Smallholder pig value chain R4D projects in Uganda

4,229 views
4,111 views

Published on

Presented by Danilo Pezo and Kristina Rösel at the workshop on Preliminary Survey Findings on Slaughter Hygiene at Wambizzi Abattoir, Bioversity Kampala, Uganda, 16 August 2012

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,229
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • In Feb 2012, final financial approval was given by BMZ to take the project to the next level. Whereas in the past 3 yrs, the focus was on building capacity and creating demand in PRA, we now want to develop and implement strategies for better managing of health risks in informally marketed foods.
  • Urbanization, population growth and thus growing demand for MMF offers opportunities and threats; Food safety is an important problem with enormous health and economic impact
  • Smallholder pig value chain R4D projects in Uganda

    1. 1. Smallholder Pig Value Chain R4D Projects in Uganda Preliminary Survey Findings on Slaughter Hygiene at Wambizzi Abattoir Bioversity Kampala, Uganda, 16 August 2012 Livestock and Fish By and For the Poor (CRP 3.7) Safe Food, Fair Food (CRP 4.3) Danilo Pezo (d.pezo@cgiar.org) Kristina Rösel (k.rosel@cgiar.org)
    2. 2. Pig production- a dynamic and rapidly growing sector inUganda. In the past three decades increase from 0.19 to 2.3million pigs (FAO, 2012). Uganda has the highest per capita consumption (3.4 kg/person/year) in the region -10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is declining.
    3. 3. A large informal subsector• Backyard pig production, mainly managed by women • Few animals • Free-range, tethered• Small number of peri-urban small- scale semi-intensive• Uncoordinated trade & transport• Mostly unsupervised slaughter, no meat inspection in local markets, road-side butchers• Pork joints
    4. 4. A small formal subsector• Medium-scale piggeries• Urban slaughterhouses• Processors• Fresh Cuts (Uganda)• Farmers Choice (Kenya)• Outgrower scheme: Farmers Choice
    5. 5. At farm level- Nutrition and feed (poor quality feeds, seasonality)- Swine health (ASF, tryps, lice, mange, helminths,others)- Genetics & breeding strategies (inbreeding)- Husbandry & management (deficient corrals, ifavailable)- Poor access to information and services- Limited organizational strategies to achieveeconomies of scale
    6. 6. At market level- Organizational strategies- Poor road infrastructure- Limited market information, standards (e.g.,animals not weighed)- Poor slaughter technologies and infrastructure(by-product losses, and risk for disseminatingdiseases)- Minimal attention to disease control and publichealth concerns (ASF, cysticercosis, blue pork,others)- Underdeveloped processing sector
    7. 7. Inputs and Post-farm Services Live-pig traders Transporters Pig breeder Vet / Animal Prod Farm Slaughterersextension services Systems: Pork ButchersAgrovet / feed shop Breeding Pork processors- owners large and medium Growing/FatteningFeed manufacturers Supermarkets/ and suppliers restaurants Transporters- feed Consumers
    8. 8. 2. To develop and 1. To identify pilot test a set of 3. To document, market integrated best- communicate and opportunities for bet innovations promote pork in Uganda, for smallholder appropriate and the multiple pig production evidence-basedfactors preventing and market models for smallholder pig access for sustainable pro- producers to specific poor pig value exploit those conditions in chains opportunities Uganda
    9. 9. Production Consumption Peri- Urban urban Rural Urban Rural Rural
    10. 10. Safe Food, Fair Food (2008-2015)risk-based approaches to improving food safety and market access in informal markets in sub Saharan Africa Funded by BMZ/GIZ (German Federal Minstry for Economic Cooperation and Development/ International Agency for International Cooperation) 12
    11. 11.  „Majority of pork in Kampala contaminated“  with what? „Increasingly risky for human consumption“  consequences? „Loyal pork consumers face running mad“  per se?
    12. 12.  „ALL pork supplied in Kampala for human consumption is contaminated“  defamation, severerly damaging a sector‘s reputation „Threatening to close all pork joints around the city“  risk of unemployment
    13. 13. “absence of structured safety inspection” 15
    14. 14.  Current food safety management seems to be neither effective nor efficient Food safety communication trivializing Tendency to adopt international food quality standards and hazard-based regulations without considering local contexts 16
    15. 15.  Ban or promote? Zero-risk/ hazard-based policy? „if in doubt, keep it out“ Is there an acceptable level of risk? How can participation help improving food safety? 17
    16. 16.  Based on evidence not perceptions Clear distinction between risk and hazard!  Hazard = anything that causes harm  Risk = probability + consequences Risk analysis = structured approach for evaluating and dealing with risks 18
    17. 17. Can it be present in food? Hazard identification Can it cause harm?What harm does it cause? How does it get from source toHow does harm depend on victim? dose? What happens along the way? Hazard characterization Exposure assessment What is the harm? What is its likelihood? Risk characterization Participatory methods fit well Risk management/ Risk communication 19
    18. 18.  Rapid assessment of food safety in selected value chains: priority setting Action research on priority food safety issues in these chains: pilot best-bet interventions Enabling environments: engagement with Regional Economic Communities (REC), academia, private sector, vc stakeholders 20
    19. 19. Thank you!Wakiso, Uganda (June 13, 2012) 21

    ×