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.
Anna Marry