LIVESTOCKCRP

Uganda stakeholders discuss Livestock CRP proposal

As part of the development of a new CGIAR research program on Livestock, ILRI and partners held a face to face event with stakeholders and partners in Uganda on 10 March 2016 to discuss, validate and improve elements of the draft proposal. The format was informal, with group discussion of questions following a general introductory presentation. The rough points and notes from the discussions are posted below.

WHY LIVESTOCK?

How could the assessment of livestock related opportunities to address development challenges be strengthened?

Does the focus on smallholders make sense?

Is anything crucial missing?

 

Are there particular aspects in Uganda that should be considered?

 

Opportunity in livestock in Uganda

  • Livestock is a strategic pathway for wealth creation
  • There is an increasing demand of livestock and livestock product demand especially ‘white meat’
  • There are plenty of new technologies, innovations and information that enhance livestock development
  • There is more and more involvement of women and youth in livestock
  • Livestock has a huge potential for employment
  • There is an emerging leather industry (hides and skins)

How can development challenges be strengthened

  • Limited market and marketing infrastructures
  • Limitations in of value addition in livestock products
  • A lack of functional disease control strategies for disease mitigation
  • High food quality and standards challenges
  • High effects of HIV/AIDS on enhanced productivity
Yes the focus on smallholder livestock makes sense

Crucial things that are missing

  • There is no clear strategy on how farmers will be helped to ensure the transition from subsistence to commercial farming.
  • Value addition and processing of livestock products
  • The lack of strategy for value addition amongst smallholder farmers should be explored
  • Livestock as pathway for enhancing human nutrition is not well articulated
  • A strategy for technology transfer to livestock value chain actors not clear?
  • How to strengthen policy and regulatory issues (e.g. land, seed, commercial feeds policy)
  • Gender issues are not coming out well right from the beginning
  • Strategy on how to fit our research approach into purpose (e.g. promotion of breed in relation to the purpose and environment)
  • Systemic approach (e.g. interaction crop-livestock) is not well developed.
  • Appropriate financing and credit (micro financing)
  • Insurance in livestock
  • Policy and institutional issues in relation to land, feeds, disease and trade
  • Harmonization of regional livestock policies
  • Zoning and specialization of livestock commodities should be done in Uganda to optimize on production and marketing
  • Fragile growth trajectory (for enhancing resilience) should also be considered for Uganda (besides the intensification – value chain). Justification is that pastoralism system in the cattle corridor is prominent too.

 

Does the organization of research for development priorities around trajectories of change miss anything?

The group felt that the following components are R4D opportunities that are not captured for the different trajectories

  • Property rights – especially land tenure for both strong growth and fragile growth trajectories
  • Early warning systems for coping with shocks (climatic and biotic)
  • ICT applications for technology delivery
  • Trans-boundary diseases
  • Traceability systems

What are the top issues driving research on sustainable intensification of livestock-based systems?

  • Access to both input and output markets
  • Proper functioning of the input and output marketing systems

What are the top issues driving research on enhanced resilience for livestock-based livelihoods?

  • Emerging and re-emerging diseases, including zoonoses
  • Environmental concerns – especially climatic shocks
  • Policies around financing and insurance systems, property rights

 

Do we have the right ingredients for stepwise, transformative changes leading to sustainable, resilient livestock systems?

No

  • Animal welfare issues seem to be lacking
  • Management – both husbandry management and enterprise management
  • Market access and value addition
  • Public health and food and feed safety (safe livestock products)
  • Policy, legal and regulatory issues
  • Capacity on finances infrastructure , human and ICT
  • Research that guide policy
  • Market information/intelligence

Is there anything missing from the portfolio of integrative research?

  • Animal welfare and drudgery technologies that are low cost and cost efficient
  • Forage breeding and promotion local forage species.
  • Feed safety issues
  • Feeds research on emerging feeds e.g. vermiculture – insects (as alternative sources of protein)
  • Lack of emphasis on social economics of the interventions (cost- benefit )
  • In building the research on the impact of human health and nutrition
  • Indigenous technology knowledge generation and use

How best can we integrate capacity development, gender, and communications?

  • Include use of local information delivery systems e.g. role plays (skits), the local media (newspapers, local television shows, and radio programs) and use of ICT technology.

 GENERAL POINTS RAISED

  • Gender is not coming out well right on higher issues
  • It is not clear how research in the Livestock agri food systems CRP will inform research in the cross cutting CRPs research such as PIM, Nutrition and Health, etc and vice-versa?
  • There is no explicit reference to the collaborators as partner during the proposal writing (e.g. MAAIF)
  • The link between research and extension portfolio was not very well articulated is the proposal
  • Issues of animal welfare and management (housing, transportation) are not addressed anywhere in the proposal.
  • Small scale mechanization (such as low cost mechanization equipment for chopping feeds) is missing especially in the cattle value chains. Farmers are exposed to risks and drudgery in the livestock value chain.
  • Forage breeding of existing varieties (conservation aspects) should also be a focus rather than introducing new varieties

 

Meeting notes: Ben Lukuyu, Emily Ouma, Michel Dione and Peter Lule (ILRI Uganda)

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s