Feedback received during testing of an early version of the toolbox in 5 case ctudy countries: Brazil, China, India, Senegal and Uganda

The text which follows is extracted from reports on Case Studies conducted during the development of the toolbox.

| Brazil
| China
| India
| Senegal
| Uganda

Brazil

The testing in Brazil was carried out by NRI in collaboration with Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi and EMBRAPA.

Overall the Toolbox was welcomed as a resource for decision-makers and others, though in no way seen as a "magic bullet". One indicator of approval was that interviewees would like to see Toolboxes on other landuse issues. Governmental users at Federal level had limited expectations of using the Toolbox, but in State and Municipio (county) government there was strong interest in using the Toolbox for appraisal, environmental monitoring and evaluation of projects. Research organisations were interested in using the Toolbox for teaching (particularly in interdisciplinary postgraduate programmes where students include present and potential decision-makers), and NGOs in using it in advocacy and advisory work. These users tended to stress that its use would be mainly for background and as a reference tool.

From their experience conducting the interviews, and their long experience working in the Amazon, the local consultants felt that the Toolbox will be very useful in raising awareness of questions related to livestock production and the environment. Their suggestions on content included supplying a general survey of ranching world-wide and in different regions, relating to species of animal, type of pasture, data on production, its importance in national economies etc., comments on productivity rates, costs and economic returns of ranching, the chain of production, processing and marketing, factoring-in grass species in the evaluation of impacts and suggestion of technologies, providing information on how to plant and manage good pastures.

There was strong interest in using the Toolbox for field-level extension, but its content would need to be more detailed and regionally specific.

The construction of a regional Toolbox, as suggested in many interviews, would probably be an answer. One of the interesting ideas that came up during interviews would be to have a short general introduction, from which users would proceed to a regional Toolbox. The structure of the Toolbox would be the same, with a council or a network of regional institutions being maintained which would be responsible for collecting data to feed the system. By Internet, via the FAO site, users could access any regional Toolbox. The CD-ROM version would contain the regional Toolbox plus addresses to access links to other regions. In this case the Toolbox would be a very strong tool for identifying information gaps and research agendas for each region, thus influencing public policies and research. The interactivity of this system would be very high. Whatever the precise arrangement adopted, all the authors agree that the current Toolbox initiative must be built upon by addressing the serious and linked issues of regional specificity and interactivity.

China

The testing in China was carried out by IAC in collaboration with the Research Centre for Rural Economy.

Background

The livestock sector in China is now at a growing stage and its aggregation keeps a substantial increase. Since late 1970s China introduced the market-oriented economy, its livestock sector has experienced a high-speed development. In terms of quantity production of pork, mutton, beef and milk respectively increased from 12.054 million ton and 1.141 million ton in 1980 to 47.726 million ton and 6.294 million ton in 1996, increasing by 296% and 452%. Production of poultry meat and eggs raised respectively from 1.49 million ton and 4.316 million ton in 1984 to 10.746 million ton and 19.54 million ton in 1996, raising by 621% and 353%. Since the 1990s, except that beef production slowed down, production of pork, mutton, poultry meat and eggs still continues increasing, especially since the mid the 1990s, it has kept growing 10%. With increasing population and for the reason that most of low-income population may demand more livestock products after individual income rises. Therefore, it is predicted that the increased aggregation will last a long period as the Chinese government planned.

Also, the Chinese livestock sector is now readjusting its production structure. In the early 1980s, most of livestock products were provided by the small holders scattering on the vast area of rural China. In the middle of the 1980s, the government set up the "Vegetable Basket Program" for the purpose of coping with a shot supply of livestock products, vegetable and fruit. Since then, there occurred industrial livestock production system around the big- and middle-sized cities. Up to the 1990s, under the pricing incentive and intervention of the government through the policies to change agricultural production structure, the industrial livestock production moved forward at a big pace.

Feedback from testing

The testing work has achieved a preliminary progress. As a first step, it has provided a good opportunity for the government officials and professionals of livestock development and environment to have a better understanding of TOOLBOX. Also, a forum is given where these officials and professionals could gather together for a good discussion about livestock development and environment issues. Therefore, it has promoted their communications and exchanges. Secondly, according to the respondents, they gave a positive appraisal to TOOLBOX. They thought it necessary and feasible to extend the use of TOOLBOX as early as possible. Thirdly, the respondents have made some suggestions by practicing TOOLBOX and hoped that TOOLBOX fits in the Chinese position, be easily operated and helpful in dealing with specific problems.

Some of the respondents suggested that TOOLBOX should do as "Agricultural Specialists System" in Ministry of Technology and Sciences, PRC. Users (mainly from leading persons at county and township levels or managers of enterprises) can get the answer to a specific question by putting several variables into the system, for example, how much fertilizer or pesticide and what time to be used. However, Environment is complex socio-economic issue, not so easy to deal with in quantity as specific technical problem.

India

The Swiss Agency for Development & Cooperation (SDC) supported the conduct of case studies in India for testing of Toolbox in India. Intercooperation (IC), the implementing agency of SDC appointed BAIF as the Consultant.

The Case Studies were conducted in collaboration with the Karnataka State Sheep and Sheep Products Development Board, Banglore; Sangamner Taluka Cooperative Milk Union Limited, Sangamner, district Ahmednagar, Maharashtra State and villages participating in the Goat Development Project in Asind block of Bhilawara district, Rajastan State

Assessment of the current situation on livestock and environmental interactions:

The testing of the Toolbox was undertaken at the three different locations (identified above) for ascertaining the applicability of various tools in different real situations. The assessment of current situation with the use of the matrixes and potential/constraint/underlying causes was one of the exercises. The inference was that the matrices helped in understanding the ‘likely’ Risks and Opportunities and ‘most common’ underlying causes. The existence and/or relevance of these factors needed to be examined by the users. It requires considerable amount of data and/or indicators of status of resource base e.g. how to know the fertility status of soil? How to estimate methane or can we rely on our technical wisdom that large number of ruminants feeding on course roughage produce more methane? After consideration of the relevant facts, the assessments of the livestock-environment interactions in all the three case studies matched the expected results.

It is also interesting to note that careful analyses indicated as to why a certain ‘probable’ risk was not on the ground. For example, soil mining of area under fodder cultivation could not be established, because the farmers were found adopting sound crop management practices. (Soil analysis, application of organic and inorganic fertilizers, rotational cropping etc.)

The planners have shown keen interest to use the results of the analysis after taking into consideration the organisational priorities, resource mobilisation and policies.

The implementors of the case studies expected that the toolbox in the final form should serve the purpose of:

- Assisting in project planning, monitoring and evaluation

- Providing a checklist of risks and opportunities associated with different livestock production systems and corresponding technologies/interventions, policy and institutional options.

- Guiding the use of different tools for environmental assessment and monitoring for units of different sizes.

- Servicing as manual/expert system for the non-technical persons wherein the data needs and quantitative analysis would be possible.

Special efforts like the holding of seminars, workshops, training etc. would be required to facilitate the toolbox application in policy making and planning process. Integration of results becomes possible when many people working at various levels involved in policy making and planning process come from various backgrounds / discipline.

Policy makers and implementers alone may not be able to make use of results obtained from the toolbox. They will require help of technical people such as experts from livestock management, soil science, watershed management, various disciplines of environment etc. i.e. single handed use of Toolbox may lead to improper interpretations. Therefore interactive exercises need to be encouraged at least up to the phase of familiarisation of the Toolbox.

At the end of the case study exercise, entire team felt that specific efforts would be required to bring together all the stakeholders viz. policy makers, subject matter specialists, financial institutions, and implementers including the NGOs and farmer co-operatives for implementation of Livestock-Environment initiatives in a participatory manner.

Senegal

The testing was undertaken by CIRAD in collaboration with the Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles. Staff from the Centre for Ecological Monitoring, Livestock Division, Water, Forestry, Hunting and Land Conservation Division, the Inter-State School of Veterinary Sciences and Medicine, also participated in meetings to comment on the toolbox.

Feedback

Concerning the classification of agro-ecologic zones the use of the length of the vegetative life period, has created many difficulties. The example of the peanuts fields (in the centre of Senegal) and Casamance (in the south)was used. In fact, according to the toolbox’s classification, these two zones will belong to the same agro-ecologic zone, the semi-arid zone, that actually makes up most of Senegal. This appears to contradict the country’s classification on a national level. But, after a long debating period, no changes have been proposed. However, it has been proposed that the toolbox will offer the possibility to users, of being able to place themselves thanks to the addition of more detailed maps (through zoom) or to provide them with a table which enables them to convert regional precipitation level data into the vegetative life period.

The idea of designing a tool to help in the decision making process like the Toolbox has been applauded by all members of the Broad Working Group who attended the meeting. In addition to using it for project development, they intend to use it for project monitoring and implementation as well. However, discussion on the environmental indicators suggested in the toolbox highlighted the fact that while the collection of some of this data hardly generated any expenses (Statistics of abattoirs, measurement of flow etc..) others (analysis of soils, remote sensing etc…) on the contrary required costly means which many potential "toolbox" users could not afford.

Uganda

Testing was undertaken by IAC in collaboration with the National Agricultural Research Organisation.

Trends at farm level within Uganda

Studies at farm level identified positive impacts on the environment as follows:

1. the move of livestock farming out of an urban to a rural setting with more opportunities to associate intensive livestock with crop production (on farm or between farms)

2. the presence of mixed farming enterprises where surplus manure from livestock is used to sustain and intensify crop cultivation.

On the negative side the problem of overall accumulation of plant nutrients from concentrates in peri-urban environments, originating from plant nutrients taken from rural areas, remains.

Some first signs of mixed farms no longer being able to make proper use of excess manure are showing up. Many mixed farmers intend to expand into livestock and more farms may end up in similar situations. In respect of dairying, land is the major constraint for small holders. For large scale enterprises the constraint may be labour and net returns from livestock compared with other activities.

Manure from large-scale poultry is not a problem as there is a high demand for it from crop farmers.

Large-scale pig farms are few. They have not been included in the survey as the focus was on mixed farming systems. On small scale mixed farms only a few pigs are kept in association with crop cultivation and feeding on kitchen and crop wastes. Concentrates are hardly used. Most of the adult pigs are tethered under the trees on the farm. Their habit of feeding on human excrements may cause problems for human health, meaning that systems may need to be improved for that reason. Overall the environmental problems of pigs (as for goats) in small scale mixed systems is small. They recycle local available nutrients and provide manure for crops (bananas, sweet potatoes and vegetables)

Grazing systems in rural areas near towns provide relatively low returns per acre, but may persist for some time because of speculation on increasing value of land. Land exploitation by dairy cattle may improve soil fertility (through external feed and mineral supplementation). The permanent grass and tree vegetation protects soil from erosion so have a number of positive impacts on the environment. Continuing pressure on land may result in land being sold or being more intensively used.

Feedback

After testing the toolbox at both the farm and the district level, it became clear that while farmers and district officers often share a same view on the impact of livestock on the environment and on what causes the problems, they differ in opinion about feasible options to do something about it. Therefore it is worth consulting farmers and other stakeholders about their views, plans and concerns, before identification of policy and technical options. Insights gained from these consults can help planners and policy makers to select from the beginning options for further consideration that are likely to be more feasible. This has become the more important since District officers, as a result of decentralization, have become major key players in policy making, planning and coordination of development programs and interventions.

[Livestock & Environment Home]