Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Dear contributors,

We would like to thank all those who have contributed to the online consultation on a Voluntary guidance tool for the sustainable enhancement of small-scale livestock productivity – Need, scope, nature, and development process. We really appreciate the time you have dedicated to share your views and experiences. 

We received 55 diverse and insightful contributions from 30 countries and a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, producer organizations, civil society, research and academia, and development partners. Your inputs will be critical for the consultation process requested by the Committee on Agriculture (COAG) Sub-Committee on Livestock.

Thank you and kind regards,

On behalf of the co-facilitators of this e-consultation:

• Badi Besbes, Senior Animal Production Officer, Animal Production and Health Division (NSA), FAO
• Giacomo de’ Besi, Animal Production Officer, NSA, FAO
• Robyn Alders, Senior Consultant, FAO

VSF-Suisse contribution:

VSF-Suisse as a member of the VSF International network and of an Alliance of Swiss NGOs engaged for Sustainable Food Systems, Sufosec, appreciates the elaboration of such a guidance tool which could make visible linkages to existing guidelines and approaches (such as the FFS and PFS approach as means to strengthen capacities of producers), while ensuring that "the great diversity of small-scale production systems" as you say is addressed. Just to share our experiences in this regard: while improving small-scale production systems in peri-urban contexts (e.g. in poultry) requires linking market system thinking to an efficient use of inputs/ feeds and recycling of nutrients, helping producers in fragile and/ or disaster-affected contexts such as pastoral dropouts means working on their livelihoods and the source of conflicts, e.g. by reorienting them from a pastoral mode to more diversified livelihoods (e.g. introducing fodder production). 

Across the objectives stated by you, sustainably increasing productivity while ensuring that the produce (ASFs) find high-value markets to create incomes in vulnerable communities is transversal and will be key, and it may help in this context to emphasise on the key role of (agro-) pastoralism and livestock for making agroecological transition work (e.g. synergies, or use of local and indigenous knowledge and practices for preserving and sustaining land and naturalresources for climate resilience, cf. link) or not (e.g. when livestock is not being properly managed: rangeland degradation etc.). Therefore, when you are asking for potential themes for the guidelines, we would welcome if the guidance tool could link up to agroecology and also, to the right to food, right to land, acknowledging that smallholders, peasants, indigenous peoples etc. are often confronted with challenges in their access to and ownership of means of production, land and resources, which is actually questioning their capacity to produce food and inherently, their right to food. As you state, the guidance tool should focus on farmers, pastoralists, indigenous peoples who, at the national level have either lost or have limited access to land and natural resource endowments. In this regard, the UNDROP declaration together with further relevant guidelines in the area of RTF (such as the voluntary guidelines on the right to food and the ones on tenure) provide for interesting linkages.

VSF-Suisse and its partners would be keen to contribute to such guidelines in the frame of the foreseen inclusive and participatory process. One of our projects, the RAISE project, is trying to push for the implementation of the RTF and of agroecological transition in the area of livestock (read pastoralism), and VSF-Suisse and its partners are bringing into the RTF and the agroecology debate, the voice of pastoralists.

A nivel global,

entender productividad desde una perspectiva integradora que aúne producción, provisión de servicios ecosistémicos, contribución a la seguridad y soberanía alimentaria, contribución al bienestar humano y capital humano, cultural y natural.

Entre los objetivos,

* Potenciar mecanismos de facilitación y participación para que los productores pecuarios a pequeña escala puedan ser parte directa en la toma de decisiones.

* Entender el papel global de las producciones pecuarias a pequeña escala y su inserción en los grandes procesos globales de cambio (cambio climático, pérdida de biodiversidad, cambios en los usos del suelo...) para que mas allá de la productividad se potencie su papel en la sostenibilidad global.

En el alcance y naturaleza

Es muy importante diferenciar los sistemas pecuarios a pequeña escala que poseen una base territorial clara (pastoralismo, agropastoralismo) de aquellos que no la poseen (vinculados a inputs externos como piensos, soja y cereales) y centrar el instrumento en los sistemas territorializados. Tanto su contribución como su gestión debe ser claramente diferenciada de otros modelos.

En cuanto al proceso

Es muy importante promover y facilitar la participación directa de los pequeños ganaderos y ganaderas, no sólo poniéndolos en igualdad de condiciones frente a otros actores, sino facilitando servicios específicos de ayuda y asesoramiento técnico que les permita proponer, expresar y debatir sus ideas y propuestas con garantías de que se tratarán en pie de igualdad con otros sectores.

We welcome the development of the tool, which should be flexible in order to be applicable to different countries and different realities of farms, including high-income countries where very small farms are often overlooked, but small-scale livestock production provides many benefits (environmental, social and economic). In the exchange between family farms from Argentina and Austria, we have seen that many issues are relevant for both countries – as listed in the attached document.

Important points: It would be good to focus not only on production, but also on social, economic and ecological dimensions of sustainability. + Include the voice of the farmers (of different backgrounds) in the development of the tool.

Introduction

Animal loading, unloading, and transport before slaughtering are important critical points through

the whole process of pigs’ production. Several studies showed that the effect of transport on animal

welfare depends on a combination of stressors. This is even more significant in outdoor systems,

where animals are not used to restraints and being handled. It’s possible to significantly decrease

the suffering and stress level of animals before slaughter by eliminating the transportation phase

(from farm to abattoir) by killing animals directly on the farm.

Key problems addressed

At the beginning of the project, in Europe on-farm slaughter was not allowed as a routine method,

but it was used only for emergencies; thus, more studies to verify its effectiveness as a routine

method were needed. In addition, in Italy there were neither a procedure validated by the Official

Veterinary Services for slaughtering pigs on-farm, nor a viable system for catching and transport

animals to the slaughterhouse.

Technological or innovative solutions employed

Pigs are stunned directly on the farm, in a properly sized and controlled facility, by a worker -

trained in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 - using a captive bolt gun that

produces an immediate state of irreversible unconsciousness. The animal’s body is then loaded into

the prototype trailer, a mobile transport structure using a winch and drained by cutting the major

arteries and veins (carotid, jugular, brachiocephalic trunk). The trailer includes a small room with a

hot-water sink to facilitate washing for the worker and the tools being used. Effluent (blood and

urine) is collected within the structure in a special tank so that it can be transported and disposed of

at the slaughterhouse. After the closure of the mobile structure, the worker, depending on the

season, can switch on the trailer’s internal air conditioning and then reach the local slaughterhouse

within two hours. Here the veterinary service can carry out all the necessary checks on the animal

and ensure that health and safety regulations are being complied with.

Key outcomes and measurable impacts achieved

We demonstrate that the kind of slaughter procedure tested does not negatively affect meat safety

and meat quality (technological and physical characteristics). On the contrary, on-farm slaughtering

procedures seemed to significantly decrease serum cortisol, a suitable stress biomarker, respect to

standard procedure (live animals transport): that data suggests that the innovative procedure was

effective in reducing animals’ stress in slaughtering procedure, without getting worse the meat

safety and quality. This led the Official Veterinary Service to upgrade a temporary on-farm

slaughtering permit tied to project finalization, into a permanent license for the overall swine sector,

setting a precedent with significant positive repercussions.

Key actors and stakeholders involved in the development and implementation

Many Italian farms that have also started on-farm animal slaughtering projects were also involved

in the dissemination activities, creating inspiring workshops. After the end of the project, we were

contacted and visited by other farmers interested in developing similar slaughtering systems in

their regions, especially from rural and mountain settings. Today, we are looking for other farmers

interested to test our slaughtering method in our area, in order to share our experience and to

employ the trailer in other realities besides our own.

Challenges encountered and efficiencies gained

• Find the scientific partners, funding system, and interest of the Official Veterinary Service;
• obtaining an official temporary permit for a procedure still not authorized by law;
• design and construction of a prototype, especially in COVID period;
• achieving the professional title of "slaughter operator";
• practical implementation of an on-farm procedure carried out for the first time;
• type-approval of the trailer in Italy (it had been built in Germany);
• upgrading the temporary permit into a permanent license.

Factors for success

The project “Tuscan Maremma pasture-based Cinta senese crossbreeds: meat quality and animal welfare” was granted by Measure 16.2 “Support for pilot projects and the development of new products, practices, processes and technologies,” of the F.A.R. Maremma within the 2014/2020 Rural Development Plan of Tuscany Region (LEADER method), with 90% subsidy. The project took advantage of the active partnership both Official Veterinary Service and Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment of Pisa University. The project was driven by the determination and stubbornness of the farm’s team.

Lessons learned

Lessons can be summarized as follows: a) changing the routine of a procedure involves the investment of a lot of effort and time, along with the creation of a team of active and determined partners; b) bureaucracy burden often risks hindering innovation processes at farm level; c) funding is essential to support a farm-wide change and innovation transfer process; d) one farm's winning idea can be a driving force for a much larger area, raising the level of animal welfare even in the last links of the breeding chain; e) the law can follow the results of science, going beyond the limits that habit often indicates as insuperable.

Links and additional materials

Project quoted by:

• Sustainable beef production systems. EIP-AGRI Focus Group “Sustainable beef Production Systems” Final Report, March 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/default/files/eipagri_fg_sus…
• Slow Food News, 2021. https://www.slowfood.com/ppilow-project-animal-welfare-andslaughter/
• Amarie R. E., Goracci J., Giunta G., Senese M., Del Tongo A., Briganti G., Terracciano G., Serra A. (2022). The on-farm slaughter procedure leads to increased animal welfare in pigs. Human Slaughter Association Conference: Livestock Welfare during Transport, Marketing & Slaughter. Edinburgh (UK), 30 June – 1 July 2022. https://www.hsa.org.uk/newsevents/hsa-conference-2022
• Amarie R. E., Goracci J., Giunta G., Senese M., Del Tongo A., Briganti G., Terracciano G., Serra A. (2022). The on-farm slaughter procedure leads to increased animal welfare in pigs. Teagasc Journal Club, October 21st, 2022. 

Contact information

Jacopo Goracci – [email protected] – [email protected]

Objectives:  

Broadly, we agree with the proposed objectives and would like to offer some precisions and additions. 

• ‘Raising the profile and understanding of the contributions of small-scale livestock producers;’ 
  
  This is an important objective given how marginaised the subsector is, in terms of profile, presence in policy and investment, etc. The contribution should be considered in its broad sense, not only economic, but rather covering the entirety of socio-economic aspects of small-scale livestock production (for example women’s empowerment) and the link to the Sustainable Development Goas (SDGs).  
  
  This objective should also include increasing the understanding of the different kinds and specificity of small-scale livestock systems. The subsector varies greatly, from subsistence farming to small and medium enterprises, and the guidance tool must account for this diversity and acknowledge that one size does not fit all. The guidance should consider the fact that different species of livestock make different contributions to overall livestock productivity. For example, working animals, such as horses, donkeys and mules, are usually not directly consumed as animal source foods but enable agricultural and livestock production through traction, transport of water, people, produce, equipment and other livestock, use of manure as fertiliser etc. This contribution is rarely fully acknowledged in livestock policy. 

• ‘Suggesting how common constraints to improved small-scale livestock productivity might be overcome;’ 
  
  Identifying common constraints and solutions to them ought to be a key objective of the guidelines. However, given the great diversity of the subsector in low and middle income countries, a single solution is not going to work for all. Therefore, the tool needs to offer a degree of nuance and system-specific guidelines in order to be practical and useable.  

• ‘Identifying actions and practices that small-scale livestock producers and allied value chain actors could implement or advocate for;’ 
  
  In addition to value chain actors and producers themselves, we encourage a look at actions that can be taken by governments at policy level, from national to local. Policy was identified as a key constraint in the global survey of 2022.  
  
  Under this objective, it is also worth exploring key enablers of livestock productivity, such as improvements in animal welfare and strengthening animal health systems. Similarly, key challenges should be examined, together with solutions – from climate change and armed conflict, to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Leveraging the enablers and addressing the challenges must be a key part of the actions taken and advocated for.  

• ‘Identifying themes that would benefit from multi stakeholder engagement at national, regional and/or global levels’. 
  
  Under this objective, the local and community levels need to be considered as well. Local communities are producers themselves as well as key beneficiaries of small-scale livestock production.  

Nature and scope: 

‘The tool could be global in scope but focus on low- and middle-income countries, where small-scale livestock production is most important and productivity is reported to be lower.’ We agree that the focus of the tool ought to be predominantly on LMICs. However, looking at relevant examples from higher income countries may help identify good and poor practice, while taking into account the different contexts and constraints. For example, there are important lessons to be learned with respect to intensification of livestock production, strengthening animal health systems, or policy instruments and their relative merits.  

‘Given the great diversity of small-scale production systems and that there is no single, agreed definition of the subsector, the voluntary guidance tool would not prescribe a definition of small-scale livestock producers.’ While we appreciate the challenge of establishing a definition of such a vast and diverse subsector, we believe that the guidance tool presents an opportunity to map out the diversity of the subsector and suggest a working definition. The lack of such a definition could lead to confusion and omissions. For example, lack of clarity as to whether working animals are considered to be livestock or not leads to their exclusion from policy and to underinvestment. If establishing a working definition proves impossible or impractical, we suggest that clear inclusion and exclusion criteria should be established, so that it is clear what scenarios the guidelines apply to. This will have an impact on solutions, which are bound to differ from context to context, for example depending on whether the system produces just for the family consumption versus for the market, whether it employs workers or not, etc. 

Good practices:

Brooke is a global NGO that works with livestock-owning communities in circa 15 countries on four continents, predominantly focusing on working animals, such as horses, donkeys and mules.  

In our experience, voluntary guidelines can only be adhered to if the following conditions are met: all the relevant stakeholders have been identified, consulted, involved and empowered; the stakeholders’ agendas and constraints are well understood and taken into consideration; incentives are developed to encourage compliance (in the absence of formal enforcement mechanisms). Through our work, we have seen these factors at play, for example when facilitating women’s equine welfare groups that agree to pool money for future use as part of microinsurance schemes. We have also worked with owners of brick kilns across South Asia to adhere to voluntary guidelines on human and animal health, safety and wellbeing – giving up shorter term gain for longer term benefits.  

For the purpose of these guidelines, we suggest that a broad spectrum of stakeholders are included in the development process, such as producers, communities, animal health practitioners, youth, women, persons with disabilities, NGOs working on the ground, and others. A balance needs to be struck with respect to geographic representation and livestock systems (size, scale, species, value chains etc). Particular care must be taken with respect to power relations (including within households) to ensure that local and marginalised voices are heard. Brooke’s experience of working with communities through community development approaches shows that solutions that work best are often the ones people already have and building on these may be better than introducing new measures or practices.  

Stakeholder engagement, in particular at community level, should be based on two-way communication built over time and through trust. In many large-scale consultation processes, communities, if consulted at all, are often excluded from any follow-up or not even informed about the outcomes and next steps. Organisations such as Brooke, with FAO consultative status and strong networks and trust amongst livestock-owning communities around the world, could act as a bridge between FAO and local actors, offering their networks and expertise, and ensuring that communities are part of not only the development of, but also the implementation of future guidelines.  

 

Dear madam/Sir

first of all I congratulate the Coordinator body, I am engaging long time in agriculture's media sector, how I can contribution my role in agriculture sectors. I came from yet still Agriculture family background. Contribution of livestock, including in poverty alleviation, food security and nutrition, sustainable livelihoods and the realization of the 2030 Agenda.

I recognize the about the agriculture value how is important for men. I wish in terms of play role in agriculture sector from my side.

Many many thanks FSN Coordinator body' All of world FSN Members.

Giving me opportunity space of consultation Our dignified institution from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

With best regards,

Dhanbahadur Magar

Online portal : www.krishijournal.com.np

For the objective of "Raising the profile and understanding of the contributions of small-scale livestock producers." they need to be engaged in an integrated farming system with crop land and livestock rearing in a circular system in which livestock waste contributing to soil enhancement through organic manure and soil producing healthy grass and nutritious grain for livestock in return. This integrated system should also have biogas production for small scale processing to meet the energy need of small farmer. The small farm should be subsidized with solar powered roof tops and beneath providing shade for animals. Agroecological systems can play important role, Some models have been tested in Pakistan for small scale farmer where one acre farms that give income through out the year to sustain livelihood have been tested and livestock should be tested specifically for Ecological & economic concerns. 

• For common constraints to improved small-scale livestock productivity could be improved by keeping and practicing healthy environment at the small farm, hygiene, sufficient space, advanced breeds and knowledgeful farmer are prerequisite to overcome most of farming problems.   
• Actions and practices that small-scale livestock producers and allied value chain actors could implement or advocate for include capacity building of farmers, a skilled person can manage the farm better, deploying smart gadgets and monitoring systems can improve productivity. Keeping a record at farm is essential which is lacking at most farms, and they don't consider it a business where own generated data and records of production and health of animals can play pivotal role. 
• Themes identification should be focused on Small farm economics, ecology, energy and emissions in current scenario (4E) model. 

In voluntary guidelines, it may be made necessary for farmers to take a one-week Audio-visual training at local livestock/ animal husbandry training school?office or farmer field school, Animal health check up process and basic kit at all farms should be available at all registered farms and farmers should subscribe to sms or any social media campaign by the Ministry of livestock for sustainable enhancement of small-scale livestock productivity. 

Farmers may be given a star Ranking like hotels, 5 stars, 4 star category of farms for those who manage voluntary guidelines and implement sustainable farm practices. 

As I have glanced through the comments, I tend to divide them between smallholder farmers producing both crops while maintaining animals, hopefully more for animal products than draft, and pastoral systems. I addressed the conflict between crops and animal enterprises in an earlier posting. Now please allow me to comment on the pastoral system. 

I think the pastoral system is closely tied to communal grazing and lands that are controlled by the "tragedy of the commons" where benefits come to individual, while risks are shared. This results in massive overcrowding and overgrazing as the most rational thing for individuals is to commit at many animals to the communal lands as possible, without regards to overall health and well-being of the animals. 

Thus, my question is what can or is being done to improve the overall management of this lands that would restrict the number of animals being grazed and improved the quality of fodder and overall carrying capacity of the communal lands? My general model is the USDA's Forest Service management of the National Grazing Lands in the USA. 

Wouldn't addressing this be the best way to enhance the quality and productivity of the animals?

Thank you.

Livestock is globally one of the mainstay of the agricultural communities. It provides 50% of the value of agricultural output globally and one third of the value in developing countries. 

Livestock makes a distinct contribution to social and economic development of the rural masses. In Kenya, rural households earn a living from livestock farming and consider keeping livestock as a store of wealth.Small-scale livestock system plays a very important role in supporting rural livelihoods. Livestock fulfill many functions in addition to producing meat, milk and eggs functions include - provision of fertilizer, fuel, drought power and transport, a means of savings and investment; a buffer against crop failure and diverse cultural and religious roles.

The voluntary guidelines is key in my advocacy work in Kenya we devolved governance this guidelines will influence policy making and implementation, Kakamega County government  channel funding to increase farmer herder adoption of livestock technologies appropriately suiting their contexts and increasing their livestock productivity." One Cow Initiative Program".

The objective are in order if we could include: to support the visibility, recognition and enhancement of the already important role of small-scale livestock and to contribute to global and national efforts towards the eradication of hunger and poverty.

Nature and scope: Definition Small-scale livestock producers are farmers raising small livestock such as poultry, goats, pigs and sheep. Pastoralists in Kenya we the Maasai who move with herds of cows to look for pasture.

In Kakamega County we have the One Cow Initiative. County Government of Kakamega purchase and distribute in-calf heifers one cow per poor household program. Flagship programme in Department of Agriculture , Livestock, Co-operatives and Fisheries.It is meant to increase milk production in Kakamega while at the same time improve the livelihoods of local people. Kakamega County established Kakamega County Dairy Development Corporation through an Act of County Assembly in 2018 and mandated it to implement the one cow programme, establish Dairy smart farms. Since 2015 to date we (CSOs) in Kakamega County have been participating and influencing allocation to the program. The biggest challenge we have the way the beneficiaries are selected, no training on how to maintain and sustain the cow. World bank through Western Kenya Mitigation and Floods Project constructed building and equipped milk coolers in 2010 to date not operating. County government has started construction of a milk processing plant in Malava has not been completed due to budget constraints it is currently at 70% completion. 

I believe through this guidelines it will enable CSOs ensure value for money fast track completion of the milk processing plant and operationalization milk coolers.