social consequences of the changing landscape for mixed ... · social consequences of the changing...

A Living from LivestockPro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative

Social Consequences of the Changing Landscape for Mixed Livestock

Production Systems

International Conference on‘Livestock in a Changing Landscape’Bangkok, Thailand 28 November 2006

A. Costales, U. Pica-Ciamarra & J. OttePro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative


Outline

• The Changing landscape

• Mixed Crop-livestock Production Systems

• Stylized Development Paths & Case Studies

• Summary & conclusions


The Changing Landscape


Interlocking ‘Drivers’ of Change

• Growing & changing demand for meat & milk products in DCs

• New technologies in production and processing

• National and international market liberalization and integration

The

Cha

ngin

g La

ndsc

ape


Opportunities and Threats

• Expanding markets –opportunities for livestock producers

• Demanding markets (product quality and food safety) – exclusion of some producers from market (and sector!)

The

Cha

ngin

g La

ndsc

ape


Responses to the Changing Landscape

Initial conditions:1. Agricultural / livestock

sector in the economy 2. Resource endowments

(land, labour, capital) 3. Economic-institutional

framework

The

Cha

ngin

g La

ndsc

ape

Highly differentiated

Food staples + export cropsFood staplesOutput mix

ImportantNot importantNot importantScale economies

InternationalNational / DomesticSubsistenceMarket

orientation

LowModerateHighShare of labour in

agriculture

LowModerateHighShare of

agriculture in GDP

Globalizing Agriculture

Modernizing Agriculture

Traditional Agriculture


Responses to the Changing LandscapeTh

e C

hang

ing

Land

scap

e Production systems:1. Extensive production

systems2. Mixed crop- livestock

production systems3. Intensive production

systems


Responses to the Changing LandscapeTh

e C

hang

ing

Land

scap

e Production systems:1. Extensive production

systems2. Mixed crop- livestock

production systems 3. Intensive production

systems


Mixed Crop- LivestockProduction Systems

Crop-Livestock Farms


Characteristics

• Predominantly small farms• Livestock contribute to

! income! food! draught! savings! insurance! social status

• (Informal) traders• Processors / wholesalers /

retailersMix

ed C

rop-

lives

tock

Pro

duct

ion

Sys

tem

s


Predominance of Small Farms

100456.1Total

3.314.8>10

3.013.85-10

8.840.32-5

11.753.31-2

73.2334.0<1

Prop’n of farms w/n class

(%)

No. of farms w/n class

(mio)

Farm size class(ha) Remark: variations of

‘average’ farm size:! SSA: 1.6 ha.! Asia: 1.6 ha.

" China, Bangladesh: <1/2 ha

! LAC: 67 ha.

Source: Von Braun, 2005Mix

ed C

rop-

lives

tock

Pro

duct

ion

Sys

tem

s


Mixed Farms and Livestock Production

Mixed farms contribution to total livestock output (%) –world regions

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

milk milk milk milk pig pig

Kenya Ethiopia India Pakistan Vietnam Philippines

Mix

ed C

rop-

lives

tock

Pro

duct

ion

Sys

tem

s

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

Milk Ruminantmeat

Pig &Poultry

Eggs

SSANENAS&SEALACOECD

Small mixed farms contribution to total livestock output (%) –selected countries


Employment & Market Share (Milk)M

ixed

Cro

p-liv

esto

ck P

rodu

ctio

n S

yste

ms

Employed persons /1000 litre of milk output - small (informal) / large

(formal) ratio

Share (% out of total) of informal employment

and marketed milk

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

Small-to-Large farmemployment

Informal-to-formal chainemployment

IndiaPakistanKenyaEthiopia

n.a

0

25

50

75

100

Share ofemployment (%)

Share of marketed milk (%)

IndiaPakistanKenyaEthiopiaTanzaniaBangladesh

n.a.

n.a.


Impact of the ChangingLandscape on Mixed Systems

Three Stylized Pathwaysof Livestock Sector Development


‘Stylized’ Development PathwaysLi

vest

ock

Sec

tor D

evel

opm

ent P

athw

ays

1. Positive, equitable livestock development path

2. Livestock sector stagnation / involution

3. Positive but in-equitable development path


1. Positive & Equitable Path

• Growth leads to broad-based rural production and rural-to-urban processing and distribution systems! consumption linkages! production linkages

• Decentralized rural industrialization, exploiting rural labour and entrepreneurial skills

Case study: India dairy

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Dairyfarms

Milchanimalsper farm

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

CrossbredBuffaloLocal

Live

stoc

k S

ecto

r Dev

elop

men

t Pat

hway

s


2. Stagnation / Involution

• Rural production systems are disconnected from growing markets! weak / no production

linkages! weak / no consumption

linkages• Anti-agriculture ‘biased

policies’! macroeconomic! sector policies! infrastructural

Case study: Zambia dairy

5

6

7

8

9

10

3200

3300

3400

3500

3600

3700

3800

90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Milk per capita consumptionurban population (mio)

urba

n po

pula

tion,

mill

ion

per c

apita

milk

con

sum

ptio

n (k

g/ye

ar)

0

25

50

75

100

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

tons

(.00

0)

Milk productionMilk net imports

Live

stoc

k S

ecto

r Dev

elop

men

t Pat

hway

s


3. Positive but Inequitable Path

• Small modern sector benefiting from LCL! production linkages! concentration of

production! food safety/quality

• Large traditional sector excluded from benefits of LCL! weak production linkages! consumption linkages! at the extreme, forced out

of the sector

1990

66.3

33.7

FormalInformal

Case study: Brazil dairy

1998

56.5

43.5FormalInformal

Share of formal/informal marketed milk

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

tons

(.00

0)

Milk productionMilk trade

Live

stoc

k S

ecto

r Dev

elop

men

t Pat

hway

s


SummaryD

river

s1. Positive pathway

2. Stagnation / involution

3. Inequitable pathway

Large farms

Small farms

Formal supply chain

Informal supply chain

Urban consumers

Rural consumers

Small subsistence farms

Informal supply chain

Rural consumers

Large farms

Small farms

Formal supply chain

Urban consumers

Live

stoc

k S

ecto

r Dev

elop

men

t Pat

hway

s

out of business


Summary & Conclusions


Summary

• (Small) Mixed farms are and will remain pervasive

• (Small) Mixed farms significantly contribute to livestock output & rural employment

• LCL different impacts on mixed farms possible:! positive, equitable

development path! stagnation / involution! positive but inequitable

development path

Sum

mar

y &

Con

clus

ions


Conclusions

• Small mixed farms can be competitive

• Large & small farms / supply chains can co-exist

• Smallholder based (livestock) industrialization is possible

• Equity & growth are not mutually

exclusive

• ‘Equitable’ livestock technical & institutional policiesS

umm

ary

& C

oncl

usio

ns


References & Further Reading

Staal, S.J., A.N. Pratt, and M.Jabbar. (2006). A Comparison of Dairy Policies and Development in South Asia and East Africa. Country Case Studies from South Asia and East Africa – Kenya, Ethiopia, Pakistan and India. ILRI, Nairobi. PPLPI Working Paper (forthcoming), FAO, Rome.

Haggblade, S., P. Hazell and T. Reardon. (2005). The Rural Non-Farm Economy: Pathway Out of Poverty or Pathway In?“.IFPRI, ODI and Imperial College London. Proceedings from the Research Workshop on The Future of Small Farms, June 26-29, 2005, Withersdane Conference Centre, Wye, UK.

Nagayets, O. (2005). Small Farms: Current Status and Key Trends. IFPRI, ODI and Imperial College London. Proceedings from the Research Workshop on The Future of Small Farms, June 26-29, 2005, Withersdane Conference Centre, Wye, UK.

For more information please visit the PPLPI website:www.fao.org/ag/pplpi.html www.fao.org/ag/againfo/projects/en/pplpi/publications.html

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/projects/en/pplpi/home.html

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/projects/en/pplpi/publications.html

http://www.ifpri.org/events/seminars/2005/smallfarms/sfproc/SO4_Haggblade.pdf

http://www.ifpri.org/events/seminars/2005/smallfarms/sfproc/SO4_Haggblade.pdf

http://www.ifpri.org/events/seminars/2005/smallfarms/sfproc/Appendix_InformationBrief.pdf


Thank you!

social consequences of the changing landscape for mixed ... · social consequences of the changing...

Documents