Institutional and Policy Support to the Livestock Sub-sector in Africa

Institutional and Policy Support to the Livestock Sub-sector in Africa

Regional Overview of a Preliminary Consultation in the Greater Horn of Africa

July 2004

Institutional and Policy Support Team (IPST) African Union/Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources PO Box 30786, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya http://www.cape-ibar.org

Institutional and Policy Support to the Livestock Sub-sector in Africa: Regional Overview of a Preliminary Consultation in the Greater Horn of Africa

_________________________________________________________________

Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms i Acknowledgements i Summary ii 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Why focus on policies and institutions? 1 1.2 Policy and institutional change in AU/IBAR 2 1.3 The IBAR Preliminary Consultation 3 2.0 Methodology 4 2.1 Focal points and resource persons 4 2.2 Literature review 4 2.3 Interviews 5 2.4 Initial country visits 5 2.5 Country-level workshops 6 3.0 Findings 7 3.1 Livestock has a low profile 8 3.2 A top-down approach to policy making 9 3.3 Capacity of government livestock agencies 10 3.3.1 Organisation and structure of livestock

ministries and departments 10 3.3.2 Knowing how to change 12 3.3.3 Incoherent and outdated policies and

legislation 12 3.3.4 Other concerns 12 3.4 Information gaps 13 4.0 The Way Forward 14

4.1 Towards a regional programme focussing on policy and institutional change in the livestock sub-sector 14

4.2 An IBAR facility dedicated to policy and institutional change 15

References 18 Annexes Annex 1: People interviewed during the preliminary consultation 19 Annex 2: National-level workshop participants 22


_________________________________________________________________

i

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AU/IBAR African Union/ Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources

COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern African States

EAC East Africa Community

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

IGAD Inter-Governmental Authority on Development

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

IPST Institutional and Policy Support Team (AU/IBAR)

FMoAR Federal Ministry of Animal Resources (Sudan)

KNFU Kenya National Farmers Union

MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries (Uganda)

MoARD Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ethiopia)

MLDF Ministry of Livestock Development and Fisheries (Kenya)

MoWLD Ministry of Water and Livestock Development (Tanzania)

MPND Ministry of Planning and National Development (Kenya)

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGO Non Governmental Organisation

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

REC Regional Economic Community

REO Regional Economic Organization

UNFF Uganda National Farmers Federation

Acknowledgements AU/IBAR acknowledges the valuable contributions of everyone who participated in

the preliminary consultation. The work was funded by the Department for

International Development (UK) through grants to IBAR and the Food and

Agriculture Organization.


_________________________________________________________________

ii

Summary

In the African Union (AU), policy and institutional change at national and

regional levels is viewed as a core strategy for poverty alleviation. Within the AU,

the Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (IBAR) is tasked with assisting AU

member states and Regional Economic Communities (RECs) to reform and

harmonise policies in the livestock sub-sector. Furthermore, the role of livestock

development as a pathway out of poverty is attracting increasing recognition.

Animals are a major asset for rural communities throughout Africa, and provide

highly nutritious foods, income, draught power, hides and skins, and manure. In

many communities, livestock have profound cultural significance and form the

basis for traditional social support systems.

In 2003 IBAR consulted senior policy makers in Greater Horn of Africa

region to assess policy and institutional constraints in the livestock sub-sector, and

begin the process of formulating a regional programme focussing on policy reform

and targeted at poor producers. The IBAR team spoke to Ministers, Permanent

Secretaries, Head of Livestock Departments and a range of other stakeholders in

five countries. This report summarises the preliminary consultation and suggests

how a proposal for the regional programme can be finalised with real inputs and

commitment from AU/IBAR partners. The report also outlines the roles of the new

Institutional and Policy Support Team (IPST) in AU/IBAR, and suggests how the

IPST can spearhead the emerging regional programme. Five country-level reports

are also available and these reports contain detailed information derived from

dialogue with national stakeholders.

The key findings from the preliminary consultation were as follows:

• Senior policy makers were extremely frank about the need for change.

They expressed,

concern over the dearth of policy in key areas affecting the livestock

sub-sector

their frustration with the current institutional environment

their inability to formulate policy when events are rapidly changing

the low level of awareness that appropriate policy formulation is a

complex process that must involve all stakeholders

their understanding that policy change alone will have limited impact -

there must concurrently be institutional incentives and associated

legislation to implement new policy


_________________________________________________________________

iii

• A number of specific policy and institutional issues were highlighted:

despite the considerable potential to develop livestock resources as a

poverty reduction strategy, the low policy profile of livestock

an approach to policy reform based almost solely on the opinions of

government players; broad-based stakeholder analysis was rare and

most critically, mechanisms for involving poorer livestock keepers in

policy dialogue were lacking

there is a pressing need to improve government capacity with regards

the design and implementation of effective policy making processes;

the needs relates not only to stakeholder involvement, but also to a

range of structural weaknesses and policy incoherence

Based on draft logical frameworks produced in the five countries, IBAR

has provisionally formulated a goal and outputs for a regional programme. The

programme goal is to increase the contribution of livestock to poverty reduction

and wealth creation, through the development of a conducive policy environment

and institutional framework. The three outputs of the programme are as follows:

Output 1 A pro-poor institutional framework for policy review, formulation,

harmonisation and implementation being put in place at national

level.

Output 2 Better understanding and acceptance of the contribution of

livestock to poverty reduction and national economies.

Output 3 The participation of poor livestock keepers and related

communities in policy making processes is enhanced.

To finalise the regional programme proposal, IBAR will conduct further consultations with government partners and RECs with a view to producing an approved proposal by the end of January 2005. It is envisaged that further dialogue will result in letters of support from the relevant ministries plus definition of specific country-level activities, roles and responsibilities of different players, and levels of co-funding required at national level.


_________________________________________________________________

1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Why focus on policies and institutions?

It is widely accepted that livestock are a vital component of rural

livelihoods in Africa. Animals provide highly nutritious foods, are sources of

income and savings, and provide draught power, transport, manure, and hides

and skins. In many African societies, livestock are the basis for traditional social

support systems and are an integral part of the African way of life1. In an era of

globalisation, predictions of future global demand for livestock products indicate

considerable opportunities for African producers2. In particular, human population

growth and urbanisation in south-east Asia present a growing potential market for

Africa and other developing regions.

In 1998 a major international donor commissioned a review of best

practice in the livestock sector3. The review included an assessment of more than

800 livestock development projects supported by multilateral and bilateral donors,

and implemented by a range of international, government and non governmental

agencies from the 1960s. Most of these projects were categorised as ‘technical

and service projects’, which often aimed to improve disease control or livestock

production through new technology, or, improve access to markets through

government marketing schemes or better marketing infrastructure. All other

projects were categorised as ‘organisational projects’, often involving training to

government partners and strengthening of extension and veterinary services. A

key finding of the review was that overall, there was little to evidence to show that

these projects had achieved sustained benefits for poor livestock keepers.

Reasons for limited success included:

• The development and attempted transfer of inappropriate technologies;

technologies were supply driven rather than demand driven

• Inappropriate incentives within research centres for poverty-focussed research

and innovation; a focus on the relatively wealthy farmers or commercial sector

• Poor delivery pathways, characterised by a small private sector and inefficient

public sector; public policy that adversely affected poorer producers.

• Relatively powerful members dominating producer organisations, or,

professional groups (high-cost and urban) preventing the activities of para-

professionals (low-cost and rural)


_________________________________________________________________

2

• Weak organisations, particularly in the areas of economic analysis of

sustainable systems, and farmer-led research and problem analysis

Despite a substantial body of negative experience in the livestock sector, a

few relatively successful projects stood out as achieving sustainable change.

Common features of these ‘institutional’ projects were a combination of

community-based approaches, private sector involvement and the creation of

enabling policy and legislative environments. These experiences from the field

agreed with emerging economic theories, particularly New Institutional Economics,

describing the crucial role of institutions in defining how organisations behave and

perform. At this point it is important to note that ‘institutions’ are understood to be

the formal and informal rules, enforcement mechanisms and norms that control

organisations, whereas policies are goals and desired outcomes4,5.

1.2 Policy and institutional change in AU/IBAR

Within the Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture of the African

Union (AU), the Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (IBAR) is mandated by

AU member states to facilitate policy reform and harmonisation in the livestock

sub-sector. To date, IBAR has been actively promoting policy change in the areas

of veterinary privatization and primary animal health services, and considerable

progress has been achieved in the Greater Horn of Africa region. Meetings of

African Ministers of Animal Resources are also convened by IBAR to discuss key

policy issues. However, a wide range of other service provision, marketing,

extension, research and other policy issues affecting livestock keepers still need

to be addressed.

At the 2004 AU Summit held in Addis Ababa, the AU responsibility to

provide continental leadership in the integration, co-ordination and establishment

of close co-operative relationships with Africa’s Regional Economic Communities

and Organisations (RECs/REOs) was reinforced. This will involve the

establishment of AU delegations in each REC, and the start of a process of

reflection and dialogue with the RECs on their role, capacity and ability to deliver

on standardised regional integration programmes. Bearing in mind the importance

of the agricultural sector and poverty alleviation in Africa - a key strategy of the AU

- the strengthening, co-ordination and harmonisation of REC policies and

institutions will be crucial. As the RECs in turn work hand-in-hand with their


_________________________________________________________________

3

member states, there is a need for strong support from the AU Department for

Rural Economy and Agriculture in terms of how to develop appropriate policy and

institutions. In the livestock sub-sector, this role falls to IBAR.

1.3 The IBAR Preliminary Consultation

In 2003, AU/IBAR conducted a preliminary, broad-based study on

livestock policies in the Horn of Africa region. The preliminary consultation was

conducted between June and November 2003 in five countries viz. Ethiopia,

Kenya, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. A central aim of the study was to assess

attitudes, understanding and needs with regards livestock policy reform, and

outline a process for elaborating a regional-level policy and institutional support

programme with full commitment from IBAR partners. Specific study objectives

were:

• Assess stakeholder understanding and attitudes with regards needs and

opportunities for poverty-focussed policy reform in the livestock sub-sector

• Develop a comprehensive list of national and regional stakeholders, and

determine commitment to work with a regional-level institutional and policy

reform programme

• Identify knowledge gaps related to pro-poor policies and propose strategies

for addressing these gaps

• Identify and prioritise opportunities where institutional and policy change in the

livestock sub-sector would have a substantial impact on poverty

• Identify viable entry-points for the adoption and implementation of institutional

and policy change processes

• Produce draft regional and country-level logical frameworks for a regional

programme of institutional and policy support to the livestock sub-sector

This report summarises the preliminary consultation at a regional-level. It

presents the key findings and proposes further work to finalise a proposal for a

regional programme of policy and institutional support to the livestock sub-sector.

More detailed information is described in the five country reports, available from

IBAR.

In May 2004 IBAR established a new Institutional and Policy Support Team (IPST) to spearhead assistance to partners. The report also outlines the

proposed tasks of the IPST in relation to the emerging regional programme.


_________________________________________________________________

4

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Focal points and resource persons

The conceptual approach underpinning the preliminary consultation was

country-level dialogue with key policy makers. Therefore, all activities were

arranged through focal points and facilitated by local resource persons who were

all well known in the livestock sub-sector in the respective countries. They were

identified using IBAR’s corporate experience and contacts in the region, and

focussed on the ability of the selected agencies and individuals to penetrate the

livestock sector, government offices and private sector in the respective countries.

TABLE 1: Focal points and resource persons Country

Focal point

Resource persons

Ethiopia Kenya Sudan Tanzania Uganda

Dr. Berhanu Admassu IBAR Dr. Abdullahi O. Ismail Deputy Director, Ministry of Livestock Development and Fisheries Dr. Ahmed M. Hassan Undersecretary, Federal Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries Dr. Mohamed M. Bahari National Co-ordinator, Pan African Programme for the Control of Epizootics Dr. Flora Kasirye Dairy Development Manager, Dairy Development Authority

Dr. Solomon Nega Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Dr. Mtula Otieno and Dr. Kimenye Consultants, IBAR Dr. A. Shommu Adviser, Federal Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries Mr. S. Mwinjaka Senior Livestock Economist, Ministry of Water and Livestock Development Dr. J. Saamanya Commissioner, Animal Production and Marketing, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries

2.2 Literature Review

A review of published and grey literature was conducted. The review

included publications on the current academic debate on policy and policy-making

processes, and the relationship between policy and poverty reduction.


_________________________________________________________________

5

For grey literature, the services of local resource persons (Table 1) proved

to be invaluable. In the case of Sudan (Arabic), Tanzania (Kiswahili) and Ethiopia

(Amharic) local resource persons were not only able to access government

documents but also managed to translate key documents into English. The

translated documents are available at IBAR and include government decrees,

statutes and periodic policy papers. The results of country level literature review

and listing of detailed literature reviewed in each country are contained in the five

ratified country reports, which are available at IBAR.

2.3 Interviews

Interviews were conducted using a Personal Interview Framework. The

number of people of people interviewed by country was nine in Ethiopia, 22 in

Kenya, 10 in Sudan, 31 in Tanzania and 16 in Uganda (a total of 88 interviews). A

full list of interviewees is provided in Annex 1. The framework was divided into two

sections:

Section 1 - targeting representatives of government, local NGO’s, policy research

institutions, private sector representatives and members of parliament. This

section was further divided into four main areas covering country specific

information and poverty mapping in the livestock sector; existing policy

arrangements; existing institutional arrangements; linkages between policy and

institutional arrangements.

Section 2 - targeted donor and international organizations representatives and

sought to establish the awareness, influence and role of these organizations in the

policy making processes as well as their opinions on existing institutional

arrangements supporting policy formulation and implementation.

The Personal Interview framework was pre-tested in Kenya and

despatched to the focal points (Table 1) for in-country use.

2.4 Initial Country Visits

Initial visits were made to each of the five countries, during which local

resource persons (Table 1) were interviewed, endorsed and subsequently

contracted and trained on the Personal Interview Framework.


_________________________________________________________________

6

A critical aspect of the initial country visits was also preliminary discussion

with senior government officials, and private sector and NGO stakeholders on the

concept of pro-poor policy and institutional change in the livestock sub-sector.

2.5 Country-level workshops

Using the focal points and resource persons, two-day workshops were

conducted in each of the five countries. The main aim of the workshops was to

begin the process of logframe formulation for country-level programmes. The

criteria for selecting the workshop participants were knowledge of the livestock

sector and the need for broad stakeholder representation (private sector,

government, NGOs). In addition, the workshops were primarily working sessions

demanding certain commitments including confirmatory positions. Therefore

participants from government required a certain level of authority. As far as

possible, gender balance was taken into account. The number of participants was

intentionally kept at around 10 people in order to maintain an overview of

participation and results. An experienced local logframe facilitator was used in

each workshop.


_________________________________________________________________

7

3. FINDINGS

The consultation proved to be a useful way to introduce the concept of

pro-poor institutional and policy change to senior government and other

stakeholders - a total of 171 people were involved in the consultation,

The IBAR consultation on livestock policies and poverty, 2003:

Who did we talk to? • Two Ministers Responsible for

Animal Resources • Four Permanent Secretaries • 17 Directors of Livestock

Departments • 77 senior government officials • 24 NGO representatives • Seven university dons

• Two Directors of national policy

research institutes • Seven representatives of farmers

unions • Four representatives of livestock traders

associations • Two international agencies – IGAD and

FAO

The overall findings of the initial consultation were not a radical departure

from what might have been predicted by experts working in this area.

However, the major achievement of the consultative process was that

IBAR tapped into a rich core of concern among African legislators and

senior policy makers for the need to bring about change. Furthermore, this

change must primarily be in policy process. Senior officials were frank

about:

the dearth of policy in key areas affecting the livestock sub-sector

their frustration with the current institutional environment

their inability to formulate policy when events are rapidly changing

the low level of awareness that appropriate policy formulation is a

complex process that must involve all stakeholders

their understanding that policy change alone will have limited impact -

there must concurrently be institutional incentives and associated

legislation to implement new policy

Detailed findings are available in the country reports. On a regional level,

the main findings from the consultation are described below.


_________________________________________________________________

8

3.1 Livestock has a low profile

Livestock is a neglected sub-sector of agriculture. Governments have

tended to emphasise crops as opposed to livestock, and there was poor

information on the role that livestock could play in securing livelihoods, and its

contribution to the overall economy.

Although documents such as national Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

(PRSPs) define development priorities, in some countries the nature of the PRSP

was not clear. This prevented livestock agencies being fully engaged with PRSPs

and consequently, livestock issues were not adequately captured. The inclusion of

the livestock sub-sector was more an afterthought which featured in PRSPs only

after agitation by pressure groups (as was the case of Kenya and Ethiopia).

Box 1 Importance of livestock sector in Uganda7 Livestock production constitutes an important sub-sector of Uganda’s agriculture,

contributing about 9% of National Gross Domestic Product and 17% of Agricultural

Gross Domestic Product. It is an integral part of the agricultural system in many parts of

the country. Livestock contributes significantly to the welfare of the population at both

household and national levels by:

• being the source of human food such as meat, milk and eggs, which are all high

value sources of essential nutrients

• providing income to farmers through sale of animals and their products

• serving as mobile banks from which the funds can be liquidated for other uses

• using the dung as organic fertilisers for sustainable agriculture

• providing draught power for ploughing and transport

• contributing to socio-cultural values of society in the form of dowry, gifts and pride

Box 2 Contribution of the Livestock Sector in Kenya8 This contribution can be significant. In the case of Kenya studies show that 70% of

Kenya’s land lies in marginal areas which contains more than 50% of all the country’s

livestock; livestock farming contributing around 10% to GDP. In 2002, this amounted to

Kenya Shilling 54 billion (~US$ 71,000,000) - about the same figure as that allocated

to the education ministry - and translates to 30% of all agricultural production.

Livestock-related work employs a little less then half of the entire agricultural labour

force (We neglect the farmer at our own peril, Daily Nation 23rd March 2004). Similar or

even more significant figures apply for the other countries in the region.


_________________________________________________________________

9

This state of affairs reflected the lack of recognition given to the livestock

sub-sector in general and in particular, the needs of poor livestock keepers. This

was compounded by the weak capacity of livestock technicians to interpret the

needs of Planning and Finance Ministries, and ‘sell’ the idea of investing in the

livestock sub-sector.

3.2 A top-down approach to policy making

Nearly all countries had a common history of policy formulation that put

government at the centre of policy formulation and implementation. Although the

literature review revealed that descriptions of policy-making processes were few, a

general finding was that policy making was a top-down process.

Box 3 Policy Making Process in Kenya8

The executive dominates the livestock policy-making process in Kenya. After becoming

aware of a problem that can be solved through policy change, the executive appoints a task

force from among its experienced officers. The task force then collects information from the

field through consultations, and writes a paper. The paper is discussed at the relevant

departmental level and a policy is formulated. It is then presented to stakeholders in a

workshop where comments are made and incorporated into the document. After this the

draft policy document is taken to the Permanent Secretary who after consultations prepares

a cabinet paper. If cabinet passes it, the document is taken to the Attorney General’s Office

where the document is revised using the necessary legal language. From there, the

document is taken to Parliament where it is debated and if passed, becomes law. The

current system is weak on the point of stakeholder participation at all stages (problem

identification, formulation and even implementation). Most poor people do not attend

meetings and even if they do, they do not contribute ideas, as they are generally afraid of

government officers. Participation is never easy to implement and ways of empowering

communities or community-based organizations have to be found. In the thorny area of

pastoralism, there are many NGOs speaking for the poor. There is also a Pastoralists

Parliamentary Group that is currently lobbying for the pastoralist agenda. The work of

improving participation has started on the right foot, but more needs to be done.

Due to the high cost of adequate grassroots consultations, and the lack of

tools, experience and knowledge to facilitate participation, policy formulation was

very weak on the point of stakeholder participation at all stages. National capacity


_________________________________________________________________

10

to utilise a livelihoods approach to identify key policy and institutional constraints

affecting the use of livestock in poverty reduction was weak and under-developed.

The policy formulation process in all countries had a strong linear

orientation (top down with heavy government influence) although efforts were

being made to integrate a more bottom up approach as well as a broader

spectrum of stakeholders in the PRSP process and other policy formulation

processes. It should also be realised that weaknesses in policy-making process

are not necessarily livestock-sector specific, but can relate to many government

ministries (Box 4).

Box 4 National Strategies and Poverty Alleviation in the Sudan9

It is observed for Sudan that national developmental strategies are of a general and

sweeping nature; they do not specifically target the poor. It is hoped that the success in the

implementation of these strategies would result in poverty alleviation through sustainable

economic development. However, this is yet to happen. Serious efforts have been made in

Sudan to implement these strategies but poor performance and lack of adequate funds are

the main constraints towards effective implementation, thus resulting in starvation and

poverty in many parts of the country which is often complicated by civil strife and war in

southern and western Sudan, and other areas of the country. 3.3 Capacity of government livestock agencies

Stakeholders, including the private sector, accepted the relevant livestock

ministry as being the country-level entry point for policy and institutional change

activities. However, livestock ministries and departments were characterised by

various weaknesses.

3.3.1 Organisation and structure of livestock ministries and departments

In Ethiopia, Sudan and Tanzania11, federal governance arrangements

were in place although even in these three countries, there was much variation.

The system of government in Sudan is based on the constitution of 1998 and the

country is divided into 26 states. Each state has considerable autonomy and

power to legislate and raise taxes. The federal public sector is now limited to

planning, research, training, control of major epidemics and international


_________________________________________________________________

11

relationships which includes export of livestock and imports of inputs for

production. In Uganda and Kenya more centralized government was evident.

A common observation for all countries following federalisation was that

central government tended to be isolated from the affairs of the regions/states.

Consequently, policy making at central government level was not in tune with the

policies being enacted and followed in the regions. In these countries it was

evident that there was a need to define responsibilities of central government and

states/regions. In the case of Uganda and Kenya, central government appeared to

dominate.

The consultation put the underlying causes here squarely on political

creation and structuring of government ministries without due consideration of

core functions, previous lack of pro-poor focus, inadequate private sector linkages

and financial mismanagement. Weaknesses in the organisation and structure of

livestock agencies resulted in inadequate arrangements for pro-poor policy

formulation and implementation in all countries (Box 5).

Box 5 Livestock agencies and policies in Ethiopia10

For Ethiopia, the agencies responsible for the development of the sector, be it production,

marketing, veterinary services or research are not organised in such a way that they work

closely under one umbrella†. For example, the Animal and Fishery Resources, and Animal

Health Regulatory Department are under the Ministry of Agriculture but the Livestock

Marketing Authority is under the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Animal production and

animal health research are under the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute. Given the

huge livestock resource the country owns; Ethiopia has failed to establish a strong

institutional framework for livestock development.

Regarding policy, in 1992 a livestock development policy was drafted for Ethiopia as part

and parcel of an overall agricultural policy of the country. The principal objectives of the

draft policy document include achievement of food self-sufficiency in livestock products,

improvement of nutritional status of the population, increasing employment opportunities

through the promotion of agri-business, expanding livestock and livestock product exports,

as well as boosting rural incomes. However, although the draft policy is still an integral part

of the agricultural policy, there is a need to formulate more specific livestock development

policies as related to the major constraints. These constraints include feeds and nutrition,

animal health, livestock breed improvement and marketing.

† In July 2004 IBAR assisted the authorities in Ethiopia to restructure veterinary services. The new structure included re-centralisation of tasks such as national disease surveillance and epizootic disease control.


_________________________________________________________________

12

3.3.2 Knowing how to change

An equally critical result of the consultation was the inadequate capacities

of the respective governments, including ministries responsible for livestock

development, to effect necessary and urgent institutional change required in all

the countries in the region. The consultation indicated that underlying causes here

included simply inadequate skills, but exacerbated by lack of political good will for

reforms.

3.3.3 Incoherent and outdated policies and legislation

The preliminary consultation unearthed a plethora of numerous, outdated

and therefore irrelevant and contradictory legislation in the various livestock

ministries in the five countries. Most of these policies and laws could not therefore

be implemented, and required urgent and comprehensive review. Inadequate

policies for animal production, health and marketing were evident in all countries.

Box 6 Policies, Laws, Regulations and Standards in Uganda7

For Uganda, weak enforcement of policies, laws, regulations and standards has led to the

spread of diseases and production of sub-standard products, and has limited access to the

highly competitive international markets for beef, milk and hides and skins. Some products

are expensive compared to those from other countries where they are subsidised to

promote exports. Some of the laws are out-dated and need to be reviewed. 3.3.4 Other concerns

Policy monitoring and evaluation mechanisms were grossly inadequate. A

notable exception was the efforts being made to monitor the progress of PRSP

implementation in all the concerned countries.

The consultation also indicated that policy makers were not able to

respond to changing situations which required updating or making of new policies.

In addition, joint analysis with stakeholders of policy-making processes brings the

realization that the policy making process is indeed a complex process as

opposed to a conventional linear process, the latter being the usual understanding

of policy making on the part of government.


_________________________________________________________________

13

3.4 Information gaps

The consultation confirmed the need for relevant poverty and livestock

data in all countries. The apparent lack of up-to-date and appropriate data is a

perennial problem whose underlying causes include lack of funds and lack of

focus on poverty (with the latter becoming increasingly important). This problem

partly contributes to the lack of recognition of the contribution of the livestock

sector to the overall economy (Box 7).

Box 7 Status of Livestock Data in Uganda and Ethiopia7,10

For the last five years a comprehensive livestock census has not been carried out in

Uganda. The data used is based on estimates and projections. Similarly, field studies to

generate data on production parameters for the different types of animals and breeds are

few. This affects the planning of the intervention programmes. Similarly it is noted for

Ethiopia that data available regarding livestock are too old, based on assumptions and

unreliable. Irrespective of the agro ecological zones or ones ethnic group people are not

willing to volunteer information on the number of animals they own. Therefore; there is a

pressing need to come up with a solution for tackling this strong shortcoming for proper

planning.

Of particular importance in addressing poverty alleviation in the livestock

sub-sector is the need to identify poor livestock keepers6. In Ethiopia, interviews

revealed that substantial numbers of poor people were found in the Ethiopian

highlands, where mixed farming is practised. This was explained by increasing

population pressure on landholdings combined with rudimentary agricultural and

animal production techniques. In Kenya, many poor people were found in mixed

rain-fed farming systems. In these areas, human population growth and animal

diseases were important factors.

In Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Sudan pastoralists were

among the poorest livestock keepers. Poverty in pastoralist areas was associated

with loss of herds due to drought, conflict or disease. In Tanzania, loss of grazing

land was noted (especially in areas also inhabited by wildlife).

Conflict was noted as a particular constraint in north and northwest

Uganda, and in Sudan. Poor people are also to be found in the irrigated

agriculture and livestock areas, as confirmed by interviews carried out by the

consultants in Gezira state in Sudan.


_________________________________________________________________

14

4. THE WAY FORWARD

4.1 Towards a regional programme focussing on policy and institutional change in the livestock sub-sector

The preliminary consultation and literature review revealed that livestock

projects (including integrated rural development projects) had attempted to

address well-known production, marketing, service provision, research and

technology transfer constraints for many years. However, the policy and

institutional considerations underlying these constraints had not been specifically

recognized, targeted and addressed, especially as they relate to the poor.

Consequently, an emerging and significant need for the Horn of Africa is to

develop a pro-poor institutional framework that will enable policy review,

formulation, harmonization and implementation. To enable this, the capacities of

partners to utilize a livelihoods approach should be built up and then the

livelihoods approach used to identify key policy and institutional constraints

affecting the use of livestock in poverty reduction.

In future, institutional analysis should be facilitated for key partners and

institutional and policy changes will need to be supported. This initiative will

enable a better understanding of the contribution of livestock to poverty reduction

and national economies.

A key role for IBAR is to work with regional and national partners to build

the findings of the consultative process into a real programme of policy and

institutional change. The consultation showed that country logframes were similar

at goal and purpose levels. Therefore, at present the regional programme has a

goal of “increasing the contribution of livestock to poverty reduction and wealth

creation”, through the development of a conducive policy environment and

institutional framework. Three major outputs have also been identified:

Output 1 A pro-poor institutional framework for policy review, formulation,

harmonisation and implementation being put in place at national

level.

Output 2 Better understanding and acceptance of the contribution of

livestock to poverty reduction and national economies.

Output 3 The participation of poor livestock keepers and related

communities in policy making processes is enhanced


_________________________________________________________________

15

Discussions to date indicate that such a programme will address the

institutional and policy environment affecting the following key areas:

• Service provision

• Country and regional institutional and policy barriers affecting marketing of

livestock products and trade

• Access to research and technology by the poor in the livestock sector

In order to ensure full commitment to an emerging regional programme, IBAR

believes that further dialogue with regional and national partners is required.

Ultimately, the aim is to reach agreement on the way forward and elaborate

regional and country-level programmes. This process will include discussion with

those countries and RECs not visited during the initial consultation, and will lead to

funding proposals.

IBAR is now planning a series of country and regional-level events to ensure

that funding proposals are finalised with the full commitment of our partners.

These events include additional country-level visits plus a regional expert

consultation of selected individuals from PRSP Committees. It is envisaged that

further dialogue will result in:

letters of support and/or memoranda of understanding with the relevant

ministries

definition of specific country-level activities, roles and responsibilities of

different players, and levels of co-funding required at national level

an improved profile for livestock at national level plus the option for

countries to consider applying for direct budgetary support from relevant

donors

further lobbying for further consideration and inclusion of livestock issues,

identified during national level consultations, in PRSP and economic

recovery strategies of relevant countries

a finalised proposal for IBAR to submit to relevant donors

This second round of dialogue will take place during the next six months, being

August 2004 to January 2005.

4.2 An IBAR facility dedicated to policy and institutional change

In May 2004 IBAR established an ‘Institutional and Policy Support Team’

(IPST). This team developed from the CAPE Unit of IBAR, which has worked

intensively on policy and institutional change processes since 1999. The CAPE


_________________________________________________________________

16

Unit plans to both maintain the momentum and enthusiasm generated during the

consultation, and to support the formation of the IPST at regional level.

Regional co-ordination

The consultative process outlined in this concept note confirmed the need and a

significant demand for the IPST. During five national workshops, IBAR was

accepted as the regional focal point for the coordination of policy and institutional

change activities in the Horn of Africa. The institutional knowledge and capacity of

IBAR in the livestock sub-sector and its experience of working with governments

in Africa and their RECs/REOs, will enable IBAR to more proactively support

policy and institutional change at national level and to effectively partner with

IGAD, COMESA and the EAC.

Tracking and responding to global issues

The IPST will become a regional coordination focal point to link local concerns to

global action on the one hand, whilst improving the understanding of the impact of

global action on local conditions. In creating an animal resource regional focal

point there is also recognition of the following considerations: the cost

effectiveness of setting up an expert pool at regional level to facilitate the solving

of identified national problems and concerns; the presence of cross border issues

such as disease control, conflict management and livestock trade that are better

handled at a regional level; the need for pro-poor livestock related policy

harmonization within the region that must also be coordinated at the regional level.

Institutional analysis using the livelihoods approach

The IPST will put in place a pro-poor institutional framework that will enable policy

review, formulation, harmonization and implementation. To enable this, capacities

of partners to utilize a livelihoods approach will be built up and subsequently the

livelihoods approach will be used to identify key policy and institutional constraints

affecting the use of livestock in poverty reduction. Furthermore institutional

analysis will be facilitated for key partners and institutional and policy changes

required will be supported.

Engaging the PRSP process

The initiative will enable a better understanding of the contribution of livestock to

poverty reduction and national economies. The IPST will create linkages with


_________________________________________________________________

17

national poverty reduction strategies especially PRSP processes that either have

been completed or are ongoing in the countries of the region and build upon them.

Studies on the contribution of livestock to national economies and human

development will be undertaken and forums will be organized to advocate,

network and share information on the importance of livestock to national

economies and human development.

Stakeholder involvement

A major concern of the initiative will be the enhancement of the participation of

poor livestock keepers and their communities in policy-making processes. To

achieve this, in country awareness on the need for pro-poor policies and the need

for the involvement of the poor in policy making processes will be strengthened

and increased. Indirect support will be given to build the capacity of grassroots

organizations to advocate for poor livestock keepers and support also will be given

in the dissemination of relevant information.


_________________________________________________________________

18

References 1. AU/IBAR (2002). Africa Needs Animals. Policy Briefing Paper No. 1, AU/IBAR,

Nairobi. 2. DELGADO, C., ROSEGRANT, M., STEINFELD, H., EHUI, S. & COURBOIS, C.

(1999). Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution. 2020 Vision for Food Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 28. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C.

3. ASHLEY, S., HOLDEN, S. & BAZELEY, P. (1998). Strategies for Improving

DFID’s Impact on Poverty Reduction: A Review of Best Practice in the Livestock Sector. Department for International Development, London.

4. THE WORLD BANK (2002). Building Institutions for Markets. World Development

Report 2002. World Bank, Washington DC. 5. NORTH, D.C. (1991). “Institutions”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1): 97-

112. 6. THORNTON, P. K., KRUSKA, R. L., HENNINGER, N., KRISTJANSON, P. M.,

REID, R. S., ATIENO, F., ODERO, A. N. & NDEGWA, T. (2002). Mapping Poverty and Livestock in the Developing World. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi.

7. AU/IBAR (2003). Institutional and Policy Support to the Livestock Sub-sector in

Africa: Preliminary Consultation in the Greater Horn of Africa - Ratified Uganda Country Report. AU/IBAR, Nairobi.


Africa: Preliminary Consultation in the Greater Horn of Africa - Ratified Kenya Country Report. AU/IBAR, Nairobi.

9. AU/IBAR (2003). Institutional and Policy Support to the Livestock Sub-sector in Africa: Preliminary Consultation in the Greater Horn of Africa - Ratified Sudan Country Report. AU/IBAR, Nairobi.


Africa: Preliminary Consultation in the Greater Horn of Africa - Ratified Ethiopia Country Report. AU/IBAR, Nairobi.


Africa: Preliminary Consultation in the Greater Horn of Africa - Ratified Tanzania Country Report. AU/IBAR, Nairobi.


_________________________________________________________________

19

ANNEXES ANNEX 1: PEOPLE INTERVIEWED DURING THE PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION

COUNTRY AND NAME

POSITION ORGANIZATION

Ethiopia Dr. Sileshi Zewde Dr. Solomon Nega Mr. Habtamu Teka Ms. Darlene Cutshall Dr. Alemayu Reda Hon. Kibre Jimara Dr. Kassaye Hadgu Mr. Belashaw Hurisa Mr. Tesfaye Kenya Mr. David Nalo Dr. Julius Kiptarus Mr. A. O Esmail Mr. Yacob Aklilu Dr. Julius K. Kilungo Dr. C.M. Wanjigi Dr. Langat J.K. Ms. Nyawira Hiuhu Mr. F. Kamau Mr. F. M. Marete Mr. John Ongori Mr. J. Tendwa Dr. Amos Omore Dr. Nick Hooton Dr. Michael Waithaka Dr. Joyce Njoro Dr. Leina Mpoke Mrs. Mercy Karanja Mr. John Mutunga Dr. James Njau Mr. Philip Kiriro

Director, Veterinary Services Team Local Resource Person Commissioner, Oromiya Pastoralists Development Commission (OPDC) Adviser Expert, Livestock sector Member of Parliament – Deputy Chairman, Parliamentary Pastoral Standing Committee Programme Officer, FAO Livestock Working Group Head, Livestock and Fisheries Marketing Department Artificial Insemination Centre Permanent Secretary Director of Livestock Production Deputy Director, Livestock Production/ Focal Point Advisor, Livestock Marketing Programme Program Specialist/Economist Senior Veterinary Officer Veterinary Officer Programme Officer Deputy Director, Livestock Production Deputy Director, Livestock Production Senior Animal Production Officer Deputy Director, Livestock Production Veterinary Epidemiologist Researcher Veterinary Epidemiologist CEO Programme Officer CEO Programme Coordinator Chairman, Kiambu National Chairman

MoARD MoARD Oromiya Pastoralists Development Commission USAID USAID Parliamentary Standing Committee on Pastoralism FAO MoARD MoARD MPND MoLDF MoLDF AU/IBAR USAID ALRMP ALRMP Pastoralist Thematic Group MoLDF MoLDF MoLDF ILRI ILRI ILRI CLIP/ITDG CLIP/ITDG Kenya National Farmers Union (KNFU) KNFU KNFU KNFU


_________________________________________________________________

20

MoAR MoAR MoAR MoAR

State Minister Undersecretary Resource Person/Adviser Director of Extension and Technology Transfer

Sudan Dr. Adam Ballooh Mohamed Dr. Ahmed Mustafa Hasan Dr. Shommu Dr. Ali Adam El Tahid Dr. Bakri Ahmed Abdelrahim Dr. Hasan Mohammed Nour Dr. Omer Hassan Eldirani Dr. Mohammed Razig Dr. Mahgoub Members Staff members

Director of Milk Production Director, Planning and Development Head of Marketing Section – Planning Administration National Coordinator, PACE Communication and Data Management, PACE Livestock Traders Association Meat Processing Training Institute

MoAR MoAR MoAR MoAR MoAR MoAR

Tanzania Mr. Bakari Mahiza

Principal Secretary

MoWLD

Mr. A. G. I Nyenza Director, Policy and Planning MoWLD Dr. J. N. Malewas Principal Veterinary Officer MoWLD Mr. G. Saelie Senior Economist MoWLD Mr. S. R. Mwinjaka Senior Livestock Economist MoWLD Mr. Felix Ngamlagogi Economist MoWLD Mr. David Maneno Planning Officer MoWLD Mr. I. N. L Kaduma Agricultural Economist MoWLD Mr. D. A. Rwazamle Agricultural Economist MoWLD Dr. J. O. Mollel Assistant Director, Veterinary

Public Health MoWLD

Dr. G. Mwanganga Head, Zoo Sanitary Inspection Services

MoWLD

Mr. E. Mwambembe Principal Tsetse Officer MoWLD Mr. Adela Mroso Head, Transboundary Animal

Diseases MoWLD

Dr. T. Ponela Mlelwa Assistant Director, Tanzania Veterinary Board

MoWLD

Dr. J. G. M. Mindogo Head, Veterinary Public Health MoWLD Dr. B. Kimaryo Director of Veterinary Services MoWLD Mrs A. P. Njombe Director of Animal Production MoWLD Mr.I. Isaac Assistant Director of Range

Management MoWLD

Mr. S. M. Leshongo Livestock Water Resource Development Officer

MoWLD

Dr. G. S. Madata Director of Livestock Research and Training

MoWLD

Mr. L. Ngigwana Regional Advisor on Livestock Development, Arusha

MoWLD

Dr. Mohammed M. Bahari

National Project Coordinator, PACE MoWLD

Dr. Pascal Mujuni Economist MoWLD Dr. Francis Sudi MoWLD Dr. A. E. Kimambo Senior Lecturer Sokoine University Dr. G. C. Kifaro Head of Dept. Sokoine University Prof. L. R. Kurujila Lecturer Sokoine University Dr. Robert Allport Country Program Coordinator VetAid


_________________________________________________________________

21

Dr. Beppe Di Giulio

Private veterinarian

Dr. Lieve Lynen Technical Adviser, ECF Immunisation programme

Veterinary Investigation Centre, Arusha

Mr. Edward Porokwa Programme Director Pastoralists Indigenous Non Governmental Organization’s Forum

Uganda Dr. Eli Katunguka-Rwakishaya

Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine

Makerere University

Dr. John Okidi Executive Director Economic Policy Research Centre, Makerere University

Dr. Richard Isabirye Operations Manager Uganda Veterinary Association

Mr. Okoth James Robert

Programme Assistant FAO

Dr. Flora Kasirye Manager/Focal Point Dairy Development Authority Mr. Robert P. Walimbwa

Regulatory Service Manager Dairy Development Authority

Mr. Micheal Oyat Programme Coordinator Oxfam Dr. Jimmy Patrick Saamanya

Commissioner for Animal Production and Marketing/ Resource Person

MAAIF

Mrs. Tumusiime Rhoda Peace

Commissioner Planning & Development

MAAIF

Mr. Chebet Maikut President UNFF Mr. Nuha Mwesigwe Senior Policy Advisor - Institutional

Building UNFF

Mr. Augustine Mwendya

Chief Executive Secretary UNFF

Dr. Ssemambo Wagrie

Chief Executive National Animal Genetic Resource and Insemination Centre

Mr. Richard Ssewakiryanga

Team Leader Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Programme

Dr. C. S. Rutebarika Coordinator MAAIF Dr. William Olaho-Mukani

Director for Animal Resources MAAIF


_________________________________________________________________

22

ANNEX 2: NATIONAL-LEVEL WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS COUNTRY AND NAME POSITION ORGANIZATION Ethiopia Dr. Yoseph Shiferaw

Division Head

Animal Health Holetta Research Centre

Dr. Amsalu Demissie Senior Veterinarian Veterinary Department, MoARD

Dr. Taffese Mesfin Livestock Sector Advisor Farm Africa - Ethiopia Dr. Kassaye Hadgu Programme Officer, Livestock

Working Group FAO

Dr. Abay Bekele Project Manager CARE Borana Project Mr. Ato Hizikas Ketema Senior Livestock Expert Animal Production and

Fisheries Development Department (MoARD)

Dr. Ashenafu Worku Senior Livestock Expert Animal Production and Fisheries Development Department (MoARD)

Dr. Kelay Belihu Lecturer AAU, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,

Dr. Berhanu Admassu Veterinary Field Officer AU/IBAR Dr. Genene Regassa Animal Health Services Team

Leader Oromiya Pastoral Commission

Dr. Metalgin Ayehu Dr. Zinash Silesh Logframe Expert Ethiopian Agricultural

Research Organization Dr. Awoke K. Mariam Senior Researcher National Animal Health

Research Centre Dr. Solomon Nega Resource Person MoARD Uganda Dr. Maria G. Nassuna Musoke

Lecturer, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine

Makerere University

Dr. Kitaka Gerald District Veterinary Officer, Nakasongola District

MAAIF

Dr. J.P. Saamanya Commissioner, Animal Production and Marketing

MAAIF

Mr. Maholo Dennis MAAIF Mr. Saabiti Robert MAAIF Mr. Francis Buwembo Monitoring and Evaluation

Specialist Land “O” Lakes

Dr. Richard Isabirye Private Veterinarian Uganda Veterinary Association

Dr. J.B. Kasirye Provincial Veterinary Officer MAAIF Mr. Apili E.C. Evelyn Senior Economist MAAIF Dr. Moses Kulabako Veterinarian Diary Board Dr. S. Kajura Provincial Veterinary Officer MAAIF Dr. F. Kasirye Manager/Local Resource Person Dairy Development Authority Dr. Rose Azuba Lecturer, Faculty of Veterinary

Medicine Makerere University

Dr. M. Kamukama Uganda Breeders Association Mr. Edward Sebina MAAIF Tanzania Dr. M. M. Bahari

Coordinator/Focal Point, PACE

MoWLD

Dr. D. S. C Sendalo Deputy Director of Research MoWLD


_________________________________________________________________

23

Dr. A. Mrosso In charge of Transboundary

Disease Control MoWLD

Dr. J. U. K Soi Provincial Veterinary Officer MoWLD Mr. I. N. L Kaduma Agricultural Economist/ Planner MoWLD Mr. D. N Shirima Research Officer MoWLD Dr. R. C. A Kweka Assistant Director MoWLD Mr. P. S Mwasha Veterinary Officer MoWLD Mr. N. R. Mbwambo Director, Extension MoWLD Dr. J. Melewasi Principal Veterinary Officer MoWLD Dr. P. Z Njau Assistant Director MoWLD Mr. Odilo Majengo Facilitator Ministry of Cooperatives Mr. S. R Mwinjaka Resource Person/Livestock

Economist MoWLD

Sudan

Dr. Adam Ballooh Mohammed

State Minister

FMoAR

Dr. Ahmed Mustafa Hassen Undersecretary FMoAR

Prof. Musa Tibin Musa Director General Ministry of Science and Technology

Prof. Mahmood Musa University of Khartoum

Mr. Sayed Saced Abdalla Saced

Undersecretary Ministry of Social Affairs

Mr. Sayed Mustafa Hawlly

Facilitator Ministry of Finance & Economic Planning.

Dr. Adam Adem Slih Programme Officer FAO

Dr. Omer Egemi Programme Officer UNDP

Dr. Hassan Khatah Advisor FMoAR

Mr. Sayed Salih Abdel Mageed

Programme Officer OXFAM

Mr. Ali Adam Eltahir

Director of Extension and Technology transfer.

Ministry of Research and Technology

Mr. Omer Hassan Eldirani Head, Marketing Section FMoAR

Kenya Mr. A. O Esmail

Deputy Director

MLDF

Dr. Ngeywa Assistant Director, Department of Veterinary Services

MLDF

Mr. F. Ngewa Senior Livestock Production Officer MLDF Ms. Mitoko Gender Specialist MLDF Dr. J. Njoro CEO CLIP Mr. C. Opiyo Statistician MNPD Mr. Arap Sang Provincial Livestock Development

Officer MLDF

Mr. Anyona Senior Economist Poverty Eradication Commission

Mr. Mbombuna Head of Planning MLDF Dr. A. Catley Policy Advisor AU/IBAR

Documents

Institutional and Policy Support to the Livestock Sub-sector in Africa