Social Consequences of the Changing Landscape for Mixed Livestock Production Systems
•
0 likes•351 views
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/ This website represents a major source of information on livestock sector policies and institutions in developing countries, and contains the outputs produced by the 2001-2010 FAO Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI). Indeed, the importance of policies and institutions in sustaining inclusive and pro-poor growth of the livestock sector cannot be overstated, but for long the value of policies and institutions – and of livestock sector policies and institutions in particular – have been marginally appreciated, which resulted in less-than effective public and private sector investments. © FAO: http://www.fao.org
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Social Consequences of the Changing Landscape for Mixed Livestock Production Systems
Similar to Social Consequences of the Changing Landscape for Mixed Livestock Production Systems (20)
More from FAO
More from FAO (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Social Consequences of the Changing Landscape for Mixed Livestock Production Systems
- 1. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Social Consequences of the Changing Landscape for Mixed Livestock Production Systems International Conference on ‘Livestock in a Changing Landscape’ Bangkok, Thailand 28 November 2006 A. Costales, U. Pica-Ciamarra & J. Otte Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative
- 2. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Outline • The Changing landscape • Mixed Crop-livestock Production Systems • Stylized Development Paths & Case Studies • Summary & conclusions
- 3. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative The Changing Landscape
- 4. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Interlocking ‘Drivers’ of Change • Growing & changing demand for meat & milk products in DCs • New technologies in production and processing • National and international market liberalization and integration TheChangingLandscape
- 5. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Opportunities and Threats • Expanding markets – opportunities for livestock producers • Demanding markets (product quality and food safety) – exclusion of some producers from market (and sector!) TheChangingLandscape
- 6. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Responses to the Changing Landscape Initial conditions: 1. Agricultural / livestock sector in the economy 2. Resource endowments (land, labour, capital) 3. Economic-institutional framework TheChangingLandscape Highly differentiated Food staples + export crops Food staplesOutput mix ImportantNot importantNot important Scale economies International National / Domestic Subsistence Market orientation LowModerateHigh Share of labour in agriculture LowModerateHigh Share of agriculture in GDP Globalizing Agriculture Modernizing Agriculture Traditional Agriculture
- 7. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Responses to the Changing Landscape TheChangingLandscape Production systems: 1. Extensive production systems 2. Mixed crop- livestock production systems 3. Intensive production systems
- 8. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Responses to the Changing Landscape TheChangingLandscape Production systems: 1. Extensive production systems 2. Mixed crop- livestock production systems 3. Intensive production systems
- 9. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Mixed Crop- Livestock Production Systems Crop-Livestock Farms
- 10. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Characteristics • Predominantly small farms • Livestock contribute to ! income ! food ! draught ! savings ! insurance ! social status • (Informal) traders • Processors / wholesalers / retailers MixedCrop-livestockProductionSystems
- 11. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Predominance of Small Farms 100456.1Total 3.314.8>10 3.013.85-10 8.840.32-5 11.753.31-2 73.2334.0<1 Prop’n of farms w/n class (%) No. of farms w/n class (mio) Farm size class (ha) Remark: variations of ‘average’ farm size: ! SSA: 1.6 ha. ! Asia: 1.6 ha. " China, Bangladesh: <1/2 ha ! LAC: 67 ha. Source: Von Braun, 2005 MixedCrop-livestockProductionSystems
- 12. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Mixed Farms and Livestock Production Mixed farms contribution to total livestock output (%) – world regions 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 milk milk milk milk pig pig Kenya Ethiopia India Pakistan Vietnam Philippines MixedCrop-livestockProductionSystems 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Milk Ruminant meat Pig & Poultry Eggs SSA NENA S&SEA LAC OECD Small mixed farms contribution to total livestock output (%) – selected countries
- 13. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Employment & Market Share (Milk) MixedCrop-livestockProductionSystems Employed persons /1000 litre of milk output - small (informal) / large (formal) ratio Share (% out of total) of informal employment and marketed milk 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Small-to-Large farm employment Informal-to-formal chain employment India Pakistan Kenya Ethiopia n.a 0 25 50 75 100 Share of employment (%) Share of marketed milk (%) India Pakistan Kenya Ethiopia Tanzania Bangladesh n.a. n.a.
- 14. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Impact of the Changing Landscape on Mixed Systems Three Stylized Pathways of Livestock Sector Development
- 15. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative ‘Stylized’ Development Pathways LivestockSectorDevelopmentPathways 1. Positive, equitable livestock development path 2. Livestock sector stagnation / involution 3. Positive but in-equitable development path
- 16. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative 1. Positive & Equitable Path • Growth leads to broad-based rural production and rural- to-urban processing and distribution systems ! consumption linkages ! production linkages • Decentralized rural industrialization, exploiting rural labour and entrepreneurial skills Case study: India dairy 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Dairy farms Milch animals per farm 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Crossbred Buffalo Local LivestockSectorDevelopmentPathways
- 17. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative 2. Stagnation / Involution • Rural production systems are disconnected from growing markets ! weak / no production linkages ! weak / no consumption linkages • Anti-agriculture ‘biased policies’ ! macroeconomic ! sector policies ! infrastructural Case study: Zambia dairy 5 6 7 8 9 10 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 Milk per capita consumption urban population (mio) urbanpopulation,million percapitamilkconsumption(kg/year) 0 25 50 75 100 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 tons(.000) Milk production Milk net imports LivestockSectorDevelopmentPathways
- 18. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative 3. Positive but Inequitable Path • Small modern sector benefiting from LCL ! production linkages ! concentration of production ! food safety/quality • Large traditional sector excluded from benefits of LCL ! weak production linkages ! consumption linkages ! at the extreme, forced out of the sector 1990 66.3 33.7 Formal Informal Case study: Brazil dairy 1998 56.5 43.5 Formal Informal Share of formal/informal marketed milk -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 tons(.000) Milk production Milk trade LivestockSectorDevelopmentPathways
- 19. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Summary Drivers 1. Positive pathway 2. Stagnation / involution 3. Inequitable pathway Large farms Small farms Formal supply chain Informal supply chain Urban consumers Rural consumers Small subsistence farms Informal supply chain Rural consumers Large farms Small farms Formal supply chain Urban consumers LivestockSectorDevelopmentPathways out of business
- 20. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Summary & Conclusions
- 21. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Summary • (Small) Mixed farms are and will remain pervasive • (Small) Mixed farms significantly contribute to livestock output & rural employment • LCL different impacts on mixed farms possible: ! positive, equitable development path ! stagnation / involution ! positive but inequitable development path Summary&Conclusions
- 22. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Conclusions • Small mixed farms can be competitive • Large & small farms / supply chains can co-exist • Smallholder based (livestock) industrialization is possible • Equity & growth are not mutually exclusive • ‘Equitable’ livestock technical & institutional policies Summary&Conclusions
- 23. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative References & Further Reading Staal, S.J., A.N. Pratt, and M.Jabbar. (2006). A Comparison of Dairy Policies and Development in South Asia and East Africa. Country Case Studies from South Asia and East Africa – Kenya, Ethiopia, Pakistan and India. ILRI, Nairobi. PPLPI Working Paper (forthcoming), FAO, Rome. Haggblade, S., P. Hazell and T. Reardon. (2005). The Rural Non-Farm Economy: Pathway Out of Poverty or Pathway In?“.IFPRI, ODI and Imperial College London. Proceedings from the Research Workshop on The Future of Small Farms, June 26-29, 2005, Withersdane Conference Centre, Wye, UK. Nagayets, O. (2005). Small Farms: Current Status and Key Trends. IFPRI, ODI and Imperial College London. Proceedings from the Research Workshop on The Future of Small Farms, June 26-29, 2005, Withersdane Conference Centre, Wye, UK. For more information please visit the PPLPI website: www.fao.org/ag/pplpi.html www.fao.org/ag/againfo/projects/en/pplpi/publications.html
- 24. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Thank you!