Proceedings of a workshop held in Bangkok, Thailand, 11-15 March 2002 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Japan Livestock Technology Association International Livestock Research Institute INTERNATIONAL,""..(~ .~AAQj INSTITUTE Proceedings of a workshop held in Bangkok, Thai land, 11-15 March 2002 editors A.S. Frio and G.D. Gray Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Via delle Termi di Caracalla, Rome 00100, Italy 8 Japan Livestock Technology Association3-20-9 Yushima, Bunkyu-ku, Tokyo, 113-0034 Japan International Livestock Research Institute P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi, KenyaINTERNATIONAL'N"""' .C"...C" INSTITUTE @ 2002 ILRI {International Livestock Research Institute) All rights reserved. Parts of this publication may be reproduced without express permission for non-commercial use provided that such reproduction shall be subject to acknowledgement of ILRI as holder of copyright. ISBN 92-9146-130-X Correct citation: Frio A.S. and Gray G.D (eds). 2002. Research and development straregies for the livestock sector in SouthrEast Asia through national and international partnershiPs. Proceedings of a workshop held in Bangkok, Thailand, 11-15 March 2002. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 286 pp. Foreword vii Session I. Opening session 3 4 6 Opening address R.Vongdee Opening remarks l:rujita The globallivestock sector: Challenges and trends s. Jutti. The International Livestock Research Institute c. Sere. 13 Session II. Regional overviews 19 24 38 45 50 57 63 ILRI and science responding to a changing world D.Taylor HOPE..A- a regional small scale start-up project for household poultry enterprises in Asia D.Hoffmann Managing and coordinatin~ research in Southeast Asia: The SEARCA R&D programme R.LViUa,.eaL A living &om livestock: The pro-poor livestock policy initiative J. Otte , Livestock to 2020 in South-East Asia: lmplictions for policies and development strategies s. Ehu, Z. PaulosandM.L.Lapar. A global study of poverty and livestock P.Thomton An overview of the livestock industries uf South-East Asia P.Riethmuller Global meat markets: short/ medium term outlook N.Margan 19 FAO.ILRI.JLTA Workshop iii Session III. Technology and the adoption process 91 98 108 120 125 140 153 ILRI in South.East Asia D. GTa, / The Crop-animal Systems Research Network (CASREN) C.Pe.lendmandD.Peto Indonesian approaches to technology adoption for livestock development K.DiWJanto,AP';,antiandI.lnouno Investment for livestock development: The P~tlippine case P.O.Ocampo Adoption of appropriate livestock technologies by smallholder farming communities E.F.lAntingandS.S.B~jo Adoption strategies for forages -experiences of the Forages for Smallholders Project RRoothaertandP.Kemdge Meeting the demand for livestock feeds in developing countries S.Femandez.Rjvera,D.PezoandC.DellendTa Possible roles for ILRI genetics and genomics research J.Gibson 165 Session IV. Markets and smallholder participation 171 184 200 204 The livestock sector: A component of the agro-industrial development in Southeast Asia N.M.Manalili ASFAN livestock trade and market policies from a regional perspective N.Palab,ab Linking smallholders to emerging markets for livestock products: research and development opportunities S.Ehui,M.LI.apaTandZ.Paulo5 Markets, technologies and smallholder dairy: Partnerships for research-based development W Thorpe Session v. Food safety and quality Halal and cultural aspectB of livestock production and marketing YakoobB.C.M.andMariamA.L oooooo.ooo.o.o ooo00 215 FAO-ILRI-JLTA Workshopiv 221 229 Development of an animal traceability system for the APHCA countries H.G.Wagner HACCP and meat production in Thailand P. Matthayompong Use of extenders in meat processing 1:1:LongandA.Ne5sel Meat commodity diversification and upgrading of meat processing technologies in Asia-Pacific: a CFC project J.A.ContTeTas ,.,c; Interventions in animal health: Economic analysis of the adoption of herd health risk management programmes on smallholder dairy farms in Central Thailand D.C.Hall,S.EhuiandB.ShapiTO FMD and trade in South-East Asia J.EdwaTds Session VI. Workshop sessions Workshop output. 265 Annex. List of workshop participants. FAO-ILRI-JLTA Workshop v When the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRl) was established in 1995 as a global institute, one of the highest priorities was to establish a development-oriented research programme in Asia. Extensive consultation from 1995 to 1997 among part- ners with interest in the region -donors, international and national organisations, gov- ernment and non-government agencies -led to a research programme for South-East Asia which commenced in 1998. This programme was funded by ILRl's core donors (including the World Bank, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the European Un- ion). Project-specific funding was provided by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Australian Centre for Inter- national Agricultural Research (AClAR) and the Systemwide Livestock Programme (SLP) of the CGIAR. A key feature of this programme has been that all research implemented by ILRl is with partners in the region and that ILRl has not established its own laboratory of field research facilities. Extensive links have been established in the region during implementation of these projects, and one that is of increasing importance is the collaboration with FAG in areas of animal health, animal production, animal genetic resources and food quality and safety. It is timely to review the direction oflLRl's programme in the region, to look forward to the research and development needs of the livestock sector and to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of smallholder farmers. The issues raised by the huge increase in demand expected for the region in the next 20 years have been highlighted in the joint IFPRI- ILRl-FAG study Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution, and have been embraced by the mission of ILRl to make the livestock revolution work for the poor. It is essential that these changes do not further disadvantage poor livestock keepers and that livestock research and development addresses both rural and urban poverty. With generous support from the Japan Livestock Technology Association, and hospitality from the Department of Livestock Development, Thailand, this workshop on research and development strategies for the livestock sector in South-East Asia through national and international partnerships has been organised jointly by ILRl and FAG. The objectives of the workshop were to: .provide an overview of the development-oriented research completed and planned by ILRl, FAG and partners in the region .develop concepts for livestock research and development in the region, and .prepare plans for presentation to a range of donor organisations. The outputs from the meeting will have considerable impact on several proposals under preparation in the areas of increased production, marketing, safety and quality of food from livestock, especially meat from all species; milk from cattle, buffalo and goats; and eggs from chicken, ducks and quail. This was also an opportunity to re-assess the ways in which international research organisations, especially FAG and ILRl, can effectively participate and contribute to livestock research in the region. The organisers of the meeting, while trying to keep the workshop to a workable and affordable size, were able to assemble a distinguished group of livestock scientists and FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop vii development specialists, planners from the public sector and key players from the private livestock sector with a wide range of interests and responsibilities. Some of these have been closely involved in ILRI and FAG projects while others have a special interest in proposed activities. We thank all who have contributed their time, energies and ideas to the workshop and our special thanks to our hosts in Thailand who made the workshop both productive and a milestone in the development of new partnerships in the region. a. D. Gray Regional Coordinator ILRI-Philippines R. Vongdee Director General Department of Livestock Development, Thailand On behalf of the Department of Livestock Development of Thailand and on my own behalf, may I extend our very warm welcome to all of you who are attending this workshop on 'research and development strategies for the livestock sector in South-East Asia through national and international partnerships' here in Bangkok. As most of you know, the livestock sector affects all other aspects of agriculture by using either the products or by-products of crops and forages to produce highly desirable products and food. Especially, the livestock sector contributes substantially to national gross domestic products (GDP) and supports national mandates of providing nutritional security, employ- ment, and rural development. In this twenty-first century, the livestock sector faces new challenges of food safety and quality, maintaining enviroment, animal welfare, bio-diversity, disease eradication, interna- tional trade, and above all, improving production and productivity using sustainable pro- duction systems. The South-East Asian region has one of the largej;t and fastest developing livestock industry, and it also has the most rapidly rising dt'mand for livestock products. Today, high-level government represeDt.atives from Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, and Thailand and other international partners are participating in this workshop to discuss ways of formulating policies and strategies on research and development for the livestock sector in the region. Before I conclude, I must convey that I am happy to see that this workshop is hosted by Thailand. I would like to thank all participants and the organising committee, and I trust that you will make use of your stay in Thailand not only to confer on technical matters but also to enjoy what Thailand can offer in hospitality, scenic beauty, tradition, and culture. My best wishes are also with you and may your workshop discussions be continued and concluded in the most successful and meaningful way. Thank you very much. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 3 1: Fujita Executive Director, Japan Livestock Technology Association (JLTA) I am very pleased to join this important workshop on 'research and development strategies for the livestock sector in South-East Asia through national and international partnerships', as one of the organisers of this workshop, and on behalf of the Japan Livestock Technology Association (JLTA). JLTA was re-organi.sed about ten years ago in order to ~trengthen its functions regarding international collaboration in the field of livestock as well as to facilitate livestock development activities in J apan through encouragement of technology development. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr Rapeepong for his generosity to host this workshop here in Bangkok, Thailand and for his enthusiastic support to livestock develop- ment in the Region. In addition, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAG) strongly supports this workshop as one of the organisers through its headquarters based in Rome, Italy and its Regional Office based in Bangkok. I understand that FAG has had collaboration with the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) as one of its important partners, for mutual interests in the development of the livestock sector not only in South-East Asia but also globally. Dr Carlos Sere, who has quite recently taken up the important post oflLRI's Director General, and his colleagues from ILRI's various institutions in Africa and here in Asia are attending this workshop with us. Livestock is the main and promising component of agriculture in the world and has been kept by a lot of smallholders in poor countries to preserve their livelihoods and sustain livestock production. ILRI had focused its research activities on livestock development in Africa for a long time, and with its experience and expertise accumulated, this international institute widened its mandate several years ago from Africa to a global one. Thus ILRI's research priority has been placed on Asia as well, where livestock production has been predominant, and has rapidly developed to meet the strong demand for livestock products from consumers for the last decades, mainly through the mixed farming systems and the peri-urban intensive production systems. However, the sound development of the livestock sector further needs strong support from research and development institutions, as livestock in the developing world are still under severe conditions of low productivity, lack of feeds, tropical animal diseases as well as lack of proper development policies, insufficient marketing systems and so on. Some constraints could be solved only through an integrated research and development: in biotechnology, policy development etc. and a practical application of the research-oriented programmes which should be conducted by national administrative authorities. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop4 ILRI is the only institute with a global mandate to carry out livestock research, and works to improve the well-being of people in developing countries, which is well co-ordinated with CGIAR mandates. In promoting ILRI's work to meet the increasing demand for livestock foods, especially from developing countries, collaborating linkages with national partners as well as relevant international organisations are most important to achieve the targets with a long-term solution. The collaboration among these institutions is really necessary to obtain the tangible outcome for common interests of those partners, and to optimise limited resources, in particular under the current conditions of heavy co~traints of funds from donors to those institutions. Now we have a very good opportunity to review the past or on-going programmes of research and development and to develop our strategic framework for the livestock sector in South-East Asia, particularly by taking into account the agriculnlral conditions in the region. Our workshop is expected to identify some priority areas or projects to support such strategic framework for the region, with short-term programmes envisioned probably for the forthcoming five years. Discussions during this workshop may be made on new research programmes includ- ing food safety, to cope with the recent and emerging demand for solutions to livestock problems. Such new areas support not only livestock producers but also consumex:s and people engaged in marketing, through collaborative research with other partners. For example, work on the bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE) disease brings strong global and regional attention to a problem that causes serious socio-economic losses to the livestock sector in various countries. I do hope, as one of the supporters of this meeting and personally, as one of the Members of the ILRI Board of Trustees, that this workshop will exchange frank views and opinions for the mutual interests and challenges in livestock development. Further, I believe that this workshop will produce fruitful results in terms of research and development strategies for the livestock sector by strengthening partnerships with national and international institutions and organisations. Thank you for your kind attention. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 5 $. Jutzi Food and Agriculture Organization of die United Nations (FAO) I would like to do two things in my short introduction: first, I would like to give a general framework and the situation which we in the livestock sector are facing in research and development. Then I would introduce to you the programme of the FAO Livestock Division to indicate opportunities where we might be involved in developing strategies for research and development in this region. The external envi ronment As general framework conditions, I list here seven challenges and trends in the external environment. These would help us in deciding which general framework conditions to consider when we deal with the development of the livestock sector. 1) Role and functions of the state. The state will continue to withdraw from functions that the private sector and the markets can perform better, and international agreements will reduce the policy instruments of the state. Government services will continue to be privatised. 2) Continuing globalisation and trade liberalisation. Globalisation of markets and finan- cial markets will continue. Trade liberalisation in agriculture will also continue and technology transfer will happen more and more through private investments and trade. 3) Widening gap between the affluent and the poor. The disparity between the rich and the poor will grow despite public calls and goals to the opposite. We should consider that economic growth per se is generally not reducihg food and security of the poorer segments of society. Hunger is primarily a distribution, and not a production problem. 4) Demands on agriculture in increasingly urbanised societies. There is a rapidly expanding urban population and the access to food is becoming more complex as an increasing proportion of the food is acquired through market exchange. Agriculture production is becoming more intensive and commercial and is increasingly animal protein-based. This requires further increases in productivity of labour and land. Increased consumer awareness on food safety and environmental issues will give rise to requirements for enforcing relevant standards in national and international trade with livestock products. 5) Pressure on natural resources and competition for their use. The pressure on natural resources is going to increase as competition for its use also increases. Use of natural resources will also intensify. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop6 ~lobal litlestock 5eCtor: Challenges and trends 6) Progress in research and development (R&D) and inequality in access to its benefits. Technological advances in all areas will be considerable but not equally accessible to all countries. Agricultural research is increasingly becoming localised, with the private sector conducting most of the technology research. The needs of resource-poor farmers are unlikely to be addressed adequately by the private sector. In addition, the information and communication revolution is likely to benefit primarily the developed countries. 7) Nature and composition of funding for agricultural development. Finally, the total pool of external assistance resources is nor expected to expand significantly and it may indeed fall. This is particularly true for bil~teral and multilateral funding for development. It is only non-profit organisation funding which may expand to support development. Global production trends Global meat production is rising faster than cereal production (Figure 1). The term 'green revolution' was introduced 40 years ago in the cereal sector and it is noteworthy that the term 'revolution' was applied to livestock only recently, despite the fact that the development of the livestock sector has been more revolutionary than that of the cereal sector for quite some time. % 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 1980 1990 1999 Meat -Cereals Figure I. Global cereal and meat production, 1980-1999 (1980- 100%). Trends in meat output in the developing countries and the developed world show that while production stabilises in the developed world, there is a vigorous increase of meat output in the developing countries (Figure 2). The livestock output in the developed world is stagnating except poultry, the only sector that is still growing (Figures 3-6). On the other hand, pork and poultry production in the developing countries is growing fast, almost at the same rate. Similarly, beef and milk production is growing significantly. ]utti '96 2001'66 '71 '76 '81 '86 '91'61 -Developed countries---Developing countries Figure 2. Trends in total meat production, 1996-2001. Million t 60 I /~/ -./ 50 40 30 -"'"'" / 20 --- 10 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '80 '83 '86 '89 '92 '95 '98 2001 -Developed countries---Developing countries Figure 3. LilJeStock production in de~loped and detleloping counnies: pigmeat, 1980-2001. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop8 The globallitlestock sector: Chalknges and tTends '80 '83 '86 '89 '92 '95 ---Developing countries '98 2001 Dsveloped countries Figure 4. Li~tock production in detleloped and detleloping counnies: poultry meat, 1980-2001. '80 '83 '86 '89 '92 '95 '98 2001 -Developing countries Developed countries Figure s. LitleStock production in detleloped and detleloping countTies: beef and ~~ 1980-2001. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 9 '80 '83 '86 '89 '92 '95 '98 2001 ---Developing countries Developed countries Figure 6. Livestock production in ~loped and ~loping countries: cow milk, 1980-2001. The ILRI-IFPRI-FAO study Livestock to 2020 indicates that there is an enormous expansion of consumption of pork and poultry products. This is due to rising incomes and populations, and to urbanisation. It is important to note that structurally, a strong change in the livestock sector is leading toward industrialisation of production. It is alsQ important to note that this is a trend that is valid throughout the world. Asia leads in this regard. The productivity of its industrial systems is growing six times faster than those of mixed farming systems. The pastoral systems in Asia are declining. The rapid expansion of the poultry and swine production sector implies an enormous expansion of cereal production for feed with great implications for field crops production. Figures show that an anticipated 50 million hectares are needed for cereal production for feed. What is happening in fact is a migration of livestock production globally from temperate to tropical areas where livestock densities are increasing. The implication here is that the likelihood of disease outbreaks in warm humid areas poses greater challenges. Livestock production and consumption in Asia The livestock revolution is already happening in Asia and will continue to happen in the coming years. East Asia strongly expands its meat demand, while South Asia, in turn expand its milk demand very vigorously. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop10 ]utri The globallitlfStock sector: OIallenges and trends In 1987 -1997, annual increments in production figures in East Asia and South Asia show data for cereals, fruits, vegetables, fish, pork and poultry (Table 1). It can be seen that pork and poultry production are expanding at very high rates. Poultry in both regions had a double-digit increase in production. Table I. Production growth (per cent per annum) in South and E41t Asia, 1987-97. Commodity Souili Asia East Asia Cereals Fruit Vegetables Fish Pork Poultry 3.6 3.6 2.2 5.2 3.8 10.2 2.5 7.1 7.3 6.5 6.8 12.9 Projections for food consumption in the two regions from 1965 to 2030 show that very large amounts of meat and milk and dairy will be consumed in East Asia and South Asia (Table 2). By 2030, South Asia will consume three times more meat, milk and dairy products than in 1965. In 2030, East Asia is projected to consume four times more of these food items than in 1965. Table 2. Commodit:y composition of food consumption (kg/prnon per ,ea,.) in South and East Asia in 1965 and 2030. Commodity South Asia East A~i:l 1965 2030 1965 2030 145 13 20 5 4 37 192 30 33 15 12 16 146 94 5 3 9 4 187 63 16 15 55 19 Cereals, food Roots and tubers Sugar Vegetable oils Meat (carcass weight) Milk and dairy Wiili respect to total cereal and total meat production, developing countries in Asia will experience an exponential increase in total meat production. Cereal production will continue to increase at a slighdy lower pace. This is also true for India where increase in milk output is higher than that of rice production. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop II The mandate of the FAG Agriculture-Animal (AGA) Division' s Livestock Programme is to clarify and facilitate the role of the fast expanding global livestock sector in food security and food safety, poverty alleviation, and in sustainable use of natural resources. AGA has situated the Programme within the framework of global public goals which are affected by livestock: equity, the sustainability of natural resources used in livestock production and veterinary public health. AGA has eight programmes. Gf fundamentcal importance are two programmes dealing with livestock information and knowledge ~anagement and livestock sector analysis and strategy development. They support the six technical programmes of the Division: (I) contribution of livestock to poverty alleviation, (2) global strategy for the management of farm animal genetic resources, (3) veterinary public health management and food and feed safety, (4) technologies and systems for efficient and sustainable natural resource use in intensifying and expanding livestock production, (5) Emergency prevention system (EMPRES) -livestock (infectious transboundary animal diseases), and (6) environmental management of insect-borne diseases. AGA aL~o runs a service agreement programme, a facility that responds to member countries' Tequests for FAG's involvement in priority needs. Selected medium-term outputs of the AGA animal production and health programme In the medium-tenn (2002- 2007), the Programme has identified 34 outputs to be achieved One output for each Programme is listed here: 1. Global Livestock Information System and Knowledge Framework, including Global Animal Agriculture Atlas 2. Livestock Development Strategy Negotiation Framework 3. Decision Support for R&D Allowing Smallholder Livestock Producers to Enter Competitive Markets 4. Environmental Impact of Livestock Production Assessed 5. State-of-the- World Report on Animal Genetic Resources 6. Feed and Food Safety Codes and Best Practices in Animal Production 7. Integrated Trypanosomiasis Control in Priority Areas 8. The World Without Rinderpest As our discussions this week focus on 'an animal-agriculture alliance in support of sustainable rural livelihoods' and as we try to join efforts from the research to development points of view, we are prepared to very actively participate in this endeavour to build bridges and to assist the countries of the region in the important challenges that lie ahead for the development of the livestock sector. 12 c. Sere International Livestock Research Institute (ILRl) It is a great pleasure for me to be with you here this morning. Let me start my presentation by saying that the mission of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is to reduce poverty, hunger, and environmental degradation through livestock research that enhances the productivity and sustainability of agricultural systems in the developing world. The world is clearly facing an important challenge and livestock research in many situations can make contributions to addressing broad global concerns. We are all evolving in our thinking that livestock development is not a goal in itself, but an instrument to achieve broader societal goals. ILRI was created by the merger of two institutes, the International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) and the International Laboratory for Animal Diseases (ILRAD) in 1995. Our headquarters are in Addis Ababa and N.airobi, with smaller teams hosted in the Philippines, in Hyderabad, India, in Lima, Peru, in Cali, Columbia and in West Africa. When we were merged, we were also asked to take on a global mandate and very extensive consultations were undertaken in Asia to think through how to best serve this part of the world. What came out: of these consultations was the view that the research focus was very much one of looking at problems in a broad systemic way. Basically, we are looking at livestock-based livelihoods in mixed crop rainfed systems in South-East Asia. The way we address problems is very much one of having a clear problem focus and then bringing to bear the different research disciplines. One aspect of ILRI's research matrix is the problem-oriented programme, which is the case for South-East Asia (Figure 1). Clearly, this is viewed as a chain that starts from livestock production through livestock markets to livestock consumption. This is affecting real people who belong to the poorest strata of society. Our current projects in South-East Asia include crop-animal systems, internal parasite management, policy work in Thailand, Vietnam and The Philippines, and impact and control of foot and mouth disease. 13FAO-JLTA-ILRl Workshop - The International Livestock Research Institute Figure I. ILRI's research and dellelopment stTategy in South-East Asia to 2010. ILRl's activities in South-East Asia started at a relatively difficult time for international co-operation and research and for ILRl in particular. In the mid-90s, there was very little support for livestock research. So, we made the decision to place emphasis on specific projects because that was the way we could attract funding to start the implementation of our mandate. In a way, this was a process of building from different pieces with different arrangements, if you may, rather than a planner's ideal that starts from a clean slate. So we have a number of activities that broadly fit into this overall mandate. But this is an evolving portfolio. Again, we would like to stress that within ILRI, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as well, there is a clear view of the importance of this part of the world. In December 2001, ILRl opened a liaison office in China. We believe that this is a very important step to boost ILRl's presence and contribution in Asia. I will not go into great detail on the changing context of the livestock situation in Asia, a~ other speakers in this forum will cover these points. But let me emphasise that ILRI and FAO see that the context is very rapidly changing for this task of achieving development goals through livestock research and development. 14 FAO- JLTA--ILRI Workshop Sere For instance, a number of national issues have become international issues. For research, there are a number of alternative suppliers. The world has changed; it is not just ILRI, FAO or the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) working in this area. We have the private sector, the non-government organisations (NGOs), developed country universities, and national research organisations in the developing countries themselves. There is a wide range of actors in the research and development arena. The national institutes in many of these countries have, over the last 20 years or so, acquired substantial training for their staff. Many have studied overseas and cam~ back to their countries. So, although many shall have difficulty funding projects, capacity of research in the region is constantly increasing. We have already mentioned that the private sector is getting more and more involved in the research role. We have also seen that core funding for agricultural research has been declining, and we find that we are facing a new development agenda, which involves issues such as peace, migration" and human diseases. A number of these issues are much brighter on the radar screen of decision makers than the agricultural issues. So, we are clearly competing for good use of the development budgets of the world. ILRI has to respond to a changing world. This is to be addressed aggressively if we want to be useful players in this changing context. We are challenged to identify strategic areas of research, which can provide real impact to real people in real place~. As Ian Johnson, CGIAR chair, says: 'The world does not want to fund institutions, the world wants to fund, outcomes . The very limited money available for research has to go to international public goals. The CGIAR budget for livestock research is only 4% of the total R&D expenditure in agriculture for development and we have to use this amount very strategically. We realise that today's research problems are extremely complex and the only way to address them is by working with real partnerships involving many diverse actors. This means that individual parties have to provide real resources in a sharing mode and being capable to agree, from the onset, on specific agendas and on taking up significant pieces of work under their own responsibilities in a co-ordinated manner. What I imply here is a new mode of research for development, a much more decentralised model in which disciplinary skills are much more diverse. At the same time, we have very significant changes in the information and communication technology, which allow us to work in new different ways. In a sense, we are moving from the bricks-and-mortar institutions where we have the critical mass in one place to a much more decentralised research and development network linked through the Internet and similar technologies. Finally, we would like to stress that this forum provides a very opportune time for me and my colleagues at ILRl to listen to the needs and issues in this region's livestock R&D. We want to take stock of what has worked, what has changed, and where you would like to see us going in the future. The future is in real partnerships that need to address real problems. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 15 The International Livestock Research Institute I therefore finish this presentation by thanking the 51 organisations, nations, and foundations that are all making it possible for ILRI to be here and help. For Asia, we wish to acknowledge the very significant contribution of the Asian Development Bank, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, the European Commission, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and the Government ofJapan. I would like also to particularly thank Dr Ieruhide Fujita of the Japan Livestock Tecnnology Association, who has been a driviilgforce of this event. We would not be here if he had not insisted on creating this opportunity for us to be here. And to all of you, thank you very much. FAO- JLTA--ILRI Workshop16 D. Taylor International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) I ntroduction Science applied to livestock production is changing rapidly. In the last few years, there have been some amazing changes in our understanding of biology and in methods to apply to problems of livestock health and production. Solutions have been found to problems, which previously seemed intractable; problems which scientists have been investigating for 20-30 years, and for which it seemed there might be no solutions. What is changing in the world and how can the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) respond? We have heard that in the local market place, demand for meat and milk will double by 2020. We have seen those dramatic changes, particularly in the developing world where there is a rapid increase in production. Further, we have new international regulations emanating from the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Some of these will be very positive for livestock production on large farms, but some of them may be less beneficial for smallholder farmers. One ofILRI's major objectives is to be able to raise the productivity of smallholder farmers, bringing them from informal markets into formal markets so that they can, in a chain, contribute to international trade and benefit all nations. Industrialisation can have a massive negative impact on the environment and changes in climate can affect our ability to grow crops and the transmission of diseases. Urbanisation can affect the way we access food for our communities, in the way in which disease transmission occurs, and the types of diseases that humans suffer from. This is crucial when we think of agriculture in its broadest sense. Changes in the sciences are brought into focus by the biotechnology revolution which is moving extremely fast. A good example is vaccination to prevent meningitis, the disease of the brain. In Europe and in the USA, investigations over 30 years tackled the development of a vaccine for the disease. The very nature of the bacterium is that it defied all attempts to produce a vaccine. Yet within just two years, with the publication of the complete genome of this bacterium, experimental vaccines were available. This shows us the power of the genomics revolution, the power in this whole new area of biology. What we must do is to harness this power for the development of poor people and their livestock. Changes in information technology will definitely improve communications. One of the key issues here is that we should be a sharer ofknowledge. And it is through information 19FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop Taylor technology that we can effectively share this knowledge with others. Other technologies which are having a major beneficial impact on our activities are based on geographic information systems (GIS). The abovementioned changes are quite specific and we need to put them in the context of global events. Malnutrition is still rising, even in this year 2002, and it is affecting a lot of people. It deeply affects the poor, not only because it stunts their growth but also actually impinges on mental development. Poor young children who lack certain nutrt- ents fail in school and are in fact, confined in life in their ability to achieve betrer career opportunities. Infectious diseases are increasing. We have talked about livestock diseases but there is a need to think more broadly in terms of human infection. We need to bear in mind that 75% of all human infection primarily comes from animals. There are new, emerging diseases, and we cannot ignore the problem ofhuman immune deficiency virus (HM and acquired immune deficiency syndrome ( AIDS) which further expose infected people to new infections. AIl of the above relate to food and water safety and security which are becoming increasingly important issues. Industrialisation in many of our production processes can have a detrimental effect on the supply of safe and secure water. So how do we respond? We have to admit that we are a small organisation that can never work on our own. Our success will depend on the success of our partners. It is through partnerships that we are formulating, and have over many years developed, that can help us achieve success. It is a question of philosophy here -the policy and the structure under which we operate, and the technology we seek to adopt. The best molecular biologist in the world may produce a new vaccine, but if there is no enabling policy to deliver that vaccine to the people who need it, the effort is wasted. And vice-versa, we may have the enabling policy but if we do not have the technology to back it up, we still would not improve. There are three general elements in the framework under which ILRI operates. We aim to have more effective and purposeful collaboration at the local, national, regional and international levels (Figure I). I need to emphasise that we are an international agency doing work for international public goals. So we have to balance our activities in anyone region or site and make sure that that work not only contributes to that community but also has a broader international impact. FAO-JLTA-ILR Workshop20 ILRI and science responding to a changing world~ 00 "0-.-0 Figure I. Collaboration scheme of ILRI with its partnm. Linkage between our partners and TLRI means that it is not only for us to determine what the research agenda is. It is really for the people who we serve to determine that. So we are looking to farmers in their communities to give us a lead on what is actually needed in their farms. Obviously we will operate and implement our Tesearch through national agricultural research organisations for most countries in the region. There will be re- gional networks so that lessons learned from one region, can be transferred to another. In this context, we are looking to further strengthen our partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAG). Our scientific results need to be channelled through FAG and other international organisations to deliver them to the right spot in the world. We are also a conduit for information. We may not always be implementing things, but we should be identifying the knowledge produced by the advanced research institutions and bring these to focus on problems in the developing world. The other significant point I wish to make is that we are aiming for our science to have impact. We no longer wish to do science for the sake of research; it is rather research for a particular product. And this has made a significant change in the whole philosophy of our institution. Figure 2 shows how we look holistically at the 'production-to-consumption' systems - systems in which all aspects of production, marketing and consumption are considered as researchable issues. This systems approach is the only way forward for our research. The disciplines that we are able to bring to bear from our partners in the advanced research institutions should feed into the demands of that production to consumption system. Again I emphasise the link between the enabling policy and technology. With- out the two being linked and integrated, we cannot achieve our objectives. There will be more about this in the coming sessions but I would like to present a list of some of the ideas where we can actually contribute our efforts to. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 21 1) Improvement of feeds -good nutrition for our stock is essential for their productiv- ity.2) Improved genetic stock -preserving the genetic diversity of our livestock breeds is important because different livestock breeds are known to perform better in different circumstances. 3) Improved diagnostics -one of the reasons why the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in the UK spread so quickly is that there are no rapid diagnostic tests available although the genomics technology will soon be able to do that. 4) Vaccines -a good example is meningitis. 5) Vector control -ILRI, in collabouration with its colleagues in the UK, has recently discovered a plasmid in tsetse fly that can be modified into a lethal "tsetsecide" (not really an insecticide because it is so species-specific in its activity). This technology is now being developed for a whole range of arthropod pests and vectors of disease. Figure 2. Holistic nature of ILRI researcIL The genomic revolution is producing solutions to previously intractable problems. Geographic information systems (GIS) employ spatial analysis that aids us in arriving at epidemiological decision tools. The analysis here and the predictions about how changes in the environment and changes in climate can alter productivity can actually help us to prevent diseases in a very effective way and pinpoint exactly where there might be outbreaks and epidemics. These are crucial modern technologies mat we need to apply in our particular situations. Before I end, let me just go back briefly to what I have earlier mentioned about market access (Figure 3). It is a crucial component of our research. We want to assist the smallholder farmers to move from informal markets through formal markets and international trade. FAO-JLTA-ILR Workshop22 ILRI and science responding to a changing W(1/"!d ... Protection of the Environrnent Figure 3. Opportunities for smaIUw~. What we would like to achieve in this workshop is to develop ideas on where our focus should be, and determine what constraints are present in the different routes to formal markets and international trade. As we have said earlier, we are in listening mode. We believe that we should be listening closely to what civil society tells us. We need to know the priorities of individual countries and communities and regions. This information comes to us from the national agricultural research systems and international agencies that have this umbrella view of what is happening and of what are the tiends. We seek to set up an appropriate agenda, an agenda that is determined to find appropriate solutions to particular problems.We need also to look into the question of mobilisation ofhuman and financial resources. It was previously mentioned that core support for research is declining. This means that most of our work now should be individual projects which seek funding for themselves. Implementing and delivering solutions will then be part of our collabourative effort. In summary, we believe that our success depends on the success of our partners. 23FAO-JLTA-ILRl Workshop D. Hoffmann Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAD) Increasing the diversity of agricultural products is now widely regarded as a critical step towards food security and is a major strategy in FAG's Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS). In many countries in Asia, livestock are a significant part of the move toward agricultural diversity. Gf the livestock species, poultry in particular provide excellent opportunities for improving dietary nutrition and increasing income of the rural poor, in return for comparatively modest inputs. Many indige~ous breeds of poultry exist in Asia and have been part of rural life for hundreds of years. Nearly all farming familie$ catTy out traditional village-level poultry raising to varying degrees and in most families women manage and benefit from householder poultry flocks. But the potential productivity of indigenous breeds has not been realised. Constraints include inadequate husbandry, heavy reliance on scavenging fur feed, lack of marketing opportunities and, perhaps most importantly, outbreaks of disease. The Animal Production and Health Commission of Asia and the Pacific (! 1PHCA)l along with FAG and others has recognised the huge potential value of village poultry to the rural poor and has endorsed a regional programme aimed at enhancing income andfood security through improved poultry production. The programme, called HGPE-A (Householder Poultry Enterprise-Asia), will include components relevant to FAG's Agri- culture-Animal Alliance's (AGA) eight Programme entities and contribute directly to the objectives of FAG's SPFS. 1. Fonned in 1975, APHCA is an intergovernmental agency that actively promotes and suppora livestock development in member countries. There are currendy 15 member countties. HOPE-A was approved as an APHCA initiative at their annual meeting in Bangladesh in 2000 and strongly endorsed and supported as a long-tenn activity at the 25th meeting in The Philippines in 2001. 24 FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop HOPE-A -a regional sma!Wcale start-up project for household poultry en~es in Asia During the development ofHoPE-A, strong evidence has emerged that a number of countries require urgent help to improve control of infectious diseases and to enhance capacity in other aspects of poultry management. The needs are greatest in the poorer rural areas where women and children are the principal caretakers of village poultry and the main beneficiaries of their productivity. Technical support will aim to increase the availability to farmers of effective and reliable vaccines against the most serious diseases. The technical assistance provided will also enhance capability in the region's veterinary and extension services to improve poultry management skills among farmers, most of whom are women. Since the problem is regional, the project will include a regional operations and reference centre. As well as addressing the more urgent issues, this centre will be developed as a forerunner to a Regional Coordination and Information Unit (RCIU) for the HGPE-A programme, which will act as an ongoing reference and support service for regional poultry development. The centre will be located in FAG Regional Office for Asia and Pacific (RAP)/ APHCA, Bangkok and use the APHCA electronic database in its role as a central operations centre. This location within the FAG/ APHCA framework will underpin the unit's sustainability. The broad aim of ilie project is to provide urgent assistance required to reduce ilie cost and improve ilie quality and availability of vaccines and oilier healili ro ro ro "C E c. .D .D .D .;:: =' a> "C E E -0 -0 -0 ro .c -.;:: =' a> c c c -C ti -C ro- .c- -- rororoa>a>a>"C"C"C""Qj""Qj""Qjrororo~~~ClCICICICICICCCC C C .c .-.c ro ro ro '- t: '- ro ro ro '- '- '- '- '- '- ~~~cicicicicici---ccccccc c c OOOE~~E~E-,",-,",-,",,-t:t:,-t:,-U U U ro ro ro.fU~~ 000 ---"C"C"C"C"C"Cc'-(/)(/)(/)a>a>a>a>a>a>roa>~ ~ ~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ -e :E ::J::J::J~~~~~~:JO . Noo~-;0"Qjco't:..0.r:.1-Qju..~0(/J 59 921~~0"P~~...,uBj]..9DN~.!II~ nwmton maps relate more to 'the poor in agriculture' than to 'poor livestock keepers' per se, but we attempted to describe the importance of livestock and livestock keepers in the various production systems. We carried out some illustrative further analysis to give a more com- plete picture of where the poor livestock keepers are located (Figure 3), using some pub. lished differential poverty rates by broad livestock production system (LID 1999). Recent global satellite images of land use/land cover and other global datasets have enabled us to carry out relatively sophisticated spatial analyses at the global level that would not have been possible even 18 months ago. Despite various caveats, and the some- times heroic nature of the assumptions that: we have had to make because of data gaps, global-Ievel analyses can effectively identify foci where research and development activities aimed at specific communities or groups of people might profitably be targeted. At higher resolutions, where more effective targeting is required, there is no substitute for high. resolution poverty mapping approaches, and to be most effective these should be based on small-area estimation. This approach to poverty mapping, which links national census data with household survey data, has been undertaken in various countries around the world, and is currently underway for six countries in East and southern Africa. Major conclusions of the study include the following: 1) In terms of the numbers of poor and, so far as the analysis is capable of distinguishing, the numbers of poor livestock keepers, the critical regions are South Asia and sub. Saharan Africa. Our analysis indicates that while the rangeland systems contain rela- tively few poor (some 60 million), most of these households are dependent on livestock for their livelihoods. Almost half of the poor in rangeland systems are located in sub. Saharan Africa. The mixed systems contain large numbers of poor (over 1 billion), and the numbers of poor that depend to some extent on livestock are considerable; the mixed irrigated systems contain approximately 103 million poor livestock keepers, and the mixed rainfed systems some 366 million poor livestock keepers. In terms of the magnitude of poverty and the importance of livestock to poor households in the devel- oping world, this analysis suggests that there are at least 550 million poor livestock keepers globally. 2) Population growth and climate change will produce substantial changes in livestock production systems over the next three to five decades. There are indications that the magnitude of these systems changes, and the consequent need for adaptation and . mitigation work, will be particularly large in sub-Saharan Africa. These analyses re- main to be completed for Asia and Latin America. 3) Considerably more work is required to better inform donors and the research and development community of where hotspots of change are located, who is likely to be affected, and how. More collaborative assembling of global data sets is indicated, together with high-resolution poverty mapping based on small area estimation tech- niques, collation of geo-referenced household $urveys, and better understanding of poverty-resource degradation links. FAO- JLTA-ILRI Workshop60 A global study of pOOert)' and lillestock If. .J'..I"", :, ( ~," i ) ! f:D ~f "f ~ r \ , r.l ..":.1 ~~ i, \ , , f,{ -..I I. i '~j ~ ,f ,." ",'-1, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~""' £ -t j ,', I ~ ,,) ft' (~\Ij /tHf ~I \:, , ~l~, ~, \ , ,-." .,.-" :,' \,,::~fJ;,) , . , z N o 0 ~ ~ "Qi co E... o .c 1- Gi u... :J O (/) , A~ .i "0- l;' ~ ..; .~~ . !J&!~I f . FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 61 ~ .i.'; C1~ .1; ~, 6\l Thomton References Jones P.G. and Thornton P.K. 2002. Spatial modeling of risk in natural resource manage- ment. Conservation Ecology 5(2):27. www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art27. LID (Livestock in Development). 1999. Li\lestock in pooerty-focwed de.Jelopment. LID, Crewkerne, UK. 95 pp. Reid R.S., Kruska R.L., Deichmann U., Thornton P.K. and LeakS.GA. 2000. Will human population growth and land-use change con~9l tsetse during our lifetimes? Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment 77: 227-236. , Sere C. and Steinfeld H. 1996. World livestock production systems: current status, issues and trends. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper !27. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Rome, 90 pp. Thornton P.K., Kruska R.L., Henninger N ., Kristjanson P.M., Reid R.S., Atieno F ., Odero A. and Ndegwa T. 2002. Mapping poverty and livestock in the developing world. Final report to the UK Department for International Development. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. (in press). FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop62 P. RiethmuUer Department of Economics The University of Queensland I ntroduction The South-East Asian countries that will fonn the basis of the discussion in this paper are Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Their combined population in 1999 was 511 million people, an increase of more than 59 million &om 1990 (Table 1). Indonesia, with a population in 1999 of 209 million people, is the most heavily populated, whilst Brunei Darussalam with 322,000 people has the smallest population. There is considerable variability across these countries in terms of economic development and income levels. Brunei Darussalam has the highest per person income, and this is based almost entirely on its oil resources. Singapore, the smallest of the countries in terms of area, also has a high level of income and an economy based upon services and manufacturing with almost no agricultural sector and few natural resources. Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, up until the Asian financial crisis of 1997, were referred to as the Asian Tigers. That crisis showed their vulnerability to economic forces. They had been working their way up the development ladder through rapid economic growth accompanied by high rates of savings and investment. In all three countries, the agricultural sectors are important, providing employment to over 50% of the workforce in the case of Indonesia and Thailand, and about one-quarter of the workforce in the case ofMalaysia. Vietnam has been experiencing rapid economic growth and the economy is undergoing a major restructuring as the government adopts more market-oriented policies. Laos began along this path in 1991 earlier rhan Vietnam -while Myanmar remains under military rule, a state it has been in for years. Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and East Timor are the poorest countries in the region. In each of these four countries, agriculture is the major employer, with over 70% employed in agriculture. There are political differences between the countries as well. Cambodia has been recovering &om decades of political conflict that resulted in over one million deaths, while East Timor is only just beginning to find some political stability following its gaining of independence &om Indonesia in 2000. Indonesia itself is experiencing instability in some of its regions because of ethnic unrest. With the exception of Thailand, all of the countries in South-East Asia have a colonial legacy, and Indonesia and Vietnam fought bitter ~ of independence. 63FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop Riethmuller Table I. Characteristics of the countTies of South.East Asia. -Agriculture as Population (11:103) Per person GNP pe~ent of G1JP !uea 1990 1999 1990 1998 1990 1998 Country (1I:103ha) Rural Total Rural Total US$ US$ (%) (%) Brunei Darussalam Cambodia East Timor Indon~ia Laos Mala~ia MYdnmar The Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam Total 577 BB Z57 9Z 3ZZ 17,65Z 7139 B65Z B447 10,945 6BZ 740 B06 ~7*" na 1B1,157 1Z6,BB9 1BZ,B1Z 1Z7,Z31 Z09,Z55 Z3,OBO 340Z 415Z 40B5 5Z97 3Z,B55 B970 17,B45 9495 Zl,B30 65,755 30,535 40,5Z0 3Z,745 45,059 Z9,B17 31,075 6O,6B7 31,514 74,454 65 0 3,016 0 3,5ZZ 51,OB9 45,lB5 55,595 47,9Z6 60,B56 3Z,549 53,53Z 66,6B9 66,ZZ3 7B,705 416,367 307,497 440,965 3Z5,564 511,116 Sl na na 280 na na 570 680 200 330 2320 ~600 na na 730 1,050 11,160 30,069 1420 2200 na 330 na na 2.2 na na na 2.2 O 12 16 12 59 17 O 26na na -Not applicable Notes: GNP per person data are in nominal US$; agriculture's share of GDP in 1998 is measured as value added in agriculture as a percentage of GDP. Source: Area: FAG (1998b), p.3; population: FAG (2000a); GNP: World Bank (1992 and 2000); agriculture in GDP World Bank (1992 and 2000). Area, income and sector size data for Singapore and Brunei Darussalam from CIA (2000).he countries in the South-East Asian region, the numbers of people living in rural areas increased between 1990 and 1999. Religion and the ethnic mix of the population are important influences on food consumption and therefore on industries such as livestock. Local custom in Vietnam dictates that Vietnamese Buddhists should be vegetarians for a day or so each month. In Indonesia with its predominant Muslim population, during the holy month of Ramadan, nothing at all is eaten or drunk during daylight hours. Some Asians will not consume duck during the first few days of each lunar month since to do so is believed to bring the family of die consumer bad luck. Because all of the countries of South-East Asia have a minority Chinese population, pork, an important part of many Chinese dishes, is consumed even in Muslim countries where one would expect there to be little or no pork consumption.l Some foods, such as the meat hom native chickens, are believed to have medicinal value -this is I. Among some Chine$e consumers, the preferred fonn of pork is suckling pig. As a result, domestic breeds of pigs that the Chinese favoured were those that produced large litters, frequently. Exotic breeds, such as the Large White which is a large animal when finished, would not be a Chinese consumer's first choice of breed. An mIenIiew of the liCIeJtock industries of South,.East Asia-- certainly the case in Vietnaml -and so there is a preference among some consumers for this meat. The share of agriculture in GDP exhibits considerable variability. In Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar it represented over 50 % of the economy, whereas in Singapore its share was alm~t negligible. It is important to note that the contribution of agriculture and of livestock to GDP is likely to be substantially understated, except for Singapore. A vast amount of agricultural production is done in developing countries by unpaid labour, overwhelmingly by women and children. In La~, Malaysia and The Philippines, for example, over 50 % of the labour provided by women in 1990 was unpaid. More recent data up until the mid-1990s indicate the situation is worsening in many parts of South-East Asia (Eccleston et at 1998). Also, in many of these countries, a large propordon of production occurs in the subsistence, non-market part of the economy and is therefore excluded from the income statistics reported in Table 1. Interestingly, in many of the countries of the South-East Asian region, the number of people living in rural areas increased between 1990 and 1999. Rice has been the dominant agricultural industry throughout South-East Asia and indeed most of Asia. In the 1950s, rice accounted for 40 to 50% of the total value of crops in The Philippines (Hayami et al. 1979, p. 122) while in Thailand the share of rice was in the range of 40-45 % (Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation 1995, p. 13). Indonesia's production in 1998 of 48 million tonnes made it the world's third largest producer, after China and India (FAG 1999a). Vietnam, Thailand and Myanmar are aLc;o major producers, harvesting over 69 million tonnes out of total global production of 563 million tonnes in 1998 (FAG 1999a). During the 1970s and 1980s agricultural diversification became an important policy objective for many of the countries in the region. The reason for this is that the use ofhigh yielding varieties of rice and wheat during the Green Revolution removed the spectre of food shortages and contributed to a decline in the real price of rice. Tomich et al. (1995, p.129) point out that the area sown to high yielding varieties of rice across South and South-East Asia increased from 13,800 ha in 1965-66 to 35.7 million hectares by 1982-83. Rising incomes, a higher value placed on time, greater female participation in the workforce and a more urbanised population increased the demand for foods other than rice. Other objectives that governments had which provided the rationale to diversify agriculture included import substitution, the gaining of export markets, the generation of (rural) employment and more value adding in agriculture. Agricultural diversification involves more than a change in the production mix from agriculture. It involves changes in the infrastructure servicing agriculture (e.g. roads, port facilities and extension services), changes in the way the product is marketed (through supermarkets rather than wet markets) and 2. This is the black flel)hed Ac d1icken. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 65 Riethmuller changes in the production technology (e.g. the use of organic fanning practices and the use of new plant breeds). Livestock are a part of this diversification of agriculture, as evidenced by the dramatic growth of the livestock industries as compared to agriculture in aggregate. Between 1961 and 1999, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAD) index of gross livestock production increased by a factor of at least three for all countries in South. East Asia, with the exception of the city state of Singapore where production declined} Table 2 shows that the gross livestock production index showed the largest increase in Malaysia, followed by Brunei Oarussalalll and The Philippines. In the first two of these countries, the growth in livestock production was more than double that recorded for agriculture. For the world, meat production between 1967 and 1997 grew on average by 2.9 % per ye:ir (FAD 2000a). Table 2. lndi= of gross agricultural production (A) and gross li~tock production (L) in .\outh-East Asia. selected Jem3. 1961 1970 1980 1990 1999 Country L A L A L A LA Brunei Darussalam Cambodia Indonesia uos Malaysia Myanmar The Philippines Singapore Thailand Viemam 123 146 131 162 159 127 134 170 146 112 175 191 128 153 180 161 160 176 140 112 180 69 187 186 239 186 208 261 226 148 373 74 188 167 325 224 246 290 186 136 161 119 296 282 368 210 252 149 277 232 273 165 341 397 473 303 313 49 342 379 680 398 496 550 1215 377 583 56 377 453 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 329 281 396 286 784 261 338 170 285 266 Source: FAG (2002). In quantity tenns, the production of meat in South-East Asia expanded from 2,155,464 t to 9,492,025 t between 1965 and 1999 (Table 3). Data on the individual countries showed that meat production increased mope than eight-fold in Malaysia, and over four times in Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, The Philippines and Vietnam. Even in the least developed countries of the South-EastAsiangroup4 (Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar), meat production in 1999 was about three times higher than in 1965. 3. The FAD indexes of gr088 agri..ul(-..ral production and li\lt:Stock prodUction are calculated by the Laspevra fonnula. The prices used in ~ight production are 1989-91 average international prices. 4. Separate data ~re not available for the fonner Indonesia province of Eaat Timor. FAO-JLTA~ILRl Workshop66 i~tf~~~V).=.:0.~i'5~..;~~ ~...of-o 0 ~ 1.~0-0 1:1 ~~...oU)o. ~ .g.~ ~ ~Q11. ... -.!.~]~~ ~ e -" "' > ~ s -~ ~'"0u o~ ~o s ...~Q)~~ 00 2 00 CC 2 Q~;~ s :!0,- ~~I";"~q~'J"!~q~~~~I";"~'J"!~'J"!I";"~ ~~ f'") r-O IJ') 00 .-i '00- ~N 0- ~oo .-i O .-i .-i .-i .-i O ~ .-N ~ f'") 0- ~ f'") IJ') N '0 f'") N r- ):..-I N 0- ~ 0- 00 O 00 0- r- .-i O .-i f'") f'") 00 IJ') r-1J') '0 N '0 O 00 .0 o'v)r-:v)O ~No'.,1)r-: N~o'No o'N.,1)..) N~N .-if'")IJ').-i N'O~.-i.-iNOOf'").-iNN ~0~~eQ)~ -~~:::>1..~Q)>-- \f)I'-OOI'-OOT--i\f)I'-OOOT--iVV\f)T--iOOO\f)N\f)~ 1t"\r.:.r.:.No oOO..:.0'~ Nr.:.o..:.o ~r.:.o~ \f)vT--ir-lT--iOOvNT--i vv"')T--i o-v"')T--i T--i \f) V V N "') 00 0\ .,.. oo~~or-- NO.NO.O 00-00 r-- NOO~O. ,..:j I"-i r..: .,) ~ 0: I"-i r..: I"-i .,) .,) 0: ~ .0 .,) .0 .0 .0 00 I"-i -0-0 OO.,..N N.,..N o..,..N "V" r-- -0 0. -0 "V".,..-oOO OOOO..,.."V" O.,..N-0 ~ 0r-- ~ ~.,)~r..:o: ,..:jI"-iI"-i.O~ o:o:00~r..: oo.o.,)~ ~N "V" "V"~N~ ~NNN NN~N '"'-J ~ "V" &r) IO-.rNNN r-OQ)o-lO Q)OOOIO IONIOO N ~o.O...:j-.;r: ~o.O...:j~ NO:.Or..:o ...:j-.;r:-.;r:1r) ~ 10 rl rl -.r &r) N rl Q) r- -.r r- -.r &r) ~ Q) rl rl N o-~I0~&r) Q)rlQ)O-.rr-IOr-r-Q) IOr-ON ...:j 0: ~ lr) 00 -.;r: 0: N ~ r..:-.;r: .0 0: N lr) ~ N r..:o -.;r: O NNrlNo- N~rlrl~ N-.rrl Q) N&r)rl &r) Q) Q) Q) rl rl &r) 1OQ)r-O&r) &r)&r)NOo- ~lOrlOQ) r-rlOO r..:...:jO:o~-.;r:oor..:oor..:oooooO:...:jr..:oo-.r&r)~ ~-.r-.r -.r&r)-.r rl..'-&r) rl rl rl 100 "'tt" ~ ~ 0\ ~ N 0\ , ~ ~ ~ ~ r- N N ~ ~ 0\ o-.i-.iO.O oor-:Ir).ON olr).ONr-::. o\lr)OON r-~ ~ NNN ~~"'tt" ~~~ ~ 00 0\ 0\ .-i .-i N r-00"'tt"0\00 ~0.-iO~ .-iOOOONO\ "'tt"0\0\r- -.i N O ~ O -.i ...; lr) ~ N ~ ~ 0\ lr) 00 -.i ~ O -.i r-: "'tt"~ ~ NN ~N~~ N OO~ N .-i -0 1"- 1"- v \f) \f) 00 0') 00 O -0 .-! O 00 0') v 00 .-! 0- \f) ...:to\r.:...:to\-.i-o-.i-00.0.r;N.r;o...:tr.:...:t.r;o...:t No') N .-!1"- I"-N I"-N , I...1°~~~~ 0"-°~"-0,,-0 0"-0,,-0,,0,,00"-0,,0,,-0,,-0 M ° ° ° ° M 0' ° 0' 0' M 0' 0' 0' 0' M 0' 0' 0' 0' ~ ~ I< ~ Lf'\ 0 Lf'\ 0, 'D 00 Q\ 0, Q\ Q\ Q\ 0, M M M M = = = = .~ --;:a .~ --;:a ..a --;:a j --;:a ~..~> ~..~> ~...~; ~ ~> 1 ~~~~1 ~~~~1 ~~~~1~~~~ Q, e ~ ~ Q, e ~ ~ Q, e ~ ~ Q, e ~ ~ ...9;0 ~ Q) ;j ...9;0 ~ Q) ;j ...9;0 ~ Q) ;j ~ .9;0 ~ Q) ;j .~ p.. U ~ ~ ~ p.. U ~ ~ ~ p.. U ~ ~ ~ p.. U ~ ~ ~~~~~0t/) Riethmuller The industry recording the largest output growth was the chicken meat industry: regional production in 1999 was nine times higher than in 1965. As a consequence, this industry's share of meat production from all species grew from 17.8 % in 1965 to 37.5% in 1999. Part of the reason for this is that the feed conversion ratio for poultry (the quantity of feed to produce one kilogram of meat) is much lower at two than for pigs (four) or beef (eight). 5 The feed conversion rate for fish, also an important part of the diet throughout Asia, is also close to two. Notwithstanding the growth in the poultry industry, the main source of animal meat in the South-East Asian countries is provided by another monogastric -the pig. Pork's share of meat production was 45.7 % in 1965 and 43.6% in 1999. The importance of buffaloes and cattle as a source of meat has declined from 30.3% of meat production in 1965 to 15.7% in 1999. The development of large, modern production systems using western capita1- intensive technology to produce poultry and pigs under factory-like conditions is an increasingly important feature of the South-East Asian region and is a major part of the reason for the decline in relative importance of cattle and buffalo. Policy makers and the representatives of the meat industry in The Philippines have for years seen The Philippines as a major meat producer in the region. Production data shows that The Philippines has indeed been consistendy making a major contribution to South- East Asian meat production for the last three decades at least. In 1999, its share of production (21 %) from the ten countries making up the region was almost unchanged from its share in 1965. Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam contributed 20.4%, 19.9% and 19.4%, respectively, in 1999 and 17.6%, 23.3% and 20.1%, respectively, in 1965. Cameron (2000) explains that although the industrialisation of pig production has been taking place in western Europe and North America for 20 years or more, widespread use of this style of production is a more recent development in Asia. There are also substantial cross-country differences in the extent to which industrial production is used. In Thailand, about 80% of pigs are from intensive farming systems and about 56% of production is from farms with over 1000 pigs. On the other hand, about 82% of the 9.7 million pigs in The Philippines are from backyard operations (Cameron 2000). Large multinational corporations, the state or private investors own the large farms in the South-East Asian region. In the industrial facilities first used, breeding sows and boars were all located at one site and often under one roof. Pregnant sows and boars were tethered or confined to individual stalls for their entire life. Animals were finished at 16 to 24 weeks (Cameron 2000). This system has undergone modification because of concerns about health, welfare and the disposal of animal waste. The typical system is now less intensive. Although all production stages may still be on one site, multi-site production facilities have become more common, particularly since the late 1980s. In these multi-site facilities, breeders are on one site, weaners on another, and finishers on a third site. Further details of these production systems can be found in Cameron (2000). 5. These estimates wry, and can be improved mrough genetics and improvements in feed quality and in feeding technology. Reportedly some US feedlot operators have achieved rates in me range of 5 to 7 (FAG ZOOOa). 68 Chickens make up the major part of the pouttry population, and ducks are second in importance. Native chickens are common at the vitlage tevet and the meat and eggs they provide are produced with atmost no inputs, apart from labour provided by women and chitdren for egg collection. Disease, particularty Newcastle Disease, is the major constraint to increased production. Efforts to controt disease are, in the words of Aini ( 1999), 'tacking, very minimat, or unheard or. Nonethetess, in devetoping countries, native chickens are hardy and are setected primarity for their meat production, not egg production (Branckaert, et at. 2000). In the South-East Asian region, the rote of native pout try differs between countries. Ramlah (1999), for exampte, says that in 1994, onty about 3% of Mataysia's chicken population were in backyard operations, whereas in Indonesia, the native fowt poputation was about 26% of the totat population. In The Phitippines, in the mid-1990s, about 70 % of the pouttry population was in backyard operations. Most pouttry production takes place near to large urban areas and/ or in regions where the food processing industries are tocated as the waste materiat from food processing can be used as feed. Private firms such as the Chareon Pokphand Group, with its head office in Thailand, are important through the region in the production of chickens. Often these are linked to feed milling companies through ownership or through ctose business arrangements. This form of integration is the most sophisticated, white the small backyard producers are the teast sophisticated form 0£ production, in the western sense at teast. Many of the foreign-financed operations are export-oriented, supptying markets in Japan and Taiwan in particular, because of their much tower production costs. In some countries, such as Indonesia and Vietnam, the government has onty permitted the estabtishment of large, vertically integrated operations if they are export-oriented. The estabtishments operated by the large muttinationals are not the only part of the commerciat pouttry industry. There are many comparativety small pouttry farms that source day-otd chicks from speciatised operations, some of which (for exampte in Vietnam) are state- operated. There are many unique breeds of chicken and ducks in South-East Asia, and these tend to be popular with tocat consumers. Concerns have been expressed about the possibte toss of the genetic resource embodied in these breeds due to the growth of the large integrated operations that use imported gl-andparent stock from the USA, the Netherlands, France and elsewhere. Stanton et at. (1996) report for exampte that in the mid-1990s there were fIVe indigenous breeds of chicken and one breed of duck in Vietnam that were endangered. The marketing channels for pouttry are extremety divergent. At the village tevet, the farmer after meeting the famity requirements, might market the residuat as tive birds or slaughter them and sell the pouttry meat in the wet market. Another channet invotves brokers. They work at the vitlage tevet collecting the tive birds, and then (most usually) staughtering them and selling the meat in the wet market. Independent commerciat growers are tikety to transport the tive birds to traders (sometimes these are also whotesaters) or to the co-operative, of which the farmer will be a member. Whotesaters then process the pouttry in plants near the whotesale market for eventuat sale to retaiters. The large integrated commerciat operations have their own dressing plants to process the birds that they have 69 Riethmul!er produced, or which have been produced for them under contract, for sale domestically, possibly through outlets owned by the group of which the commercial operation is a part, or for export. In rural areas, the processing operations are important employers (particularly of women) by virtue of dIe labour-intensive nature of their operation. Data on milk production from cows are not particularly reliable. Some of the milk produced by small farmers is consumed by the farm family or is otherwise disposed of without entering the market and without being recorded. This milk is most often sold in their local area, after being transported by small vendors using bicycles, motor bike or on foot.6 The advantage of this system is that it enables a highly perishable commodity to be made available to the local community, without the need for the milk to be pasteurised or packaged. The disadvantage is that the milk might be adulterated at some stage in the marketing chain or it might not be sanitary.7 The FAG statistics used in this paper do not record buffalo milk production for a number of countries in the South-East Asian region, specifically Thailand, Indonesia, Laos and Cambodia (Table 4). Anecdotal evidence however, indicates that buffalo milk can play an important role at the village level. According to the available data ori milk production, it has been increasing, with growth averaging 5.1% between 1965 and 1998. The rate of growth has been fairly constant with there being no noticeable difference between the growth rates for the periods 1965 to 1979, and 1980 and 1998. The countries producing the largest quantities of milk are Indonesia and Myanmar, while the Thai dairy industry is the one that has shown the fastest growth. By Western standards, the productivity of the dairy industries in the countries of South-East Asia is very low. However, the industries use few tradable inputs and they are an important (perhaps the only) source of income for women living in low-income households that have been given -through the assistance of governments or non-govenlmental organisations -one or two dairy ~ows. There have been few economic analyses of the region!s dairy industries. A recent study by Riethmuller et al. (1999) found that although there were efficiency losses associated with policy arrangements then in use for the Indonesian dairy industry, these losses might not be great when weighed up against the social benefits (these include the recycling of waste products and the provision of employment for women and children) of having a dairy industry. Generally, dairy cattle in South-East Asia are raised in areas where the temperatures are cooler. In Myanmar, for example, during the colonial era, the British went to highland areas to escape the heat and towns such as Mandalay thrived. Dairy industry development (based upon E.uropean breeds) in surrounding areas followed to meet their needs. In Indonesia, the industry developed in the cooler elevated parts ofJava Island. Java has the 6. In some developing countries, including India, the owner of a cow would actUally walk the cow from house to house and milk as much milk as the customer wanted. 7. The Natio~ Milk Drinking Campaign Board (NMDCB) of Thailand has sold franchises to milk shops and vendors to reduce the size of the informal marketing channel. There are about 2500 small milk shops and a large number of milk hawkers all over the country. Anyone can be a franchisee afrer undertaking a training programme and agreeing to abide by the NMDCB regulations. These involve the purchase of milk from dairy cooperatives or recognised private dairies, and meeting sanitation requirements. A franchise costs about US$ 25 and the total investment for a street hawker is about US$ 250. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop70 An ooenIiew of the li~tock industries of South-East As~ advantage of being where the majority of Indonesians live -particularly the more affluent ones -making the market on Java the largest. Of Indonesia's 17 thousand or so islands, Java also has the best developed transport infrastructure. The Philippine dairy industry, which is now almost insignificant, was concentrated in the north-eastern highland areas of Luzon, the main island of the Philippine archipelago. Table 4. Milk production in South-East Asia and the contTibution made b, indillidual countTies to milk production. 1965 1995 19981980 (% contribution)Country <0.01 3.3 43.4 0.5 7.4 35.0 5.7 0.5 4.3 461,046 <0.01 2.0 34.0 0.4 5.1 46.0 4.1 2.5 5.7 724,211 <0.IJ1 1.1 41.6 0.3 2.5 31.6 1.6 17.5 3.7 11756,552 na1 1.0 39.5 0.3 2.2 30.6 1.9 20.2 4.2 1,927,700 Brunei Darussalam Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Viemam Total production (tonnes) Source: FAG (1999a). 1. Not applicable Most of ilie dairy fanning operations in ilie Souili.East Asian countries involve processing companies from ilie United States, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Companies such as Nestle, Unilever, Friesland Frisco Domo are heavily involved in ilie dairy industries of Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia. In some cases, such as Vietnam, iliese processing companies have integrated backwards to ilie farm level (Stanton et al. 1996), while in oilier cases, such as Indonesia, ilie foreign companies have ilie same local firms as partners. Just as increased agricultural productivity, improved incomes, new transport and processing technologies led to changes in western European diets in the nineteenth century (Grigg 1999), broadly similar factors have helped shape Asian diets a century later. Consumption of meat and dairy products increased while the consumption of coarse grains and starchy staples has declined. Per person dietary energy supply is regarded as the most important single indicator of food adequacy levels since it is a measure of the food available to each person on average in a country. Although dietary energy availability in South-East Asia is less than in developed countries such as Australia and Japan,8 with the exception of 8. Energy availability in Australia in 1994-96 was 2975 Kca1s per person and in Japan, it was 2898 Kcals per person (FAG 1998, p. 185). FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 71 Riethmuller Cambodia,9 all countries in the region were able to meet the average energy requirements of their populations (Table 5). According to FAG (1996), taking age, gender, height and weight into account, an adult needs about 1,300 to 1, 700 calories per day to maintain metabolic activity (breathing, the pumping of blood, and so on). To perform moderate levels of work, an adult needs about 2,100 calories per day. Chronic undernutrition occurs when calorie intake is less than 1,900 calories per day. Undernourishment hampers economic growth because workers are not able to work at their full potential and are also more vulnerable to illness. Table s. Characteristia of diets in selected South.-East Man countries. Availability Availability from animal products Proportion undernourished Energy requirement Kcal 1983-85 Kcal 1994-96 Kcal 1983-85 % 1994.96 % 1979-81 % 1995.97 %Country Cambodia Indonesia l.a.os Malaysia Myanmar PhIlippines Thailand Vietnam 2136 2194 2032 2147 2153 2108 2256 2097 1749 2351 2162 2684 2628 2143 2204 2259 1981 2880 2103 2849 2711 2366 2351 2449 4.9 3.8 5.9 15.5 4.3 11.1 9.5 7.0 8 4 5 20 4 14 11 9 62 26 32 4 19 27 28 33 33 6 33 2 7 21 24 19 Source FAD (1998b), pp185-93; FAD (1999b) An FAO analysis of 98 developing countries found that the ability of a country to meet the nutritional requirements of its population is positively associated with GNP growth (FAO 1998a). In light of the high growth rates generally in South-East Asia, it is perhaps not surprising therefore that food needs in the region in general have been met. The International Livestock Research Institute (II..RI) points out that animal food products such as milk, eggs and meat provide high quality protein and energy as well as essential micro-nutrients such as calcium, iron, zinc, retinol, thiamin and vitamins A, B6 and B 12 that are often lacking in cerea1-based diets (I1..RI2000). Increased intake of animal products is often associated with improved health. For some people, the consumption of milk results in stomach cramps and related ailments. This comes about because of insufficient lactase (the enzyme that breaks down lactose) in the intestine. About 75- 85% of Oriental people and 65- 75% of blacks suffer from insufficient lactase. For whites, the problem affects between 15 and 25% of the population. If the quantity of milk consumed per day is not high (roughly no more than 300 ml), consumers are unlikely to experience any problems. 9. Accotding to FAD (2000b) years of war and civil strife left traditional irrigation systems in ruins and fields abandoned to landmines. The 1979 peace setdement opened the door for rec~ry. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop72 An ooenriew of-~)i~tock indusmes of South,.&t Asia The rapid economic growth in these economies created a rapidly increasing demand for livestock products, but the importance of animal products in the diets varies substantially across the countries. In Malaysia, for example, 20% of energy availability was met by animal products, while in Indonesia and Myanmar, only 4% of available energy came from animal products. Pingali (1997) cites North-East Thailand as providing a 'striking example' of changing food consumption patterns in rural areas of South-East Asia. In the 1960s, meat consumption was limited to special occasions such as festivals and was consumed perhaps once or twice per year. This pattern has changed so that now more meat is purchased and that this has been made possible through improved transport infrastructure and increased family income earned through seasonal migration to take advantage of seasonal employment opportunities. The role of livestock in rural areas goes far beyond food production. Animals are kept for draft power, manure, rural transport, fuel and meat. Quite often, the animals are able to perform these functions under very poor conditions. They also provide farmers with an opportunity for the accumulation of capital. Ashdown (1992) describes how in the South Sulawesi province oflndonesia, the slaughtering ofbuffaloes at funerals is tied to the belief that the buffalo is 'a vehicle to reach heaven'. Sato et al. (1996) point out that farmers in the northern region ofVietnam continue to raise pigs when the sale of animals for meat is not profitable because pigs are able to convert low quality feed into manure and this manure is the only available source of fertiliser. The sum of each of these factors makes livestock an important part of rural life particularly for resource-poor fanners. The introduction of tractors, attributable to an increase in the opportunity cost of labour for the farmer and the farm family, has led to a decline hl the use of draught animals. Increased production in the South-East Asian region to meet the increase in demand discussed earlier came about through an increase in the number of livestock rather than productivity (Steane 1999).A. measure of productivity is the offtake rate. 10 Using beef and veal as an example, the offtake rate is calculated by dividing the liveweight of slaughtered animals by the number of cattle in the national herd. The offtake rate takes into account, albeit fairly roughly, the time it takes to raise the animal and the weight the animal achieves in that time. A high offtake rate implies a more rapid slaughter and a higher slaughter weight. It is important to recognise that the offtake rate is very much a function of the quality of feed and the genetic characteristics of the animal. Hence, not too much should be read into cross-country comparisons, particularly if there are differences in feed, climatic conditions or breed composition. Nonetheless, the calculations show that offtake rates in South-East Asia are markedly below those for the rest of the world, although the gap was narrowing over the period 1988 to 1998 (Table 6). This narrowing of the gap seems tu be the case hi particular for The 10. There are other measures that could be used, such as production per animal. According to FAD data (FAD, 1999a), milk production per cow increased from 703 kg in 1961-63 to 1077.4 kg in 1996, while beef production per indigenous animal increased from 15.8 kg to 22.7 kg over the same period. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 73 Riethmuller Philippines in the beef cattle and pig meat industries, where offtake rates in 1998 were comparable to those in the rest of the world. While it might be thought that the offtake rates indicate that there is untapped production potential, particularly in Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos, it is critically important to recognise that the offtake rates shown in Table 6 take no account of the inputs or the quality of the animals that are used in these industries.!! For farmers with limited resources available, it may make perfect sense for them to achieve outcomes on this measure far below that achieved by another farmer with many resources allocated to livestock. Table 6. Offtake fates in the South-East Asian region for cattle, buffaloes and pigs, 1988 and 1999. 12.5 21.3 6.5 18.4 9.6 39.9 32.0 22.5 52.1 14.1 28.4 13.0 25.8 9.6 52.2 28.6 20.9 49.6 13.5 14.4 8.0 23.9 8.5 15.8 11.5 29.9 32.3 16.4 16.9 15.0 25.3 8.5 17.0 17.1 35.5 42.8 4.5 71.3 15.1 77.0 27.1 74.7 71.2 56.9 96.6 4.5 75.4 21.4 70.9 33.0 107.7 76.8 67.7 107.3 Cambodia Indon~ia Laos Mala.,.ia Myanmar Philippin~ Thailand Vietnam R~t ofWorid Souree: Calculat~ from FAD (1999a) data. Mention has been made already in this paper of the use of industrialised production facilities in the livestock sector. In South-East Asia, particularly in the major livestock. producing countries of Thailand, Indonesia and The Philippines, the potential for increas\Dg livestock numbers and production through extensive systems is limited by the availability of suitable land. Hence, there is likely to be a continuing trend towards more intensive production systems for pig meat, poultry meat, eggs, beef and to a lesser extent for dairy. The use of such production systems implies a high degree of dependence on imported technologies and inputs. Typically they are located near the boundaries of urban areas and theyare part therefore of peri-urban agriculture. 11. To give some idea of the extent to which feed conversion efficiency can be improved, the case of the poultry industry in Japan might be considered. Feed conversion in Japan decreased from 4.6 in 1966 to 2.5 in 1982. This was due to genetically improved stock, better diets and improved husbandry and management (Sugiyama 1998). An ooenliew of the livestock industries of South-East Asia Steinfeld ( 1998) points out that industrial livestock production systems in which livestock production is detached from the immediate surrounding land in terms of feed supply and waste disposal hardly existed in Asia until a few decades ago. Steinfeld ( 1999) explains that with the transformation of the Asian livestock sector, livestock production has tended to become vertically integrated because of economies of scale. Production has concentrated in areas where the inputs -particularly feed -are cheap and where there are good markets for livestock products, such as meat, eggs and milk. Benefits associated with having production take place close to population centres include less transport and storage of feed, the possibility of employment opportunities being created and increased availability of fresh feed. However, there are drawbacks. According to Steinfeld ( 1999), the trend towards more industrialised livestock is worrying for a number of reasons. First, intensive livestock production generates little employment, and the benefits associated with the growth of the intensive livestock industries accrue to a few. Second, because livestock production is land-detached, production units tend to concentrate in particular areas, causing massive environmental damage. Finally, there are a number of human diseases and illnesses associated with the concentration of animals on limited space. This comes about because the use of antibiotics in intensive animal production has led to antibiotic-resistant strains of Salmonella, Listeria and E. coli and because minerals (such as copper and zinc) introduced into animal diets have contaminated the environment already severely tested by the growth of urban areas. Other writers have also commented on this development. Pingali (1997) attributes the growth of commercial agriculture in Asia generally, of which industrialliyestock is a clear example, to an increase in the opportunity cost of the farmer's time. He says that commercialisation involves the substitution of traded inputs for non-traded inputs and leads to a decline in integrated farming systems. Reviewing Pingali's paper, McCalla (1997) points out that Pingali (1997) does not explain how it can be that the opportunity cost of a farmer's time has increased. McCalla (1997) surmises it must be due to increased non-farm wages. Heartfield (2000) cites developing country authors who argue that the involvement of corporations in developing countries' agriculture has made peasant farmers landless, pushing them into cities where few jobs exist. He does not call for arresting agricultural development since this would keep 'the third world poor' and subordinate to the first world. Rather, Heartfield argues that the fruits of progress should be shared by all without going into details of how this might be achieved. White (2000) investigated the environmental impact of diet by estimating the area of cropland required to support the average diet across a sample of countries and regions. He found that in Asia in 1985, 0.182 ha was needed for the average diet, but that by 1995, the area needed had increased to 0.212 ha. This was the largest increase in land requirements for any of the regions studied -Africa, Europe, Oceania, North America and South America -and is due to the increased consumption of animal products. The estimates made by White (2000) involve a number of assumptions, including the feed conversion efficiency of different livestock and the grain yield per hectare of land. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 75 Rlethmuller Conclusion This paper has outlined some of the important characteristics of the livestock sector in South-East Asia. There are many factors that indicate that consumption will increase but the extent of this increase must be a matter for conjecture. It is almost certain that pork and poultry will continue to underpin diets and that the importance of beef and buffalo meat will continue to decline in relative importance. The continued development of the intensive livestock industries will place increased pre&sure on the environment. As income levels increase, there is likely to be increasing opposition to these industries since the income elasticity of demand for the environment resource is positive. Small farmers are one group in South-East Asia unlikely to benefit from the expected future development of the livestock industries. Their opportunities to supply meat to consumers will decline as distribution systems become more westernised and as more regulations are placed upon the traditional distribution systems. Expansion of intensive production facilities around urban areas will result in small farmers being displaced from their farms in these areas and forced to relocate to less agriculturally suitable areas. While some job opportunities may be created, these are likely to be relatively short-term as new processing technologies will result in labour being replaced by capital. The growth of the intensive livestock industries will require increased investment in infrastructure for the food processing industries and the distribution systems of countries in the South-East Asian region. Barkema and Drabenstott (1996) ~ drawn attention to this problem in China and in Mexico. Diminished capital inflows into the South-East Asian region may well turn out to be significant impediments to future development of the livestock industries. References Aini L. 1999. Diseases in rural family chickens in South-East Asia. Paper presented to the first INFPD/FAO electronic conference on family poultry http:/ /www.fao.org/ WAICENT/FAOINFO/ AGRICULT/ AGA/ AGAP/LPNFAMPOl1/Leadpap2.ht\Il (accessed 21 October 2000). Ashdown S. 1992. Adat and the buffalo in South Sulawesi. In: Daniels P. W., Holden S.' Lewin E. and Dadi S. (eds), ~stock services for smallholders: Proceedings of an international seminar held in YogyakaTta, Indonesia, 15-21 N~mber pp 240- 242. Barkema A. and Drabenstott M. 1996. The US farm export boom: how wiU it be shaped b:y global infrastructure? Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, third quarter. pp 77-91. Branckaert R.D.S., Gaviria L, Jallade J. and Seiders R. W. 2000. Transfer of technology in poultry production for ~1oping countries. http:/ /www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/ susmEV /Cddirect/CdreOO54.htm, (accessed 21 October 2000). 76 FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop An ooe1View of the livestock industries of South.-&t Asia- Cameron R.DA 2000. A review of the industrialisation of pig production worldwide with particular reference to the Asian region. Paper prepared for the Regional Office of Asia and the Pacific, FAG (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Bangkok, Thailand. Eccleston B., Dawson M. and Mcnamara D. 1998. eds. The Asia-Pacific profile, Roudedge, London, U.K FAG (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1996. World food summit, FAG, Rome, Italy. FAG (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1998a. The state of food and agriculture 1998, FAG, Rome, Italy. FAG (Food alld Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1998b. Selected indicators of food and agricultural development in Asia Pacific region, 1987 -97, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. FAG (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1999a. Selected indicators of food and agriculture development in Asia-Pacific region, 1988-98, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. FAG (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1999b. The state of food insecurity in the world 1999, FAG, Rome, Italy. FAG (Food and Agriculture Organization of the Uhited Nations). 2000a. Agriculture: towatds 2015/30 Technical Interim Report, FAG, Rome, Italy. FAG (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2000b. Commodity market review 1999-2000, Commodities and Trade Division, FAG, Rome, Italy. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2000. http:/ / apps.fao.org/ (accessed 12 July 2000). Grigg D. 1999. The changing geography of food consumption in the second half of the twentieth century. The Geographical Journal 65( 1). Heartfield J. 2000. The politics of food: two cheers for agribusiness, Review of Radical Political Economics, 32(2):319-325. International Livestock Research Institute (II.RI). 2000. Strategy to 2010: Making the livestock revolution work for the poor. Nairobi, Kenya. McCalla A. 1997. From subsistence to commercial agriculture: the need for a new development paradigm: discussion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(2):643. Pingali P.l. 1997. From subsistence to commercial production systems: the transformation of Asiarl agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(2):628-35. Ramlah AH. 2000. Production aspects of village chicken in the South-East Asian region. Paper presented to the first INFPD/FAG electronic conference on family poultry, http:/ /www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAGINFo/ AGRICUlT/ AGA/ AGAP /LPNFAMPG Leadpap5.htm{accessed 21 October 2000). Sato K., Sansoucy R. and Preston T.R. 1996. FAG Regional Project on better use oflocally available feed resources in sustainable agriculture systems. In: Hayakawa H., Sasaki M. and Kimura K (eds). Integrated S)'steTJU of animal production in the Asian region. Proceedings of a S)'mposium held in conjunction with the 8th AMP Animal Science Congress, Chiba, Japan, 13- 18 October. FAG (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Bangkok, Thailand. pp 23-31. FAO-JLTA-ILRl Workshop 77 Riethmuller Stanton, Emms and Sia. 1996. The Vietnamese livestock sector, opportunities for Canadian suppliers of breeding animals, genetic materials and related products and services. A study prepared for the Office of the Consul and T rade Commissioner, Consulate General of Canada, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. (http:/ /ats-sea.agr.ca/public/htmldocs/ e0902.htm, (accessed 19 September 2000). Steinfeld H. 1998. Policy requirements for area-wide integration of specialised crop and livestock activities. In: Ho Y. W. and Chan Y.K. (eds). ProceediT1g3 of the regional workshop on area-wide integration of CTop-litlestock activities.MP Publication 1998/19, FAG (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) RAP (Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific), Bangkok, Thailand. pp 69- 74. Steinfeld H. 1999. The industrialisation of livestock in light of the Asian economic crisis. In: ProceediTlg3 of the workshop on the implications of the Asian economic crisis for the litJestock industry. FAG (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) RAP (Re- gional Office for Asia and the Pacific), Bangkok, Thailand. pp. 27 -40. Sugiyama M. 1998. Poultry industry in the world and Japan, Tsukuba-Shobo Publishing Company, Tokyo, Japan. Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation. 1995. Agricultural diversification/ restructuring of agricultural production systems in Thailand. Report prepared for FAG (Food and Agriculture Organization of die United Nations), Bangkok, Thailand. Tomich T.P, Kilby P. and Johnston B. 1995. Transforming agarian economies- opportunities seized-opportunities missed. Comell University Press, Ithaca. White T. 2000. Diet and the distribution of environmental impact. Ecological Economics 34 (234). 145-53. World Bank. 1992. World Development Report 1992. Oxford University Press, New York, USA World Bank. 2000. World Development Report 1999. Oxford University Press, New York, USA 78 N. M0'1'gan Food and Agriculwre Organization of the United Nations (FAO) .. I ntrod u Ctl O n This paper will focus on various market factors shaping global meat markets, the medium- term outlook for the meat sector and challenges for Asian meat producers, exporters, and policy makers. The mandate of the Commodities and T rade Division (ESCB) of the FAO is to identify and evaluate factors influencing international agricultural trade. As a meat trade analyst, my challenge is to analyse these factors and assess how regions like South-East Asia can compete in an increasing globalised meat economy. The livestock revolution has been referred to in the previous presentations and you can identify the dynamism of global meat markets in Figure 1 which shows the growth in meat trade over the past two decades (1980-2002). There is growing demand in developing COl1ntrles and it is evident that this demand served as a major catalyst in the growth of trade. According to FAG estimates, meat trade in 2000 is worth US$41 billion which is approximately 10% of overall trade in agricultural products. Excluding European Union intertrade, this is about US$20 billion. (x106) 8~ 7- 6- 5 4 3 Impact of animal diseases 2 0- 92 94 96 98 2001 2002'80 82 84 86 88 90 Sheep meat Pork -Poultry meat Beef Figure 1. World meat trade (~h US$41 biUion). 79FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop There has been a variety of factors that affected the world meat economy: .Rising incomes/urbanisation .Increasing productivity/vertical integration .Concentration of output units/ specialisation .World Trade Organization (WTO) provisions on market access and export subsidies (Korea, Japan, US, EU) .Economic/institutional reforms in former USSR/Eastem Europe .Animal disease/regionalisation/ food safety i.~sues The WTO has served alternatively as a catalyst and a constraint to trade. In addition, financial crises have rippled across the globe, starting in Asia, moving to Russia in 1998, Brazil in 1999 and finally Argentina in 2001. In the last year and a half, the key factor influencing meat production and trade was animal diseases and food safety concerns. It is interesting to note that in 2000, meat traders heaved a sigh of relief as financial markets around the world started rebounding, meat prices started to pick up while feed input costs stabilised, and trade started to recover. All of a sudden, the outbreaks of animal diseases in major export countries threw markets in turmoil. ESCB's preliminary estimates of trade losses for 2001 indicates a US$ 2 billion trade loss due to animal diseases; however, this doesn't include the costs of disease eradication, surveillance, loss to producers, retail markets, and the multiplier effucts through the various affucted economies. Some preliminary estimates indicate a US$ 50 million loss to Uruguay, lIS$ 400 million to Argentina, and the EU estimates of US$ 1 billion. Meanwhile, bovine spongiform encepalopathy (BSE) outbreaks in Japan, the world's largest meat importer (imports valued at US$ 8 billion), led to a US$ 300 million slide in meat imports. One of the factors affecting market demand and trade of meat products is the increasing specialisation of production and processing in response to consumer requirements and preferences. Consumers are moving from buying meat to product cuts. When you look at the growth in trade, for instance in poultry, trade grew exponentially over the 1990's as China, Russia and some of other markets started buying. The composition of this trade is quite revealing. China, one of the world's largest importers, is receiving more than 800 thousand tonnes of imported products, 300 thousand tonnes of which are chicken paws. China is importing the wings and paws and Russia is taking the leg quarters. Meanwhile China, taking advantage of low labour rates, imports US leg quarters, debones them and repackages them for export to Japan. In a funny way, the growth in trade may be actually overestimated as you put all these chicken parts back in chicken meat equivalents. The issue of specialisation becomes a challenge when identifying trading opportunities and assessing the comparative advantage of livestock producers and processors, especially in Asia. People tend to talk about livestock, but when you look at meat trade, trading takes place, not on a commodity basis, but on a product basis. This is where the growth in meat trade has been and the issues of critical importance to entry into this market are product quality and safety. 80 Global meat markets: Shmt./ medium-tenn outlook A look at 2001 and the impact of animal diseases, reveals the fragility of trading patterns. Growth in consumption and trade actually came to a roaring stop. In 2001, markets witnessed the slowest meat output growth in two decades (Figure 2) and the first estimated decline in per capita consumption in 30 years. The impact of food safety concerns was not only witnessed in developed countries but also in developing countries; in fact, the growth of per capita consumption of meat in developing countries, averaging about 4.4% over the last decade stopped with only a marginal increase estimated in 2001. There was declining global beef output. In the EU this was because of animal disease, massive animal culls and lower consumer demand while output in Uruguay was down by 15%. Overall trade declined as consumers shunned beef for food safety reasons and spending on meat was consttained by economic slowdown, especially after September 11, 2001 in the US and elsewhere. Figure 2. 2001 meat econom,. The stagnant meat trade performance in 2001 was marked by market disruption~ and trade diversion (Table 1). Beef trade was down 5%; poultry, benefiting from switching consumer preferences was up 3% and pigmeat was stagnant because of FMD outbreak in certain EU countries. This resulted in countrlcs closing their market to pigmeat products from the EU, the world's largest exporter. The outlook for 2002 is more optimistic. We have Korea coming back to the market, and Uruguay and Argentina resuming fresh and chilled product exports to the EU. Obviously, the prospects of increase in trade depends on recovering consumer confidence in meats in Asia. We may, in fact, have a lot of meat out there but fewer markets are willing to take the product, thus putting downward pressure on meat prices. 81FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop Table I. Meat tTade per[oTmance. Recovering production, ample supplies strengthening trade prospects: Stagnant trade performance marked by market disruptions and trade diversion: .Four per cent rebound in beef exports .Poultry shipments robust at 3 per cent Pigmeat exports up by 5 per cent .Sheepmeat slides on contracting exporting supplies .Beef trade down by 5 per cent .Poultry up 3 per cent .Pigmeat stagnant .Sheepmeat up Meat prices were thrown into turmoil in 2001 as consumers shifted consumption patterns and preferences. We saw increased prices for lamb (UK wholesale price), obviously heavily influenced by BSE and foot and mouth disease (FMD). In Japan, steep price declines for beef revealed the huge impact of BSE in October and November. There were also steep increases in prices for alternative meats, particularly chicken which increased by 7% over the course of the year. Again, the specialisation aspect of trade highlights the p'roblem of looking at prices and international markets for meat. The difficulty lies in the fact that the meat is not a homogenous product, particularly beef; however, that said, it is useful to look at shifting prices for beef in the context of the BSE and FMD outbreaks. Despite the increase in beef prices in Australia, the Australians would agree that everybody loses from animal diseases (Table 2). The Australian prices are for the m~nufacturing grade beef that they export to the United States. Unlike US exports, which ar~ higher-value cuts from grain-fed animals, this type of Australian product is an input into the largest US fast food industry, the hamburger market. The US beef prices, on the other hand, is a free on board (FOB) export price. These prices, pressured by the higher domestic prices and the high value of the US dollar, were down by 11% in 2001 with significant price pressure stemming from the Japanese market where consumers in the context of sluggish economic growth and food safety concerns opted for cheaper imported beef cuts or other meat produc'ts. Consequendy, the Japanese price dropped by 4%. The FMD-afflictedArgentine meat sector could not move their products, especially the high value fresh/ chilled quality cuts to Europe and prices slid by 32%. Meanwhile, EU reference prices for cattle were down by nearly 20%. The price differentials between the various prices reveal the extent that specialisation influences meat markets. These are all different types of products going to different markets. These prices also show the segmentation in the beef markets between Atlantic and Pacific markets, one FMD-affected and the other not. Unfortunately, after a decade of investment in select South America markets to eliminate FMD and this price gap, FMD outbreaks in Argentina and Uruguay in 2001 postponed the integration of these markets for another 3- 4 years. FAO-JLTA-ILRl Workshop82 Table 2. Animal diseases and beef price ~ments (price in US$/tonne). Year Australia us Japanese EUArgentine 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1947 1741 1880 1754 1894 1957 2138 3738 3380 3148 2717 2985 3207 2848 6160 5538 5269 4756 4844 4693 4486 1935 1790 1868 2200 1910 1986 1356 3596 3168 2910 2907 2598 2309 1904 Per cent changes 2000/1999 3% 7% -3% 4% -11% South-East Asian meat markets in a global context South-East Asian meat markets are very dynamic and are more and more interlinked with the international meat economy. The composition 'of growing regional exports indicates that a lot of the growth of the trade is in highly processed products, ready-cooked meat, a very sophisticated formulated product that goes to Japan. Thailand is a major player in global poultry markets, supplying quality chicken products to Japan with exports accounting for nearly one-third of total production. Korea, before the FMD crisis in 2000, was a major player in the pigmeat export market, shipping high quality tenderloins to Japan. In China, a lot of Japanese investment has been directed at operations in the Shanghai area, with processed product destined for Japan. Poultry operations in southern China are importing US chicken legs, deboning them and re- exporting them. Vietnam is also becoming increasingly active as a major pigmeat exporter. However, consistency and quality of product remains a major constraint to product movement to sophisticated markets like Japan. Some general facts about the South-East Asian markets include the following: .Regional production (including China which produces 27% of world meat) is 40% of world totals; imports equa120% of trade .Imports constitute only a small part of regional meat consumption, 2.8% growing to 5% .Nearly half of the growth in global meat demand over the 1990s is generated by the region .Exports, while growing, constitute only 12% of global meat trade and consist mainly of very specialised products. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 83 Beef imports Poultry imports Meat imports Meat exports Meat production 8 1012 14 16 18202224 ~ World Figure 3. SouthrEast Asian meat markets in a global context (Thailand, China, Korea, Vietnam), 1992-1999 allerage. One of the challenges facing participants in this workshop is identifying factors affecting the future of livestock industries in South.East Asia and, within that context, identifying strategies on how to link small livestock producers in Asia to the growing demand for quality specialised products in international market places, which typically require a very sophisticated industry. Medium-term outlook for the livestock sector Conducting projections on the outlook for global meat industries is more of an art than a science. Even non-economists can make projections using the trends on Figure 3, which depict the positive relationship between growth in per capita incomes and meat consumption. Gbviouslyas incomes in low-income countries increase (Vietnam, Philippines, and Malaysia), per capita meat consumption rises. We can actually make forecasts by looking at the per capita income in a certain country by estimating in five years what per capita income willbe and then 'guestimating' the level of per capita meat consumption. . But the more complicated question is who will supply this product? Will countries import the meat or supply it through increased /domestic production? In FAG, our commodity specialists in the Basic Foodstuff Service of the Commodities and Trade Division annu- ally update medium-term commodity projections, using FAG's World Food Model that has a lO-year projection period. Some of the features of this model are: The model contains 13 commodity markets, including: .Bovine meat .Pigmeat .Mutton and lamb .Gilmeals (protein equivalent) .Coarse grains 84 FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop Global meat markea: Short-/ medium-tenn outlook .146 countries, covering all regions of the world .A partial equilibrium, dynamic multi-market model where a commodity market is rep- presented by a supply and demand schedule with appropriate fixed ~lasticities .Income and population are specified exogenously .International markets clear through adjustments in prices .Price changes transmitted to national markets through transmission elasticities that capture certain policy instruments This modelling exercise involves taking into account all the factors affecting developments in the livestock sector, such as the folloMng: .Growing incomes/urbanisation .Population increases .Market liberalisation and increasing market access for meat products .Concentration and integration of livestock industries .Technology issues related to animal productivity Figure 4. Relationship between income and per capita meat consumption. The policy challenge facing us in this year's exercise is how to factor into the model China's accession to the WTO. Obviously other important issues for industries in develop- ing countries are opportunities to enhance production through improved productivity. For example, in the case of concentration and integration of livestock industries, what does it mean for feed conversion, carcass weights and for increased slaughter as a share of animal inventories? Last year's projection exercise was based on a more optimistic global economic picture than this year. For Southeast Asia, we had to revise our figures to a 4.3% increase in regional per capita gross domestic product (GDP) growd1. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 85 Marian regional per capita gross domestic product (GDP) growth. Obviously, the meat outlook for South-East Asia is quite robust and the livestock industries in the region are growing faster than international averages. That should not come as a surprise to anyone. As I mentioned before, the critical question is who is going to supply this growth in consumption. What will be the gap between consumption and production? According to our most recent projections, the region is expected to witness a growing net trade situation, meaning that imports are going faster than exports and the region's meat consumption will increasingly be supplied by producers in other countries. The projections indicate that meat imports will increase annually by about 4.4%, mainly beef and poultry. Five factors affecting South-East Asia's livestock industry are the following: 1) economic growth and development 2) gains in productivity, access to markets 3) ability to compete in an increasingly competitive export market which is focused on products, not commodities 4) policy developments/ support for sector and 5) developments in Doha WTO talks (export subsidies, domestic support). As an international trade economist, I would like to highlight the last factor - developments in the Doha WTO talks. Within this forum, the topic of the important role of poverty, trade and developing countries has been increasingly highlighted, with Mike Moore, the head ofWTO, repeatedly emphasising that special consideration be given this issue. Specifically, there is interest in providing technical assistance to d~loping countries. I would like to emphasise that this workshop is an ideal forum for the identification of issues constraining developments in South-East Asia's livestock industries and the genera- tion of constructive and creative solutions on how to engage the poor in livestock industries, while making the linkage between poverty and international trade-a topic which is of keen interest to policy makers around the world, in FAO and WTO. Common Fund for Commodities At this point, it would be useful for us to look at the Common Fund for commodi- ties (CFC), an international agency which is a potential funding source for any project ideas generated by this workshop. The CFC is an inte;governmental financial institu- tion composed of 104 member countries from the EU, Organisation of African Unity f African Economic Community (OAUf AEC), and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). 1 would like to stress that the CFC carl provide an oppor- tunity for us to obtain funding for a well-conceived project which addresses the needs identified by stakeholders with the project benefiting from the synergies between re- search and development activities. The following information on the CFC and the process of project proposal submission and approval may be helpful while looking at the project scope: 1) T ypes of projects funded -Commodity development measures aimed at improving structural conditions in markets and at enhancing the long-term competitiveness and prospects ot particular commodities FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop86 Qlobal meat markets: Short;./ medium,.teTm outlook 2) Basic requirements and criteria for project appraisaVapproval .project should be beneficial to several countries, have a spin-off effect -but, at the same time, project must remain manageable .target beneficiaries should be poorer strata of the population (small producers/ exporters smallholders; small and medium sized enterprises involved in production, processing or trade) .pay due regard to sustainability and replicability of activities .pay due attention to private sector concerns (demand driven projects), national development policies, environmental aspects .project budget: small to medium size; indicative range: 2-6 million US$ total project costs (including in-kind counterpart contributions) .duration: from 1 to 5 years .grant, loan or combination -depending on nature of activities .concentrate on CFC member countries .project objectives must be achievable within a specific period of time. 3) Factors known to increase chances of approval .significant amounts of counterpart contributions .particular focus on LDCs .project addressing market failure, diversification of production, productivity improvement. 4) Reasons for rejection .concentration on general training/ extension .excessive international travel and meetings .disproportionate overhead .non-sustainable results .basic research/ general marketing studies .work forming part of core activities of participating institutions .activities in non.CFC countries FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 87 G.D. Gray International Uvestock Research Institute (ILRI) South-East Asia is arguably the most physically, economically and culturally diverse contigu- ous group of countries in the developed or developing world and success or failure in livestock research and development depends on understanding the constraints and oppor- tunities posed by this diversity. The issues to be resolved for livestock research and develop- ment include the physical barriers to livestock movement, inequalities in purchasing power and market development and varying habits and principles governing production and consumption of livestock. The political boundaries of the region extend from the borders of India and Bangla- desh in the west, to China to the north, and the Pacific and Indian oceans to the south and east. However, major influences come from immediately outside the region -from India and China, the two largest countries in the world; Japan the world's second largest economy; and Australia, which, although relatively small in population. and economy, has had a significant influence on agricultural research and development in the region. Countries included in South-East Asia are the 10 member countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN): Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Singapore is unique in having no livestock and no rural population. South-East Asia contains the world's new- est country, Timor. Pressures and variation within the region and influence from immedi- ate neighbours have encouraged rapid changes in agriculture and a challenging environ- ment for a programme of international livestock research. The natural vegetation of all 10 countries is humid wet, or humid dry tropical forest and there is natural and agricultural continuity outside the region among the uplands of the Mekong and Red rivers, which include southern China and northern parts of Laos, Thai. land, Myanmar and Vietnam. Mainland South-East Asia (sometimes referred to as the Mekong countries) comprises Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar and central Thailand. Peninsular South-East Asia is formed by southern Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore and the third geographical group is formed by the vast archipelago of insular Malaysia, Brunei Oarussalam, Indonesia and The Philippines that together comprise over 20 thousand sepa- rate islands. Indonesia and The Philippines have the second and fourth longest coastlines Gra~ in the world (54 thousand and 36 thousand km respectively). In contrast, Laos has no direct access to the sea but has a land bounQary of over 5000 km. Consideration of these diverse and often poorly defined natural boundaries and geographical differences in national borders is important for livestock development and for transboundary trade and disease control. Among ~e 575 million population of South~East Asia there is wide variation in national income. Per capita gross national income (GNI) ranges from less than US$ 350 per year (current US$) in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam and Myanmar (estimate), to greater than US$ 20 thousand per year in Singapore and Brunei Darusslam.. Despite a low per capita GNI of less than US$ 1000, Indonesia contributes 24% to the GNI of die region due to its large population of 210 million. Thailand contributes 22% from a population of 60 mit. lion and Singapore alone contributes 18% from a population of just 4 million. Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia and Vietnam are classified by the World Bank as low income and Laos and Myanmar and Indonesia as severely indebted. While recalcula- tion of per capita GNI on the basis of purchasing power can greatly reduce variation between countries (e.g. for Laos, income based on purchasing power increases from US$ 300 to US$ 1500) the differences between the poorest countries (Laos, Cambodia, Viet- nam, Malaysia), the richest (Singapore and Brunei), and those in between (Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand) are very high. The proportion of poor is 27% in Indonesia, 37% in The Philippines and around 50% in Lao PDR. There are major implications of such diversity of income and poverty for trade and ability to support inter- ventions for livestock research, development and investment. Buddhism, Islam and Christianity are the religions of more than 95% of Thais, Indone- sians and the Filipinos, respectively. Other countries have mixtures of all three religions and varying proportions adopting indigenous belief systems. English is widely spoken in Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei Oarussalam and The Philippines, and is an official language of Singapore. However, all countries in the region have distinct and separate officiallan- guages: Thai, Burmese, Vietnamese, Bahasa Indonesia, Khmer and Lao in addition to hundreds of local dialects. Against a background of the indigenous Malay population there have been migrations into the region extending back many centuries, from the Tibetan plateau, mainland China, Melanesia and South Asia. In more recent colonial times there has been settlement from the Indian sub-continent and Europe and there has been widespread recent migration within the region from Vietnam, Indonesia and The Philippines for economic and politi- cal reasons. The dominant political systems have been constitutional democracies, monarchies and democratic republics; and both centrally planned and market-oriented economies, with FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop07 ILRI in South.-East Asia some countries moving rapidly, and with some difficulty, between these conditions. These varied politics, cultures, religions and languages are sources of many different approaches to agricultural problems. They also create barriers to common understanding and joint endeavour in activities such as livestock research. Changing demand and increased opportunities for I ivestock Livestock research faces some difficult challenges. By 2020 the world population will ap- proach 8 billion, with most of the increase in developing countries with only half the people of developing countries in rural communities; urban incomes will rise along with demand for livestock products. Trade and information will be globalised leading to new relationships between producers, consumers and the markets that serve them. The livestock revolution in South-East Asia The future for livestock production in South-East Asia is dominated by rapid increases in demand which are predicted to dramatically alter patterns of production and consumption. If handled correctly, this livestock revolution can provide means for the poor to increase their incomes by allowing them to take part in expanded and higher Value markets. Nega- tive effects could include exclusion of the poor from these markets, further pressure on resource inputs and on the environment to absorb waste; and uncontrolled peri-urban production with increased risk of disease spreading from livestock to humans. These trends are brought into sharp focus in South-East Asia where, together with East Asia, incomes grew between 4 and 8% between the early 80s' and 1998; population grew at 2-3 %, urbanisation at 4-6% and meat consumption between 4 and 8% per year. Such aggregated figures however do not reveal the large differences in both rate of growth and starting points for countries within the region (nor indeed for provinces within China). Overall the rural population in South-East Asia is not predicted to grow between 2000 and 2020 although important increases will take place in Vietnam (16%), Laos (28%) and Cambodia (39%). The most dramatic changes will be in urban populations, with the megacities of Jakarta and Metro Manila increasing to 17.3 and 14.1 million respectively, and Bangkok becoming a megacity with a population of 10.1 million. Excluding Singapore (with no rural population) estimated increases in urban population in the region range from 60 to 150%. In summary therefore, South-East Asia will need to feed an additional 140 million people, from under 600 to over 700 million, mostly in towns and cities, from an unchang- ing rural population and a land base under increasing pressure from urbanisation. The key questions are to what extent livestock production can change to meet this increased de- mand and the impact that these changes will have on the poor. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 93 GT4' Regional trends in South-East Asia have followed East Asia and South Asia (excluding India) with increases in annual per capita consumption of meat of around 50%, from 11.3 to 17.9 kg between 1983 and 1997. Once again however, these figures mask significant variation between countries as can be seen in Table 1 and differences between per capita consumption and total consumption. In Brunei Darussalam, meat consumption may have reached the limit of developed countries of around 1 kg per capita per week. In all coun- tries there has been a substantial increase in domestic meat supply, ranging from 35% in Myanmar to almost 200% in Malaysia, with an average of 107%. This represents a dou- bUng of domestic meat supply across the region between 1983 and 1997. Recent predic- tions are for this to double again between 2000 and 2020. Domestic supply of meat per capita (kg) Per capita increase in consumption (%) Total increase in consumption (%)Country ~ 1983 -6.5 4.9 70.9 65.5 47.2 109.3 55.4 24.2 71.2 38.6 57.9 37.6 34.8 117.6 170.4 114.6 196.6 116.8 54.4 126.4 107.0 52.0 8.6 9.4 14.4 15.6 54.0 25.8 24.6 23.8 25.4 17.7 Brunei Darussalam 53.6 Myanmar 8.2 Indonesia 5.5 Cambodia 8.7 Laos 10.6 Malaysia 25.8 Philippines 16.6 Thailand 19.8 Vietnam 13.9 Average 18.3 Weighted averagel 11.2 1. Average weighted by population size Figures for domestic milk supply show similar variation from 10.0 to 21.5 kg per capita with substantial increases in all countries except Myanmar. The increase in demand for meat is predicted to be met mostly by increases in pig and poultry production with a concomitant increase in demand for appropriate feed. Ruminant production will remain important and ruminants will retain their unique place in the mixed farming systems of South-East Asia by being able to utilise forages and feeds that are not digestible by monogastric livestock and providing important sources of manure to enhance soil fertility. The importance of livestock is not only as a source of calories and protein. Livestock also play important roles in nutrient cycling by breaking down coarse feeds, forages, crop residues and wastes, as power for land preparation and transport, and as a means of build. ing capital which can be transported and disposed of in times of need. These functions of livestock are difficult to value by conventional methods as they address the needs of the. 94 FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop ILRI in South,.East Asia smallholder farmer for food security, risk avoidance and of the farming systems for sug.. tained soil fertility and moisture retention. When ILRI was established in 1995 as a global institute, one of the highest priorities was to establish a development-oriented research programme in Asia. Extensive consultation from 1995 to 1997 among partners with interests in the region -donors, international and national organisations, government and non- goVernment agencies -led to a research programme for South-East Asia which commenced in 1998 with funding from ILRI's core donors (including the World Bank, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the European Union) and project-specific funding from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Interna- tional Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and the Systemwide Livestock Programme (SLP) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research ( CGIAR) .A key feature of this programme has been that all research implemented by ILRI is with partners in the region and that ILRI has not established its own laboratory or field rest:arch facilities. Extensive links have been established with other international organisations in the region during implementation of these projects, for example with FAO in areas of animal health, animal genetic resources and food safety, and with the Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropi- cal ( CIAT) in the areas of forage research and rural development. Poverty reduction by increasing the quantity, quality and reliability of food production in rice-based crop-livestock systems is a compelling objective for South-East Asia. This is especially true for the neglect~d rainfed agro-ecological zones which are home to over l20 million poor, often marginalised peoples whose mixed farming systems were by-passed by the Green Revolution and where poverty is exacerbated by decrease in per capita land availability, shortening of fallow intervals, decline in soil fertility, and seasonal scarcity of feeds. Mixed farming systems in these rainfed regions produce both food for subsistence and local marketing and feed for livestock production. Their efficiency and sustainability can be increased by the introduction of improved and more appropriate crops and livestock and farming practices, management of constraints such as endemic and epidemic disease and improving access to the rapidly emerging markets for livestock products. It is important that this so-called livestock revolution in demand for animal products also benefits the rural poor. To increase the focus on these systems they are often described as 'food-feed' systems to highlight their direct and indirect impacts on human nutrition, income and well-being. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 95 Current ILRI activities in South-East Asia ILRI collaborates with international research organisations: sister CGIAR centres, non- governmental organisations (NGOs), commercial companies and with government and non-government national research systems: universities, departments of agriculture and national institutes. The decision not to establish its own research facilities in the region and to work exclusively within the national research systems and on their priorties has led to' obligatory collaboration' -there is simply' no other way of working -and the benefits have been many. Of course the range of research topics is then limited by the range and capacity available in the region but in the case of South-East Asia this imposes few restric- tions. The following is a list of some of the ongoing collaborative projects of ILRI in South. East Asia: .Improvement of crop-animal systems through a better understanding of the interac- tions between plants and animals in the mixed: farming systems that characterise South.East Asia and the economic and policy environment that may constrain th~ir development in The Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, China and Thailand .Sustainable worm control for goats and sheep through the application of integrated methods of chemical, management and genetic approaches to control and through participatory methods in communities in The Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Vi- etnam, Laos and Cambodia .Economic impact of foot and mouth disease and its control through epidemiologi- cal and economic modelling in Thailand and The Philippines .Policy options for rural income diversification and barriers to market participation by detailed analysis of household data in Vietnam, Philippines and Thailand .Training activities and characterisation of livestock genetic resources among all the countries of South.East Asia through a series of workshops and the development of small research projects .Diagnosis, epidemiological survey and impact assessment for T rypanosoma eoorui in The Philippines through co!1aboration with local and national organisations, FAO and Of. fice Internationale des Epizooties (OlE). Underpinning all of these activities is a commitment to the supply of informatio.n, building research capacity using formal and informal methods and the absolute require- ment that the end result shall be clearly identified pathways to reducing poverty in the region. As a medium-sized research organisation with a small team of researchers based in South- East Asia our future plans depend heavily on the needs and capacities of partner research- ers and their national and regional priorities. Core ILRI research capacity in the region includes livestock economics, animal nutrition, animal genetics, epidemiology and parasi- tology. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop96 ILRI in South-East Asia The skills and resources of colleagues in other ILRI campuses are regularly called upon for technical support of activities in South-East Asia, but the range of technical p.xpertise directlyavailable for regional projects is limited. Thus, there is a critical dependence on the creation of project teams across many countries, many disciplines and many types of organi- sations to implement an effective research programme. The role of ILRI ranges from providing direct technical inputs, supporting and training in our areas of expertise, facilitat- ing interaction between partners and at times catalysing new partnerships in which ILRI has no further role. The need for financial support is clear and depehd~nce on donors that have tradition- ally provided funds to the CGIAR is increasingly linked to specific project outcomes. Thus, more direct financial arrangements with the public and private sector, linked to highly specific outputs and outcomes are likely to become more common as our regional pro- gramme develops. This will require changes within ILRI, within our partners and the way in which we nurture the partnerships on which our success depends. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 97 c. Devendra and D. Pezo International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) I ntroduction Rising human population, urbanisation and income-driven changes in food habits in South.. East Asia will necessitate two. to three-fold increases in the supply of animal products by year 2020 (Delgado et al. 1999). In response to this increased demand, animal numbers and outputs will increase at a rapid rate (Devendra and Thomas 2002). This will require further mtensification not only of the specialised non-ruminant industrial systems, but also of the crop-animal systems practised mainly by smallholders. In this process more attention must now necessarily be given to the arable land in rainfed environments, since the irrigated areas have been overused, and the relative importance of ruminants in those areas is declining. Rainfed areas account for about 66% of the total arable lat;ld in Asia (TAC 1992). Further, they 1fiaintain almost one half of the total human, cattle and small ruminant populations (51.2, 51.0 and 55.0%, respectively) and support more than l20 million poor people. Improving productivity in these rainfed areas in South-East Asia is therefore potentially very important from the standpoint of fragility of the environment, preventing further resource degradation and finding opportunities for improving food security and livelihoods, and reduction of poverty. Associated with these aspects is the fact that the rainfed areas have been bypassed by the 'Green Revolution', and now present major challenge... for research and development (Devendra 2000). Within these environments, crop-animal systems are especially important on account of the diversity of crops grown and the presence of large populations of both ruminaD.ts (cattle, buffaloes, goats and sheep) and non-ruminants (pigs and poultry). Animals make a major contribution to draft for soil cultivation, manure for enhancing soil fertility, and conversion of crop residues to animal products. This paper focuses on the background, approaches, and progress m~de over the last three years by the Crop-Animal Systems Research Network (CASREN) project carried out by ILRI in partnership with national agricultural research systems (NARS) in China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop98 In 1995, the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) started a series of regional consultation meetings with relevant stakeholders in different parts of the world in order to define an agreed global agenda for livestock research, as well as to identify partners in this endeavour. In the case of South-East Asia, the consultation was held at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baftos, The Philippines, on 10-13 May 1995 (Devendra and Gardiner 1995). This meeting confirmed AI1ia as one of the major challenges for ILRI, given its very large human and livestock populations. The meeting also defined crop-animal systems as the main focus of ILRI activities in South-East Asia, given the close integration of many livestock species into the prevalent smallholder farming systems. A conference entitled "Development of Livestock Research Priorities in Asia" was held on 13-15 May 1997 in Hanoi, Vietnam (Devendra et al. 1998», as a follow up to the previously mentioned consultation. A similar meeting was held with the stakeholders in South Asia (Devendra et al. 1997). In this meeting, two ad Iwc studies were analysed, one on crop-animal systems in rainfed areas of South-East Asia (Devendra et al. 1977) and another on priorities for livestock research in Asia in general (Vercoe et al. 1977). Based on those, NARS representatives were encouraged to indicate the following: a) Relevance to their country of the research priorities recommended for ILRI in Asia b) Extent to which their livestock research fits these priorities, amount and source of res- ources supporting livestock research in their country and c) Interest and ways in which their countries might participate in collabourative research and possibilities of funding. All these efforts led to the formulation of the project entitled 'Increasing the Productivity of Crop- Livestock Systems in South-East Asia' which was funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in December 1998. The project operated between January 1999 and December 2001. The project's general objective was 'to conduct collabourative, multidisciplinary research to generate technology and policy options to increase productivity of smallholder crop-livestock systems in South-East Asia'. ILRI and its NARS partners in that project created the Crop-Animal Systems Research Network (CASREN). In January 2002, the ADB funded a new project to support CASREN activities for another three years. The CASREN project is a relevant mechanism for enabling South-East Asian multi- disciplinary ecoregional research teams to improve integrated natural resource management, development of sustainable farming systems, increased productivity and improved livelihoods. In trying to find solutions to food insecurity and poverty, it covers the continuum of rainfed lowlands to uplands, and of production to consumption systems. The project applies holistic and participatory research and development approaches to crop-animal systems managed by resource-poor farmers, and recognises the importance of building research capacity and effective partnerships between NARS and all stakeholders. The CASREN project involves three types of activities: (a) research and development, (b) research capacity building, and (c) monitoring and evaluation. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 99 De./endra and Pelo Research and development activities The methodologies applied in CASREN research involved the following steps: a) Selection of one benchmark site (BMS) in each participating country, representing the most relevant biophysical and socio-economic conditions b) Detailed characterisation of the crop-animal S)'Stems in the rainfed environments to identify constraints and issues, in order to prioritise biological, socio-economic and policy research activities c) Ex ante evaluation of technology options that could help to overcome the main limitations of the prevalent crop-animal systems, their actual testing and the promotion of the adoption of the most promising alternatives d) Identification of appropriate macro. and sector- policy options to improve the contribution of ruminants to the economy of smallholder farmers. The first two are important prerequisites to focus the eco-regional research and the relevance of the results to be obtained. The other two refer to the identification of technology and policy options that will help increase the contribution of the animal component of the system in improving the livelihood of smallholder farmers. Specific criteria were developed and shared with participating NARS, and were finally used in the selection of each BMS. Both macro criteria' and the kind of information required for BMS site characterisation were considered (Devendra 1999). The main elements were as follows: a) Biophysical characteristics: land use, cropping patterns and intensity, length of growing season, water a','ailability, and crop-animal systems. b) Priorities: at national, provincial and county levels. c) Animals=- types ot ruminants (buffaloes, cattle, goats and sheep) and non-ruminants (ducks, pigs and poultry), animal population density, market access and market pull. d) Poverty and food security: extent anti ethnicity. e) Accessibility. f) Institutio1;lal factors: NARS research capacity, linkages with farmer groups, co-operatives andNGOs. g) Perceived research constraints: resource degradation, dry season, availability of draft 1Jower, limited use of fodder trees, inadequacy of feed supplies (quality and quantity), and inefficiency in nutrient recycling. h) ~otential for improvement and impact. Concerning detailed characterisation, specific research domains were identified (rainfed lowlands and/ or uplands) in which two villages were chosen. From theses villages, 40-100 farms were selected. These were used for detailed participatory rural appraisal (PRA) as well as structured household surveys. To illustrate some of the results obtained in the characterisation of the prevalent crop- animal systems, table 1 identifies th~ BMS and their locations in each country, ilie household and biophysical characteristics, predominant animal species, types of crop-animal systems and the major interactions between components. The results indicate that rice-based farming systems are common in three of the five sites, and include the presence of all ruminants (buffaloes, cattle, goats and sheep), non-ruminants (pigs and poultry) and fish. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop100 The CTOp-animal S'JStenu research network (CASREN) The average farm size is especially small in the BMSs in China and Indonesia (0.27 and 0.55 ha, respectively), intermediate in The Philippines (1.26 ha), and larger in Vietnam and Thailand (2.59 and 5.24 ha, respectively). Interestingly, women managed 26-32% of the farms in all countries, except for Indonesia, but in the latter the role of women in animal feeding is extremely tmporrant. Table 1 enables for important observations within the specific focus on sub-humid/ humid agroecological zones. Firstly, the continuum of lowland and upland rainfed ecosystems provides a mix ofboth ruminants and non-ruminants. Secondly, rice-based cropping systems are common, including also other annual crops and tree crops. the presence of both animal and crop diversity thus provides a variety of crop-animal interactions, die effects of which provide major opportunities for research and development activities on productivity, livelihoods of people and sustainable agriculture . Thirdly, all the BMS have overriding major constraints in 5- 7 months of dry periods This particular situation, along with the high stocking rates varying from 1.3 to 4.0 tropical liverstock units (TLUs) per hectare wete observed in all BMS except in Vietnam. This presents major challenges on the efficiency of use and/ or protection of ~atural resources in these environments. Fourthly, the inrtial indications suggest a 10-25% level of contributions by animals to total farm income. Table 2 summarises some of the results from se~eral on-farm trials comparing farmers' practices and improved nutritional interventio~. Among the options tested are: the use of multi-nutrient block licks (MNBL), concennares formulated from local feed resources, cassava hayas a substitute for commercial concentrates, and cassava peelings to complement grazing. All options resulted in significant improvements in tne biologiaJ and economic ~rformance compared to the systems practised by farmers. These oJ1l-farm research results show the following implications: .UMB licks for cattle in China, Indonesia and The Philippines used for a period of 120 days during the critical dry season resulted in additional income per animal of between US$ ] 0.80 to 51.60, after discounting all costs associated to the nutritional intervention. When these were used for milking cows, the additional incomc per cow per month was US$ 12.60. .In China, the use of local res0urces in the formulation of concentrates fed to calves for 90 days resulted in an additional income of US$ 16.20 Der animal. In the case of kids under 90 days old, this practice resulted in an additional income of only $0.90 per animal- .In Thailand, the use of cassava hay to partially replace commercial concentrates for dairy cows resulted in savings of US$ 9.90/cow per month in feeding cOSts, and an additional income ofUS$ 7.201 cow per month, due to the increase in milk production. .In Vietnam, the use of cassava peelings and minerals to supplement grazing cattle for a period of 12o.days resulted in an additional income ofUS$ 45.60 per animal, after discounting costs of supplementation. Additionally, this is an option to utilise a by- product of starch production that was contributing to pollution. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 101 102 '(j.E~~~"C'.g.c;~~1.e~~~.~'.:.€~.~.~~~91%.:E'iI~.g~~~~~e~.£~~ I .§ j~~ui~ :8~-~0 .~ ~ § i .~ d ~ 8:0p,..~ ~ ..r ~ "' ~§~ Q .s::J rs ]~i~1i 8'5 ~~='tI ~ .!! ~ ~ >8~ j.!S ufj I § .2 1 G NO\ N 0...;+1+1r-r"\ ~ Nr-0'..:\I'\~"'"~oN"'ot"r-1I)d,..;-H-H11)\0 N U')~oot"'ot"CX)r-oNN~~.-4.-4+1+10-.-'r'\o-N'..: '01"cx5N ---13 ~ ~ ~ .- ---oa ... ~6[~ .5---~ I ;j9l'-' ted g. 1.~.~~ ~!~!!jt38 ~~"'~ ~~,-,5... I B ;g-E~'05G]§~ ~ ..2 ~~ ~ e .-~ ~ .~ ~ r; ~ ~ ~ Ii d ~ .5 o .e ~~~~.:t;.9'~'8~] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ p!. ~: .&J~d ~~ .g~ o ~"9.go~ .ij§.. 0 ~~~ ='-H ..=!J ""' , .~ 0. .~ N \Q 8"E-g ~\Q ° ] ."E .-j ~ ..u N ...t ~uo.~N U"""" -E ti:. ~ ~ ~]~°\X) g~ -n ~ .-r£ r--: ~ E 4) ~.~ ~O .ij !! .. ~.-G,g-H ..=!J 0 .J;1do.- 0. .~ 2 '9 .8 ~ a! <5R: e 1f"E N,,", ~~~~ou~JI; oor-'rI I0 ~ d 1 ~ d~ ~ ~ 1~.g~ ~~'O .~ Cd v -"'1 =' ~ V ~~.gOr-::gS~~pO -0 ~~.. ~!S~:5+1 ...=~ 1 11'\ v"""' 0. -.N 0 ~ V~ (J-r- °] ~ I \0 V 0... t:.~ 0 r- r- .D~~..;(J £~ N ~ e;-.9.~ ... ~ u ~ ;3 11i 0) u'E~ ~ 2~ ~~ ZP ~~ ~GQ 0-=, o.'"t o ~o ~ ':0 o ~ Q) .~ 5 Q) ~.t:It:..J"-H...~~ O ~~~~.r-0..8 r- ~~oU\O8~.~ ~\O U.t:l~~dU~~ ""~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ON=t= ~ -.~ t')-U ..C ~ ..~ " Cd -'ot" ~ .~ ~+1..1f'E~ 0 .-0 ~ N CJ~ O.::.::-U I Q~U~~'O S -~"'N O .,~ .D .-"' u &3~"'~.,--c;~d8~ .- .E 8 --c; ~ .-8 5 ~ .E ~'Og,.S ..§ O~Q~ = ~ Itz~ B~Bj"0*~'-'0 ~ .a ~ = 0 ] .5 81 ~IO 0NI'rI""'- Lt"\ d'r-:00.rJ I E u .rJ 1 ~~.~ ~ -s~lq~-.~ I 0 U ~~3j ~ j~~ 'if .u .u .d&&-=~~ I ~~ .~ 2~ ~ bs...;"3eq8. :>,.0 ~ I IO!J0 .~ ~~~ .~ ~.-~.s. ~ ; I >- p. .~ "8 3j ~.D.d .~ !JJi . ~ q ~~-I N I °.'0~IJ' -;q ~ :I:. .~ .D ~;]Ir\ I ~ ~N cn..U . 'if.S ~ C; °SU-;q~ e ..e ~ ~ .~ .~ .D ~; I 8 u ~5]1oJ1g.~1.~ i ~ t-,:!~.r:;.~ .d = ci ~~..gl~1..g1°.~s.~i~.~.~ u .~ 'E ~ ...P.opJ~~Q I I ~~...;N \ON O N 11'\ . ..0 ...11'\ ~ vO\ \0 NI- . \1"1 v 0'"1 FAO-jLTA-ILRI Workshop ~.E~~~.=~~i"'.=~0.J:!S~..!i~~B~.~:i~!:::J2.[0~~s:1:it~l.,2o~s.~..9oi5N41~~ ~ju rJ.50.0.j~ ~.~:3~0] ~~> .~~m .§ I~~~~2 1~-0.0 ., ." .. ~ .. , .tl...,.j~-,0(/)&:2 1a0 0 -0.0 "' ." .. ~ .. I.al 9 .~~ ~~,0(/)&:2 '"§ .. .~ § -0.0 ., ." .. ~ .. I ~~.m e ...~~~~~2 1a0 0 -0..9 fj ~ .. .~~m .§ ...~~~~~2 '"§ .. .bo a 0 0 -0..9 fj ~ ..§'P8'&0a.g~ ~j.L)..N6';1°E ~ ~z'i=~°jj o "3 :e ~~ .!!r-~""tj~oO;~~o~ ..g~~~~~c~ 13 ~ I ~'"'!U<;> ~~ I I -E8 I I ~ . U- d ..~ ..de ...~ .£e~~8:.£.:i.- Cd ~~~~~~g~.g ~ .g ~ ..~8.~ .~ ...~ ~..J-~~~~§Q~~]-N - 103 Devendra and Peto Several interventions on the cropping patterns aimed at the implementation of food- feed systems have also been tested by the CASREN project. These include intercropping of cowpea in cassava crops managed for hay and root-chips production in Thailand and Vietnam. intercropping of peanuts and red beans in Indonesia, and the use of mungbean or peanuts in rotation with rice in The Philippines. A significant contribution of the CASREN' project has been the strengthening of the research capacity of the national agricultural research system (NARS), recognising that the systems and integrated natural resource management approaches have been major weaknesses in most institutions and research programmes. In this context, CASREN has been able to fulfil the following activities: a) Trained 120 professionals in approaches and methodologies for crop-animal systems research, participatory approaches for systems characterisation, and systems analysis and impact assessment b) Provided opportunities for 11 MSc and 6 PhD students to pursue their research in topics covered by the proJect. c) Produced a training manual and a CD-Rom training resource on research methodologies and approaches for improving smallholder crop-animal Systems in South-East Asia d) Prepared a GIS-based report and geo-reference database on crop-animal systems in South-East Asia available in a CR-Rom. e) Developed two simulation models (beef and dairy cattle) adapted to the conditions of the prevalent crop-animal systems practised in South-East Asia f) Published six issues of the CASREN Newsletter, two workshop proceedings, 15 reports by national co-ordinators, 17 articles in proceedings and 9 articles in peer-reviewed journals g) Developed a bibliographic database on crop-animal systems in Asia, which includes almost 2000 entries (about 50% with abstracts) The CASREN project has held three workshops as part of its monitoring and evaluation efforts. It conducted in The Philippines the First Planning Workshop in June 1999, in which ILRI and its partners reviewed the general characteristics of the benchmark sites selected, discussed and agreed upon the methodologies for site c;:haracterisation (ILRI 1999). In the Second Workshop held in Kunming, China in May 2000, results of the household surveys carried in each benchmark site were presented, as well as some methodologies for FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop104 The CTop .~ QI ~ aQ ~ c('C '- c 0 tU "->..cu ~ c tU QI QI a(/)c(QI ~ ~tU~~GIIJI ,,III .f: .. ..~ ~~~o-W" : ~ 01!0'"-~Q.~~,"o.-° ..~ ..~..U0- " '" '""..,-0: -'"u.5.c .!i ~ ~ " c ~..o<,,-~ct1;°"VC";:cE" .." ~~.."..!!u~c .a::; ill ~ ~ 0 L " E ~co...-o".c-C U " ...>U~" C .cU..U .I: U ~m-.IU " Q 1"0 P..!! 0 0 0 0 .-c ...m ""iY r..5.:: ..~.00..E~A.~I-o~...~.~()-IN ~ .~.~ -0 .. .."..~..~ u E.~i5 I ' ..~~E c c oeD: ~...E-o"',.0...~ 00 ",U.U ;.0.0~". .. "V " " 0 .."...5...E:I-U .c~ " ~ 0 -..,..~-~oc"' c~..~ .- .c~ c ..O..~..~It"' ~-5"0-~~..l-I:!~-~~8..,.~~ Indonesian approacJu.s to technology adoption for livestock development The role of assessment institutes for agricultural technology Appropriate agricultural technology application has a location-specific requirement in accordance with the local unique agroecological zone and socioeconomic conditions. This means that adaptive research and technology engineering must be carried out in the area where the technology will be utilised. In the early 1990s the AARD responded to these challenges by establishing assessment institutes for agricultural technology (AIATs) in every province in Indonesia. The AIATs were created by the Ministry of Agriculture's Decree No.798/Kpts/OT.210/12/94 on 13 December 1994. These are institutions under AARD at the provincial level that: a) provide the regionalisation and decentralisation of agricultural R&D, tai<-irlg into account the local agricultural resource diversity, b) encourage the acceleration of agricultural rural development in related regions with agribusiness orientation through the preparation of the locally specific agricultural technology package engineering, and c) accelerate technology transfer to users and the dissemination of feed back to improve national agricultural research programmes and commodity research (CASER 1997). Henceforth, this agricultural research network must accelerate the provision of location specific technology as well as enhance the diffusion and adoption of research results that can reach livestock farmers throughout Indonesia. Similarly, a problem-solving feedback mechanism to address production constraints being faced in each locality can be used immediately to channel information through the AIATs to reach the appropriate National Research Institutes (NRls) and the Central Research Institutes ( CRls) for more rapid response and solution. Each AIAT will assess research results produced by the NRls and CRls and other external research institutions, such as the universities, Agency for Technology Assessment and Application, Indonesian Institutes for Sciences, private sector and other foreign institutions. The AIATs will use the assessment, adaptation and development approaches of participatory farming and extension systems development which are relevant to each set of unique local agroecosystems and socioeconomic conditions. These R&D activities will be supported by characterisation of the current condition of utilisation of natural resources, research on agricultural development policy alternatives and research communication enhancement. Research communication development will be directed toward the establishment of a collaborative communication network among various research institutions so that livestock technology innovations can be rapidly exploited for agricultural development. A new technology will be relevant to a group of farmers if it responds to their needs. The extent and speed of adoption is one way to assess the relevance of a technology that is widely available. Some of the introduced technologies by NRI's/CRI's have been used by some farmers, while others avoid them. This phenomenon indicates that application of FAO-JLTA-ILRl Workshop 113 Diwvanto. et aL technology cannot be generalised and that a deeper understanding of the environmental interactions (farmers, land, culture and technology) is required, implying that introduced technology should be location-specific (Francis and Hildebrand 1989 cited in Norman and Douglas, 1994). Why technology is adopted at one site and rejected by others can be answered by CRIs or NRIs by finding appropriate farming innovations and providing awareness to the research community. A number of variables concerning the characteristics of the technology itself help determine the extent of adoption. Among these are the profitability and social acceptability of the introduced technology, itS importance to the producers' production systems, ease of access, timing of availability, degree of changes to current practices required in using the new technology, and whether or not it was developed in response to a clearly articulated demand from the producers or extension service (Soedjana and Kristjanson 2001). The involvement of farmers at various stages of the research process is a central objective and responsibility to achieve successful adoption of introduced technology. Therefore, the AIATs need to have direct links with farmers to ensure that the technology developed is relevant to them, as inputs from technology transfer workers alone will not be sufficient. Seegers and Kaimowitz ( 1989) report that even though feedback from extension to research is more common in a system with good resources, extension workers are usually not the main source of researchable ideas. Therefore, livestock research must be not only innovative, but also relevant to the final users of its products (the farmers), and its results must be broadly disseminated. There are four complementary sets of links to ensure that research results are relevant to farmers: a) direct links between researchers and farmers b) links between on.farm and of-station researchers c) links between researchers and technology transfer workers d) links between technology transfer workers and farmers (Merrill-Sands and Kaimowitz, 1989). Strong links among these actors will ensure that: 1. Research tackle users' priority problems looking for options to solve them 2. Farmers and technology transfer workers keep up with research development . 3. Available technologies are adapted to local socio-economic and agro-ecological conditions 4. Successful technologies are promoted and widely distributed to the farmers 5. Users have access to information, inputs and services required for the implementation of the promoted technology 6. Researchers can obtain feedback from farmers and extensionists regarding the relevance and performance of the developed technology. CRIAS has focused its programme on integrated crop-livestock systems on the basic princi- ple that livestock utilise residues of rice plants (in the form of rice straw as well as the !Monesian appr~hes to technology adoption far livestock d£t.Je~ product of rice milling in the form of rice bran) and on the other hand, the rice land areas receive manure produced by livestock as organic fertiliser. This simple relationship between crop and livestock systems is expected to successfully maintain land productivity in terms of physical and economical aspects. In practice, the system of cattle management in the existing local conditions could be modified to fit in the availability of natural resources. In Yogyakarta, for instance, the farmers developed a com- munal cattle barn with a breeding management and fattening scheme. Rice straw becomes the primary fibrous feed for the cattle. The rice straw is obtained not only from the nearby areas but also from relatively far distances, often mor~than 20 km away from where the animals are. In other areas, a ;.:attle fattening scheme in horticultural areas such as in Wonosobo (Central Java) and in Lampung use pineapple peelings, a waste prQduct of the pineapple canning industry, to feed cattle. Under the Crop-Animal Systems Research Network (CASREN), a collaborative project between CRIAS and ILRl, farmers in Cilawu, Garut, West Java used 23% of the available rice straw as feed, 39% as mulch and 30% bumed (Djajanegara et al. 2001). In contrast, all corn stover produced is fed to animals and increasing the use of crop residues as feed becomes a goal as a locally available feed resource within a LEISA (low external input sustainable agriculture) approach. In a systems approach, the collection of manure for treatment was also introduced to complete the. crop-animal systems cycle. The project is still studying the long-term effort to improve the welfare of farmers (poverty alleviation) towards food sufficiency. Currently, CRIAS has developed the crop- livestock system in eight AIATs in the provinces. The ultimate goal is to use natural re- sources available in each location under the LEISA approach to support sustainability of agricultural production. Under this system, it is expected that the nutrient lecycling systems will be sustained forever through the integration of livestock in the whole agricultural system. The regions include North Sumatra, Lampung, West Java, Central Java, Yogyakarta, East Java, Bali and South Sulawesi. The success of the integration systems of food crop and livestock management under study is foreseen and expected to be implemented in a wider area. By establishing AIATs, Indonesia has created a three-stage flow model of knowledge and technology transfer. Technology generated from the NRIs and/or CRIs should be passed on to the AIATs for local testing, assessment and repackaging and then on to extension agents and the farmers. Under this model, the AIAT becomes the focal point and may function cost effetrivdy if it has functional upstream linkage with NRIs and CRIs, a horizontal linkage with other AIATs and a functional downstream linkage with extension agellcies, farmer leaders and other local technology dissemination mechanisms. In several AIATs, the linkages with relevant NRIs and CRIs are still limited, ad fwc or weak. In certain cases, the constraints include funding for collaborative activities and lack of a clear institutional arrangement for an efficient linkage between the NRIs/CRIs and the AIATs. 115FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop To institutionalise a functional linkage between the AIATs and relevant NRIs and CRIs, AIATs need to allocate a regular budget and designate research specialists to work with staff at the appropriate NRIs and CRIs who are assigned to work regularly with all relevant AIATs. On the other hand, the NRIs and CRIs should also have regular budgets for this purpose and a small unit with designated staff to work closely with the AIATs designated staff. They should meet or visit regularly to give feedback and to receive new findings and technology from the NRIs and CRIs. In addition, the AIATs-designated staff in a given NRI or CRI could exchange experiences with each other during these meetings. Other mechanisms oi AIAT/NRI and CRI li,nkages could include collaboration in multi- location trials and regular exchange of publications and research or extension materials. A more active use of the available internet must be an important component of the linkage between the NRIs/CRIs and the AIATs and between the AIATs. Downstream linkages with extension and farmers Almost all of the AIATs in Indonesia are actively linked with the local extension system, the livestock services and farmer leaders. This link is also evident with regional universities and the private sector. Some AIATs are introducing innovative mechanisms as linking the regional research institution with farmers such as the use of 'Contact Tani' and the use of 'Grouped Barn' for cattle raising in certain areas in Java. As an effective major linkage between research and extension at the local level in Indonesia, AIATs have significantly increased the testing and packaging of available appropriate technology for wider dissemination by the extension system to larger number of farmers and other end-users. Even though Indonesian farmers, in general, are getting more educated and development- oriented, the level of progress differs from one province to another. Differences even occur among locations within a province. It is generally observed that the western part oflndonesia is more advanced than the eastern part in view of farmer's technology adoption and availability of farm business facilities and services. Farmers in the western part of Indonesia are also more exposed to technological information and, therefore, are more progressive in seeking better ways to optimise their agricultural activities (Martaamidjaja 1999). This unequal level of farmers' progress has posed a challenge to both extension and research community to develop location-specific extension programmes supported by provision of appropriate technologies that are suitable to the specific farming system of respective localities. The increasing participation of the private sector alld non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in livestock R&D has posed a challenge to the extension and research community. It implies that while a participatory and cooperative undertaking is an underlying policy of extension and research, its realisation has yet to be attained. There is a need to promote a FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop116 Indonaian approaches to technology adoption for lillestock dellelopment possible privatisation of R&D to increase livestock production. This can be done by simplifying bureaucratic procedures to allow private sector involvement. The establishment of a science and technology (5&1') information network needs to be initiated. This network should accept information on incoming technologies from various R&D institutions as well as the private sector. The technology on livestock development in 5& T information may not exist without developing communication, collaboration and partnership systems. CRIAS held a regular national seminar every year to disseminate research results. This featured discussions and formulation of research partnerships and collaboration. In the last three years, CRIAS had also invited international speakers during the seminars to enhance information exchange and knowledge as well as to forge new research collaboration. Dissemination of research results is commonly performed through the national exhibitions and information meetings with the clients from various communities. The response to these events were good and indicated that the number of participants involved ilas increased from year to year. The other approach practised by CRIAS is publishing the Animal Production and Veterinary Journal, a regular journal four times in a year as well as a bulletin on the scope of livestock development (Wartazoa). The problem faced here is the publication does not reach all field extension workers as this is usually sent to selected people. In Indonesia, livestock technologies have had very little impact on production and productivity at the farm level, even though livestock provides more than only food, for example, draft power, manure and fibers. The most important motive for keeping livestock is the function of capital assets. Farmers in Central Java proposed 78 technologies to be assessed, but AIAT Ungaran only published 34 assessment-based technologies from which only 18% met the farmers' requirements (Surachman and Prajogo 1999). This fact has shown that planning for developing new technologies need to be improved. These problems were probably caused by the methodology implemented and using inappropriate instruments, or inefficiency of the feedback flow that came from the farmers to the researchers. Or, it could be caused by many research publications that are too technical in presentation that even extension workers find it hard to understand. Final remarks Agricultural research in the livestock subsector is expected to produce innovations to be adopted by farmers through the field extension workers, AIATs and then by the private sector. The development of new technology appropriate for adoption by farmers should be the main objective of the R&D programme. At the initial stage of the research process, the criteria used to evaluate whether the new technology is or is not potentially beneficial and acceptable to farmers need to be considered. Factors that most frequently affect adoption of 117FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop Diwvanto. et aL technological innovations include farm size, land tenure, labour availability, credit and market access, risks and uncertainty, human capital and sociological factors. Therefore, a systems research that involves farmers in the earliest st:lges of technology development is needed. This ensures that the new technologies are compatible with farmers' needs. Based on this, some observers had suggested that rapid adoption by farmers was the proper evaluation criterion for the appropriateness of new technology and implicitly for the validity of the procedures used to generate technology. Another challenge for today's R&D community is the growing need for promoting strategic research that address poor farmers' concerns in view of the technology commercialisation era. Livestock R&D programmes are currently still focused on providing packages of technologies to support national or local government projects. References AARD (Agency for Agricultural Research and Development). 1999. Strategic Plan of Agency for Agricultural Research and Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Jakarta, Indonesia. pp. 67 -81. Abdurachman A., Prawiradiputra B.R., Prasetyo T., Toha H.M. and Nataatmadja H. 1993. Upland agricultuure and conservation project. Final Report. Agency for Agricultural Research and Development, Ministry of Agriculture. Jakarta. Indonesia. pp. 1-22. CASER (Center for Agro-Socioeconomic Research). 1997. A highlight of the Assessment Institute for Agricultural Technology (AIA1). The Agency for Agricultural Research ane. Development, Ministry of Agriculture. Jakarta, Indonesia. CBS (Central Bureau Statistics). 1999. Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia, 1999. CBS, Jakarta, Indonesia. pp. 549-558. Djajanegara A., Risdiono B., Priyanti A., Lubis D. and Diwyanto K. 2001. Crop-animal systems research network (CASREN) Indonesia. Progress Report. Central Research Institute for Animal Sciences, Bogor, Indonesia. pp. 1-55. Delgado C., Rosegrant M., Steinfeld H., Ehui S. and Corbois C. Livestock to 2020- The next food reoolution. Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 28. IFPRl (International Food Policy Research Institute), Washinton D.C., USA. 72 pp. Haryanto B., Diwyanto K., Soedjana T.D., Priyanti A., Priyanto D., Handiwirawan E., Masbulan E., Martindah E., Kostaman T., Suharto and Pamudji A.D. 1999. Rice intensification based on ruminants (cattle) raising through the use of rice straw as organic resources. Research report. Central Research Institute for Animal Sciences, Bogor, Indonesia. pp. 10-68. UPI (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia). 1998. Widya Karya Pangan dan Gizi Nasional. Jakarta, Indonesia. Martaamidjaja, A.S. 1999. Challenges for today's research and extension community. Proceeding3 of CASER-JIRCAS international workshop. Bogor, Indonesia. pp. 65- 72. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop118 Indonesian approaches to technology adoption for litlestock development Merill-Sands D. and Kaimowitz D. 1989. The technology triangle: Linking farmers, technology transfer agents and agricultural research. Summary report of an international workshop held at ISNAR, The Hague, 20-25 November 1989.ISNAR. (International Service for National Agricultual Research (ISNAR), The Hague, the Netherlands. Norman D. and Douglas M. 1994. Farming systems d2tlelopment and soil conservation. (FAG) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Seegers S. and Kaimowitt D. 1989. Relation between agricultural researchers and extension wurkers. The survey evid2nce. Linkage Discussion Paper 2. (International Service for National Agricultual Research (ISNAR), The Hague, the Netherlands. Soedjana T.D. and Kristjanson P. 2001. Ex post impact assessment of technological interventions. Training manual on research approaches and methodologies for improving crop-animal systems in South-East Asia. ILRl (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 1-24. Statistical Book. 2001. Statistical Book on Livestock. Directorate General of Livestock Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Jakarta, Indonesia. pp. 140-145. Surachman and Prajogo K.B. 1999. Research and extension linkages in farming systems: A field experience. Proceedings of CASER-JIRCAS international workshop, Bogor, Indonesia. pp. 101-106. 119FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop P.O. Ocampo Livestock Development Council Department of Agriculture, The Philippines I ntroduction This paper is based on the context of the livestock revolution which projects significant increases in the consumption of meat, milk and eggs in the coming years. The increased consumption is going to be much more substantial in developing rather than in developed economies. The revolution presumably will impact on many aspectS of society -poverty, pollution, food prices, health and the overall economy. The livestock revolution offers an excellent opportuniry for new and additional investments in livestock development. But as pointed out, the revolution carries with it attendant risks. Investments in livestock therefore must be designed to build on the benefits and reduce, if not eliminate, the risks. A parallel consideration is the overall goal of making the livestock enterprise an instrument for increased incomes, reduced poverty, and greater equity. These incorporate an additional dimension to what otherwise would simply be raising livestock for food and for income. This paper will look at investment opportunities and requirements in the livestock and poultry sector in the context of the livestock revolution with The Philippines as the case. Within the Philippine setting, and consistent with the workshop theme, we skll attempt to provide an overview of investment opportunities -particularly research and development (R&D) investments -as basis for determining development directions. And, also consistentwith the directions of ILRl, this paper seeks ways to ensure that the investment I continues to meet the needs of smallholder farmers'. Livestock is a major contributor to the Philippine economy. In year 2001, livestock alld poultry production accounted for 31% of the total value of agricultural production (Figure 1). This contribution had always been historically high. Rice and corn, 22%Fisheries, 17% Livestock and poultry,31% All other crops, 30% Figure I. Share of li\leStock in total agricult1l.ral production. 120 FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop lntlestment for litlestock detlelopment: The Philippine case The swine and poultry industries account for the major share of livestock output and value (Table 1). In 2001, hog production accounted for almost Philippine pesos (PhP) 84 billion (US$I.68 billion) or 43% of the sub-sectors' output; chicken eggs and meat accounted for PhP 80 billion (US$I.6 billion) or 42% of output. Ruminants including cattle, carabao and goats accounted for 12%. Table I. Share of different commodities in totallitlestock production. 1998 1999 2000 2001 Value(PhP % x 106 Share Value (PhP % x 106 Share Value (PhP % xlQ6 Share Value (PhP % x 106 ShareSubsector Hog 68,206 44.75 Chicken meat/eggs 61,246 40.18 Duck meat/eggs 4970 3.26 Cattle 11,240 7.38 Carabao 3701 2.43 Goat 2936 1.93 Dairy 116 0.08 Total 152,423 100.00 74,277 61,106 5!73 11,813 4097 3325 126 160,367 83,536 80,372 5521 13,418 5288 4011 149 192,295 43.44 41.80 2.87 6.98 6.98 2.09 0.08 100.00 78,862 68,581 4991 13, 730 4732 3321 138 174,175 The Filipino is basically a pork consumer. In 2000, the per capita consumption of pork was 16.1 kg representing more than half of total meat consumed (Table 2). The next most popular meat is chicken with 6.75 kg consumed per capita per year. Over a 2O-year period, meat consumption had risen significantly. This observation is consistent with that of the Livestock Revolution. Table 2. Per capita consumption of meat, Philippines (kg). Per cent increase 1980-2000Commodity 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 9.18 3.94 1.45 0.74 0.35 9.20 3.52 1.30 0.68 0.58 13.26 3.73 1.89 0.83 0.68 14.00 5.83 2.31 0.98 0.61 16.10 6.75 2.81 1.46 0.61 75.3 71.3 93.8 97.3 74.3 Pork Dressed chicken Beef Carabeef Chevon 121FAO- JLTA- ILRI Workshop 46.60 38.10 3.23 7.37 2.55 2.07 0.08 100.00 45.17 39.37 2.87 7.88 2.72 1.91 0.08 100.00 ZZI poo~ ss;)ssod ~~'P P;)S!~l ~U!;)q SJ~!U~ Jo Sl;)qwnu U~ws ;);)S o~ sA~p~/I\oU uowwo:>un :JOU S! :J! 'l;}A;)/I\OH .~;)'PO s;)!ldw! uop:>npold re!:u;)WwOJ .w;):JsAs uo!~:>npold :Jndu! A\OI pu~ AgQlouq:>;):J Jo SJ;)A;)ll;)/I\OI 'sP;);)lq P;)AOldw!un S;)!ldw! Pl~:>~g .Sl;)qwnu ;)l;)W U~'P ;)lOW s;)!ldw! Au~m:>~ uo!:J:>npold l~!:>l;)wwo:> pu~ Pl~:>~q U;);)/I\.:J;)q UO!:J:>U!:JS!p ;)~ .Alddns :J~;)W u~:>!q:> Jo % 06-~8 SE q:>nw SE lOJ 3u!:Juno:>:>~ '!..l:JsnpU! ;)'P ;):J~U!WOP SlO:J'el.8;):JU! l~!:>l;)wwo:> ~q ;)'P ':J~l~W l;)I!Olq ;)'P uI .uo!:JE1ndod ;)q!l:>S;)P o:J P;)sn A\OU ;)l~ sl;)AE1 pu~ sP;);)lq p;)AOldw! ';)A!:J~U JO S;)!lO~;):JE:> '!..l:Jlnod UI .l;)q~!q q:>nw ;)l~ 'l;}A;)/I\oq '~n~no re~o~ o:J uo!:Jnq!IJuo:> S:J! Jo S;):J~W!:JS3 .%£l :Jnoq~ o:J U;)S!l p~q SWl'8J l~!:>l;)wwo:> Jo ;)l~S uoPE1ndod ;)'P ';)U!/I\S uI .ApU;):>;)l S:JJ!qs :Jq~!IS U;);)q p~q ;)l;)~ 99.v 8£"1 8Z"£ 001 £Z U tr6 l.1"Z l.O"L 001 ZI 88 S"£.L 98.0 6v9 001 0£ OL 001 0£ OL £S-'69 06'OZ £9'9v 001 )Z SL LS"Zt to.U fS.6f 001 tz U 001 SI S8 001 81 Z8 9L.OI £v£ ££.8 66.L Z'l"1 U.9 £6.L OvI £).9 001 vO 9'66 001zr£ 10.0 II.£ n vlQ.Q 61"Z66 001 Z'O 8'66 001 0 001 9L"Z SOO"O 9L"Z 001 Z 86 ZO"£ 900"0 ZO"£ S-8.Z to.O 18"Z 001 9 Z6 001 ZI 88 £9'1 61'0 vv1 001 ZZ aL 88.1 ZvO 9vI SvZ 61.0 6Z"Z ym°J. ~!:>J~mmO:) p.Ip.A:JI:>eg ~:>na ym°J. TeJ:>J~mmO:) pJp.A:JI:>eg u~:>!q:J ~:1°J. TeJ:>J~wmO:) pJp.A:JI:>eg ~UJ&S Ie:l°J. ~!:>J~mmO:) p.Ip.A:JI:>eg :leoD Ie:l°J. ~!:>J~mmO:) p.IeA:1peg oeqeJ1::J ym°J. Ie!:>J~mmO:) p.Ip.A:JI:>eg -~I~ \£ ;)IqEl.) suuEJ P1EAJI;)Eq U1 ;)lE Al.1Inod pUE ){;)Q~S;)A11 JO 1.),110fEW ~U1WI;)t{Ml;)AO uy .p1EA){;)Eq AIIE;)1SEq ;)lE SUUEJ ){;)Q~s~A11 ;)U1dd111t{d .U01~Elndod Uo p;)SEg .s~u1PI°t{ 1;)~~1q AI;)A1~EI;)1 tp11t. SUUEJ o~ ~U1ll;)J;)1 l;)UEI ;)q~ pUE s~u1PI°t{ IEW1UE JO l;)qwnu IIEWS tp11t. ;)sotP 10 Sl;)PIO\fiEWS o~ ~U1ll;)J;)1 l;)WlOJ ;)tP .IE1;)1;)WWO;) 10 p1EA){;)Eq 1;)tP1;) SE 01 P;)ll;)J;)l AIIro01~1PELJ ;)lE Sl;);)npo1d ){;)Q~S;)A11 .S;)U1dd111t{d ;)'U uI o4w,,:>O IntleStment for liCIestock detlelopment; The Philippine cme genetic characteristics, fed commercial feeds and managed under relatively higher levels of technology. This is particularly true in hogs. Competitiveness: Global and local On a total basis, the Philippines is self-sufficient in its pork, chicken and egg requirement. There is about a 14 % dependence on beef and 29% on carabeef (buffalo meat) imports. A recent study on the global competitiveness of livestock products indicated that local beef, pork and poultry could compete with imports at current peso-dollar exchange and tariff levels. This is true with beef and pork carcass and with whole chicken. It is not true with some pork cuts and chicken parts. I nvestments i n the I ivestock sector At this point, we shall identify investment points for the livestock sector based on the analysis of the Philippine situation and in the context of developing the industry not simply to increase production and productivity but to serve social concerns of increased incomes, poverty alleviation and social equity. The monogastrics, swine and poultry dominate the Philippine livestock sector. These animals are heavy users of inputs -not simply grass. The resource,poor farmers would find it difficult handling this stock. This has implications in the over--all efforts to reach out to resource,poor small farmers. 1. IIWestments in the delivery of credit and extension services must be provided. Compared to monogastrics, ruminants have relatively smaller contribution to the economy but they contribute significantly in the effort to improve productivity and incomes. Among all livestock commodities, backyard production of cattle and carabao accounts for more than 90% of the total population. Particularly for cattle, the share of the backyard sector had significantly risen from 'only' 78% in 1980 to 92% in 2000. This indicates that ruminant production is not attractive to commercial operators. Among the livestock species, ruminants being able to use poor quality roughages, are the least costly to maintain. They are alIio a source of draft power and manure for the farms. This indicates the need to focus on ruminants as the 'livestock' for the resource'poor farmers. The matter though is how to bring the high-cost cattle/ carabao to the poor farmer.2. There should be investm~nts in systems to' commercialise ' backyard production systems and where applicable, link the small with the big in a partnership arrangement. The commercial sector had consistently exhibited higher productivity compared with their backyard counterpart. This results principally from access of the commercial sector to resources like genetics, credit, technology, infrastructures etc. Again this has implications in terms of placing priority on the backyard producers over the commercial farmers. There is a growing trend towards 'commercialising' backyard production systems. As pointed out, some backyard farmers now have improved genetics. They also use commercial feeds and practise 'more modem technologies'. Relatedly, there are now institutional arrangements linking small producers with large, commercial integrators. These arrangements mutually benefit the big and the small in a commercial partnership. 123FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop Ocampo This has implications on the need to improve productivity levels among backyard producers and to reach out to them more and more to significantly affect production and income levels. 3. It is worth investing in research on appropriate genetics for the smallholder farmers. Appropriate genetics is a related issue. Improved stock implies high cost inputs and higher levels of management. The native stock, on the other hand, is more prolific and could do with relatively fewer inputs. 4. Investments in 'safety nets' against reduced trade tariffs are required. At current tariffs and foreign exchange rates, local production is competitive. This may not be so when tariffs are correspondingly reduced under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Association of South-East Asian Nations Free Trade Agreement - Common Effective Preferential Tariff (AFfA.CEPT) commitments. A review of .tariff commitments and the implementation of "safety nets" are required. This requires investments in these nets including cold-chain, post-harvest facilities, roads and transport.5. There has to be investment in development of local feeds other than corn. While there is almost self-sufficiency in meat products, there is a growing dependence on imported feeds. While the dependence on corn has lessened, there is increasing dependence on imported feed substitutes like feed wheat, tapioca etc. 6. Investments in disease control, diagnostic labs, quarantine, and vaccine production are needed. While the Philippines had sul..~essfully eradicated certain diseases like the foot and mouth disease in Mindanao and Visayas, numerous other diseases of economic importance plague the industry. There is also the continuing threat of exotic diseases being introduced into the country.7. Investments in market R&D are critical. In the broiler sector, the retail price is almost twice the farm gate price indicating several layers of middlemen-traders before the product reaches the market. The same is true, albeit not in the same degree, with pork, beef and other livestock products.8. Investments in post-production concerns, e.g. storage, transport, roads, bulk handling facilities etc. are necessary. Post-production handling is expensive. It is a cliche that it costs more to ship corn from Mindanao to Manila than it is to do so from Bangkok to The Philippines. This is a function of lack of the ships' storage bottoms, many layers of handling etc. The above is not the all-inclusive list of areas, which investments in the livestock sector should address. They are however, indicative of the diversity of areas and the magnitude of investment required to develop the industry and to ensure that the benefits of development reaches the smallholder farmer. We also feel that there are relevant applications of the matters discussed to other Asian neighbours. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop124 .. Adoption of appropriate I ivestock technologies by smallholder farming communities E.F. Lanting and 5.5. Baguio Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) I ntroduction The Philippine livestock and poultry subsectors provide significant contribution to the positive growth of the country's agriculture sector. In 2001, these subsectors contributed 31% to total agricultural production (Philippine pesos 192 billion, current prices [US$ 1 ~ PhP 50)) indicating a 9% increment from the previous year's earnings (Figure 1). The marked performance of these subsectors is attributed to the dramatic increase in the demand for meat and meat products brought about by the surging demand of the burgeoning population, urbanisation, improvement in income and changing food preferences. Livestock 17.12%(PhP 106.4) Agriculture ,FiSh ~17% (P 106.6) / \ Services ~23% Crops J 51.9% (PhP ~2.5) Industry 1/ 1.55% Poultry \ 13.8% (PhP 85.9) Persubsector (PhP x 108) % Share of GDP Figure 1. The !illeStock/poultry contTibution to gross domestic product. In 2001, the livestock and poultry subsectors produced 3 million tonnes of meat, 300 thousand tonnes of eggs, and 10.21 thousand tonnes of milk. Moreover, more than 40% of the Filipinos engaged in agriculture are also livestock and poultry raisers. The Philippine animal industry is characterised by a well-developed poultry and swine industry and a less developed ruminant (carabao, cattle, goat, dairy) industry. The progressive poultry and swine productions are in the hands of big integrators who are highly import- dependent for their inputs. But in general, 80-95% of the country's livestock and poultry 125FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop Lanting and Baguio production is contributed by smallholder farmers/raisers who usually have little access to farm cash inputs, education, teclmology, and other vital support services. Animal productivity in smallholder fanns is generally low. Table 1 shows the 200llivestock inventory in both smallholder and commercial fanns. Table 1. Li~toclI. and poultry interltm" Philippines, 2001. 2504 3115 3232 11,818 117,658 (30,230) (16,178) (71,250) (10,299) 2324 3109 3221 9074 92.8 99.8 99.7 76.8 7.2 0.2 0.3 23.2 180 6 11 2744 Cattle Carabao Goat Pig Chicken' Broilers lAvers Natiw/lmproved Duck 20.08241 80.0 2058 1. Based on January 2000 estimates; 2001 data not available. Source: BAS (2000. 2001). The livestock and poultry industries are vital to The Philippines' efforts to avert the food shortages in the coming years as the human population continues to increase at the t:Urrent growth rate of 2.34%. While the country is nearly self-sufficient in pork and poultry products, beef and milk production is inadequate to meet local requirements. Hence, the country resorts to importations of meat, milk and live cattle for fattening which farther drains its dollar reserves. To keep pace with the increasing demand for more food of animal origin, livestock production efficiency should be improved. This cali only be possible if stocks are productive and the production system in the smallholder fanns would be improved and become profitable. The use of technologies that are adapted to their resources and inherent capabilities and capacities coupled with adequate marketing strategies is imperative. . Some livestock technologies adopted by smallholder farmers/raisers Much research has been done over the last 40 years that aimed at improving animal production efficiency. However, adoption oflivestock technologies by smallholder fanners/ raisers has been slow and limited. Various reasons could be cited -researches were too supply-driven, unresponsive to fanners' needs, inappropriate and unaffordable for smalll1older fanners etc. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop126 Adoption of appropriate livestock technologies by s~lder fanlling communities This paper aims to present examples of successful, but not necessarily widespread, adoption of livestock technologies in The Philippines, the factors responsible for the successful adoption, and the lessons learned from the experiences, which may have some bearing to the objectives of this workshop. In this paper, technology adoption is defined as the practice of a new technology without or with minimal modification of the technology. There are just a few technologies that can be considered within this framework since most are 'adaptable' technologies. J tl the Philippine experience, out of a few technologies that livestock fanners have adopted, five are presented in this paper. They are leucaena hybrid (KX2 Fl), triple cross pig production, artificial insemination (AI) in pigs, improved management of Philippine native chicken, and layer duck production in confinement. These five technologies were chosen because they are still in use long after the completion of the project, their impacts in the lives of the adopters and/ or the community are visible, and particular lessons could be drawn from the experiences. Leucaena hybrid (KX2 F1) is an F1 cross between Leucaena leucocephala and L paUida. The hybrid has high psyllid resistance and superior dry matter production {Mullen et al. 1998; Shelton et al. 1998). Its biomass production is four times greater than the existing variety (Castillo et al. 1998; Acasio, 2001). However, several factors limit its rapid propagation (Acasio, 2001). Only F1 seeds would produce the expected biomass. The F2 and subsequent generations segregate strongly {Mullen et al. 1998) and the hybrid seeds are very expensive and have to be imported from Hawaii, USA. Fortunately though, the hybrid could be vegetatively propagated through marcotting, grafting and the use of rooted stem cuttings. L leucocephala, locally known as 'ipi1-ipil', has been in the Philippines for a very long time. It has an important role in both 5ma11holder and commercial livestock production systems such that the psyllid infestation in the mid-1980s tremendously affected these industries. In the province of Batangas, the improved variety of Leucaena (Giant Leucaena) was introduced in 1978 by then Governor Leviste as part of the 'greening' project in the province. Leucaena utilisation became so widespread as major source of fodder, fuelwood, and for erosion control on sloping areas. Before the psyllid outbreak, Batangas was known for its good quality beef and this was attributed to the farmers' use of'supak' (forced feeding), an indigenous feeding practice using a mixture of chopped leucaena, rice bran, salt and water. A study was conducted in the upland farming village in Mabini, a town of Batangas province. This village was chosen for the project because of the farmers' long experience on the use of leucaena for cattle fattening. The village is 163 km south-west of Manila. It is positioned on hills about 500 metres above sea level (mas!). Its total land area is 124 ha. Landholding is small (approximately 0.5-1.5 ha). The village has 150 households, with a total population of 972. Soils in the village are formed from volcanic parent materials. Average rainfall is about 1200 mm per annum. 127FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop Lanting and Baguio Farmers practise mixed cropping and cattle fattening. Crops grown are vegetables, banana, coconut, custard apple, mangoes, chico, corn, sweet potato and cassava. Leucaena is grown in hedgerows across slope, as farm boundaries, fence lines and as single trees throughout the area, and occupies about 42% of the total cropland. It is cut 3-4 times a year and the herbage is fed to cattle and goats. Aside from leucaena, other feed resources for cattle fattening are crop residues from the crops grown in the area, naturalised grasses and weeds. Leucaeana is also used to control erosion on sloping land, and serves as fuel wood, mulch for cropping and shade for animals. The psyllid infestation in Leucaena significantly reduced the cattle population in the village from 200 to only 47 head. Before the ~utbreak, most farmers raised 2-3 Gc.ttle each but the infestation forced some of them to abandon cattle fattening. Consequently, cash income from cattle raising decreased from 80% of the total farm income to 0-20%. The leucaena hybrid was promoted in the village through the following strategies/ approaches: .establishment of on-farm demonstration area where hybrid plants were planted for the farmers to observe the plants' superior attributes .conduct of technology trainings with lectures and hands-on exercises on vegetative propagation techniques .establishment of a village-level co-operative propagation area where the farmers could practise the techniques with technical assistance from the researchers .production of instructional materials/primers/manuals .regular monitoring/farm visits by the project team and .regular dialogue between farmer-partners, local government officials and the project team. The response of the farmers to the new Leucaena hybrid has been excellent. After two years of promotional activities, 100% of the farmers in the area were convinced of the good attributes of the hybrid and 99% were very willing to plant the trees (Acasio 2001). Several farmers wanted to expand their Leucaena production areas (mainly as source of animal feeds) and consequently, their animal holdings. To date all the members of the farmer co-operative in the village have planted the leucaena hybrid in their farms. Some continue to use the grafting propagation technique while others use rooted seedlings from the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI). As expected, feed resources in the area have increased. Some farmers have increased the number of cattle they are raising. Others even decided to raise crossbred/upgraded goats because they believe that there will be ample feed supply from their Leucaena hybrid stands. The successful and rapid adoption of the new Leucaena hybrid by the farmers is attributed to the following: a. There was an urgent and real need to increase feed supply in view of the continuing psyllid infestation. Farmers trusted the merits of the hybrid as presented by the project team and had high hopes that it would answer their need. b. The technology is simple, robust, affordable, compatible and complementary to the existing farming system, and has a visible advantage over the existing common variety. FAO-JLTA-lLRI Workshop128 Adoption of appropriate livestock technologies by s~fanning communities c. d. e. f. g. Cattle fattening is important to the farmers as it provides sure cash income to them. The farmers have trust and confidence on the project implementors (the BAr personnel and Australian collaborators) and the lOCal government officials (village captain and the municipal agricultural officer). Farmers and local officials/technicians were actively involved in the process. There was continued enthusiasm and commitment by all concerned (farmers, project implementors, local government units). The technology adoption process was fully supported by international agencies as the Australian Centre for International Agricultural. Re:search (ACIAR) and the University of Queensland (UQ), national offices like the Department of Agriculture (DA), the National Dairy Authority (NDA) and the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) and local institutions as the DA Region IV office and local government units (LGUs). Swine raising is the most popular livestock enterprise in The Philippines. This popularity is demonstrated by its consistent positive contribution to the country's gross value added in agriculture over the past two decades. Moreover, the swine industry, which is represented by the large commercial and the smallholder sub-sectors, is the largest in terms of volume and value of production among locallivesto~ industries in the country. The smallholder sub-sector keeps about 77% of the country's pig population while the remaining 23% are raised in large commercial farms. The continuous improvement of the Philippine swine industry is largely attributed to the adoption of improved technologies by local swine raisers. One of these technologies is the triple-cross pig production scheme. The triple-cross pig production technology involves a mating system where a Large White x Landrace F sow is mated to a terminal sire, which is a Duroc. This mating system results in a triple-cross pig. The triple-cross pig is a slaughter pig that possesses the following desired characteristics: .Larger litter size both at birth and at weaning .Shorter growing period .Higher average daily gain .Better feed efficiency .Lower feed cost per kilogram gain in weight and .Better carcass quality Initially, adoption of this technology was limited to the large commercial sub-sector of the industry. Smallholder swine raisers then were not adopting the technology because many were not aware of the technology, and the few who knew of the technology were concerned about its cost and technical requirements. In an effort to spread the benefits of the technology to the larger sub-sector of the swine industry, pilot projects that aim to promote and validate the performance of the triple-cross pig under smallholder conditions were launched by PCARRD-Department of Science and FAO-]LTA-ILRI Workshop 129 Lanting and Baguio Technology (DOSn. These pilot projects were implemented at farmers' fields, in coopera- tion with local government units and farmer organisations and co-operatives. To boost adoption of the technology, information dissemination through printed materials, radio broadcasts and technology exhibits were also launched. Seminars and technology trainings and fora were also conducted to impart to potential adopters detailed information about the technology. The apparent success of the aforesaid technology promotion activities was evidenced by the increasing number of inquiries about info~ation on and/ or sources of triple ]"g..~ ~.~~~ ~:3 .~~~0] ! ..-Eti~11!P...S ~ ~ .~ .~ ~~p."7;; ~..9 :; l ~ o o ~ .- ~ .-'Q. .-~ " ~..".s~!j.S::2]~ I.I~ A " fj ~ 0 = .D~2 !S "- ! 0 .-e ~ =~2".g..E'~'El~:!~ &1,.g, 8.]~~ 8.-"'~.§ e'"otj~ e " ...D = 4) "- .-.E~bD 08~~ ~! !j"E ~'El] °",,~"3,,= '" "sg'(;-~].~~..E'd"'~.D ~le:; 8"sg.~ ~"E"'S~ bD] 9 "E~ ~ 0..'(;- :; 1 = ..""0 '" ~~ ~ 1 "- "D.D ~ I.D "- I! = ~ 'O~ .E..9~] ~ =>2. a~'"::: C 0 e 0" 0 .J:: "E3"- .&j~~'(;- ,,~ 8.~t .2~]~ ge ,,5'~ ~~ :; ~e ~~ ~ i'. ~ =~ 0' ~ m, .!S~"' t:'~ ~ 2e 1-( "' !3 ~ ~ ~ p. :!. " ~" " ~QO 0 .I. .eotj oQ~ .&j t).&je"-~ .~I:.D .!S e~"~~ =~0,:; ~="8bDO ,,~-a~E g~e"E~ ~eo E ..: 'O~o '0 "~ .'Q.e-j ] ~ 1 ~ .~ -~ = u '" t -~ .. 0 ..:; " ~ "&j ..E a'5 .~ ~ .~ ..E ~ gs.°=~ e ~=~ ~ "E 0 U " ~ e 0 ..E " .- :;tJ=['" e=e[:4 ~1~"~"38~~"5"~~.3 J::,,~ ~~Q~~o ]1~~ ]~~~ "" ~ ~ '(; .e ~~ '6~ .Q ...8 .~ 0 "" ...0 ~ .9 ~ .Q..,'"Qj' """0-°c=~ () ° "" .- 5..§~~~"'.:=8~~] ..~.g "fi '" ~ .Q .-A .Q = ~a].g8.;:Ja.,","~ ~ -g ~ .- ""~ ~ -g~ ~ '" 8 g- 0 ~ .-e ~ .-~ P. ~ ~ .6'D o .-1j U .- I ~ .~ ~ .~ ~~~§]~ [.0 e .c :S.Q~5.g.".,.~ ~ ~ t1 "' ...'- ~ '- ~ & -~ ~ o ~~0.ge.5~~ ~ 0~i88~,,~ ..!S !! '" .-~ .~ '" .-~ ~t:""~ ] "'~ e-" ~ -g E ~- " 1 8 ;:: § ~ '" "' ~ "" ~ ..: .-& .. "" o o~u ~ S~...~'"~""'" ~ 1 P. .0 ~ IS c: ~ ~ .0 :!a 9 .0 .a ~ .~ [ .~ .C "' 0 ~g '" e~ ~. e ..:P.""'§D~ 5~ ~l~1~i!~5 "U.~ OO"'.-OoE..::E 0")1 :I::ej~~.~-1!~~z5~ ~i -g ] .a '" '- ..:. 0 ~~ ~~ :I:", ,.,...!S ~0"§~~='~~"" "~ .9 ~ .,; .,-~ ~~ a & ~~] 'i ge ~ ~ .,£.., 0.,;... ~- ~ l .~ ~ ~ (i .~ 0 ., .~ e ..-" , t , ..,.- ~-~UO ]~~ :: ] .§ I .~ j '0 ~ .§ .§ [ 1 § .~~;;" 28~0~ ee.-.d E~e" r:=.,~rJ o.-~.:a = .,~ .Y 0 5D .-~ ., ~ ~~ B ~ ~ ~~ .s ..'"~..,e.~ ",08 ".- ~~-(i.'..' ...~ ~1 ~ ~ ] 0 ~ .~ 1 ~ .-§ .0 ~ .3 ~ ~ j ~ 5 ~~ ~ .5 -~ -.I! 9 ~ '" U ].,~ ~ .: ~~.g~~ =1!:.g !;;~ "E~g~e.~~ ~E~ .., 0 -.'.'0... .r ~ B .S~~ eo.;z~.~., e. "' t ~ .-., 0 "' , .-~ C ~""~I! "'... U"'~ "'~ 6cl".~~g~..8 $]~~ 0 ~] "' .e..' 0 -.rJ U ~ '" ~ 0 ~ .a ] ~ ~-5-8~ ~ .~ 'O~ I;i .--'" I! ..~ ~ ] ~ .B ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ .g [j ~ u -:: ~ .6 2 ~~-jj o ~:Me /1: ]E:!J~ f, ~. 1~ u u -=~~ = s .g ~ ..."jj-..=d~O..= .p :!, .p .. = U d .~ .Od .. ..U 0!! d Z = .~ s "' ~ " ~ "r..;3 COU~~"£ .~ ~""e ~ ..."~ ~ " = .a C' $~.E s ~EE ~ ~~I: " -w tf . 8. .~ P."E:; .. '"""~ E e '" El1.8=""~~~ .. j& .,.,0'~~~..,-ISr:o.U . ,... .3 g: .(i]~..Sj'=..,~ -- ., .!S -5.(..=..s .~ "E .~ ~ .I:o ~ .I:Q. u-50 .. ] ~ ~~]~ := ..'0~...L) = 5[., 0 ]~] = = 0 ~ ~ Q.~~-£~§Q.u"f;.£= = = .~ 81~~ ti.£s:§i6~~~.~~.Eas:o.~J"0'B.:2s:~6~J~]~...5~.~.~-s.11~.::J..;~~~ '"1c.'J 11~QJ "' e~""'~ .01 .~ ~ .- ~ e ~ ~0.~ .:. u ~ 0 .~ 'E .. 5 .~ ~ -~ -6 -6 ~.B..E~~ ~ 'O~~~..c: ..c: ~ut:"11 ~ " .i 0£ ~ .~ .~ d~6~~ ~~ "8 § ~.+Ji.~ § .~ o ~E.~~j ']~ ]?; '" ,"' ~~ .§ .~ 1 ~ e ~ ~"'~ '6 ~ .t~~?;- -0 ~ 1~e ~.c e ~~ Q..:a .& '0 .g Q. ..~ .Od~o "'Q. ~~..~ ~ .~ -.., Q. O .~ ~ .a ~ ~ °~ 0 :0 ~ ~ ~ ... ~ .0 i... ~ .0 ~ ..9 .~g .."e~ ."E.~R ~ :; "" :; .., ~ Q.~~ '6'6 s: .!!]~j ~~e t: ...0 0 ~ ;> ~ -.I! -E ~ § 5.~ e e ~ i !j~OJ .~...8. Q.s-~ ] b.g:g cre" S.=. EO ~ ...u 0 .:= 0 " .~ U ":; 1 .~- 8 ".r;~ ..'.., ~... OJ~ ] .~ ;E ~ "' ~ .51 1 ~ £ 1A]~~1',~ ] ... -.9;= '6 " 0 ;g 2!. "S 10 ~ :; 2]~p.", ] ~ ...g.~~ i .~ -.9 (.'.0 .6.. .~~~ 11?;-~~~~ og1 o~ ~ oB ~ e ~ ~Q.",~E e [!= § -~ -E -~ :; ~£ ~~~f ~eXi~~ e t ~!E ~ ~ a.~~ ~ ~ .8B.Q ~ ~ .~ .g 9 ~ ~ 5~]~.g .g o~~S~ ~ -tj ] "" ~ ..~ -5 ~ ~ ~ = = A o~ o~ ~j ~.B ~.B .§ ~ .E ~ .E ~. ~ a ~a.~1~~ -g~...~ 26.o 0 "tJ ] ., ~~ § 'iJ "~ ~ ~ "~ ~'"o "" -5- ] 8- & f!j~ .:= v>~E ~ -g= -g= ..0 ..0 .~ .~ ~ .~ .~t .=o ~ .~o ~~ ~~ F .6 F .6 .~i"i(/)~v> ] ] ~ ~ " ~ .:: 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ .g .~ ~~ .s ~""~s The li~estock sector: A component of the agrp.indwtrial development in South..East Asia 841:0~1 9 ~ ~ ...'(j>- .~ ...= d a ~ "9dv ~ 5 ~ 1 ° ."' .~ f;- ~ v ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ 1 J 8. .~ ~ ~ .~ 9 1 ~ ~ .s .[ 9 ~ E '-E --8 ~ 11 ~ .d 1 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ J i 111 ~ .~] 11 uE ~ ] ~ ] {] 1.j ~ u. ... ...]11~ 9.~1"01~ do.e .5] ~ ~.a~1 ~ .5 \L~~ de QJ ~ i ~~ .rd ~~ ~ 5~1.trJ .on 8: 4);j 1 5rd~ ~ .QJ .j -£ ~ ~ .~ oB 8 ~ ] ~ ~.S. ~] ~"D0) -6 1 l ~ . .dO)IJ ~] ~j ..9 ; S'.S E 8~."rJ8-5 5 .l:j 5 ~ 8~~~ ] iE~D~~ Q Q .g .g ~ "B (V ~GJ Q .~ 1: ~ o:a 8.m ~ ~ ~ s :; p. ] .~ .~ s .e §;~~ B ~ ~:;..!S~ ~§... .a -5 ~ .,Q .jj &1 &] .~ s ~ ~ t'c S""~~~utJ~... ,Q ...u > ~ ~ ~ w .- ~.SO~~ ~1+= 8..e .. " .~ ~ ~ 5 00 ..s)~~~~:g.~lj .~ = l"'='~"E 9 § ~ .~ , "~ ~ i "' .= ~ ~~tt' 1 t3 ~ 6. .9 ~ ';; .;J .~ ~ -n~~4) ...v ~ ;j .d ~1f:5'-'~ i0)\.I~e() 8~ ij~ .~~ ""i)11 :~ ~ ] E.B'J ~ 8.~~ 5 0. ~ t: .5 ~ o.iJ~ S d :; 2 O o.p j "" ~ d Q) dUQ)dO(dd 8. S .a 8. S "E SQ)S 8 ~ 8.5 8 1 ~ ~~j]]"' ? .~~& . o c:: ' .. ~ 0. ~ tV .s ::I o.~ &ci" S°o. f:j ~ &) .~ ;a j ::I ~ ..~ ~ ; .o-B .g .g .g 8 ~ ~S~&d~~.pSO.~.§ ~ ~6.~ ~~E.fj .~ t ~~j ~~ ° :g> ~ ::I ~...~- U j"8.~.S§~]~A~ ~.~.;n~~~.~~ ::Jo.t'.!,...j ... .. .5~ u(!: ~ ..: o o .p 1 1i 8. Ji ] .§ ...~ 6 1 p .£~~0::S 01 .:!3 B ~ .p p. .p ~ ~ ., ~ b1I .S E ... .g] rJ.E~ .p~ ~ojt'c.~ ~~ ~ 0 ~ .~.~ ~ d 8. t ~ D~ .p ...S ~ ~ 2°.~~~r: .g.s~i1'S~ ~ UrJO;:=>-::s~ 8. ::S~~.£Qjg.~"-g ~ rJ .~ '.q ::s " ~ ~~~~ 0'7 A. .r. ... . =8.~9] ~~~-~'0'=,1""'~I.£~.:2-iI~-sij0\.i~ The livatock 5ector: A component of the agro-indwtTial development in South..~t Asia How best these problems can be addressed are the expectations of this conference. What this paper has just provided are added options by which the problems can be approached. References Agro-industrial Development Regional Workshop Proceedings, 20-21 October 1997. SFARCA (Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research inAgriculture), Philippines. Austin James E. 1992. Agroindustrial project analysis -Critical design factors. Economic Development Institute, The World Bank. Washington DC, USA. BrownJ.a. 1994. Agroindwtrial in\leStment and operations. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA Beier M. 1995. Debt relief and the conflict between rural and urban interests. Agriculture and Rural Development 8: 1/2001. Delgado C., Rosegrant M., Steinfeld H., Ehui S. and Corbois C. Livestock to 2020- The next food revolution. Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 28. IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute), Washinton D.C., USA. 72 pp. Devendra C., Smalley M.E. and Li Pun H. (eds.) 1998. Global agenda for livestock research. Proceedings of a conference on de.,oelopment ofli\leStock research priorities in Asia, 13-15 May 1997, Hanoi, Vietnam. ILRI (International Livestock Research J nsitute), Nairobi, Kenya. 49 pp. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAG) Database..2002. http:/ / www.fao.org (accessed March 2002). Manalili N.M. 2000. The challenge of agribusiness: The case of the Philippines. agribusiness management towards strengthening agricultural development and trade. SFARCA (Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture), Philippines. Manalili N.M. 2001. Rural-urban linkages, strategic alliances, and quality assurance. Emerg- ing responses to current agro-industrial challenges. SFARCA (Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture), Philippines. Manalili N.M. 2001. Enhancing rural non-farm employment opportunities through agro-industries and rura/'Urban linkages. Paper presented at the Seminar on non-farm employment oppor- tunities in the rural areas sponsored by the Asian Productivity Organization (APO) and the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP), September 24,2001, EDSAShangri- la, Maniia, Philippines. Tansey a. and Worsley T. 1997. The food system: a guide. Earthscan Publications Limited, London, UK. Quibria M.a. 1995. Critical issues in Asian detle!opment. Asian Development Bank. Oxford University Press, Hongkong. Steinfeld H. 1998. Livestock production in the Asia and Pacific region -Current status, issues, and trends. http:/ /www.fao.org/ docrep/W800T/w8600t04.htm (accessed Febru- ary2002). FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 183 N. Palabyab Deparnnent of Trade and Industry, Philippines Overview Planning for the livestock sector calls for two perspectives: one is looking inwards taking into account the dynamic forces confined within the sector itself; and the other looking outward, i.e. the environment which would direct, shape, and influence the very forces within the sector itself. The first part of this paper presents the policy environment from the regional perspective of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), highlighting the move towards regional economic integration that affects all sectors. This includes tariff reduction under the Common Effective Preferential T ariff -ASEAN Free T rade Area ( CEPT -AFrA), initia~s in the elimination of non-tariffbarriers, trade facilitation and cooperative efforts to promote trade. This would serve as part of the big picture in developing plans, including the identification of research areas and exploration of alternative developments strategies for the livestock sector. The second part of the paper discusses the developments in the ASEAN Ministers of Agriculture and Forestry (AMAF) Technical Working Group onHalal, an ASEAN organisational sub-unit that initiated a regional programme for international trade dedicated to livestock as a component of the food sector. The general trend since the ratification of the Uruguay Round of Negotiations and formation of the World Trade Organization has been to stimulate trade. This paper will not explore the effect of specific trade policy instruments such as the gradual lowering of tariffs, harmonisation of non-tariffbarriers. and the formation of tree trade zones. Suffice to say, these are developments that need to be monitored considering their signific~nt trade affects on all sectors, their differential effects on input-producing industries, the livestock sector itself, and other sectors linked to the livestock sector such as the food industries. The imperative of globalisation has encoulaged a regional approach to policies that direct national trade policies. This has led to recent changes in national food and/ or livestock policy, moving from a highly insular and protective policy towards market deregu- lation, reduced government spending, structural reforms and privatisation of services (H. I. ASEAN stands for me Association of South-East Asian Nations. ASEAN ~k trade and market polic~ regional perspective Steinfeld 1998). The devolution of authority in some countries allows further market deregulation on prices and better market access. This is in consideration of its socio-political dimension, preponderance in the liveli- hoods of lower-income segments of the population and the contribution of small and medium enterprises. Hence, fullliberalisation in terms of tariff reduction on meat allows for flexibility in ASFAN and would be last for the original six members set at 2010 and 2015, for new members. This paper's presentation on tariff policy in the ASFAN divides the 10 members into two classes, the ASFAN.Q, comprised of the original members of the group, and the CLMV (Cambodia, Laos PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam), composed of new members. The latter is described as transition economies, emerging from centrally-planned economies and are adjusting to the market-oriented global scenario. National trade policies of member countries reflect differing developmental needs, with the ASFAN.Q leading newer members in their readiness to trade. Relative to first world countries, the livestock industries in the ASEAN are at a more incipient stage of development (USDA 1997). On December 15, 1997 the ASFAN adapted the so-called Vision 2020. The agreement embodies the desire of members to forge a stronger economic integration. This builds on strides made in cooperative efforts of the past and the commitment to enhance mutual assistance. The ASFAN would sustain efforts on economic stability, poverty alleviation, trade and investment flows from the opening up of markets and liberalised trade. While committing itself under the influence of market forces, the vision puts emphasis on sustainable and equitable growth. Equity considerations are embodied in the commitment to narrow the gap in the level of development among member countries, ensuring that the multilateral trading system remains fair and open and the ASFAN, achieving global competitiveness. An outward-looking ASFAN guides its participation in international fora to advance its collective interests, specifically with dialogue partners and other regional organisations. The promotion of a modern and competitive small and medium enterprises (SME) sector in ASFAN is explicitly stated in the vision. This would be relevant to the focus of development efforts in the region's livestock sector. The vision further specifies food security as an important endeavour, wherein ASFAN would be a leading producer. Rather than backtrack as a result of the economic and financial crisis in 1997, ASFAN accelerated the integration process through a package of bold measures, issued the follow- ing year (ASFAN Secretariat 1998). This advances the implementation of AFTA by the year 2002 for ASFAN-6 that would cover products committed to the so-called Inclusion List (IL). These are products subject to tariff reduction at 0-5% by 2002 (Table 1). Palab"jab Table I. Timetable [oT accelerating the ASEAN Free T,.ade Area (A¥fA). Year Commitment 2000 2001 A minimum of 90% of the six countries' total tariff lines must have tariffs of 0.5%. Individually, each country would commit to achieve a minimum of 85% of the Inclusion List with tariffs of 0.5%. Each country would achieve a minimum of 90% of the Inclusion List in the 0.5% tariff range. 100% of items in the Inclusion List would have tariffs of 0.5% but with some flexibility. 2002 Source: ASEAN Secretariat (1998). The first in the series of plans to implement Vision 2020 is the Hanoi Plan of Action (HPA). The plan has a six-year time &ame covering 1999 to 2004. Broadly, it defines the collective path ASEAN would take to translate the vision into identifiable socioeconomic goals. It is a comprehensive plan that includes macroeconomic and financial co-operation, investment, and trade in services. The enhancement of greater economic integration would be achieved through the acceleration of the AFTA, customs harmonisation, stand- ards and conformity assessment and other trade facilitation activities. The enhancement of food security and competitiveness of ASEAN's food and agri- cultural products would be supported by the development of technologies to increase pro- ductivity, the promotion of intra. and extra-ASEAN trade and greater private sector invest- ment. International issues and problems affecting trade in food and agriculture shall be addressed through joint approaches and enhancement of co-operation. T ariff reduction The lowering of tariff peaks and granting of margin of preferences preceded the move tcwards economic integration. The first substantial steps towards economic integration were made by the ASEAN leaders at their fourth Summit in 1992 held in Singapore. On January 28, 1992, the agreement establishing AFTA was signed that would spur intra- ASEAN trade, strengthen the region's competitive edge and attract foreign investments. At the Sixth ASEAN Summit in December 1998 h~ld in Hanoi, Vietnam, the comple- tion of the AFTA implementation for the Inclusion List was targeted at 2002. ASEAN-6 agreed to deepen as soon as possible, tariff reduction to 0% and accelerate the transfer of products to the Inclusion List. The new members of ASEAN are given the flexibility in their commitment of products to IL to lower tariffs at 0-5%. This is by 2006 for Vietnam, 2008 for Laos and Myanmar, and 2010 for Cambodia. Currently, ASEAN has met its target on IL with 40, 776 out 44,046 tariff lines or 92.61 %. Average tariff rate for the region is at 3.57% (ASEAN FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop186 Secretariat 1998) .Exempted from the Common Efficient Preferential T ariff ( CEIYr)-AFrA are commodities in the General Exemption List. These are products that pose danger to animal, plant and/ or human life, or by reasons of national security, protection of morals, protection of historic or artistic interests that imports of these products are subject to restric- tions and are permanently excluded from CEPT. By 2010 for ASEAN-6 and 2015 for CLMV, ASEAN would fully implement CEPT -AFrA, removing tariffs for all products. This includes products temporarily excluded from the scheme, retaining protective tariff barriers at a definite period prior to the realisation of AFrA. This is called the Temporary Exclusion List (TEL), composed of two important categories: one is the manufactured and processed agricultural products and the other is the unprocessed agricultural products. The protocol to Amend the Agreement on the CEPT -AFrA was signed in Bangkok on December 15, 1995. The amendment phased in unprocessed agricultural products (UAPs) for inclusion beginning 1997 in seven equal installments. Products transferred should be accompanied by a tariff reduction scheme with the following guidelines: a) after 1998, products transferred should have tariff below 20% then reduced at 0-5% by 2003; b) products transferred in 2003 should have tariffs at 0-5%. This expands the IL to include UAPs. On September 30, 1999, ASEAN Leaders signed the Protocol On the Special Arrange- ment for Sensitive and Highly Sensitive Products. These are products protected by member countries from imports. Among others, the Protocol provides the time-frame and flexibility for member countries to phase-in sensitive commodities. Most live animals are included in the IL Thailand, Brunei, Singapore and Myanmar reported no sensitive products for livestock and poultry. In Annex 2 of the Protocol, Cambodia listed live poultry including ducks, geese, guinea fowls, poultry cUts' other live animals, meat products, and eggs as sensitive products. Malaysia included certain live animals, meat, eggs and poultry. The Philippines included live swine and poultry, fl-esh, chilled or frozen meat, and edible offal. Vietnam listed live poultry, ducks, geese, turkey guinea fowls, their meat and edible offal, eggs, sausages, meat of swine and bovine animals. The same Protocol obliges ASEAN-6 members to phase-in sensitive products not later than January 2003 and shall be completed by January 1, 2010. V:~tnam shall phase in sensitive products to the CEPT scheme beginning on January 1, 2004 but not later than January 01, 2006 and shall complete the process by January 1, 2010. Laos PDR begins on 2006 but not later than 2008 and must be complete by 2015. Cambodia begins in 2008 but not later than 2010 and complete the process by 2017. In November 2000, ASEAN Eco- nomic Ministers signed the Protocol providing flexibility to countries facing problems on their last tranche of TEL Products. This is also time-bound. By sector, the average tariff rates on live animals in 2002 is 3.57% (Table 2). This covers chapters 01-05 of the Harmonised System of Nomenclature of the World Customs Organization. Intra-ASEAN trade in live animals (HS Chapter 01) as reported by the ASEAN Secre- tariat peaked in 1996 amounting to US$ 27310491000 and went down to US$ 135,067,200 in 2000. Restrictive imports on meat products are reflected in lower trade, amounting to US$ 60,543,000 in 1996 and down to US$ 54,047,000 in 2000. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 187 Palab)'ab Table 2. Average tariff rate on imports of live anima~ in the ASEAN, 2002. Country Average Tariff Rate (%) ASEAN Philippines Malaysia Indonesia Thailand Vietnam Singapore Brunei Darussalam CLMV 3.50 5.36 1.38 6.35 8.41 4.29 0.00 0.00 Not available Source: ASEAN Secretariat (1998). Domestic consumption of poultry has grown faster than exports. However, barriers to feed stuff imports raise domestic production costs. In Thailand, the growth of the livestock sector resulted in the country becoming a net importer of corn where previously, it was a net exporter (USDA 1997 p. 2). In The Philippines, the implementation of the Agricu1- tural and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) is expected to stimulate growth in livestOck and poultry. Recent growth trends in The Philippines are attributable to the reduction of tariff on feeder cattle from 10 to 3% (Medium- Team Development Plan 1999-2004). Live horses, assess, sheep and goats are under the normal track in the CEPT for ASEAN- 6 and tariffs are currently at 0-5%. Live swine, except for The Philippines, are also in the normal track. Imports of live pure bred swine for breeding purposes are imposed a lower tariff of 3% in The Philippines. For newer members, collectively called CLMV countries, tariffs peak at 10%, but the trade is hindered by non-tariff barriers, mainly foreign exchange restrictions and state trading enterprises. Import tariff for chicks for breeding is at 3% in The Philippines under the 2001 CEPT Package. Import tariff by the ASEAN-6 range from 0-10% for live turkey, ducklings, geese and guinea fowls. The same rate applies for meat of bovine animals and beef. In Brunei, Indonesia and Singapore, imports of meat of fresh, chilled or frozen swine are imposed CEPT rates of 0-5%. The same type of meat in Myanmar and Vietnam isimposed a higher tariff of 10 and 20%, respectively. . Live swine is in the sensitive list of The Philippines and Malaysia, with the former imposing a tariff quota policy at 30% for in.quota imports within the minimum access volume and out quota at 45%. Similarly, Laos and Cambodia included live swine in the sensitive list and are permitted greater flexibility to transfer to the It, the former at 2015 and the latter in 2017 as the final date of inclusion. In ASEAN-6, only The Philippines included live goats in the sensitive list of the 2001 CEPT Package along with Laos PDR. As a rule, meat is treated as a sensitive product by Malaysia and The Philippines. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop188 ASEAN livestock trade and market policies: A regional perspective Standards and conformity assessment Non-tariff barriers are also being addressed to realise the vision of regional economic integration. In 1992, the ASFAN Consultative Committee on Standards and Quality (ACCSQ) was established. The fifth ASFAN Summit in Bangkok held in December 1997 mandated greater transparency in standards and conformance and the establishment of Mutual Recognition Arrangements. Some 20 industrial and consumer products widely traded in the ASFAN were identified for standards harmonisation under the auspices ofACCSQ. , In the Senior Officials Meeting of the ASFAN Ministers of Agriculture and Forestry (SOM-AMAF), parallel efforts were made to eliminate technical barriers to trade in agricul. ture, a painstaking process. This is in support of the Hanoi Plan of Action mandating stronger information networking on standards and technical regulation to meet WTO requirements on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. In line With this, the 19th Meeting of AMAF held on 11-12 September 1997 in Bangkok emphasised the need for having common quality standards conforming to international standards, paving the way for global !llarket access. The criteria for some livestock have been endorsed. Quality standards for frozen chicken and other selected commodities will be established through dialogues, exchange of information especially in the sharing of R&D and market information. The adoption of the ASFAN Halal Guidelines on Food has been completed. To facilitate trade, AMAF entered into a Protocol on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPM) to implement the Agreement on the Facilitation of Goods in Transit. Other endeavours include the formulation of the Criteria for Accreditation Scheme of Livestock and Livestock Prod- uct Establishments under the auspices of the ASFAN Working Group on Livestock, and the Pr9tocol for Accreditation of Animal Vaccines and Testing Laboratories. The protocol for accreditation of animal vaccines has made considerable progress with the endorsement of 38 animal vaccine standards. These standards were published in the Manual of ASPAN Standards for Animal Vaccines. The focus of activities includes further development of the Manual of Rules and Procedure for Registration of Animal Vaccines, ASFAN standards on these vaccines and accreditation of animal vaccine laboratories. The end result of standards conformity assessment would be global competitiveness, better mar- ket access, and more predictable and trade-friendly regime owing to the reduction of the complexity involved in technical and procedural requirements. Trade liberalisation under AFrA is complemented by trade facilitation on customs matters. The ASEAN Vision 2020 mandates promotion of customs partnership for world class standards and excellence in efficiency, professionalism, service, and uniformity through harmonised procedures. Since 1995 the ASEAN Directors-General of Customs have met every year and programmed activities based on their plans and programmes embodied on the Customs Vision and the Customs Policy Implementation and Work Program (PIWP). FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 189 Palabyab On March 1, 1997 the ASEAN Finance Ministers signed the Agreement on Customs. The technical elements of the plan of action to realise the ASEAN Customs Vision 2002 include: .Simplification and harmonisation of procedures for goods in transit and temporary admission .Automation to harness technology and assist in raising the efficiency of international trade and customs functions and activities .Benchmarking of performance standards and the promotion of simple, user-friendly cargo processing .Transparent and uniform application of the rules of origin .Application of post-entry audits and development of ASEAN guidelines for post-audit system based on best practices .Application of risk management techniques and check small percentage of consign- ments. One important initiative that would facilitate information exchange, research on trade policy and consistency of statistical reports is the implementation of the ASEAN Harmo- nised Tariff Nomenclature, originally targeted for completion by year 2000 and reset for implementation in 2002. Over 10 thousand tariff lines at the HS-B digit level have been aligned and shall be endorsed for signing by ASEAN Finance Ministers. Another is the application of the GATT Valuation by the year 2000. This is to support the objective of the ASEAN Agreement on Customs to simplify and harmonise customs valuation methods. Under this policy, Customs Valuation is based on transaction value and shall not be used for protective purposes or as a barrier to trade. A common interpre- tation of the GA TT Valuation Agreement shall be adopted to ensure consistent and unbi- ased application. This involves a shift in paradigm from the traditional view of customs as a revenue source. Coupled with the reduction of tariffs in CEPT -AFTA, the transactions-based valua- tion system reorients customs towards trade facilitation. While the original and new mem- bers have acceded to the Customs Agreement, only five countries are implementing the GATT Valuation Method, i.e. Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia (ASEAN Secretariat 1998). Other developments include the establishment of the Green Lane for ASEAN prod ucts and elimination of customs surcharges. The facilitation of goods in transit, while a customs function, is accorded a separate treat. ment since regulatory obstacles such as customs checks and documentation, transport regu- lation for drivers and vehicle specifications would be a daunting non-tariffbarrier. Lack of uniformity and multiple requirements would not only slacken time of transport but would raise costs of trading. During the 29th Ministerial Meeting in Jakarta on July 20-21, 1996, the ASEAN For- eign Ministers decided that efforts had to be undertaken to promote free movement of ASEAN litlestock tTade and market policies: A regional prnpectitle goods in ASEAN .This is in keeping with the strides made in enhanced intra-ASEAN trade with the implementation of the CEPT -AFrA. The Second Informal Summit held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on December 1997 resulted in the exploration of measures to facilitate goods both in transit and interstate, covering land, maritime and air links. In December 1998, the ASEAN Economic Minis- ters signed the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Facilitation of Goods in Transit. To implement this Agreement, two protocols, one on Types and Quantity of Road Vehicles and the other on Technical Requirements of Vehicles have been finalised while nine protocols are nearing completion. ASEAN has also agreed to work for an integrated customs transit system operating on the principle of 'One seal, one deposit.'. Earlier sections of this paper presented trade policies that affect all sectors. In the HPA, the plan for food is specified under paragraph 2.4 which reads as: "ASEAN would strive to provide adequate levels of food supply and food accessibility within ASEAN during instances of food shortages to ensure food security and at the same time, enhance the competitiveness of its food, agriculture and forestry sectors through developing appropriate technolo- gies to increase productivity and by promoting intra-and extra-ASEAN trade and greater private sector investment in the food, agriculture and forestry" sector. The January 1999-July 2001 Mid-term Review of the Implementation of the HPA on the Food, Agriculture and Forestry sectors reported that cooperation programme and activities progressed under the guidance of the SOM-AMAF and the AMAF. Activi- ties are co-ordinated by sectoral working groups and subsidiary bodies of the SOM- AMAF. Food security arrangements The Strategic Plan of Action On ASEAN Cooperation In Food Agriculture and Forestry, 1999-2004 addresses the need for more effective planning of food production and trade within ASEAN .The compilation, management, dissemination of statistical data and infor- mation has been assigned to a responsible working unit, i.e. the ASEAN Food Security Board. It is tasked to develop a common framework of analysis, and prepare reports on the analysis and review of food trade policies of ASEAN member countries. A Regional Food Security Information System for ASEAN shall be established to plan and manage food supplies and utilisation as well as to provide information relevant to decision on investments and/ or joint venture in food production in conducive areas. The strengthening of the food marketing system of agticultural cooperatives for enhancing food security is assigned to the ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Agricultural Co-operatives. Strategic alliances among agricultural co-operative organisations in ASEAN are being pursued in data and information exchange, beef farming, and co-operative productivity enhancement programme. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 191 Palab'Jab Enhancement of international competitiveness The Sectoral Working Group on Livestock monitors the implementation of CEPT -AFfA. It is also the working unit assigned to develop an accreditation scheme for establishments involved in the production of livestock and livestock products that are widely traded within the ASEAN. Harmonisation of regulations for livestock products utilising biotechnology, and conducting a study to strengthen competitiveness of ASEAN food derived from live- stock in international markets are undertaken by separate working group units. The imple- mentation of ASEAN guidelines on halal food is under the aegis of the Working Group on Halal Food. Enhancement of ASEAN co-operation and joint approaches in international and regional issues A collective voice would carry more weight and would merit serious consideration in inter- national fora than individual country positions. Consultations within the ASFAN struc- ture, particularly at the level of ASFAN Economic Ministers (AEM) and Senior Economic Officials Meetings (SEOM) are regularly conducted to ensure better co-ordination of posi- tions in dialogues with Australia, US and the EU. On Codex matters, a Task Force had been established to formulate common positions on issues in preparation for the WTO Meeting in Doha, Qatar. The ASFAN Secretariat convened a meeting of an ad ~c experts group on WTO issues. The ASFAN formulated a common stand on the WTO Agreement in Agriculture, proposed a broad-based agenda including anti-dumping, market access, giv- ing effect to special and differential treatment (S&D) to developing countries, and more enhanced capability-building initiatives to assist the implementation ofWTO Agreements. Enhancement of private sector i nvolvement The private sector is given the opportunity for continuous participation in the meetings of appropriate bodies, such as the joint Committee 011 ASFAN Cooperation and Joint Ap- proaches in Agriculture and Forest Products Promotion Scheme. Under the HPA, ASFAN would establish networking and strategic alliances with the private sector to promote invest- ment and joint venture opportunities in the ASFAN .Thailand had established its website (www.~d.go.th/acedac) for agricultural co-operatives to be shared with and linked to other countries. Indonesia took the lead and established a breeding and training centre that produces straws of fTozen semen for trade exchange with other member countries. Foster small and medium enterprises The HPA recognises that small and medium enterprises (SME) constitute the majority and contribute significantly to economic development. The trade aspects ofSME cooperation will ensure that there shall be no bias against SMEs in market-oriented policies in the ASEAN and such endeavours should provide a more favourable environment for develop- ment. ASEAN litlestock tTade and market policies: A regional penpectitle Article 6 of the CEPT Agreement allows suspension of preferences if as a result of imple- mentation of the Agreern~nt, surges in imports cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry of a member country. This is consistent with Article XIX of GA1T 1994. The foregoing trade policies are by no means, exhaustive. It must be understood that the policies presented form part of the total policy environment external to the livestock sector. Planning for the sector involves identification of critical policies that will chart its future requiring that appropriate issues are addressed and programmes pursued are consist- ent with challenges and opportunities in the ASEAN. The ASEAN cooperation on halal food is one of the initiatives under the AMAF, through one of its subsidiary bodies, the Ad hoc Working Group on Halal Food Guidelines. The importance of halal food in the region and the enonnity of the work to be done has been recognised in the ASEAN that at the SOM of the 22nd AMAF, the Ad-hoc Working Group on Halal Food Guidelines was upgraded to the level of a pennanent body and renamed as the ASEAN Working Group on Halal Food. Halal, which literally means pennissible or lawful in the practice of the Muslim faith, is a large chunk of the global food market. It is now estimated at US$ 150 billion, and consumed by about 1.3 billion people, the majority residing in the Asian countries of Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia and India, as well as Turkey, Iran and Nigeria; and vast regions of the Middle East and North Africa. Almost one in four persons in the world is a halal consumer. Within the corridors of the ASEAN , halal food presents a vast opportunity for trade in meat, poultry, dairy products and other food products pennissible to Muslims. Rising in- comes point to increasing consumption of food derived from livestock and poultry, with domestic consumption growing faster than exports. Most member countries are net import- ers of halal food. This poses a challenge of translating the HPA in the food sector in the area of standards and confonnity assessments, food security, and international competitive- ness, through joint approaches and co-operative programmes. The guidelines were developed by the Ad hoc Working Group on Halal Food Guide- lines, chaired by Brunei Darussalam. The decision to develop the guidelines was made at SOM of 17thMeetingofAMAF,which was held in Singapore on 21-23 August 1995. The Meeting agreed to fonn an Ad hoc Working Group comprising representatives from SOM- AMAF and relevant religious authorities of each ASEAN member country to prepare the guidelines for approval by SOM-AMAF. The Ad hoc Working Group finalised the Guide- lines on its Third Meeting held in Bangkok on 24-26 November 1997. The proposed Guidelines were then approved by the Special SOM-AMAF, held on 27 -29 April 1998 in Phuket, Thailand for consideration and endorsement of the 2Oth Meeting of AMAF on 17-18 September 1998 in Hanoi. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 193 Palab,ab The halal food guidelines were based on and in line with the following documents: 1) The Council of Religious Ministers of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore (MABIMS) Guidelines for Preparation of Food and Drink for Muslims, which was prepared by a Technical Committee formed by MABIMS; and 2) Codex General Guidelines for Use of the Term 'Halal', an official document of Codex Alimentarius Commission. The upgrading of the Ad hoc Working Group into the ASEAN Working Group on Halal Food expanded the scope of its work to include overseeing the implementation of the halal food guidelines, through cooperation projects in areas of certification, training, promotion and information exchange in halal food. The first meeting of the working group was held in Manila on 25-27 September 2001, where its terms of reference were presented as follows: 1) To conduct periodic reviews of the processing and marketing of Halal Food in the ASEAN region. 2) To develop effective methods of exchange of information among ASEAN Member Countries pertaining to Halal Food with the view to facilitating cooperative undertak- ings in this sector of the economy, as well as the eventual coordination and harmonisa. tion of ASEAN Halal Food sector regulation and policies. 3) To identify areas of co-operation among the ASEAN Member Countries as well as with third countries, groups of countries or international agencies, in order to promote the sound development of the sector in the ASEAN region. 4) To formulate project proposals for consideration and approval by SOM and AMAF. 5) To monitor and evaluate the progress made in the implementation of approved projects and activities. 6) To submit to SOM-AMAF periodic reports on its programme of work and on the progress made. 7) To maintain close co-operation with other related ASEAN bodies as with related extra. ASEAN national and international organisations and meetings. In the same meeting it was agreed that the HPA Mid- Term Review January 1999 to July 2001 shall include activities on halal food under Enhancement of the Marketability of ASEAN Food, Agriculture, and Forest Products. This is in recognition of the trade poten- tial of halal food. The Working Group is developing an accreditation scheme for establish- ments aspiring for involvement in intra-ASEAN trade in halal food. Halal food marketi~ in conjunction with promoting tourism is yet to be explored, but it has been cited by the incumbent Tourism Secretary of The Philippines. It is foreseen that the approval and eventual adoption of the accreditation scheme is forthcoming. However, its implementation may be delayed in the absence of an estab- lished competent authority for some of the member countries, namely The Philippines and the CLMV. One initiative towards the harmonisation of conformance standards is the registration and compilation by the Working Group of halal additives being used in the ASEAN. Another is the formulation of guidelines and conditions on the use of the ASEAN halal logo and the mutual recognition of the logo to facilitatt' trade in the region. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop194 ASEAN li.,estock tTade and market policies: A regional perspecti.'e To provide a greater understanding on the halal certification, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore/Maglis Ugama Islam Singapore had conducted a training on March 2001 with participants from Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia and The Philippines. Singapore also conducted a Training of Trainers for Halal Food Inspectors. Training of Trainers on Halal Food Preparation and Handling was conducted by the Department of Islamic Development in Malaysia. The academe in Malaysia is active in developing new food products conforming to halal standards and processes. Indonesia is the lead country in the training of Halal Food Auditors and tasked to formulate a training module. Proposed new activities include the creation of an ASFAN Halal Food Website and development of an ASFAN Halal Portal for the purpose of harnessing technology in facilitating trade in halal goods and services, and halal certification. Considering that there are several international bodies on halal conformance, a proposal has been received on the establishment of an International Halal Council. Guidelines on the preparation and handling of halal food The Guidelines will serve as a practical guide for the food industry in the production and handling of halal food by food processing establishments. These establishments will be allowed to use a common ASEAN Halal Logo on the label of their products as an identifi. cation that the products come from ASEAN-accredited food processing plants. Halal means compliance to sanitary/technical standards and in its broadest meaning does not only cover food. On top of the halal requirement to be 'clean', halal must comply with the Shariah Law. Definition Halal Food means food permitted under the Islamic Law and should fulfil the following conditions: 1. does not consist of or contain anything which is considered to be unlawful according to Islamic Law 2. has not been prepared, processed, transported or stored using any appliance or facility that was not free from anything unlawful according to Islamic Law; and 3. has not in the course of preparation, processing, transportation or storage been in direct contact with any food that fails to satisfy 1 and 2 above. 4. Halal food can be prepared, processed or stored in different sections or lines within the same premises where non-halal foods are produced, provided that necessary measures are taken to prevent any contact between halal and non-halal foods. 5. Halal food can be prepared, processed, transported or stored using facilities, which have been previously used for non-halal food provided that proper cleaning procedures, ac- cording to Islamic requirements, have been observed. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 195 Palab)'ab Criteria for use of the term 'halal' The tenn halal may be used for food that are considered lawful. Under the Islamic Law, all sources of food are lawful except the following sources, including their products and deriva- tives which are considered unlawful: 1. Food of arJmal origin a) Pigs and boars b) Dogs, snakes and monkeys c) Carnivorous animals with claws and fangs such as lions, tigers, bears and other similar animals d) Birds of prey with claws such as eagles, vultures and other similar birds e) Pests such as rats, centipedes, scorpions and other similar animals f) Animals forbidden to be killed in Islam, i.e. ants, bees and woodpecker birds g) Animals which are considered repulsive generally like lice, flies, maggots and other similar animals h) Mules and domestic donkeys i) All poisonous and hazardous aquatic animals j) Any other animals not slaughtered according to Islamic Law. k) Blood 2. Food of Plant Origin Intoxicating and hazardous plants except where the toxin or hazard can be eliminated during processing. 3. Drink a) Alcoholic drinks b) All forms of intoxicating and hazardous drinks 4. Food Additives -all food additives derived from Items 1 and 2. The basic principles of the Islamic laws remain definite and unaltered. However, their interpretation and application may change according to time, place and circumstances. Issues like biotechnology, unconventional sources of ingredients, synthetic materials, and modifications in animal slaughter and meat processing are some of the instances Muslim scholars and halal food regulators are dealing with in order to make sure that the food available to Muslim populations are indeed halal. Proper slaughtering of animals There are special requirements for slaughtering the animal: I. An animal must be of a Halal species 2. It must be slaughtered by an adult, sane Muslim 3. The name of Allah must be pronounced at the time of slaughter 4. Slaughter must be done by cutting the throat in a manner that induces rapid and complete bleeding, resulting in the quickest death. Islam places great emphasis on gende and humane treatment of animals, especially before and during slaughter. Animal.aerived food ingredients like emulsifiers and enzymes must be made from animals slaughtered by a Muslim to be halal. The requirements of FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop196 ASEAN livestock tTade and market policies: A regional pe1:spectitle proper slaughtering and bleeding are applicable to land animals and birds. Fish and other creatures that live in water need not be ritually slaughtered. Food processing equipment and proper sanitation There are no restrictions about cooking in Islam, as long as the equipment and utensils are free from prohibited materials and ingredients. In the food industry, if the same equip- ment is used for halal and non-halal food products, it must be thoroughly cleaned and sanitised before using it for Halal products. Any vISual or analytical method to assure proper sanitation may be employed. However, dedicated halal equipment are preferred to guarantee absolute freedom from unacceptable contaminants. Alcohol may not be used in cooking, fonnulating or processing halal food items. The scheme shall operate under the SOM-AMAF mechanism on two levels, the ASEAN level and the national level, with the working group as overseer. At the national level is a competent authority implementing systems and procedures in the issuance ofhalal certifi- cations and awarding of the halallogo to the accredited establishment. Accreditation procedures Processing plants requesting accreditation shall direct their requests to the competent au- thority. The competent authority will then assign inspectors/accreditors to determine whether or not the plants meet the criteria for ha1al establishments. Report of the accreditors will then be evaluated by a committee. The competent authority will then decide to issue the certificate and approve the use of the ASFAN logo, only upon the recommendation of the committee. Laboratory samples will be collected as may be required. However, labora- tory test alone cannot justify accreditation. Records of the visit of the accreditors shall be kept by the competent authority, and all halal production, packaging, handling and storage procedures shall be documented. Regu- lar follow-up shall be maintained to insure compliance to halal procedures. Auditors check practices in the plant and report non ~ ~ --~- ~ndicheny ~ Gujarat ~ ~ \ ./~~L I /Nep~angladesh Thailand Sri Lanka :::-Ethiopia ~f/~~~"" ..,.,. ~ Kenya ~"" Tanzania Ma~ascar " ) "' f; ;~. ~ '.. ,,":::~-,. ,~~)/ irv /Nigeria l...:' 0 11XX1O 2!njO Kilometres .Surveved countries Figure I. ILRI f1roject sires for its feseaTCh on crop-'l1lminant (dairy) lillestock s,stems. agroecology, level of markt::t access, infyastructure (e.g. roads) and farmer resources. The research will inform policy makers, their advisers and planners of intervention possibilities and direct R&D efforts in support of smallholder dairy development. The research is carried out through analyses at three levels of detail. The first is multi- country village rapid appraisals using a minimum set of indicators of crop-livestock systems. To date 48 appraisals have been carried out in 15 countries, which include Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The second level of analysis is carried out at the landscape and farm/household level using geographic information sytems (GIS) and house- hold resource information derived fyom surveys carried out in Colombia, N igeria, Kenya, India and Sri Lanka. And the final, third level of analysis is the detailed bioeconomic modellirtg of producer households and their crop-livestock systems in N igeria, Kenya, India and Sri Lanka. As a first f..ep in this process, Staal et al. (2002) have described results fyom the bio- economic analysis of the Kenya study sites which uses a data set of over 3000 randomly sampled hou~eholds of which nearly 90% were farms and of those nearly two-thirds raised ClOpS and kept cattle. By combining the resources of many partners in the South to analyse and better under- stand the dynamics of crop-dairy systems, the consortium carrying out the trans-regional analyses is expecting to better advise on ,nvestment strategies in support of smallholder dairy development through the results of this ongoing research. FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 207 Underpinning these trans-regional activities is ILRl's conceptual framework for research to understand dairy systems and to support dairy development (Figure 2; Reyet al. 1993). The first step of the approach is the appraisal of a national dairy sub-sector (or of the dairy systems within a defined milk-shed). The broad.brush analysis critically assesses the policy, organisational and technological components and integration of the dairy sub-sector or milk-shed. By ensuring that the appraisal is carried out in an inter-disciplinary, mulct. organisational way, it builds R&D partnerships that aim to transcend pre-conceived ideas of dairy development and to address dairy's potential for alleviating poverty. The 1999 appraisal of the Sri Lanka Dairy Sub.sector is a good example of the approach (Ibrahim et al. 1999). With the sub-sector appraisal as the guiding description, subsequent studies analyse the four sub-systems (Figure 2): consumption (showing the demand for milk and processed dairy products); marketing; processing; and production (showing how dairy producers respond to consumer demand for milk). Suggested methodologies for implementing these sub- system characterisations (Mullins et al. 1994; Jabbar et al. 1997; Rey et al. 1999) and recent examples of their application in East and West Africa are available through ILRI (e.g. Agyemang 2001; Staal et al. 2001). The sub-systems characterisations provide the information, the client-orientation and the partnerships required to seek solutions to address constraints and to explore opportunities, whether these are technological, political or organisational, through applying participatory approaches. ~ Systems appraisal ~uction 1 I Structure Preferences Population dynamics etc. I I Shelf life Infrastructure quality, Products hygiene Regulations etc. etc. I Seeking ~ I solutions ~ Multi-site comparisons; ~ Interpolation and . extrapolation Figure 2. Building Te.search and detlelopment (R&D) paTtnmhips to undeT3tand dairy S'Jstems. Outcomes of d1e inter-disciplinary, mulri-organisational partnerships and d1e participatory approach include a better understanding of d1e market constraints facing actual and potential smallholder dairy producers. In many countries, particularly d1ose wid1 a dairy tradition, indigenous market systems are important. Table 2 shows d1e important role indigenous FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop208 Markets, technologies and smaWwIder dairy: PartTlel3hips for reseaTChrbased dellelopment dairy markets and processing play in Kenya, Bangladesh and Ghana where, for each 100 litres of milk handled daily, they provide approximately 2, 6 and 10 people with employment, respectively (Omore et al. 2002). The importance of indigenous markets is illustrated in Figure 3 which shows the estimated milk flows in India, said to be the world's largest producer of marketed milk. Approximately 85% of milk is marketed through indigenous market systems, and the rest through industrialised coldperatives (BAAC) is a quasi-government institution that prO" vides low interest loans to farmers at interest rates of 12.25% per annum. ,. Data were weak for these variablell the same per cow estimates are used for all farms- ,. Significandy different between Control and Mastitis and Control and Reproduction treatment groups (p -0.05). attention of a veterinarian commenting on basic health procedures as well as from the specific details of the adopted programmes. It is compelling to ask from these observations what happened to farm profits per farm or per cow. Table 4 shows that both adopter farms had lower per litre costs of production and received higher net profits per litre of milk produced than the control (non-adopter) farms; the mastitis adopters received 7.3% higher profits per cow than the reproductive group adopters. These results will be referred to when we examine the profitability estimation of these same farm groups using the PAM analysis approach. FAO- JLTA-ILRI Workshop250 9635.03 7997.50 114,476.63 2097,23 11,114.09 21,578.26 5964.87 18,516.80 26,582.40 33,159.81 251,122.62 7.82 154,861.68 4.82 17,721.85 I' Intenlentions in animal health: Economic analysis of adoption Milk (litres/cow per day) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Figure s. Milk production for three mal faTm t:ypes following the adoption of animal health control programme. Mastitis Reproductive ...Control Linear somatic cell count 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Figure 6,. Somatic ceU count (SGC) jOT three tTial faTm t:ypes following the adoption of animal health control programme. Days open 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 Mastitis ~ Rep"Oductive ~~ Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Figure 7. Days open for three mal fann t)'pes following the adoption of animal health control programme. 251FAO- JLTA- ILRI Workshop Hall et aL Data preparation and assumptions for constructing the PAM The data demands of the PAM private profitability estimation are perhaps the least complicated to validate. Market prices and quantities of factor inputs and outputs such as feed and livestock were obtained through records of actUal farm purchases and sales, or through observation of relevant regional factor prices (these values are indicated either direcdyor indirecdy in Tables 3 and 4). c The on-farm survey was also used to supplement these prices when records could not validate factor prices (for example, few farmers keep records of revenues from the sale of bovine manure; this was not difficult to estimate knowing the mean number of mature animals and the local price). Milk price and quantity series were recorded on-farm; these recordings were incomplete for several farms but verification or supplementation of records was possible with the assistance of records from the Nong Pho Dairy Co-operative which uses a weigh in and recording system for all individual members. Quantities were adjusted for milk fed to calves, for personal consumption, or discarded, although for most farms this was not a consideration. This is all the basic information that is needed in order to estimate the first row of the PAM, which captures farming production, delivery from farm to processor, processing, and marketing characteristics of the smallholder dairy system. Ideally one would like to derive this information from four separate PAMs, one for each of the activities in the chain (farm production, delivery from farm to processor, processing, delivery from processor to wholesale market). Lack of details on each stage did not allow for this precision; instead we focused on details of the farm production stage, implicidy capturing the impact of other stages in their respective factor prices. In order to complete the first row of the PAM, all private costs were normalised to reflect monthly currency fluctuations, and were disaggregated to their domestic factor and tradable input components. The details of this step are not shown in this paper for the sake of brevity but the process is described well by Monke and Pearson (1989). Veterinary care costs represent aggregate values (labour, call charges, and drug and other medical supplies) as recorded on farm and at the veterinary clinic. Veterinary care. is heavily subsidised since the majority of farm veterinarians not employed by private industry are employed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives (exceptions are much of the pork and poultry sectors which rely predominandy on private sector service driven by vertical integration). Thus dairy farmers benefit from substantial subsidisation ofveterinary wages, though a small fee is charged of farmers for service; approximately 65% of farm paid costs are for veterinary supplies and pharmaceuticals. Comparative advantage or efficiency in the agricultural commodity system is esti- mated by the second row of the PAM, using social valuation of resources. The most obvious sources for valuation of input and output factors traded internationally are world prices -CIF (cost, insurance plus freight) consumer import prices are used for goods or services importe~ and FOB (free on board) export prices are used for exportables. As for private prices, social valuation of domestic factors first requires Intenlentions in animal health: Economic analysis of adoption distinguishing between mobile and fIXed factors of production. Calculation of world price equivalents is necessary for domestic tradable inputs and outputs, pricing inputs at their opportunity cost and outputs at their scarcity value or shadow price. The import CIF price is the shadow price where it is the lowest consumer p;rice for an input, measuring scarcity value of the good to the economy; the export FOB price represents the marginal revenue or opportunity cost when it is the highest price obtainable. As Monke and Pearson (1989) point out, the empirical estimation of social profits is the most difficult portion of the PAM and is not an exact method. The objective here is to measure divergences from efficiency3 prices caused by distortions present in the dairy sector. Indirect subsidies are offered through sub~idisation of veterinary salaries already mentioned, and heavy subsidy of breeding services (artificial insemination charges that farmers pay are approximately 7% of actual costs). Farmers also receive farm loans at an interest rate lower than other sectors from the parastatal Bank of Agriculture and Agricul- tural Co-operatives (BMC). The BMC rate is 12.25%; the offered loan rate based on the minimum retail interest rate extended to non-agricultural small businesses in 1998 averaged 20% (Bank of Thailand 1999), and this was used as the social efficiency price of farm capital. While dairy feed costs are not subsidised, it is more expensive to import feed than to purchase it locally. In 1998 the farm price for dairy concentrate ration was 5 ThB/ kg., which was less expensive than importing concentrate at 7.9 ThB/ kg. using a CIF import price and including all charges to transport the feed to a Nong Pho farm gate. A similar figure was arrived at for feed using CIF imports of grain, making it less expensive privately and socially to manufacture feed domestically; the PAM incorporates this saving in feed imports in considering the input costs. Prices of other inputs of less importance are noted in Tables 3 and 4. Farm sales of milk generate higher private revenues than would be generated at the social efficiency price. Thai dairy farmers receive direct price protection in the form of a government regulated farm price for milk (12.5 ThBj1), which is effective due to excess domestic demand and the presence of quotas and tariffs placed on powdered n-..ilk. Most powdered milk is imported from New Zealand and Australia, at the CIF import price on a reconstituted fluid basis of 7.0 ThB per litre including tariffs, transportation, and other expenses in getting the milk to the Nong Pho Dairy Co-operative. This forms the effK:iency price for milk in the Ratchaburi area. On the other hand, cattle sales generated less revenue than they would at international prices, using an FOB Sydney price of 17,500 ThB for a mature heifer and 1,225 ThB for a calf. Private profits represent farm revenues less tradable input costs and domestic resource coSts, all valued at private prices. Since returns to domestic factors of production are 3. In an ideal world, purely efficient prices exist when the difference between prIvate and social prices is made up solely of acceptable transaction costs (e.g. transportation). In other words, society is not subsidising profit that is directed at the private sector (as they would be in a policy instrument such as a production quota). FAO- JLTA- ILRI Workshop 253 Hall et al considered a cost, zero private profits imply normal profits, or in other words, domestic factors receive prevailing market rates of return. With negative private profits, there are disincentives to enter dairy farming. The status quo of dairy farming in Central Thailand is represented by the control group with profits of -1,897 ThB per farm. It suggests that there are disincentives to enter the industry, or at least that the private returns to investment of resources are below current market rates (Table 5). As herd health control programmes are adopted, the private profits of the mastitis and the reproductive programme adopter groups sug- gest that above normal profits are experie)lced and there are incentives to enter the industry. Mastitis programme adopters with private profits per farm of 48,246 ThB received higher profits per farm than the reproductive group (a difference of 31,057 ThB). Table s. The estimated Policy Anal,sis MatTix /oT three l:ypes of smallholder dairy farms in CentTal Thailand participating in an adoption trial for basic herd health programmes (baseline scenario; values are in Thai Baht). Costs The ordinal ranking of profits of the three groups is consistent with the farm profit statement. Note that private revenues increase with adoption (owing to an increased production of litres of milk per cow per day) and costs of tradable inputs are reduced, primarily from the apparent reduction in marginal costs of feed inputs. The costs of veterinary tradable inputs (non-labour items) actually increased for adopters, but the overall effect is a reduction in tradable input costs. The costs of domestic factors rose with adoption; again, veterinary inputs (labour in this case) rose by a greater amount than feed costs fell. This pattern of changes in costs is consistent with the farm profit statement, although the farm profit statement treats returns to domestic factors of production as farm profits; hence the control group is also profitable using the farm profits statement approach. --- FAO- JLTA-ILRl Workshop254 In~entions in animal health: Economic analysis of adoption Social profits evaluate production at economic prices (opportunity costs for inputs and shadow prices for outputs). Estimation of social profits using the PAM indicate that dairying is not socially profitable for farmers in Central Thailand, or in terms of foreign exchange earning capacity, dairying is not efficient. If one takes into account the increased milk production under adoption, the inefficiencies are reduced when herd health programmes are adopted but the reduction does not have a great impact on overall social efficiency (mastitis programmes reduce inefficiencies by 16.5%, reproductive programmes by 6.6%). To further investigate the issue of social efficiencies,cconsider the final row of the PAM, the transfers. The results of changes to revenues and costs at private and social prices following adoption are reflected in transfers, the vertical difference between the revenues and costs in the PAM. Recognising that dairy farmers receive farm fluid milk price protec- tion and input subsidies, it should be clear that as adopters increase private profits they do so at the expense of transfers from the social sector. This explains why transfers of profits increased for adopters (by 174 and 162% for mastitis programme and reproductive programme adopters, respectively); private profits increased at a faster rate than social profits (16 and 7% for mastitis and reproductive adopters, respectively). It would seem that adoption of herd health programmes benefits private producers far more than the social sector, although this is not the case. In order to demonstrate this by clarifying the impact adoption has at prevailing private and social prices and to evaluate the overall comparative effects of the programmes on transfers, standard coefficients have been suggested and are explored in the next section. PAM coefficients Four comparative measures of policy are defined and calculated in Table 6. The nomi- nal protection coefficient (N PC) indicates the net effect of distortions or a negative protection on outputs. An N PC > 1 indicates that producers are protected f9r the product. Since the price of farm outputs is not affected by the herd health programmes, the N PC would not be expected to change significantly, as is the case (a 1.7% increase and a 2.7% decrease" for mastitis and reproductive programme adopters, respectively). A similar ratio from the input cost perspective, the nominal protection coefficient of tradable inputs (NPI), measures the ratio of the private cost of tradable inputs to their social cost. Where NPI < 1, producers experience protection or subsidisation for input purchase prices. Herd health programmes have a small impact on NPI (a 2.4 and 9.1% reduction for mastitis and reproductive programme adopters, respectively). Of greater interest to this study are the effective protection coefficient (EPC) and the domestic resource cost (DRC) ratios. The EPC ratio is a measure of the net effect of distortions or negative protection on outputs and tradable inputs. For an EPC > 1, producers are protected for the value-added produce. Where there was no adoption of herd health programmes, EPC is remarkably high at a level of 4.830,4 reflecting the combination of 4. For illustration purpose.~, me EPC of rice production in me central Thai plains province of N akornsaW;ln has been estimated by Yao as 0.912, and me DRC as 0.856. 255FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop HaU et aL Table 6. Comparati~ mea.lures of policy deri\led from the estimated policy analysis matrix for three t)'pes of sma!Uwlder dairy farms in Central Thailand participating in an adoption trial for basic herd health programmes. Herd health programme group Indicator Control Mastitis Reproductive 1.432 0.375 4.83 5.006 1.457 0.366 3.152 2.816 1.393 0.341 2.703 2.655 NPCl NPP EPCJ DRC4 For description of variables in definitions refer to Table 1. 1. N PC -nomin:1:l protection coefficient of products ~ AlE 2. NPI -nominal protection coefficient of tradable inputs ~ B/F 3. EPC -effective protection coefficient of product = (A-B)/(E-F) 4. DR,C -domestic r~.~".r~ r~.t -G/(E-F) output price protection and input subsidisation. For dairy farmers adopting herd health programmes, EPC is reduced considerably (34.7% for mastitis programme adopters and 44.0% for reproduction programme adopters). Examining the equation for EPC, one can see there are several scenarios under which this could occur; in the case ofherd health adoption, the increase in the difference between revenues and tradable inputs at private prices (A -B) increased less than the samecalcula- tion at social prices (E- F). The simpler interpretation of this is that the adoption of herd health programmes effectively reduces the heavy protection accorded to dairy farmers, while still allowing them to improve their private profits. Of course, this also transmits as an improvement in terms of social efficiency. The DRC indicates comparative advantage measured as the difference between oppor- tunity costs of using domestic resources (0) and the value-added generated by the activity (E -F), both measured in terms ofworld prices. If the production of a good is of social benefit, then one expects the DRC < 1, indicating comparative advantage over other outputs using the same inputs. The high DRC of the non-adopters in Table 6 clearly indicates inefficient use of resources; this inefficiency is not removed by adopting herd health programmes but it is greatly reduced (a 43.7 and 47.0% reduction for mastitis and reproduction programme adopters, respectively). A similar argument fot the DRC coefficient can be made as was done for the EPC; opportunity costs increased but less than the increase in value added by adopting herd health programmes. Care must be taken in interpreting this improvement in the DRC coefficient. To say that adoption improved comparative advantage is not quite correct because there has not been a direct comparison of an alternate farm level activity conducted in the same region. For example, it would be incorrect to conclude that Yao's (1997) DRC estimate of 0.856 for rice means that Ratchaburi dairy farmers should begin growing rice. However, it can be said that following adoption the DRC coefficient indicates a socially more efficient usage of the outputs that were used prior to adoption. Conclusions Basic herd health risk management programmes to control diseases associated with intensive production are low cost, low input technologies that contribute to increased private profits (Radostits et al. 1994). Of more concern to this study is the impact that the adoption of herd health control programmes has on the exogenous (policy induced) distortions that benefit Thai dairy farmers. Results of the PAM and the comparative measures indicate that dairy farmers of CentralThailand have economic incentives to adopt herd health risk management programmes and that, following adoption of such programmes, there is a reduction in the degree of social inefficiency resulting from public policy supporting dairy farming. FollowingI a reduction in the incidence of bovine disease on adopter farms, this study predicts there should be an increase in private profits due to the increase in farm revenues exceeding the increase in veterinary input costs. Similarly, an increase in social profits should occur owing to social revenues increasing at a greater rate than social costs. Several possible policy scenarios exist to promote adoption of herd health programmes while not reducing social benefits. Perhaps the most obvious is management of the programme by the local dairy co-operative, funded by farmers with a check-off programme, with non-financial backing and promotion from the government. This avoids generating programmes that are demanding of public funds while still promoting the interests of dairy farmers. Another possible scenario is decreasing government support tor farm veterinary care, transferring this cost to the private sector; this is a topic of hot debate stemming from the current shortage of farm veterinarians in Thailand and the privatisation of veterinary care that is ongoing in the poultry and swine sectors. A more det~iled analysis of potential policy options to promote adoption of herd health programmes, including discussio~ of veterinary privatisation, imperfect and asymmetric information, and reduction of transaction coSts, is needed. This study has focused on the farm level impact of herd health risk management programmes but has not incorporated the post-farm activities associated with dairy produc- tion in Central Thailand in much detail. For a thorough evaluation of efficiency and competitiveness of regional or national production, post-farm costs such as a break- down of processing plant labour and marketing activities must be included in greater detail (Monke and Pearson 1989). This is particularly the case for measurement of the competi- tiveness of dairy production as opposed to alternate use of agricultural resources, such as sugarcane production, rice farming, or small ruminant production. A cautionary note is in order: public policy is not always dictated by the most efficient option, as is the case in the government's policy to promote alternate agricultural activities other than rice farming, in which Thailand has considerable international comparative advantage. While dairy products are considerably more costly to produce domestically in Thailand than to import, the decision to continue support for dairy farming is based on diversification of agricultural activities. The implications of this study are that the adoption of herd health risk management programmes by the dairy sector of Central Thailand is a more sociallyefficient implementation of this policy decision, while increasing the private net benefits to dairy farmers. FAO- ]LTA-ILRI Workshop 257 Hall et al. References Andrews A.H. 2000. The health of dairy cattle. Blackwell Science, Oxford U.K. Bank of Thailand. 1999. Annual economic report, 1999. Bank of Thailand Publications, Bangkok, Thailand. Monke E. and S.R. Pearson. 1989. The policy analysis matrix for agricultural development. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. Pearson S.R., Monke E., Argwings-Kodhek Q.,Avillez F., Mukumbu M., Pagiola S, Sellen D., and Winter-Nelson A. 1995. Agricultural policy in Kenya. Applications of the Policy Analysis Matrix. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York, USA. Radostits 0. M., Leslie K.E., and Fetrow J. 1994. Herd health: Food animal production medicine. W.B. Saunders, Co., Toronto, Canada. Rae A. 1992. Interaction between livestock and feeds policies -Evidence from South-East Asia. Agricultural Economics 7(1 June 1992):25-37. Staal S.J. and Shapiro B.I. 1994. The effects of recent price liberalisation on Kenyan periurban dairy -A case-study using the policy analysis matrix approach. Food PoliC"J 19(6 December 1994):533-49. TOAE (Thai Office of Agricultural Economics). 1999. Agricultural economics indicators of Thailand, 1999. Government of Thailand Press, Bangkok, Thailand. Timmer C.P. 1992. Agricultural diversification in Asia: Lessons from the 1980s and issues for the 1990s. In: Barghouti S., Garbus L., and Umali D. (eds.), Tre~ in agricultural ditlersification: regional perspectitles. World Bank Technical Paper 180. World Bank, Washington DC, USA. Yao S. 1997. A modified matrix for policy analysis on production diversification for Thai agriculture. Applied Economies Letters. 4(4 April 1997):215-18. FAO- JLTA- ILRI Workshop258 J. Edwards FMD Campaign, Organisation lnternationales des Epizooties (OlE) Kasetsart University, Thailand Introduction The South-East Asia Foot and Mouth Disease Campaign (SEAFMD) aims to minimise the impact of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) on the livestock industries and trade in the region. FMD is a serious disease of cloven hooved animals and causes significant impacts on production and is also a major barrier to trade in animal products. The trade effects are more obvious in countries that are free zones for FMD. However, restrictions also apply in areas such as South-East Asia. Previous presentations have described the roles of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) in the new order of world trade. The Office International des Epizooties\OIE) has been delegated the responsibility for standards for animal health and trade in animal products and increasingly in food safety issues. In the markets for products from FMD-susceptible species, there is a high premium for products from FMD-free zones. Other products go to lower-value markets. There is a significant difference in price and that is why many countries have aspired to free zone status for FMD. The South-East Asian FMD Campaign covers eight of the ASEAN countries. These are Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Phillipines, Thailand and Vietnam. The campaign emphasises the need for regional co-ordination. If further progress is to be made, there must be co-ordination between countries, because FMD is a disease that spreads very rapidly. What is the status of FMD in South-East Asia? Indonesia eradicated the disease in the mid.1980s and was formally recognised bf- OlE as an FMD-free zone in 1990. Indonesia is working to maintain its status aDd realise that maintaining its FMD-free zone status requires a significant effort and investment. The Philippines has been making very good progress. Mindanao in the south is recognised as a disease.free zone and it is hoped that the Visayan Islands will be declared free in May. In Luzon in the north, the disease is still prevalent and there is a very active programme in place. The Philippines' task force approach has been very successful and hopefully, their programme would make significant progress. 259FAO- ]LTA-ILRI Workshop Edwards East Malaysia has been free of FMD for many years and is developing a case for a free zone-8tatus. The southern end of the Malay Peninsula has been relatively free for some time. FMD outbreaks occur particularly along the border zones and the policy is to eradicate them. Elsewhere inSouth-East Asia FMD is prevalent. The prevalence and the degree of disease control varies between countries. There are also several strains of FMD circulating in these areas and the main ones are types 0, A and Asia 1. A key issue for the region is the fact that it also adjoins China, India and Bangladesh and these have been the sources of new strains in recent timeb. Controlling animal movements is tntical to managing the spread of disase. This requires knowledge of the direction of animal flows ~nd this is stongly influenced by price. If we look at the Philippines, most animal movements are from southern parts to Manilla and Luzon island in the north, where there are higher priced markets. In mainland South-EastAsia, we are trying to move the zones to the north. What we find is that the flow of animals is into the high-priced southern markers where the stronger economies are and these include Thailand and Malaysia. These animal movements are both legal and illegal. If we want to control the disease, managing animal movements becomes very important. The principle that is being applied is to manage these movements with a minimum restriction on trade. The reality is that the South-East Asian countries do not want the disease and want to do something about it. Each of them has movement controls related to FMD that limit movement and restrict trade. One of the major concepts behind this SEAFMD campaign is that in a totally free zone, animal movements are uninhibited and go on without the concerns about movement of FMD. Yesterday, it was reported that the Malaysian Minister for Agriculture has halted all animal movements into Malaysia and has appointed an expert committee to advise on the ".novement controls required to minimise disease incursions. This is an example of how FMD can result in significant restrictions on trade in the region. In the Malaysia-Thailand-Myanmar (MTM) area, there is a proposal to achieve FMD free zone status in the area. The concept for the MTM Peninsular Campaign for FMD Freedom is to define control and buffer zones. In buffer zones (Figure 1) there will be full vaccination of animals and in control zones emphasis is on surveillance and eradication. There will be movement controls in place to limit the spread of the disease. There will be targets and standard procedures to eradicate the disease. The aim of the campaign is to progressively improve zone status and to achieve a disease-free status in four and a half years, according to OlE standards. Benefits from FMD control There are benefits to each of these three countries and this is a very good example of mutual benefits derived from countries working together. Thailand and Malaysia have offered support to assist Myanmar in the FMD campaign because this will also benefit them. This will be a good model for countries working together in the region. The benefits are that Malaysia and Thailand will be able to expand their FMD-free zone status and reduce the costs of eradication. Myanmar and Thailand can export their animals FAO-ILTA -ILRI Workshop260 FMD and tT~ in South-East Asia to high-priced markets such as Malaysia, and Thailand will also maintain its di5ease-free areas. Each of these areas will be able to export and gain higher prices for their animals for being able to trade with FMD-free markets. A recently released study of the economic impacts of FMD in the Phillipines by Dr Brian Perry of the International Livestock Research Institute ~ILRI), reported improved production and poverty alleviation as major benefits. He found that among the major beneficiaries were the private sector, and particularly the large commercial producers. The SEAFMD is trying to engage this sector and encourage them to consider it to be good business practice to take action to reduce the risk of disease. As a major beneficiary they should also be making a significant contribution to FMD control and the campaign. SEAFMD research and development needs The SEAFMD and MTM Peninsular campaigns both need strong research and development programmes to drive the campaigns. The following section describes the research needs in the region for these campaigns and I hope this might help us in our further discussions. 1. SEAFMD role in research -The SEAFMD campaign has a very small budget and is not a research provider. We help facilitate and we try to encourage other people to do work in FMD. We have, however, funded some small projects and we have good collaboration with the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAG). and some of the donor agencies FAO-JLTA -ILRI Workshop 261 Edwards that have done FMD research in the region like the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). 2. Economic analysis -I have previously mentioned the study by ILRI. We need to do further economic analysis on the impacts of FMD, particularly for the MTM initiative. In this way we can start early by having a good understanding of the economic issues. 3. Epidemiological research -This is needed to drive the campaigns. What we are dealing with is a disease that is changing and we know that new strains are evolving in new areas and industries are also changing. However, we have good diagnostic tools and all we need is good epidemiological research to identify where to target our resources, and where we can get the best returns. 4. Monitoring and evaluation -We will need a project to monitor progress with the MTM Campaign and this will have epidemiological and economic elements. 5. Diagnostic tools and vaccines -At the moment, we have inadequate diagnostic tests for FMD and we have difficulty in differentiating vaccinated and unvaccinated animals. There is a need for further work on better diagnostic tests and more targeted vaccination strategies, particularly for new FMD strains. Work on these aspects is going on in other parts of the world, however evaluation and implementation in South.East Asia will be required. 6. Communication research -One of the big challenges is communicating our information to eight countries with different cultures and different languages and to target different sectors. FAO-JLTA -ILRI Workshop262 I. Workslwp output Three workshop groups worked in twose~~ions to answer a series of questions designed to identify opportunities and approaches for livestock research and development to contribute to smallholder well-being. In the first session, four key questions were posed and the schematic in Figure 1 used as a framework for discussion: 1. List the features that characterise households whose livelihoods depend on livestock 2. Which of these features are most likely to lead to change -for better or worse. 3. Describe the possible paths followed by these households -and their positive and negative features. 4. Where are the problems that require research and development by partnerships? An underlying theme was to capture the dynamic nature of development and not focus on using livestock to stimulate change from a 'poor' to a 'less-poor' condition. Rather the emphasis was on using livestock to stimulate pathways to development using live- stock and access to livestock markets as the focal points. The second workshop session aimed at developing concepts for research and develop- ment in the region. To guide the workshop groups, four features were designed to be addressed and identified: the problem, approach to the problem, partnerships, and resources needed. The three groups reported separately, followed by a general discus- sion. 1 Group 1 focused on Indonesia and the Philippines. Akemi Kamakawa (JIRCAS) re', , . 2. Pathways Ruminants and native chickens (with a niche market} were identified as the possible pathways. Currently, there is low production and animal health is poor. 3. Positive and negative outcomes FAO-JLTA -ILRI Workshop 265 ported on the group's output. 1. Features that characterise smallholders .Number of animals .Species .Farm size .Type of farmers .Access to inputs and markets .Education and information .Food consumption .Dependence on agriculture .Location .Family size QI'O'OI11III C C QI QI ta ... lII.c l ta~ ". .c -QI - --lII>ta.c ta >.'0 ,- QI -Q..C ,~ - QlQI'OOI11 O Ql .C-Ql.C > .-.c ~ ". Q..- ...,- ~ -- U III O III ...ta III III -~ ,- C) QlO-OQlQlCQ..e.c:sCC') ~ F1 EJ ~ \ +~ +- .1 ~]~1,§.1u.~~....i~ '- -41III = 4IOO41IIIE-,g4I4I'C'-.C,-lao-la4l-'0 1110 141 -41-41111~'- CI'- .~ ~ >. C O .c";"iila~>41.¥.C'->-=uON . -la , .c Q/ , -C/I.-C/I~"G)CQ/O>O~ .c .--'C =Q/Q/cla C/I C/I Q/ .! .-= O Q. Q/Q/.cQ/.¥..ct~'Cu -la C/I C/I O -='C'C~C/I .w- O .-.c O O Q/ ~u.c.c~~ Workshop outl?!!i Current social and political pressures may increase government interventions, that in turn affect credits and markets, information and education and land reform. For land reform, an opinion pointed out that it is a domestic Issue which ILRI and FAO should stay away from. Urbanisation in the rural areas is making young people leave their farms resulting in less rural labour. Other outcomes include on- and off-farm employment, land degrada- tion, shorter fallowing periods, forests becoming depleted, negative balance of soil nutri- ents, and weed infestation (Imperata cylindrica). Another factor is globalisation which weak. ens competitive position of developing countries. On the role of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Philippine delegate suggested that ILRI and FAO should work on global policy research issues like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and import/export subsidies, opinions for different envi- ronments, e.g. chicken leg quarters issue, regulations for export and their effects on small producers. Technologies are also very important but due to institutional problems, they have not always led to implementation. Research on policy and technology innovation should be priorities. Examples of technology innovations that can be investigated are the food- feed systems, varieties of forage, feed potential of certain rice varieties, and feed storage. There is also a need for labour efficiency as there is less labour now in the country-. side. Technologies on ways to utilise waste from palm oil, cacao, and coffee industries and technologies that require low external inputs need to be found. Cost of deworming also needs to be minimised. Sustainable farming systems that employ good use of nutri- ents and are labour-saving would need to be determined. 4. Pathways Factors like credit, information, and marketing all influence the change in different ways -in some, pathways would go to increase livestock production, some would be non- agriculture, some to specialisation e.g. dairy, where some would specialise in just transport of product, or others would go into milking (contracting). Group 2 David Hall of ILRI reported on the discussions and output of Group 2 which focused on Thailand and Malaysia. 1. Features that characterise smallholders: land and resource base (hectarage, owner- ship, value); labour, enterprise diversification, credit access, dependency on other sectors and industries (livestock feeds into and out of these other industries and sectors); spatial effects of urbanisation as well as its non-spatial effects that include waste and loss of agricultural land, waste as a particular issue for waste management; species of livestock; level of and access to technology and information; marketing and market access, organisation within and external to the community, at the farm, re- gional and national level; and formal and informal systems of education. 2. Which features are most likely lead to change? The group reported that credit access, technology, markets and organisation were the most important features. 267 Workshop output 3. Pathways a. Credit access involves collateral and process of credit acquisition is different for smallholders. Land title and ownership are relevant here. b. Cooperative development and networking from the private sector which includes community participation. c. Liberalisation of credit markets is an important pathway and this does not neces- sarily come from a nationally directed programme down to the smallholders. This may come from pressure within a community or within a region. Several examples in South-East Asia discussed by the group reflected this issue- d. Increase appropriate extension services. Extension MUST meet demand of and be relevant to the livestock sector. e. Market access as a pathway involves many issues. Information on prices need to be available as it is very difficult to make decisions without such information. There is a need for a physical market environment that provides ability to access that market. This also includes organisation and the process of bringing buyers and sellers together. f. Community-level development of networks is another pathway. In South-East Asia, community-level networks that develop indepe~dent of national or regional direction are often the case. In this case, a community-led level of participation in, for instance, mobilisation to improve market channels, can utilise the family and extended family structures, a very important social issue in the region. This leads to the whole issue of developing networks that enhance market access. 4. Research issues Where are the problems for partnerships? The group decided that there was room for all partners present and those not represented at the meeting. So, no specific roles for specific partners were identified. Research issues identified were the following: a. Information and its availability. How is this information made available to small- holders? There are new forms of information and new ways and technologies of acquiring information. Such ways and technologies may not yet be distributed to some people or they may not be appropriate to some regions. What are the appropriate methodologies for bringing all these issues together? b. Credit markets. How do we go about liberalising credit markets? We also need to consider the benefits and social costs of doing so. It is a very different situation for smallholders to access a credit market or for a smallholder community to have a liberalised credit scheme than it is for large, private institutions. c. In terms of market access, an issue identified was on investments for reducing transaction costs when these costs are considered as a barrier to market access. For example, a dairy producer that lives not far from the urban market but cannot access that market because the road system may be complicated for him in transporting a heavy load. d. Meeting sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS) measures. How are smallholders affected? How can they be brought in? e. Food safety concerns. What is the impact of raising standards on smallholders? Some standards addressed at international level and are required for international FAO- JLTA- ILRl Workshop268 Work.slwp output market participation may not be appropriate for domestic markets. They may in- stead be a barrier that can reduce regional market activity. What are the methodolo- gies and how do we implement some of the standards? f. Property rights and linkages to other issues like impact on market access and others. g. Organisation. What are the empowering and appropriate policy issues that allow organisations to be effective? How do they come together, make decisions? Group 3 was composed of representatives from Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, and China. Dr. Than Daing of Myanmar presented the group's output. 1. Features of households that depend on livestock included the following: a. Land. Most important issue is the landless. Most people are labourers who are daily wage earners (about US$ 0.60 -1.30). b. Access to credit. There is lack of access to credit, a shortage of capital among smallholders. c. Market access. Poor roads, informal and unstable markets, seasonal fJ"lctuation, illegal trade- d. Local policy encourages large-scale companies leading to ethnic ma..ginalisation. e. Species are mostly monogastrics. f. Level of production of native livestock is low and there are J.1so problems of diseases. g. Quality of natural resources. h. Appropriate technologies and information are lacking. i. Access to water is limited. j. Cooperatives have high failure rate but are necessary. k. Lack of education, low literacy, low social status. 2. Pathways a. Cooperatives and local grouping. While there were many co-operatives that failed, these are still considered necessary for farm households to break away from pov- erty .There is still need for other farmers associations that can provide strategic alliances, for instance, in supply arrangements, that can lead to development of more small and medium enterprises. b. Government policy leads to large-scale enterprise. c. Big companies contract growers. d. In Myanmar, farmers income-generating group sharing of costs reduce risk. e. Shift to other species, e.g. dairy and beef cattle, move to lean pigs or commercial poultry. Problems felt by smallholders are access to quality feed, capital requirements, dis- eases, perishable milk, lack of technology and training. The major constraints are: a. Infrastructure b. lack of information about markets and production technologies FAO-JLTA -ILRI Workshop 269 WOTk.!hop output c. poor delivery of extension services d. lack of market structure and middlemen are not always the black sheep they are thought to be e. lack of exploitation of local resources in rainfed areas Research work is needed in the following areas: a. animal nutrition {and training on feed formulation) b. appropriate genetics for a given environment c. farm management d. animal health treatment and diagnosis e. food quality and post-harvest and transport losses f. government policy to enhance environmental sustainability Discussions Ethnic marginalisation was a concern raised in some countries. In some countries, ethnic groups get less attention from the government authorities. Issues raised in the context of research and development can be grouped into three areas: global and international issues that relate to SPS and WTO; sustainable tech- nology development in such areas as waste, sustainable farming, food-feed systems, appropriate genetics; and domestic market and related social issues like organisation, credit access, infrastructure, tenure, property rights, information flow, policies etc. Access to credit is a major problem among smallholders. But research should also look at the mechanisms of savings, especially when the functions of livestock are examined. One such function is that livestock is a form of savings and low productiv- ity may not be that important to a smallholder. In Latin America there are credit schemes where farmers pay back in kind, e.g. offspring. But the experience is that it is always difficult to arrange for pay back in kind since sale of animals is not predict- able. While liberalising markets is a question, a key question is to find ways where smallholders can get access to credit. In the Philippines, commercial banks have a natural bias against lending capital to smallholders because of transaction costs. A United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) project in Bangladesh where microcredit funds are provided wants to channel these funds to other project activities because it believes that credit is a function of the commercial banking sector. A suggestion was made that research should look more at the informal credit system as shown in the high degree of success of the Grameen Bank credit method in Bangladesh, Thailand and the Philippines. There is a need for research to examine both credit systems that have worked and not worked in the past as a basis for formu- lating strategies and this is precisely where ILRI can help, especially in developing cross-county comparisons. There was also a suggestion that in the smallholder system where loans are pro- vided, technical backup should be a necessary feature of the loan programme. This problem was experienced in a Grameen project in Bangladesh where landless women 270 Workshop output borrowed money for goat production. However, Peste des petit ruminants (PPR) wiped out the goats. There is therefore a need to assure smallholders that risks can be minimised for them. A question was raised on why this cross.<:ountry comparison should be done in South-East Asia and why not in other parts of the world. It was the consensus that the livestock revolution has brought up very clear issues in South-East Asia and that livestock is a pathway out of poverty. Access to credit is key to this and microcredit is a useful tool. In addition, donors would find South-East Asia extremely interesting because of its so many different social, economic and technical backgrounds. It was also suggested that while there is a lot of biodiversity in South-East Asia, the challenge for ILRI and FAO's role in bringing about better food security in the region is to turn this biodiversity as a living asset into an economic benefit. Access to market price information enables smallholders to make better decisions and negotiate for favourable prices. As it is the middlemen have better access to market information. There is a need to link the smallholders to market information. It is not only price information that is needed. Smallholders also need information and training on technologies, risk avoidance etc. On the other hand, there was a concern on the poor delivery of extension services as evidenced by unqualified extension personnel who give advice on animal health issues to smallholders. There is a need to synthesise and digest the information already available in many research institutions. There must be a way of synthesising this information as a basis for sound decision-making and make this available to smallholders, to the business sector and to the policy makers. A key research issue is getting information to policy makers especially on global policy studies (competitiveness, barriers to trade etc.) Workshop output In th;s workshop, seven research and development concepts were developed. The con- cepts include food-feed systems, animal health, animal genetic resources, impact of raising SPS standards on smallholders in South-East Asia, animal diseases and small- holders, impact of liberalisation on smallholders in South-East Asia, and market access. The following project concepts were presented (Tables 1- 7). Table 1. Concept 1 -food-feed systems. ResponseItem Limited land, low productivity and decline in soil fertil- ity in smallholder rice-based crop-livestock systems in rainfed areas Problem What is the problem? Characterisation of existing crop-animal systems, identi- fication of constraints and potential solutions Determination of feed requirement$ of local animals and formulation of year-round feeding strategies using local feeds; assessment of me impact of legumes and dual- purpose crops on quality of crop yields and crop residues; meeting me requirement$ of me animals and maintain- ing soil fertility Approach How will the problem be solved? How will we know that the problem has been solved? What are the objectives? Partnerships Are partnerships needed? Who will be me partners? Yes National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS)1 in China, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAG) I) NARS -personnel, research facilities, matching funds, and other local resources 2) ILRl -personnel, method. ologies, training 3) ILRl and FAG -backstopping, e.g. networking, liaison with other Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGlAR) centres to obtain crops germplasm What will each partner contribute? Resources What is needed to solve the problem? Who will provide the resources? Funding to support NARS to conduct field research Funding for ILRI to assist NARS wiili meiliodologies, conduct croSHite data analyses and training. Estimated cost from donors -US$ 600 iliousand to 750 iliousand (for a 3-year period). Will vary depending on number of countries effectively involved Yunnan Beefand Pasture Research Centre and YunnanAgricultural University in China; Institute of Agricultural Sciences of South Vietnam and Goat and Rabbit Research Centre in Vietnam; Livestock Breeding and Veterinary Dept. in Myanmar; Khon Kaen University and Department of Livestock Development in Thailand; Central Research Institute for Animal Sciences (CRlAS), Central Research Institute for Food Crops (CRIFC) and Assessment Institute for Agricultural Techno\. ogy in Indonesia; and t\1e Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) and the University of the Philippines at Los Bafios Institute of Animal Science (UPLB-IAS) in the Philippines. FAO-JLTA -ILRI Workshop272 WO7kshop output Table 2. Concept 2- animal health. Item Response Problem What is the problem? Inappropriate diagnosis of animal diseases Non--affordability of prevention and treatment Inadequate disease reporting Inefficient delivery of veterinary services Approach How will the problem be solved? How will we know that the problem has been solved? What are the objectives? Diagnosis, assessment of disease siwation Vaccine -easily applicable by fanners (e.g. Iz Newcastle vaccine) Use of traditional medicine (ethno-veterinary) Integrated community based health management Conduct case swdies and research Partnerships Are partnerships needed? Who will be the partners? Yes National Animal Health and Production Investiga- tion Centre (NAHPIC), Cambodia, Livestock Breeding and Veterinary Department (LBVD) Myanmar, Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD), Bureau of Animal Industry (BAr), University of the Philippines at Los Bafios College of Vetetinary Medicine (UPLB- CVM) Philippines Human resources Laboratory facilities What will each pattnet contribute? Resources What is needed to solve the problem? Improved facilities, R&D manpower capability building/upgrading International donor agency, ILRl/FAO, NARSWho will provide the resources? 273FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop Workshop output Table 3. Concept 3- Anima! genetic resosurces. ResponseItem Problem What is the problem? Access to appropriate genetic resources Approach How will me problem be solved? How will we know mat the problem has been solved? What are the objectives? Document existing genetic resources (characteri. sation; status; valuation; databases; molecular diversity) Develop tools tor conservation and utilisation (decision aids; cost-effective conservation strategies; cost-effective and sustainable breeding programmes) Demonstrate approach via regionaV global breed selection, tesnng and development Partnerships Are partnerships needed? Yes NARS of severaJ/many countries, ILRI, FADWho will be die partners? ILRI, specific NARS partners, Agricultural research institutions (ARI), FAG NARS backstopped by ILRI/FAG What will each partner contribute? Resources What is needed to solve the problem? Substantial funding to support NARS staff collect data and samples Who will provide me resources? Funding to ILRI/FAO to collect data and design decision aid tools and backstop data analyses. Funding to initiate demonstration projects with commitment from NARS or local communities beyond initiation phase. Estimated cost from donors -uss 1 to 5 million per species Workshop output Table 4. Concept 4- Impact of raising sanitary and ph,tosanitary (SPS) standards on smalUwlden in South-East Asia. Response.Item More stringent international SPS standards seem to promote/ encourage increased integration/ concentration of meat industries in South-East Asia. This tendency further marginalises sInall- scale livestock producers, forcing them more into informal markets. Problem What is the problem? Approach How will the problem be solved? How will we know that the problem has been solved? What are the objectives? Research and Analysis .Case smdies on cost of compliance to SPS regulations .Assess (using CGE model) impact on poor smallholders Provide information to regional policy makers wim me intent of bringing issue/options to SPS Committee Heighten ASEAN's influence in the SPS (Codex) standard setting process Partnerships Yes ILRI, FAG, ASEAN, country-level policymakers, representatives of local meat industties Are partnerships needed? Who will be ilie partners? What will each partner contribute? Resources What is needed to solve me problem? Who will provide me resources? Ted1nicaVeconomic expertise using regional institutions and universities Funding Co-operation &om meat industries in specific case study countties 275FAO-JLTA -ILRI Workshop Workshop output Table 5. Concept 5 -Animal diseases and smallho~. Item Response Problem What is the problem? Uncontrolled animal movement in Indo- China and el:ldemic animal diseases inhibit trade by South.East Asia leading to lower production and returns to small livestock producers Approach How will the problem be solved? .Case smdies on impact on elimination of FMD on smallholders, including an assessment to measure the impact of animal diseases on productivity .Implementation of traceability standards and guidelines developed by FAO/ILRl/ OlE. This would allow movemel1t control and animal traceback How will we know iliat the problem has been solved! Problem solved: &ee regional trade flows in livestock and meat products What are me objectives? Objectives: access to global markets, higher production and returns by smallholders Partnerships What is needed to solve me problem? Donors, country collaboration Who will provide ilie resources? Expertise in animal health, epidemiology, economic analysis, risk analysis and trade in animal products 276 FAO-JLTA -ILRI Workshop Workshop output~~r ---~r--~ Table 6. Concept 6- Impact of liberalisation on smallho~ in South-East Asia. Item Response Problem What is ilie problemr Trade liberalisation creates oppornlnities and risk for smallholders in Soud1-East Asia. Market access creates competition in local markets. What polici~and instruments can assist smallholders to adjust to and thrive in this changing envirorment? Approach How will the problem be solved? How will we know that the problem has been solved? What are objectives? .Col!lpetition studies .Regional and country trade models with distributional impact .Identify through dIstributional mvdels what type of intervention, policy or other, such as access to credit etc., can be implemented .Present results to policy makers in the region with the objective of heightening the visibility of the topic of the impact of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on smallholders .Develop a platfonn of options in wro negotiations Partnerships Are partnerships needed? Who will be ilie panners? Yes ILRI, FAO, ADB, ACIAR, ASEAN and national universities and institutions What will each partner contribute? Resources What is needed to solve the problem? Who will provide the resources? Partners, political commitment from regional policy makers Workshop output Table 7. Concept 7- Market issues (market access). ResponseItem Problem Inadequate participation in market activities due to the presence of transaction costs which act as barriers to market access What is the problem? Approach The problem will be solved by the reduction of identified tra~action costs to a level identified by stakeholders as achievable and suitable How will the problem be solved? How will we know that the problem has been solved? What are the objectives? Partnerships Are partnerships needed? Yes. Farmers (smallholders}, market agents, FAG/ Japan Livestock Technology Association QLTA) and Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Sciences QIRCAS/ ILRl/ NARS/NGOs, policy makers (regional and national}, and regulators Who will be the partners? What will each partner contribute? Fanners (smallholders} -knowledge of market access barriers and priority areas Market agents -identification of priority areas FAO/JLTA and JIRCAS/ILRI - backstopping, meiliodology, and logisrical support, capacity building NARS and NGOs -capacity building, insritutional framework for ilie investigation of and distribution of research findings and results, and policy support Policy makers (regional and national} and regulators -policy development, policy implementation, and policy enforcement Resources What is needed to solve ilie problem? Appropriate stUdy design iliat includes input from all stakeholders Human resources Linkages to ongoing work Appropriate and achievable funding Who will provide dle resources? ADB country loans Bilateral resources Commodity resources (e.g. CFC) Appropriate foundarions FAO-JLTA -ILRI Workshop278 l' Australia Japan 5. ItBuro Yamane Senior Researcher Applied Epidemiology Section Nationallnstirote of Animal Heald1 3.1.5 Kamwndai, Tsukuba-shi lbaraki, 305.0586 Japan Tel: 81-298-38 7770 Fax: 81-298-38 7880 Email: -c.go.jp 1. Paul Riethmuller Associate Professor Deparnnent of Economics, The University of Qtleensland St Lucia, Queensland, Australia Tel: 61- 733656321 Fax: 61- 733657299 E-mail: p.riethmul1er@economic.uq.edu.au Cambodia Malaysia 2. Som San Deparnnent of Animal Health &. Production University for Tropical Agriculture Foundation P a Box 2423, Phnom Penh Tel: 85523219750 Fax: 85523219750 E-mail: ssnnvd 1 @bigpond.com.kh 6. Mariam Abdul Utif Food T eclmologist Department of Food Teclmology Faculty of Food Science and Bioteclmology UniveISiti Putta Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang Selangor Daro1 Ehsan, Malaysia Td: 03-894-6600 Fax: 03-943-0626 Eo mail: yan@putta.upm.edu.myChina Myanmar3. 7JJang Cuogen Professor, Division of Livestock Economy & Development InstitUte of AgricultUral Economics Chinese Academy of AgricultUral Sciences 30 Baishiqiao Road, West Suburbs, Beijing 100081 Peoples' Republic of China Tel: 86-10 6891 9786/6891 9876 Fax: 86-10 6218 7545 F,.mail: zhangcg@mail.caas.net.cn 7. Than Daing Director of Animal Healdl and Development ~ock Breeding & Veterinary Deparnnent a-BVD) Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Insein, Yangon 10001, Myanmar Td: 95-9-642484 Fax: 95-1-642927 F,mail: lvrd@mpt.mail.net.mm Indonesia KuaumaDiwyanto Central Research Instimte of Animal Science ]1 Pajajaran, Bogor Tel: 62-251-313778 Fax: 62-251-322954 E-mail: criansci@indo.net.id Philippines 8. Jose6na Contreras Senior Agriculturist Animal Produca Development Center A Fernando St., ManIlas, Valenzuela, Philip- pines Tel: 63-2-293-5589 Fax: 63-2-291-6834 Email: joycon@manila-online.net 281FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 14. Somkiat Saithanoo Faculty of Natural Resources Prince of Songkla University Hat Yai 90110, ThaUand Tel: 66-74-211122/212806 Fax: 66- 74-211122 £'.mail: ssomkiat@ratree.psu.ac.th 9. Elaine Lanting Deputy Director Livestock Research Division Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and N atural Resources Research &. Develop- ment (PCARRD) Los Bafios, Laguna 4031, Philippines Tel: 63-49-536-0014 Fax: 63-49-536-0016 E-rnail: elanting@ultra.pcarrd.dost.gov .ph 15. Suchint Simaraks Khan Kaen University Khan Kaen 4002, Thailand Tel: 66-43-139 749/244 474 F~ 66-43-239 749/ 244373 E..mail: suchint@kk:u.ac.th 10. Nerlita Manalili Program Head Agro-Industrial Development Program SEAMEO Regional Center for Graduate Study &Research in Agriculture (SEARCA) ws Baflos, Laguna 4031, Philippines Tel: 63-49-536-2290; 536-2365 to 67 wcal 132 Fax: 63-49-536-4105 E-rnail: nmm@AGRl.searca.org 16. Rapeepong Vongdee Director General Department of Livestock Development (DLD) Thai Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperatives Bangkok, Thailand Tel: 66-6-653-4400 Fax: 66-2-653-4900 Email: dcd-dld@inet.co.th Vietnam 11. Pedro Ocampo Executive Director Livestock Development Council (LDC) DA Compound, Elliptical Road Diliman, Quezon City , Philippines Tel: 63-2-928-1134 Fax: 63-2-929-6066 E-mail: livestock@netasia.mail 17. Dinh VanBinh Director Goat and Rabbit Institute National Institute of Animal Husbandry of Vietnam Hanoi, Vietnam Tel: 84-034-838341 Fax: 84-034-838889 E-mail: binhbavi@netnam.vn 12. Nestor Palabyab Chief, ASEAN/Other Asia Desk Bureau of Export Trade Promotion Department of Trade and Industry 5th to 8th Floors, New Solid Bldg. 357 Sen. Oil J. Puyat Ave., Makati City, Philippines Tel: 63-2-890-4693; 63-2-890-4723 Fax: 63-2-890-4707; 63-2-890-4716 E-mail: betpasea@dti.gov .ph 18. La Van Kinh Deputy Director Institute of Agricultural Sciences of South Vietnam 121 Nguyen Binh Khiem District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Tel: 84-8-829 1746/822 8371 Fax 84-48- 829 7650 E..Mail: ilri.ias@hcm.vnn.vn Thailand 19. Tnlon Than Long lecturer Faculty of Food T echnology University of Agriculture and Forestry Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh City I Viefnam Tel: 0089-8-8574000 Email: longnes@saigonnet.vn 13. Charan Chanh.a\chan!' Department of Animal Science Kase~art University, Bangkok, Thailand Tel: 66-2-579-6555 Fax: 66-2-579-8555 E-mail: swkcrc@nontri.ku.ac.ili 282 FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop 20. Adolf Nessel Faculty of Food Technology University of Agriculture and Forestry Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh City. Vietnam Tel: 0089-8-8574000 Email: longnes@Saigonnet.vn 25. Nancy Morgan Commodity Specialist for Meat Trade Secretary of the Intergovernmental Group on Meat Food and AgricultUral Organization of the United NatioN Commodities and Trade Division Via delle Tenne di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy Tel: 39-06 570-54528 Fax: 39-06 570-54495 £..mail: Nancy.Morgan@faQ.org 21. Ralph Roothaert Regional Coordinator CIAT, do IRRl DAPO Box 7777 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: 63-2-845-0563 Local 6856 Fax: 63-2-845-0606 £'.mail: r.roothaert@cgiar.org 26. Joacbim Otte Senior Officer Animal Production and Health Division Livestock Sector Analysis and Policy Branch (AGAL) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Via delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome 00100, Italy Tel: 39-06-570-53371 Fwc 39-06-570-53152 E-mail: joachim.otte@fao.org 22. DeniB Hoffinann Animal Production Officer F AO Regional Office for Asia and dle Pacific 39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok, Thailand Tel: 66-2-281- 7844 Ext 308 Fax: 66-2-280-0445 E-mail: denis.hoffmanh@fao.org IlRI 27. Caoagaaaby Devendra Senior Associate 130A Jalan A wan Jawa 58200 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Tel: 60-3- 7983-9307 Fax: 60-3-7983-7935 £..mail: cdev@pac.jaring.my c.devendra@cgiar.org 23. Ham-Gerhard Wagner Regional Animal Production Officer F AO Regional Office for Asia and me Pacific 39 Phra Atit Road Bangkok 10200, Thailand Tel: 66-2-697-4326 Fax: 66-2-697-4445 E-mail: hans.wagner@fao.org 28. Simeon Ehui Programme Coordinator Livestock Policy Analysis ILRI-Ethiopia, P O Box 5689 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Tel: 251-1-4634951 Fax: 241-1-461252 E-mail: 5.ehui@cgiar.org 24. Samuel Jut%i Director Animal Production and Healili Division Food and Agriculture Organization of ilie United Nations Via delle Tenne di Caracalla, Rome 00100, Italy Tel: 39-06 570-53371 F~ 39-06 570-53152 E-mail: samuel.jutzi@fao.org 29. Salvador Fernandez..Rivera Programme Coordinator Livestock Feeds and Nutrition ILRI.Edliopia, p O Box 5689 Addis Ababa, Edliopia Tel: 251-1-463697 Ext 19 Froc 251-1-461252/464 645 B-mail: s.femandez..rivera@cgiar.oJg 283FAO-JLTA-ILRl Workshop 36. Carlos Sere Director General ILRI-Kenya, PO Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254-2-630743 Fax: 254-2-631499 E-mail: c.sere@cgiar.org 30. John Gibson Programme Coordinator Livestock Genetics and Genornics ILRI.Kenya P a Box 30709 Nairobi, KENY A Tel: 254-2-630743 Fax: 254-2-631499 E..rnaU: j.gibson@cgiar.org 37. David Taylor Deputy Director General.Programmes ILRI.Kenya, PO Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254-2-630743 Fax: 254-2-631 499 E-mail: d.taylor@cgiar.org 31. Douglas Gray Regional Coordinator ILRI -Philippines DAPO Box 7777 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: 63-2-845-0563 wcal 6829 Fax: 63-2-845-0606 £..mail d.gray@cgiar.org 38. Phillip Thomton Programme Coordinator Systems Analysis and Impact Assessment ILRI-Kenya, pa Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254-2-630743 Fax: 254-2-631499 E-mail: p.thomton@cgiar.org 32. David Hall Animal Health Economist ILRl-Kenya p O Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254-2-630743 Fax: 254-2-631499 EmaU: d.hall@cgiar.org 39. William Thorpe Project Manager, Smallholder Dairy ILRl.Kenya. pa Box 30709 Nairobi. Kenya Tel: 254-2-630743 Fax: 254-2-631499 E-mail: w.thorpe@cgiar.org 33. Ma Lucila Lapar Livestock Economist ILRl -Philippines DAPO Box 7777 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: 63-2-845-0563 Local 6834 Fax: 63-2-845-0606 E-mail: 1.lapar@cgiar.prg 40. Xianglin U Liaison Scientist ILRl-Beijing, c/ o CAAS 12 Zhong.Guan-Cun South Avenue Haidian, Beijing 100081, China Tel: 86-106-211-4583 F~ 86-106-211-4585 E-mail: x.li@cgiar.org 34. Helen Leitch Manager, Funding Support Systems ILRI-Kenya p a Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254-2-630743 Fax: 254-2-631499 E-mail: h.leitch@cgiar.org jlCA 35. Danilo Pew Nutritionist ILRI -Philippines DAPO Box 7777 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: 63-2-845-0563 Local 675 Fax: 63-2-845-0606 E-mail: d.pezo@cgiar.or~ 41. Masao Sasaki Senior Advisor JlCA Animal Disease Control Project in Thailand and Neighbouring Countries Department of Livestock Development Phaya Thai Road, Bangkok, Thailand Fax: 66-2-653-4417 Email: Sasaki.Masao@jica.go.jp - FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop284 jlRCAS OBSERVERS 46. Wantanee Kalpravidh Senior Expert in Veterinary Sciences and Director Division of Veterinary Epidemiology Department of Livestock Development Phaya Thai Road, Bangkok 10400 Thailand Tel: 66-2-653-4412, 653-4444 Ext. 1115 Fax: 66-2-653-4921 Email: wantanek@dld.go.th 42. Akemi Kamakawa Senior Researcher Animal Producrion and Grassland Division Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS) 1-1 Phwashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3058686 Tel: 81-298-386356 Fax: 81-298-386653 E-rnail: karnakawa@jircas.affrc.go.jp jLTA 43. Teruhide Fujita Executive Director The Japan Livestock Technology Association 3-20.9 Yushima, Bunkyu-ku Tokyo 113-0034, Japan Tel: 81-338-362301 Fax: 81-338-362302 E-mail: jlta@group.lin.go.jp; TERUFUJIT A@aol.com 47. Pennapa Mattayompong Senior Veterinary Officer Division of Disease Control Department of Livestock Development Phaya Thai Road, Bangkok 10400 Thailand Tel: 66-2-653-4444 Ext. 4172 Fax: 66-2-653-4865 Email: dcd-dld@inet.co.th 48. Vipawan Panapo1 Chief, Livestock Economics Section Department of Livestock Development Phaya Thai Road, Bangkok 10400 Thailand Tel: 66-2-653-4444 Ext. 3381 Fax: 66-2-653-4928 Email: economics-extension@dld.go.th 44. Moneo Ogata Adviser Japan Livestock rechnology Association 3-20.9 Yushirna, Bunkyo-ku Tokyo 113.0034 Japan Tel: 81-338-362301 Fax: 81-338-362302 Email: jlta@group.lin.go.jp; ogatasan@mvc. biglo be.ne. jp OlE 49. Vanida Kumnirdpetch Animal Husbandry Scientist Division of Animal Husbandry Department of Livestock Development Phaya Thai Road, Bangkok 10400 Thailand Tel: 66-2-653-4444 Ext. 3222 Fax: 66-2-653-4922 Email: dairy-husbandry@dld.go.th 50. Thanawat Tiensin Veterinary Officer Division of Veterinary Epidemiology Department of Livestock Development Phaya Thai Road, Bangkok 10400 Thailand Tel: 66-2-653-4444 Ext. 4134 Fax: 66-2-653-4921 Email: emerge-vetepidem@dld.go.th 45. John Edwards Regional Coordinator FMD Campaign, Organisation lnternationale des Epizooties Faculty of Veterinary l\oiedicine, Kasetsart University Chatuchak 10900 Bangkok, Thailand Tel: 66-2-940-6570 Fax: 66-2-940- 7491 Email: ioercu@loxinfo.co.th 51. Chantanee Buranadtai Veterinary Officer Division of Veterinary Epidemiology Department of Livestock Development Phaya Thai Road, Bangkok 10400 Thailand Tel: 66-2-653-4444 Ext. 4134 Fax: 66-2-653-4921 Email: dcd-dld@inet.co.th 285FAO- TLTA-ILRI Workshop 52. Vishnu Songkitti APHCA LiaIson Officer F AO/RAP 39 Phra Arit Road Bangkok 10200, Thailand Tel: 66-2-697-4256 Fax: 66-2-647-4445 Email: vlshnu.songkitti@fao.org 53. Jenny Turton AniIru'.l Health Officer F AO/RAP 39 Phra Atit Road Bangkok 10200, Thailand Tel: 66-2-697-4317 Fax: 66-2-647-4445 Email: jenny. turton@fao.org 54. Mimosa C. Ocampo Professor Institute of Development Management and Governance University of the Philippines at Los Bafios Laguna, Philippines Tel: 63-49-536-3382 Fax: 63-49-536-3382 Email: ocampolb@mozcom.com idmg@laguna.net SECRET ARIA T 55. Antonio S. Frio Communication Specialist ILRI -Philippines Dapo Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: 63-2-845-0563 Local 6834 Fax: 63-2-845-0606 E-mail: a.&io@cgiar.org 56. I..eticia Padolina Consultant ILRI -Philippines Dapo Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: 63-2-845-0563 Local 6834 Fax: 63-2-845-0606 E-mail: l.padolina@cgiar.org FAO-JLTA-ILRI Workshop286