock systems, for improved standards and safety, and for better integration of livestock and environment;
2. development of a global information system in support of the livestock sector, in particular with the objective of supporting a) above;
3. direct technological advice for smallholder livestock production and processing, for food safety and standards, and for better integration of livestock and environment; and
4. development of the Global Strategy for the Management of Animal Genetic Resources (AnGR), of which the major element is preparation of the State of the World's AnGR, including country capacity building for preparation of national AnGR reports.

39. Of these, the pro-poor policy work, the livestock and environment work and to a lesser extent the State of the World's AnGR have succeeded in obtaining high levels of extra-budgetary funding. In FAO's Programme of Work and Budget (PWB) for 2004-05, the Livestock Programme is divided into eight programme entities as detailed in the next section (six Technical Projects, two Continuing Programmes, as well as one technical services agreement, 2.1.3.S1).

III. Overview of FAO's Activities in Livestock Production,
Policy and Information under Programme 2.1.3

A. EVOLUTION OF FAO'S LIVESTOCK PROGRAMME 1998-2004

40. Origins of the current programme structure: Until 1999, the structure of Programme 2.1.3 was based on provision of technical assistance to member countries in a number of fields related to animal production. Feed and fodder resources and livestock production systems figured strongly, as did transboundary diseases.

41. It was significantly restructured in the 2000-01 biennium, moving to a programme organized around development goals instead of production systems. The new programme recognized the need to clarify and facilitate management of the positive and negative impacts of the rapidly expanding and changing livestock sector, the "Livestock Revolution" mentioned in the opening section, and was reoriented to provide more decision support through information, while continuing to enhance capacities in animal production and health technologies and policies.

42. The Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Policy Branch (AGAL) was created at that time by taking certain functions and posts from the two existing services, Animal Health (AGAH) and Animal Production (AGAP). With this new structure, the whole programme began to move more clearly from mainly technical assistance towards a greater focus on policy and information for livestock development.

43. The new approach taken by AGA during that biennium seeks to focus overall strategy on the role of livestock development in the evolution of what AGA calls the three key "global public goods" for FAO in the livestock sector: (1) equity (in particular poverty alleviation); (2) environment and natural resources; and (3) veterinary public health, as shown in Figure 1⁸. Livestock continues to be an ever more dynamic sub-sector of agriculture, due to rapidly increasing demand for livestock products, particularly in Asia. This increase has led to intensification of livestock systems in many regions and an increase in international trade, which if unchecked, has growing negative impacts on these “public goods”. In the case of “equity”, attention also focuses on regions, particularly Africa, where the impact of the “livestock revolution” is only beginning to be felt but where livestock development has an important role to play in poverty alleviation.

44. Current programme entities: Programme entities in the 2002-03 Programme of Work and Budget (PWB) were reviewed and reformulated to sharpen their focus on the key “public goods” and provide a specific programme entity for sector analysis and strategy development. The form they were given at that time has been maintained up to the present (PWB 2004-05 and MTP 2004-09). These entities are as follows (those not included in this evaluation are in italics):

2.1.3.A3    Contribution of Livestock to Poverty Alleviation

2.1.3.A5    Developing the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources

2.1.3.A6    Veterinary Public Health Management and Food and Feed Safety

2.1.3.A7    EMPRES - Livestock

2.1.3.A8    Technologies and Systems for Efficient Natural Resource Use in Livestock Production

2.1.3.A9    Environmental Management of Insect-borne Diseases

2.1.3.B1    Livestock Sector Analysis and Strategy Development

2.1.3.P1    Global Livestock Information System and Knowledge Framework

2.1.3.S1    Direct Advice to Member Countries and Support to the Field Programme

45. Figure 1 illustrates the placement of these various entities in the triangle of the three “public goods” identified by AGA as central to their work. Two of the entities, Livestock Sector Analysis and Strategy Development (B1) and Global Livestock Information System and Knowledge Framework (P1), underpin work on all three “public goods”.

46. For the Medium-Term Plan period 2004-09, four entities were given relatively higher Regular Programme resources, in line with priorities expressed by member countries. Interestingly, the only one related to production, policy and information was 2.1.3 A3, Contribution of Livestock to Poverty Alleviation, though this increase was mainly to support the "diversification component" of the Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS). The other three entities considered as priorities in the MTP were the three animal-health-related entities: 2.1.3 A6, 2.1.3 A7 and 2.1.3 A9.

Figure 1: The “global public goods”
triangle showing the placement of the current Livestock programme entities
(NB: A7 and A9 are not part of this evaluation)

47. Proposed evolution in the MTP 2006-2011: The latest update to the FAO Medium-Term Plan was completed during the course of this evaluation. AGA thoroughly reviewed the structure of its programme to further focus its work on helping countries to avoid negative impacts of livestock sector development on the three “public goods”. The decision was taken to decrease the number of programme entities from eight to six, with the following changes:

2.1.3 B2:   Livestock Sector Analysis and Policy Development (reworded from B1)

2.1.3 B4:   Veterinary Public Health and Food Safety; (reworded from A6 with strengthening focus on standards setting)

2.1.3 B5:   Livestock Development and Poverty Reduction (combining A3 with production and processing technology elements of A8, and the - planned - animal breeding part of A5)

2.1.3 B6:   Livestock-environment interactions (combining the biodiversity part of the genetic resources entity A5, the Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) programme from A8, and A9 on insect-borne diseases)

2.1.3 P1:   Global Livestock Information (reworded from P1)

2.1.3 P2:   EMPRES - Progressive Control of Transboundary Diseases (reworded from A7 and made a continuing programme)

48. The rationale for these changes as described in the MTP (2006-2011), was to "sharpen the programme’s focus on areas of highest relevance and priority, taking account of the experience gained so far" and "to better align the programme to the Millennium Development Goals" as well as eliminating existing overlaps to achieve efficiency gains in the face of declining resources. The three “public goods” correspond to the Millennium Development Goals 1 (eradicate poverty and hunger), 6 (combat diseases) and 7 (environmental sustainability). In seeking to conform to the MDGs, AGA is one step ahead of much of FAO as the Organization begins to move towards greater integration of the MDGs in its strategic planning.

49. These planned changes to the Livestock Programme will become effective in 2006. For the purposes of the present evaluation, the programme entities reviewed are the ones in the MTP 2004-09, which have guided the work of AGA since 2002. The planned changes are considered in Section VIII.

B. REGULAR PROGRAMME RESOURCES

50. Since the adoption of the New Programme Model and the formulation of the current programme entities, Regular Programme resources have been distributed against the technical programmes of AGA as shown in Table 2 below. Changes in allocations to the various programme entities have been slight, with animal health funding growing slowly as that for LPPI has declined slightly.

51. Staffing: As shown in Table 3 below, AGAP and AGAL together have 16 Regular Programme (RP) professional posts, including one D1 Service Chief (AGAP) and one P5 Branch Chief (AGAL). However, actual staff body size is nearly twice this number due to the several normative projects with extra-budgetary funding which provide 9 professional posts (one currently vacant) and 3 Associate Professional Officers. During the evaluation period, due to FAO's budget reductions for the 2004-05 biennium⁹, AGAP was obliged to abolish two RP posts (a P3 and a P4) which happened to be vacant at the end of 2003. Also, two of the four senior AGAP officers will be reaching mandatory retirement in 2005 and 2006. Given the roles of these retiring officers (the head of the dairy group and the head of the genetic resources group), this could have a significant impact on the future of AGAP.

52. AGA professional posts in the FAO Regional Offices total 10, though six of these focus almost exclusively on health. The posts are: one each in the Regional Offices for Africa (RAF), the Near East (RNE) and Latin America (RLC) and the Subregional Offices for Southern African (SAFR) and Central Europe (SEUR - currently vacant). Only in the Regional Office for Asia (RAP) are there three posts (one vacant). There are also two posts (one from RLC and one from headquarters) that have been made into Outposted Technical Officers/FAO Representatives (OTO/FAORs) in Argentina and Paraguay.¹⁰ With the exception of Asia, LPPI capacity in the Regional and Subregional Offices was judged by the missions to be inadequate to provide effective support to implementation of LPPI activities (or for that matter the whole livestock programme) at the decentralized level.

53. RAP has three RP posts and three national posts in the livestock group, covering the areas of production, policy/economics and health. Overall, the evaluation team was impressed with the professionalism, teamwork and range and intensity of activity of the regional livestock team. Unlike other regional office livestock staff, the RAP team was also well informed of and involved in AGA's strategic planning approach, as well as its LEAD (environment), genetic resources and PPLPI (pro-poor policy) activities.

C. EXTRA-BUDGETARY RESOURCES FOR NORMATIVE PROGRAMMES

55. In addition to its Regular Programme resources, the normative programme has been able to attract high amounts of extra-budgetary funding mainly in the form of multi-donor trust funds. These mostly support the activities of LEAD (8 projects), animal genetic resources (5 projects) and PPLPI (2 projects). A small private sector trust fund (US$100 000 from the Fondation Carrefour) has also been obtained in support of food safety work. These programmes represent the majority of FAO's donor-funded livestock projects. The main recipient of this funding has been AGAL, which is responsible for both the LEAD initiative and the PPLPI. Table 4 below summarizes the major extra-budgetary resources.

56. In addition to these projects directly funding the headquarters programmes, LEAD manages two pipeline GEF-World Bank projects in Tanzania and East Asia, which when finalized will total US$7.9 million. The genetic resources group manages two UNDP subregional projects in SADC and in East African countries. These last two projects represent a much greater amount of funding (US$2.68 million) than support received for animal genetic resources activities at headquarters.

Table 4. Major extra-budgetary funding of AGAL/AGAP normative programmes at headquarters

D. FIELD PROJECTS

57. During the review period (1998-2004), AGA carried lead responsibility for the implementation of some 91 non-emergency projects related to production, policy or information, including the 15 mentioned in the previous section for headquarters normative work. Of the 76 which were field projects, 59 were Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) projects funded out of FAO's own RP budget (21 in Africa; 14 in Asia and the Pacific, 15 in Latin America, 9 in the Near East and Europe). In addition, during this period AGAP had lead responsibility for 7 emergency projects (including 4 TCPs), and 10 Oil-for-Food projects in Iraq. The five regional field missions undertaken for this evaluation examined some 43 field projects (some of which pre-dated the evaluation period), including 28 TCPs, 13 trust funds and 2 emergency projects.

58. Contrary to the situation with headquarters normative projects dominated by AGAL, AGAP was the lead technical unit (LTU) for 43 of the TCP projects, while AGAL was the LTU for only three. The topic by far most commonly supported by the TCP projects was the small-scale dairy sector (20 TCPs, as well as 4 trust funds), mainly on small-scale conservation and processing of milk, followed by meat processing and inspection (9 TCPs, of which several regional training projects). Other recurrent topics were support to the diversification component of the Special Programme for Food Security (7 TCPs and one GCP), feed resources and feed safety (4 TCPs and one GCP), and support to small-scale production of short-cycle animals (5 TCPs).

59. The evaluation team observes the somewhat unusual (for FAO) concentration of donor-funded (GCP) projects at headquarters in support of normative programmes rather than in the field. This is certainly commended in terms of its benefits to the normative programme. The question is why such funding has proved difficult to attract at regional and country levels if so much is available for normative work. The GEF projects now far down the pipeline are examples of that potential. Though it was clear that it is not for lack of trying that these funds as so rare, this evaluation nonetheless encourages the search for more effective resource mobilization strategies for the Field Programme, including possibly the strengthening of regional livestock teams noted above, and the adoption of a more strategic approach to field activities, as has been done with the normative programme (more on these suggestions in Section VI.B).

IV. Questionnaire Survey of Member Countries
on FAO Assistance in LPPI

60. To have a broader cross-section of views from member countries, a questionnaire was sent to 43 countries not visited by the regional evaluation missions. Countries were selected if they had had at least one LPPI project over the last six years. The questionnaire sought to obtain views on national priorities, familiarity with FAO’s livestock activities and assessment of the performance of FAO’s programmes in areas related to LPPI. The questionnaires were targeted at specific respondents in order to increase response rate. Out of the 43 countries surveyed, 27 responses were received (63%), almost all from heads or senior officials of livestock or animal production departments, and the results reflect their priorities. Quality of responses was quite high, and they included much additional commentary.

61. Overall, responses and written-in comments by respondents expressed high appreciation for FAO's work and role in LPPI, but noted the lack of visibility of this work in many cases, in particular when compared to FAO work in animal health.

62. Respondents were asked to assess their degree of satisfaction with the various types of outputs produced: TCP projects, donor projects, assistance with preparation of projects for donor financing, expert advice on particular topics, participation in workshops/seminars or networks, publications and FAO livestock websites. The only activity with a significant score for “exceeded expectations” was TCP projects, though even here only 21 percent of responses were positive: 65 percent rated TCPs as "satisfactory" and 14 percent found results "below expectations".

63. Countries were asked to compare the performance of FAO in areas related to LPPI against other sources of advice and assistance. Significantly, where FAO’s performance was found most clearly superior to others was in sector analysis and policy advice, where 44 percent of respondents found FAO better, against only 18 percent who found others to be equal to FAO. FAO also rated highly in technical assistance (37 percent), but here others rated highly as well (37 percent found others equal to FAO). The lowest rating for FAO as compared to others was in assistance related to international trade issues, where FAO may have less of a comparative advantage (only 16 percent found FAO better, while the same number found others better than FAO).

64. One section of the questionnaire related to programme priorities. Respondents were given a list of nine subject areas of FAO's LPPI assistance and asked to select the five priorities in order of importance. Results are shown in Table 5 below, listed in order of assigned priorities.

Table 5. Questionnaire results: Member countries’ perception of the relative importance of different types of LPPI assistance

* The weighted total was calculated by assigning five points to the highest priority item, four to the second highest priority, etc., with one point for the fifth item. No points were assigned for items not selected.

65. This question allows some comparison of priorities of respondents with those of the FAO Livestock Programme. The results indicate that country-level respondents (those in the technical departments of line ministries, at least) look to FAO's Livestock Programme first for direct technical assistance with production technologies for small-scale production. This fits well with FAO's mandate for food security and poverty alleviation, though it reflects a means of assistance where FAO's comparative advantage is coming under question (see Section VI.B below). The second choice of respondents was assistance in sector analysis and policy assistance, and this fits with the recent evolution of AGA in the direction of greater focus on policy level work.

66. After these two, countries showed an order of priorities close to that of FAO, with genetic resources and livestock information systems, both high priorities for AGA, coming close together, followed by international trade and the related area of food and feed safety (standards and regulation), also AGA priorities. Interestingly but not unexpectedly, environmental concerns came a distant last, probably a result of the majority of low-income countries among respondents, where more immediate priorities tend to predominate.

67. The responses were analysed on a regional basis to determine if there were any significant differences. African countries gave especially high priority to provision of technologies for small producers. Much lower came policy assistance and international trade. Environmental issues got the lowest score, most probably for the reason noted in the previous paragraph. In Latin America, greatest importance went to technologies and to genetic resources, then near equal scores for livestock information systems, post-harvest processing and marketing and policy assistance. The lowest score went to international trade, where FAO appears to have less of a comparative advantage. For Asia and the Near East, the number of replies was too small to generalise, though it was interesting that both Asian respondents (Pakistan and Laos) gave the maximum score to policy assistance.

68. Conclusions. The priorities identified suggest that AGA's increasing focus on policy, sector analysis and information reflects an existing trend among member countries, but that at least for now there is the need to maintain capacity in the area of support to production technologies for many countries. This is coherent with findings from the field missions as well (see later sections).

V. Assessment of Regular Programme and Normative Activities

A. COHERENCE OF THE PROGRAMME WITH THE FAO STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

69. The Livestock Programme, and in particular the LPPI activities under it, relates directly to all five of FAO's Corporate Strategies under the Strategic Framework 2000-15. The contribution to eradication of food insecurity and poverty (Strategic Objective 'A') is both through direct technical assistance and support with production technologies, and through sector analysis and support to pro-poor decision-making and policy development. Policy and regulatory frameworks (Strategy 'B') are central to many aspects of the work in LPPI, including the food safety work, the work in improved policies for environment and waste management, and the genetic resources and biodiversity activities. Increased production and improved processing, marketing and trade (Strategy 'C') are direct concerns for AGAP from the technical side, as well as AGAL from the policy side. Sustainable use of natural resources (Strategy 'D') corresponds to the 'environment' point of the 'public goods' triangle and is the concern mainly of the LEAD (Livestock, Environment and Development) programme and programme entities related to genetic resources and to technologies for efficient resource use. Finally, management and provision of livestock-related information (Strategy 'E') is both the subject of its own programme entity and an essential part of the work of all units in AGA.

70. As a division, AGA was found to have also been a leader in certain of the cross-organizational strategies in the Strategic Framework. In particular, AGA has made a major effort in the areas of: (1) "Enhancing Interdisciplinarity", through the design of its programme entities, which cut increasingly across groups and services within the division, as well as seeking interaction with other technical groups in the Organization (though this area still remains a major weakness in spite of these efforts - see below); (2) "Improving Management Processes", through assigning early on the budget and management responsibility for programme entities to actual entity managers, making efforts to incorporate results-based approaches in designing its programme, and using consultative processes in making programme changes and improvements; and (3) "Leveraging Resources", especially in its normative programmes, through refining programmes to attract multidonor support mechanisms for normative work such as LEAD, genetic resources activities, and pro-poor policy work. It is noted that these efforts have not always obtained the desired outcomes, as discussed in other parts of this report.

B. REVIEW OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMME ENTITIES

71. The New Programme Model of FAO is still somewhat recent (first implemented in 2000), and the principles of results-oriented planning have still not been fully integrated into the planning process. In reviewing Programme 2.1.3, the objectives, outputs and indicators given in the MTP were often found weak as formulated. As defined, progression from problem identification to objectives to major outputs was often dependent on so many outside factors (assumptions) that the link was too weak to measure. Statements of assumptions, target beneficiaries, and especially indicators were often incomplete or unclear. Many of the indicators are not easily verifiable, and others would only measure outputs rather than achievement of the objectives.

72. It should be noted that these problems are not limited to AGA but are characteristic of the MTP in general. It can be said that AGA has been making above average efforts in this direction compared with some other technical divisions. As reformulated for the MTP 2006-11, the AGA programme entities represent significant work on strategic planning and priority setting. However, greater progress needs to be made in this area, as recommended below.

73. The team analysed in some depth the LPPI programme at headquarters and drew several conclusions and recommendations. Each entity reviewed below is preceded by its objective as given in the FAO Medium-Term Plan (MTP) for 2004-2009. It is then assessed in terms of focus, evolution, relevance, place in the overall programme, outputs, and, where possible, impacts as observed in headquarters and in the field. Issues are identified for each entity, and suggestions made for strengthening or addressing perceived weaknesses. This analysis is based on extensive interviews with AGA staff, staff from other divisions and FAO senior management, a review of the publications and other outputs of the programme, a review of the website and information systems, the outcomes and experience of the field missions, and the knowledge and experience of a senior external expert. For P1 on information, the auto-evaluation was also considered. At the end of this analysis, a summary table is presented scoring the programme entities against standard evaluation criteria (Table 8).

2.1.3 A3 Contribution of Livestock to Poverty Alleviation

74. Objective as stated in the MTP: Improved techniques for livestock husbandry and health, animal product processing and market access used in programmes aiming at poor farm households; national poverty reduction strategies increasingly addressing potential improvements in small-scale animal husbandry.

Assessment

75. This programme entity appropriately focuses on small stock (e.g. poultry, sheep and goats) and on small-scale processing. It has developed a network of partnerships both internal and external to FAO and is the entity that provides technical input to the SPFS Diversification Component - Livestock. There is a continuing demand from member countries for delivery of the more traditional approach of technology-centred projects, meetings, expert consultations and publications, although there has been some adaptation with the presentation of good practice guides. The quality of the publications reviewed was high and appropriately targeted, although there could be better integration within AGA, for example drawing on material collated by LEAD.

Issues

2.1.3 A5 Developing the Global Strategy for the Management of
Farm Animal Genetic Resources

78. Objective as stated in the MTP: To improve the management and conservation of farm animal genetic resources at local, country, regional and international levels, including the implementation of priority action plans and programmes, [and the ratification of an international treaty on farm animal genetic resources.]¹¹

Assessment

79. This entity underwent an auto-evaluation during 2004. However, the preliminary results of that work were ready after the writing of this report and thus could only be used to a limited extent.

80. The farm animal genetic resources (FAnGR, or simply AnGR) activities in AGAP over the past three years have largely been driven by the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA). In the context of the CGRFA, AGAP handles the secretariat functions of the Intergovernmental Technical Working Group on Animal Genetic Resources, and appeared to be doing so effectively.

81. The programme entity focuses on the completion of the first State of the World's AnGR (SoW), a publication which first requires that each member country of FAO nominate a national focal point, then produce a national State of AnGR. This work has a very high profile internationally, with participation of 145 countries originally agreed, 139 country reports already submitted and another 26 expected. Between 2001 and 2004 (inclusive) US$6.6 million will have been spent on this area of work. The activities for the SoW have concentrated mainly on the information gathering, cataloguing and classifying of indigenous genetic resources. Attention has been on biodiversity conservation, with limited attention devoted to issues relating to the sustainable utilization of animal genetic resources. The entity is very involved in the PAIA on Biodiversity, and to a lesser extent those on Biotechnology and on Biosecurity. It has only limited links with the work on plant genetic resources.

82. There is an issue with the integration of the AnGR function in AGAP and AGA as a whole. After extensive interviews inside and outside of AGA, the evaluation team felt that there were evident differences between the AnGR Group and the rest of the division with regard to their mission and overall objective. This is problematic for those working in this area who have to meet specified objectives which are not recognized as high priority elsewhere in AGA. Interaction with the rest of the service and division was low, other than with the information entity 2.1.3 P1 of which the AnGR information system, DAD-IS, is a component (see below under P1).

83. The last CGRFA session recommended that future work on genetic resources be more interdisciplinary, and the (FAO-based) CGRFA Secretariat will have responsibility for improving integration of the various GR activities beyond crops in the CGRFA process. Also, the Intergovernmental Technical Working Group on AnGR has repeatedly stressed the importance for FAO to focus more specifically on the utilization aspects and on a Global Strategy incorporating management and utilization of these resources in addition to cataloguing and conservation.

84. However, the weight of work in preparing the SoW has not allowed the AGAP AnGR Group to devote significant time to this, but this utilization aspect is the link between what is otherwise biodiversity conservation work (not particularly central to overall AGA priorities) and the production, health and policy work of the rest of AGA. For this reason, the evaluation team felt that there was a need to adjust the current arrangements to: (1) afford the necessary and appropriate support to AGAP in carrying out this work; and (2) ensure the stronger integration of the AnGR work with the work of other parts of the division, including breeding, biotechnology and production systems (AGAP), sector strategy, policy and trade (AGAL), and disease and health-related issues such as biosecurity, disease resistance and genetic aspects of diseases (AGAH).

85. This work area will need to be strengthened in view of the upcoming global "Intergovernmental Technical Conference on Animal Genetic Resources" planned for 2007, whose secretariat functions will need to be handled by AGA (possibly through constitution of a task force including outside input). It would make sense that in addition to AGAP, AGAL should have significant input into that exercise, as it is related to the pro-poor policy work, livestock and environment work (biodiversity), and will be a meeting to develop global and regional policy frameworks for management and utilization of AnGR. One of the outcomes of the conference is expected to be a stronger push for policies and programmes for the sustainable utilization of AnGR.

86. In the revised MTP 2006-11, work in this area is divided between two of the new entities, with the long-term statutory issues (biodiversity conservation) moving into B6: Livestock-Environment Interactions, and the breeding work (animal production) moving into B5: Livestock Development and Poverty Reduction. This split will entail a shift in the budget allocations at the end of 2007, as more money is diverted towards utilization and the amount of work needed by the statutory responsibilities is reduced.

87. While the team is convinced that this refocusing of attention at the divisional level is positive, there is a risk that the importance of the statutory aspects of AnGR related to biodiversity conservation will receive insufficient support under this arrangement. The team believes that the tighter integration of AnGR issues with the rest of FAO's biodiversity work (outside of AGA) is key to avoiding the loss of the global role that FAO now has in this field. Equally important is the more generalized recognition of the importance and usefulness of genetic resources work by the rest of AGA, leading to stronger division-wide support to FAO's key role in AnGR.

Issues

2.1.3 A6 Veterinary Public Health Management and Food and Feed Safety

89. Objective as stated in the MTP: National veterinary public health structures are established or strengthened for the control of priority zoonotic diseases.

Assessment

90. This is an area of work which cuts across the two services within AGA. This is positive with regard to interdisciplinarity concerns, and the potential benefits are recognized. The evaluation only reviewed the food and feed safety part of this programme entity. This work is concerned with the implementation of the Codex Alimentarius Codes of Practice on Animal Feeding, Meat Hygiene and Milk Hygiene. A series of regional meetings have been held and two publications produced on meat and dairy, with industry collaboration.

92. The work reviewed showed clear goals (though a poorly stated objective) and outputs illustrating delivery and there were good links with both public and private sectors. What perhaps was less evident was how knowledge gained in this area of work was being used to inform work in other programme entities, such as 2.1.3 A3, the poverty entity, to help to avoid the potential disadvantaging of the poor. There is also an issue with the website, where the Feed and Food Safety Gateway site has not been updated since 2001, including announcements of some 'upcoming' events that took place three years ago!

Issues

2.1.3 A8 Technologies and Systems for Efficient Natural Resource Use in Livestock Production

95. Objective as stated in the MTP: Policies are implemented to foster livestock development while protecting public health and the environment; national veterinary and livestock services and other grassroot projects promote Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for intensive and semi-intensive livestock systems.

Assessment

97. The LEAD (Livestock, Environment and Development) initiative is one example of an area of work that has been very successful in securing external income, but this appears to have a downside in that colleagues within AGA, though aware of the information outputs of LEAD, appear to have in the past viewed it as slightly apart, perhaps as an interest of the donors rather than an issue which should be central to animal production. The latest revision to the programme entities, which raises the profile of Livestock-Environment Interactions, is therefore a welcome move, which should ensure that consideration of the impact of livestock on the environment as the result of possible interventions becomes second nature in addressing all aspects of animal production.

Issues

2.1.3.B1 Livestock Sector Analysis and Strategy Development
(including the Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative - PPLPI)

99. Objective as stated in the MTP: Enhanced awareness among civil society and decision makers of the hidden costs of the livestock revolution, leading to public policy changes in favour of fair livestock farming, and public goods such as equity, public health and the environment.

Assessment

100. The existence of an explicit ‘Policy’ Branch within AGA was generally welcomed by other groups interviewed in FAO. AGA was seen to be adapting to changing demands and indeed of being in the forefront of recognizing what future needs are likely to be. However, there was a general frustration that AGAL was not well-integrated with the two older services in AGA and thus opportunities were being missed. The team also noted a lack of logic between the new title in the MTP 2006-11, which replaces 'Strategy Development' with "Policy Development" (which would seem to refer to development of policy proposals by AGAL) and the intended outcomes, which refer to "decision support tools for policy formulation".

102. The PPLPI (Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative) contributes to this programme entity (as well as to 2.1.3 A3 and to 2.1.3 P1), but is externally funded (by a UK trust fund). The project had a two year start-up consultative process involving many people from different parts of FAO, leading to considerable expectations both within FAO and elsewhere. In the end, the project started late and was slow to consolidate, and the original budget was cut in half by the donor at the last minute. The wide involvement of FAO staff did not continue, and the project became somewhat isolated. This is unfortunate since one of the key objectives of this project is to influence thinking within FAO itself about processes for inclusive and pro-poor policy formulation for rural development.

103. This said, the project has made considerable progress during the establishment phase and is now poised to deliver 'a portfolio of livestock-related interventions for reducing poverty through policy and institutional change'. At the time of the field visits (March-May 2004, and Latin America in October), not much had been done by the PPLPI in the countries reviewed. Only in Peru was the Andean regional hub already active, while in Senegal the hub for West Africa had only just begun. However, regional meetings had been held in all regions, and professionals attending were unanimously impressed with what the PPLPI was proposing. Also, among people met by the missions, the few people (mainly foreign experts) who had seen the PPLPI working papers and policy briefs were very positive about the documents and their usefulness.

104. The PPLPI has a very active information component, which works under the information entity 2.1.3 P1 (see below). The Initiative is contributing significant amounts of extra-budgetary staff time and resources to AGA's information activities. This project has a strong steering committee with external members who have been active in making suggestions on updating the logframe as the project evolves.

Issues

2.1.3.P1 Global Livestock Information System and Knowledge Framework

106. Objective as stated in the MTP: Improved decision-making at local, national, regional and international levels with respect to livestock policies and technologies that enhance livelihoods and income opportunities for small-scale livestock producers while at the same time promoting sustainable natural resource use.

Assessment

107. For many years, AGA has been working to develop strong information systems covering various aspects of its work in production and health. As of the PWB 2000-01, 2.1.3.P1 was created as a specific continuing entity to bring together all of the information activities and databases being maintained in the division, and give them a clearer strategic orientation in support of informed policy and decision-making in the livestock sector. This entity underwent an auto-evaluation exercise during the period of this evaluation. The draft report was completed just before this one and was reviewed by the evaluation team in the preparation of this report.

108. As a coordinating mechanism for existing systems, the value of this entity is beyond question. Information collection, management and dissemination is central to AGA's strategic vision, and the website and information systems under this entity are central to that function. The systems included are AFRIS (the Animal Feed Resources Information System), DAD-IS (the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System); EMPRES-i (the Global Animal Disease Information System of the Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases) and PAAT-IS (the information system of the Programme Against African Trypanosomiasis). As part of these information systems, AGA maintains a number of databases, often concerned with particular diseases (rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease, trypanosomiasis, etc.), and with production and trade figures. Much of this information is geographically referenced as part of AGA's (and more generally FAO's) work in GIS for livestock. As overall data warehouse, the entity is developing the "Livestock Information System," as a geo-referenced data repository for the other information systems in AGA.

110. This programme entity is working on bringing these various databases and information systems together under the Global Livestock Production and Health Atlas (GLiPHA), and providing improved dissemination and access to all these resources through a recently redesigned and updated AGA website. GLiPHA is an innovative approach, which clearly addresses FAO’s role of ‘putting information within reach’. The description talks about ‘evaluating and compiling information’ from a variety of sources and it certainly deals well with compiling data in an easily accessible manner. The AGA website was found to be among the best in FAO (in the judgement of an external expert brought in for the auto-evaluation), and has recorded a sharp increase in users after the recent redesign which has been online since May 2003.

112. The regional missions were unanimous in finding that FAO is considered an important (often the most important) source of information on livestock-related issues. Technical staff in ministries, donors, international experts and people in academia, all indicated that they made use of AGA information resources. This was especially true in Latin America and East Asia.

Issues

Overall Scoring of the Programme Entities

117. The lower scores may benefit from some clarification. Objectives, as stated in the MTP 2004-09, were in many cases unclear or did not correctly correspond to the outputs proposed. This is the case of A6 on public health, where the objective makes no reference to the standards work on food and feed safety. For A8, from the objective it appears to be mainly a policy activity, but the entity works mainly with technologies and technical assistance. Design of A5 on genetic resources still gives attention mostly to the conservation of genetic resources while AGA and FAO should be more concerned with their utilization. Regarding process, in general scores are not high due to the weak communication and integration within the division. In the case of A8, the evaluation considers that technology transfer (a significant part of this entity's work) is not where FAO has its greatest comparative advantage with the cost and scarcity of FAO staff time - it should instead be considering partnering and outsourcing for some of this work. Finally, the effects and impacts of A3 on poverty are expected to be limited by the approach, again too focused on technology. For A6, the issue of the impact of implementing food safety standards on small producers is a negative impact which is not made sufficiently explicit and is expected to dilute positive impacts.

118. The programme entities were scored by the evaluation team on standard evaluation criteria (Table 6 below). Scoring was based on the discussion above, considering strengths and weaknesses as related to the overall vision of AGA, FAO's mandate and comparative advantages, the need for interdisciplinarity and communication, usefulness for achieving overall mission, adaptation to a changing environment and inner coherence.

Table 6. Scoring of Programme Entities against Evaluation Criteria
(on a scale of 1-3 where 1 is 'unsatisfactory', 2 is 'satisfactory', and 3 is 'exceeds expectations')

C. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES

Measuring the Results and Impact of Programme Entities: Objectives and Indicators

119. An examination of the MTP objectives of the programme entities reviewed reveals general weakness with regard to following the MTP guidelines and use of the "results-based" approach to programme planning and design advocated by the New Programme Model. Few of the objectives given specify who will use the outcomes, or when the benefit is expected. The same is true for the indicators given in the MTP. Most suffer from either an insufficient link to the objective they refer to, or a formulation that was too vague, or a formulation that makes it difficult to see how they can be measured. None of the quantitative indicators given includes the element of time ('within 10 years,' 'by 2006,' etc.) or a target value ('at least 20 countries adopt...,' 'a 30 percent increase in...') as indicated in the guidelines, further diminishing their usefulness as a measure of progress or success. In addition to the problems with formulation of objectives and indicators, the evaluation team was unable to find evidence that these indicators were being systematically monitored as a measure of effectiveness of work being done.

120. There has been some improvement in the reformulated programme entities for the MTP 2006-11, though the poorly stated objective of the veterinary and food safety entity has remained unchanged. The indicators also show some improvement, though they still lack specifics.

Publications and Communicating AGA's Message

Publications

122. The publications activities of AGA have evolved considerably in the period under review, moving in parallel to the changes taking place overall in the division. Until the late 1990s, the publications produced by AGA were by and large the product of specific technical activities and interests of the various officers in the different technical groups. Since the reorientation of the programme, however, an effort has been made to manage the divisional publications programme more strategically. A Publications Committee has been established with the dual purpose of ensuring relevance, appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of the division's publications and of providing a mechanism for unified quality control of all livestock publications.

Distribution of publications and communication of key messages

125. Though not always accessible to all of AGA's audiences in developing countries, in the judgement of the team, the web-based document dissemination system is among the better ones in FAO in terms of ease of navigation and online availability of documents. New publications are also distributed pro-actively to lists of recipients adjusted on a case-by-case basis to target the appropriate people and institutions. To the extent of the information received, the evaluation team found this aspect of AGA's work to be carried out effectively.

126. However, the regional missions reported limited familiarity with AGA publications on LPPI subjects at country level, with the possible exception of East Asia, and of certain technical manuals elsewhere. This was confirmed by the country questionnaires as well, which referred mainly to animal health publications. FAO staff in country offices were often not aware of recent livestock publications.

127. The communication of AGA's messages was a problem. From interviews held in various parts of the Organization as well as information gathered on the regional missions of this evaluation, it appears that AGA is not as effective as it could be in presenting its approach, its work and the resources it can offer (as well as the limits on what it can offer). As noted below, FAO's LPPI capabilities and actions lack visibility in all regions reviewed, as well as at headquarters.

VI. Assessment of Field Activities

129. This assessment is based on the work of the five regional field missions to West Africa, East and Southern Africa, the Near East and Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and East Asia. These missions were able to visit 20 countries and assess 43 field projects, including 28 TCPs, 7 GCP trust funds, 3 UNDP-funded projects, 2 emergency projects, the PFL project, a UTF and an SPFS-funded project. Two of the projects assessed pre-dated the evaluation period. The number of field projects assessed directly in the countries and regions represents more than half of the total of 76 implemented during the review period. Of those, 34 received a more detailed review and are included in the scoring in Table 7 below, while the others were covered in less detail due to the time elapsed since the projects or because of the missions’ itinerary.

A. QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT

130. Projects were assessed against eight different aspects. Scoring was done on a 3-point scale, with 3 being the highest for each item. A score of 2 was deemed satisfactory; average scores above 2 can be considered better than satisfactory and average scores below 2 are less than satisfactory. The criteria and average scores for the projects reviewed are presented in the table below.

Table 7. Scoring of Field Projects against Evaluation Criteria
(on a scale of 1-3 where 1 is 'unsatisfactory', 2 is 'satisfactory', and 3 is 'exceeds expectations')

131. As has been the case in other recent thematic evaluations, the strongest point in the scoring is for relevance of the projects to development problems. These scores refer in great majority to TCP projects, which are in principle derived from direct requests from the national government concerned and therefore could be expected to be highly relevant to national needs. In fact, the field missions found that over 40 percent of the projects reviewed were 'very relevant' to national needs, and none at all were found irrelevant.

B. ISSUES RELATED TO FIELD ACTIVITIES

135. Several issues emerged from the work of the regional field missions. A certain number are important in the context of this report either because they apply to many regions and projects, or because they refer to more strategic issues for the division, department or Organization.

From Technology-based to Development-based Interventions

136. An important observation emerging from the review of the field projects, which was also underlined by headquarters staff, is the predominance of technology-centred TCPs for milk and meat production. It was observed that this answers a strong demand from countries of varied regions and economic levels for this type of assistance: grant-funded technology transfer for small-scale appropriate technologies to help poorer producers. It is also an important source of income for AGAP at headquarters, as AGAP officers undertake frequent backstopping missions for these projects. In spite of these motivations, interviews and analysis led the evaluation team to pose some questions regarding the comparative advantage and cost-effectiveness of FAO in providing this kind of assistance, unless it is closely combined with more strategic goals of policy change and institutional reform.

Dairying in East Asia: Prioritization and Strategy in the Field Programme

140. While all four countries visited in East Asia attributed high priority to dairy production and processing, the rationale for concentrating FAO support on the very high-cost and high-risk intervention of dairying in wet tropical environments in traditionally non-milk-consuming cultures¹² appeared unconvincing to the evaluation team. The main justification is the strong conviction of national governments that promotion of milk consumption is important for health and nutrition of the population, and for import substitution.

142. This is not to say that FAO should not support dairying at all in those countries - if done in a technically sound way it is possible to produce milk at reasonable costs in certain areas of the region, and if this is small-scale production and processing, or small-scale bulk collection and large-scale processing, it can be beneficial to the rural poor. Certainly this observation concerns the East Asia region - in other regions the emphasis on small-scale milk processing can be quite appropriate.

143. However, the question raised by this example was a recurrent one in many situations, both in the field and at headquarters: How proactive can and should an FAO division or technical programme be in setting the agenda of its assistance to member countries? The agenda must clearly be based on thorough assessment of needs and demands, but this is different from responding to any ad hoc country request. It is a matter of priority setting for FAO. The headquarters-based livestock normative programme has developed a focused, strategic programme, and with it has been able to attract large donor-funded programmes. It would be useful to find a way to transfer this focused approach to the Field Programme. The objective would be to have a clearly identified and proven strategic approach to development in the sector (Mission and Vision).

Lack of Visibility of FAO’s Recent LPPI Work

145. In all regions, FAO is recognized as the international agency with the greatest commitment and direct involvement in matters related to livestock, as well as an agency with genuinely excellent relations with government. This is clearly one of FAO's comparative advantages, and one which should be used as much as possible. Long-established FAO initiatives in animal production and health, its role as provider of information and documents (especially technical manuals) on livestock, and its role as facilitator of international agreements, treaties and networks are highly appreciated.

146. However, recent contributions related to AGA's strategic vision, including documents, the major developments in information provision, and newer initiatives such as LEAD in environment and the PPLPI in pro-poor policy, were known by very few people met by the regional missions. These people included government staff, private sector and producers' organizations, donors, experts, academia, and FAO staff at country level. This was particularly striking in light of the high and growing importance of livestock in all of the countries. The low visibility of LPPI contrasted with the rather high visibility of FAO's animal health activities, due in part to recent veterinary public health emergencies in various parts of the world but also more generally to the predominance of veterinarians in national livestock departments in many parts of the world.

The SPFS Diversification Component

Pastoral Livestock Systems

149. AGA is now beginning to get involved in this area once again, under guidance of the AGAP Service Chief. Some inconclusive activities were undertaken in the context of a "Global Pastoral Programme" under the auspices of UNDP and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. An informal "Pastoral Group" has been formed in FAO with participation of staff from AGA (including LEAD), pasture and grasslands, land and water, land tenure, and development law. However, this is at a very early stage and will need sustained support from AGAP and AGAL. It could possibly form the basis for a new PAIA, or an area of specific concentration for the PAIA on Desertification.

Regarding TCPs

VII. Programme Design and Issues at Headquarters

A. THE INSTITUTIONAL VISIBILITY OF LIVESTOCK WORK WITHIN FAO

154. The evaluation team considered the issue repeatedly raised during the course of the evaluation regarding the visibility of livestock activities within FAO and the institutionalization of a mechanism to expand the programme and bring it further to the forefront, in correspondence to its rapidly growing importance in agricultural production.¹³

155. The most radical proposals involve the creation of a separate department for livestock along the lines of Fisheries and Forestry, though few seemed to believe that this would be a useful solution. Also quite radical is the suggestion to create a new Governing Bodies’ committee, like the existing Committee for Agriculture (COAG), of which livestock is a part now. The creation and functioning of such a committee is prohibitively expensive, and were costs to be covered by reducing the AGA budget it would make little sense. Another possibility, considered more feasible by many stakeholders, is the creation of a COAG Subcommittee on Livestock. However, such subcommittees also entail relatively high costs, and would tend to add divisions rather than supporting stronger integration.

156. While the evaluation team is not in a position to recommend any of the specific actions discussed, as these would involve institutional and resource issues which go well beyond its mandate, the team suggests that the main issue is the need for a stronger presence of livestock issues in the programmes of several other technical units, ranging from crops to farming systems to land tenure to forestry to trade and standards. Separating the livestock programme from others even more than at present by creating new institutional entities does not appear the be the ideal means for achieving such presence.¹⁴

B. PROGRAMME DESIGN AND WORKING ARRANGEMENTS

158. The programme design is now very clearly related to the future vision of a division whose role is to be a knowledge broker and facilitator focusing on livestock policy and information, working to minimize negative impacts and maximise positive outcomes of livestock production on the three key 'public goods': equity, environment and public health. This vision gives a particular burden to AGAL, as it is the focal point for both policy and information in the division. Sector analysis is a vital part of this process, but is at present relatively isolated within AGAL. Interviewees both within AGA and in other parts of FAO commented on the lack of awareness of what AGAL does and this is missing an opportunity both to be informed and to inform. It will also hamper progress towards the vision.

160. Another issue concerns the balance between AGA being responsive to country requests versus driving its own agenda from its internal strategic vision and analysis of the trends and emerging issues. As long as there is still some lack of clarity on this subject, there will continue to be obvious tensions within the division. These internal tensions are recognized not only within AGA but also with potential collaborators in other FAO divisions.

Interdisciplinarity Within AGA and Linkages with Other Parts of FAO

164. Extensive interviews with other divisions in FAO left the evaluation team with a clear impression that AGA is viewed as somewhat isolated, and particularly so in certain specific cases where collaboration should exist. This is the case for interaction with the Investment Centre (TCI), which has its own livestock specialist. Communication between AGA and TCI is limited and TCI does its livestock advisory work independently of AGA, even at times in 'competition' with it, as in the case of two pro-poor policy initiatives in West Africa, the Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI) under AGAL, and the World Bank "ALive" (African Livestock) initiative with assistance from TCI. While some groups in TCI have recently requested support from AGAL (specifically for GEF and Avian Influenza activities), in general the collaboration is far below what it should be.

165. Another case is the Policy Assistance Division (TCA), which has had very little interaction with AGAL or the PPLPI in spite of the compatability of their mandates. A new TCA task force is being created for policy work within FAO, and this may provide an opportunity for these two units to interact more systematically, at least formally.

166. Another area where collaboration should have taken place but did not was between the PPLPI and the other large UK-funded Livelihoods Support Programme (LSP), both of which are concerned with sustainable livelihoods approaches and with promoting pro-poor policy change. Nonetheless, some examples of interaction were cited, in particular with:

• the Basic Foodstuffs Service (ESCB) of the Commodities and Trade Division, on the impact of trade policies on poor producers;
• the Grasslands and Pasture Crops Group of the Crop and Grassland Service (AGPC) though interaction was weaker than would be expected;
• the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme (Codex Alimentarius) on food and feed quality and safety; and
• the Joint FAO/IAEA Division for Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture (AGE) in Vienna on laboratory work related to animal nutrition and to genetic resources, though again, links were well below potential.

167. AGA also works indirectly with some other technical services through its participation to a greater or lesser degree in ten Priority Areas for Interdisciplinary Action (PAIAs).¹⁵ The PAIAs where AGAL and AGAP were reported to be more active were those on integrated production systems, biodiversity, spatial information management, global perspective studies and post-emergency relief. AGA involvement in these PAIAs may illustrate the importance of livestock to the work of FAO, but being involved in this number of PAIAs when funding for most of them has still to be secured may not be the best use of staff time. It is not clear whether the benefit of such activities to FAO as a whole, to AGA or to the individual is being assessed on a regular basis and appropriate guidance then given.

Understanding FAO's Role in LPPI in the Global Context

169. As described earlier, the livestock sector is currently undergoing considerable growth, in response to increasing demand for livestock products. This is happening at a time when many donors are dispensing with specialist livestock advisers/groups, which makes the existence of AGA as a specialist group more important. However, it does also mean that AGA needs to avoid spreading itself too thinly. Organizations such as ILRI and the FAO/IAEA Joint Division have relevant expertise, as do strong national agricultural research and extension services (NARES) in some developing countries and Advanced Research Institutes (ARIs) in developed countries. Feed companies, veterinary drug companies and other relevant private sector businesses in developed countries are also investing in developing countries with market potential.

171. An outline analysis of where the different providers of livestock services align themselves, both now and in the future, suggests that technical support to intensive livestock systems could increasingly be provided by both feed companies and government-funded research and extension services in country (NARES) in future. Advanced Research Institutes may become increasingly interested in policy and ILRI's future direction may also become clearer as the CG Strategic priorities are discussed in January 2005. Some overlap in the provision of services between organizations is desirable, to ensure synergies are realized, but this point should be reached by proactive recognition of the comparative advantages of each organization, rather than by reactive awareness.

VIII. General Conclusions on the Strategic Orientation
of FAO's Work in LPPI

FAO's Current and Future Role in the Livestock Sector

172. AGA has made good progress in identifying the challenges and opportunities of the dynamic livestock sector. The changes in programme entities to be implemented in the MTP 2006-2011 are recognized as a positive step towards a vision focusing on the provision of information and assistance to policy. In this, AGA is evolving along with FAO towards a new way of working, which focuses more on information and policy and less on training and technology. However, those are very broad generalizations and it is important to define exactly what FAO can contribute to both areas (information and policy).

174. In terms of policies, these are normally set at the national level and where there are global agreements FAO is only one partner. However, FAO has a key role to play in:

• providing evidence for the impact of policy on achieving global goals, particularly poverty reduction and food security;
• identifying where national or regional policies may impact on other countries or regions, especially through trade; and
• facilitating the replication of best practice between countries.

175. AGA’s Mission (below) sits comfortably within this framework, but the path towards reaching the vision requires further elaboration.

The Revised Programme Entities in the MTP 2006-11

176. As already noted above, during the recent updating of the MTP to cover the period 2006-2011, AGA decided to decrease the number of programme entities from eight to six, in order to "sharpen the programme’s focus on areas of highest relevance and priority, taking account of the experience gained so far" and "to better align the programme to the Millennium Development Goals." In considering the future of livestock activities in FAO, the evaluation team considered the design of the new entities and sought to answer the following questions:

1. Has this change made the work of the division easier to comprehend (internally and externally)?

• This is clearly not the case as yet, though the changes are still very new in many cases. One problem is the description of the Mission (see below). The evaluation team supports the current efforts at improving AGA's capacity to 'communicate its message'

2. Is this focus visibly (both internally and externally) taking AGA towards its vision of an increasing emphasis on the provision of information and policy assistance?

• the focus is clearly taking the programme in this direction, though as noted above, there is still need to better communicate this message to internal and external stakeholders.

4. Will this clearer focus lead to greater interdisciplinarity within AGA and with other parts of FAO?

• This is definitely an expected consequence of the changes. However, success will depend in good part on the preceding three issues.

The "Mission" of the FAO Livestock Programme

177. The Mission of AGA is currently:

"to clarify and facilitate the role of the livestock sub-sector in poverty reduction, improved food security, improved food safety, as well as in safe trade in livestock and animal products while safeguarding environmental sustainability and biodiversity"

The Mission of FAO's livestock programme is to clarify (through analysis and information) and to facilitate:

1. the role of the livestock sub-sector in improving food security and providing a pathway out of poverty, and
2. the task of meeting rapidly increasing demand for livestock products through production, processing and trade, while
1. mitigating any negative impacts of production intensification on the poor,
2. safeguarding the environment, and
3. minimizing the risks to public health.

_________________

¹ The reference is to AG as it is the “home department” of the Animal Production and Health Division and the one where its work most needs to be integrated, but where appropriate it obviously extends to integration with the work of other departments as well.

² An alternative, albeit not simple, is to find extra-budgetary funding for a two-year post.

³ Even in developing countries, there are extremes underlying the average: some African countries actually showed decreasing per capita consumption of livestock products over the period, compared to very high increases in East and Southeast Asian countries, reaching a peak of at least 6.3 percent and possibly more per year for China.

⁴ Delgado et al., Livestock to 2020: the Next Food Revolution, Food, Agriculture and Environment Discussion Paper 28; IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute), FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute); Washington, May 1999. It is worthy of note that the current Chief of AGAL was a co-author on this key study. The figures cited are also from the study.

⁵ The others are: Food and Agriculture Policy and Development; Fisheries; Forestry; and Contributions to Sustainable Development and Special Programme Thrusts.

⁶ A Technical Project has the following general characteristics: a duration of up to six years, precise time-bound objectives defined in terms of the use which target users will make of outputs, definition of major outputs, demonstrable effectiveness criteria and indicators, specification of target users and of linkages with partners. Continuing Programme Activities are of an ongoing nature, not amenable to time-bound objectives, but otherwise similar to TPs; Technical Service Agreements are designed to cover demand-oriented services and can include servicing of regular meetings (adapted from the PWB 2002-03).

⁷ East and Southern Africa: Zimbabwe (incl. SAFR/Harare), Botswana (incl. SADC/Gaborone), Swaziland, South Africa, Malawi , Kenya (incl. ILRI); West Africa: Ghana (incl. RAF/Accra), Senegal, Chad; Near East and Central Europe: Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt (incl. RNE/Cairo), Slovakia; East Asia: Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand (incl. RAP/Bangkok), China; Latin America: Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, RLC-Santiago.

⁸ A question arose regarding the use of the term 'global public goods,' as most LPPI work is concerned with national or at most regional impact of livestock development on these public goods (this is not the case for health issues, however). For this reason, they are generally referred to in this report simply as "the three public goods."

⁹ These reductions are a result of the lowering value of the US dollar against the Euro and the decision of member countries to adopt a "zero nominal growth" scenario for the current budget. This budget cut affected all FAO divisions.

¹⁰ This programme is managed by the Decentralization Service (OCDO). It basically consists of fielding technical officers as FAO Representatives. Officially, 75 percent of the staff time should be used in technical matters (2004 OCD Circular on Country Responsibilities and Relationships); however, this does not happen in practice as the FAOR workload is too high. The recent Independent Evaluation of FAO's Decentralization has recommended abolishing this system. Nonetheless, the division has again been asked to contribute staff to the system as recently as December 2004.

¹¹ The objective of obtaining ratification of an international treaty was later dropped as there was no clear consensus on this in the CGRFA.

¹² Whereas per capita milk consumption (by weight) worldwide in 1993 was over 2.2 times meat consumption, in East Asia excluding China, this figure was 0.36 times, and in China, only 0.21 times. This of course is not the case for South Asia, where consumption of dairy products is traditional and widespread: per capita milk consumption in that region is more than 10 times that of meat (14.5 times in India). (figures from Delgado et al., op.cit.)

¹³ In reflecting on this issue, the team notes that while the share of livestock in overall agricultural output has risen enormously in recent years (up to 50% of total production in value terms), this is more a result of the growth of commercial intensive production systems than of increasing livestock production by poor smallholders. However, the central focus of attention for FAO continues to be the rural poor smallholder and the food insecure. It is therefore open to question whether FAO should reflect the global expansion of the livestock sector with a corresponding expansion of its own livestock programme.

¹⁴ Fisheries and Forestry serve as examples: being in separate departments has traditionally made it even more difficult for them to integrate activities with other technical disciplines.

¹⁵ These are: Integrated Production Systems; Biosecurity; Spatial Information Management and DSTs; Integrated Management of Biodiversity in Food and Agriculture; Biotechnology Applications in Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Climate Change Issues in Agriculture; Disaster Prevention, Mitigation and Preparedness and Post-Emergency Relief and Rehabilitation; Food for the Cities; Definitions, Norms, Methodologies and Quality of Information; and Global Perspective Studies.

¹⁶ An example of this type of exercise was provided to the division as part of the RP component report of this evaluation.