Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Global poverty and food security challenges: The equity pillar
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Global poverty and food security challenges: The equity pillar


Published on

Discussion notes from a brainstorming by …

Discussion notes from a brainstorming by
Tom Randolph, Shirley Tarawali, Steve Staal, Nancy Johnson, Mario Herrero, Jemimah Njuki and Carlos Sere presented at the ILRI-World Bank High Level Consultation on the Global Livestock Agenda by 2020
Nairobi, 12 - 13 March 2012.

Published in: Technology, Business

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Global Poverty and Food Security challenges: the Equity pillar Discussion notes from a brainstorming byTom Randolph, Shirley Tarawali, Steve Staal, Nancy Johnson, Mario Herrero, Jemimah Njuki and Carlos Sere ILRI-World Bank High Level Consultation on the Global Livestock Agenda by 2020 Nairobi, 12 - 13 March 2012
  • 2. Presentation Outline Objective: Consider mega-trajectories and their implications for the equity dimensions of our strategies1. What is changing2. Implications for the role of livestock in addressing poverty and food insecurity3. Implications for equity-driven investment in livestock R&D
  • 3. What is changing? Familiar drivers of growing demand for animal- source food  Population growth  Urbanization, changing diets  Increasing incomes Familiar pressures on growth of supply  Land constraints, land grabs  Competition for feed production (food, biofuel)  Lagging productivity growth  Concerns about livestock ‘bads’ Potential for exacerbating food insecurity  Larger fluctuations in supplies, prices  Reversal of long-term price decline?
  • 4. Potential shapers The rise of food-based nutritional strategies  Limitations of single nutrient approaches (the next binding constraint hiding behind the current one)  Growing recognition of strategic nature of animal source foods Recognition of environmental benefits of intensification in smallholder systems (Rio 20+) Concerns of the well-fed dictating the options for the underfed and constraining investment in livestock development Dynamism and deepening of private sector activity Opportunities offered by domestic/regional vs international markets
  • 5. Smallholder trajectories? Will it be: Leap to larger-scale production and supermarketization quickly washing away smallholders everywhere  Brazil model, land grabs  Policy bias, concern for biosecurity  Private sector takeover OR will it be: Longer-term transitions for much of the smallholder sector  Size of smallholder sector as hidden reality  Labor:capital cost ratios continue to favour smallholders
  • 6. Dairy farm trends No evidence of consolidation… Numbers of dairy farms in developing countries continue to grow: annual increases of 0.5-10% in most developing countries No measurable increase in dairy herd size in developing countries (2000-2005: IFCN)
  • 7. Smallholders supply over half, even for monogastrics Source: ILRI estimates
  • 8. Transition can still be slow --example of pork in VietnamShare of large-scale modern sector in pig production 14% Base simulation 12% High income growth 10% High tech growth in modern sector 8% No tech growth in traditional 6% No tech growth in maize 4% High income elasticity of modern High income elast and tech 2% growth in modern Worst case for traditional 0% sector 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Year Source: Minot et al. 2010I
  • 9. Smallholder trajectories? Tentative conclusion: A large portion of developing country production of animal source foods comes from smallholder systems and will continue to do so in much of Africa and South Asia There is and will continue to be considerable variation across specific situations and countries in the transition to larger-scale commercial systems But this view is certainly not shared by all and needs more evidence! What are the other views?
  • 10. Part 2 Implications for the role of livestock in addressing poverty and food insecurity Consider two main scenarios:1. Acknowledge continued major role of the smallholder sector and enhance its potential as a transition  support commercialization of smallholder/ informal sector2. Assume smallholder sector cannot compete  promote livestock as an adaptation or exit strategy for rural systems undergoing rapid structural change
  • 11. Support commercialization of smallholder/informal sector Focusing on smallholder-based value chains offers win-win-wins  Sheer size for impact  Addressing large productivity gaps could strengthen inherent competitiveness  Improves local availability and accessibility of strategic animal-source foods  Promotes broad-based employment and growth, reducing social disruption during transition  Intensification can reduce environmental impacts  More natural transition to specialisation, larger-scale production, formal-sector food systems But need to understand potential trade-offs  Supply response capacity  Cost of providing public services to support
  • 12. Livestock for livelihoods and adaptation Where small-scale systems cannot compete, focus on livestock as a social protection strategy  Provides asset instrument  As backyard, part-time activity, can bolster household food security during exit process  Special role in pastoral and politically sensitive hotspots  less emphasis on productivity-enhancing technologies driven by market incentives, but more on protecting assets in low-input systems  Relies largely on public investment  Requires coordination across sectors, bundling with other types of interventions  Landscape approaches offer useful framework for analysis
  • 13. Is it one or the other? Livestock for economic empowerment or for household economics? Will be a mix, depending on the context, product But within a given context, the main objective and associated strategy should be clear Better evidence will be needed to argue for a stronger focus on the smallholder/informal sector vs larger-scale commercial agriculture Do we have this right: are these the two main strategies for using livestock for poverty reduction?
  • 14. Part 3 Implications for equity-driven investment in livestock R&D Better targeting for smallholder commercial development versus social protection  More focus on what is needed to get producers and value chain actors over the threshold into more efficient market orientation  More clarity on the social protection objective More focus on appropriate gender (or other target group) strategies tailored to each approach Clear role for research, including generating data to know which is appropriate and where
  • 15. Involving the right partners Further supports strategic role of private sector, but also NGO/CBOs  Shift from farming systems to business solutions  Not just technology uptake, but also stimulating micro- small-medium enterprise business development Requires getting public policies right and the appropriate public investments funded to attract private investment  Not just livestock --- also pro-poor infrastructure development  Need to work with stakeholders to generate the appropriate livestock data
  • 16. Aligned with current trends?Growing smallholder/informal livestockcommodity value chains:  Increasing emphasis on value chain R&D, but often as only one component of integrated interventions  But continued bias towards large-scale, ‘modern’ formal-sector models  How to ensure investments are truly inclusive and pro- poor? Bottom of the pyramid, or one step up, e.g. target successful farmers, entrepreneurs?Livestock for social protection:  Interest in livestock insurance schemes  Mitigating environmental impacts, loss of AnGR, poor biosecurity
  • 17. For discussion Is it useful to view the use of livestock for poverty reduction as falling into these two basic categories? What others need to be considered? (e.g. trading out of poverty) If ‘growing smallholder value chains’ is an appropriate paradigm, what is needed to align investments and policies better? Is a better business case needed? Would this argue for a ‘pathways out of poverty’ 2.0 that highlights the two strategies?