The key message: The guidelines should focused on stopping antagonistic policies of influential international agencies in promoting livestock management in institutionally weak countries and working on other primary problems.
I strongly believe that livestock business is an engine and inspiration of social development, economic prosperity and environmental conservation in most rural communities in developing countries. The business is also an engine to maintain rural vitality in many developed countries but commercial scale farming practices resulted substantial environmental problems. Sustaining the livestock business in many communities of developing countries requires resources from different ecological regions or other a common property resources due to smallholding of private land or agro-ecological problem. The business competes with land resources with many other competitive uses. Many national and international agencies (bilateral agencies: e.g. the USAID, DFID, NORAD, and SDC, multilateral agencies: e.g. FAO, WB, UNDP, IUCN and WEP) have misunderstood the historical institutional setting of land resource management in the regions and played antagonistic policies to manage the resources for livestock in the institutionally weak countries. Their policies on the community pastureland, forest land uses and livestock management policies have been seriously impacting on farming land abandonment, food insecurity, social tragedy to women, regional economic backlashes, and agro- biodiversity losses in many developing countries and particularly socially disadvantaged region. The policies have also indirectly impacting on food and nutritional insecurities and escalated treats of extinction to some indigenous ethnic groups. The impacts are resulted from reactionary slow process. These processes and impacts can be poorly understood based on conventional and textbook based knowledge. Developing effective working guidelines require understanding the complex issues with constructive vision and in broader and dynamic social, economic and biophysical systems.
Most of guidelines in contemporary policy documents of both national and international agencies are developed to tackle secondary problems due to poor understanding of policy experts and decision makers on those complex problems. The supports of the international agencies on alleviating the secondary problems makes small differences in the communities. As a result the livestock management problems in many disadvantaged regions are increasing. The references listed below might be helpful to understand the critical problems. If the panel of experts would like to develop policy guidelines to make tangible benefit to disadvantaged people with enhancing social, economic and environmental sustainability they should focused on addressing primary problems. The policy guidelines should be served as a pressuring tool for stakeholders and provided morally binding messages for policy and program decision makers and funding agencies. Since the international agencies play critical roles in developing and implementing policies that affect livestock management in institutionally weak countries. The policy guidelines should also pinpoint the bad governance and create moral pressure in considering the problems of institutional weak communities of the influential international agencies. Finally I would like to suggest the panel to start their job by reviewing the antagonistic policies and other institutional weaknesses of FAO (whole organizational level) related to livestock development in developing countries.
The Local Environmental, Economic and Social Tragedies of Managing Community Forests for Global Environment Conservation: A Critical Evaluation. The Open Journal of Forestry. 2014, 4(1):58-69.
Forests for food security and livelihood sustainability: Policy problems and opportunities for small farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 2011, 35(1):86-115. I strongly believe that livestock business is an engine and inspiration of social development, economic prosperity and environmental conservation in most rural communities in developing countries. The business is also an engine to maintain rural vitality in many developed countries but commercial scale farming practices resulted substantial environmental problems. Sustaining the livestock business in many communities of developing countries requires resources from different ecological regions or other a common property resources due to smallholding of private land or agro-ecological problem. The business competes with land resources with many other competitive uses. Many national and international agencies (bilateral agencies: e.g. the USAID, DFID, NORAD, and SDC, multilateral agencies: e.g. FAO, WB, UNDP, IUCN and WEP) have misunderstood the historical institutional setting of land resource management in the regions and played antagonistic policies to manage the resources for livestock in the institutionally weak countries. Their policies on the community pastureland, forest land uses and livestock management policies have been seriously impacting on farming land abandonment, food insecurity, social tragedy to women, regional economic backlashes, and agro- biodiversity losses in many developing countries and particularly socially disadvantaged region. The policies have also indirectly impacting on food and nutritional insecurities and escalated treats of extinction to some indigenous ethnic groups. The impacts are resulted from reactionary slow process. These processes and impacts can be poorly understood based on conventional and textbook based knowledge. Developing effective working guidelines require understanding the complex issues with constructive vision and in broader and dynamic social, economic and biophysical systems.
Most of guidelines in contemporary policy documents of both national and international agencies are developed to tackle secondary problems due to poor understanding of policy experts and decision makers on those complex problems. The supports of the international agencies on alleviating the secondary problems makes small differences in the communities. As a result the livestock management problems in many disadvantaged regions are increasing. The references listed below might be helpful to understand the critical problems. If the panel of experts would like to develop policy guidelines to make tangible benefit to disadvantaged people with enhancing social, economic and environmental sustainability they should focused on addressing primary problems. The policy guidelines should be served as a pressuring tool for stakeholders and provided morally binding messages for policy and program decision makers and funding agencies. Since the international agencies play critical roles in developing and implementing policies that affect livestock management in institutionally weak countries. The policy guidelines should also pinpoint the bad governance and create moral pressure in considering the problems of institutional weak communities of the influential international agencies. Finally I would like to suggest the panel to start their job by reviewing the antagonistic policies and other institutional weaknesses of FAO (whole organizational level) related to livestock development in developing countries.
The Local Environmental, Economic and Social Tragedies of Managing Community Forests for Global Environment Conservation: A Critical Evaluation. The Open Journal of Forestry. 2014, 4(1):58-69.
Forests for food security and livelihood sustainability: Policy problems and opportunities for small farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 2011, 35(1):86-115.
--
Thank you.
Best Wishes.
Bhubaneswor Dhakal
Bhubaneswor Dhakal